Digital Inequalities and the Struggles for Material and Symbolic Resources

Article by Katarzyna Szpargala.

Abstract: Technology maintains a central place in our society. However, its impact and benefits are the subjects of numerous debates and interpretations. The growth of the internet’s importance for the socio-political and personal lives of millions led to the increase in digital inequalities that reflect deeper material and symbolic injustices. This paper briefly analyzes the uneven internet distribution and digital inequalities that demonstrate this unequal access to various resources.

Keywords: Internet, Inequality, Technology, Digital Inequality, Digital Divide
Header image “Internet” by Beshef is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND.

Introduction

Technology occupies a central place in society. It has a powerful social impact: it shapes our environment, its development and transformation, and “every major technical change reverberates at many levels, economic, political, religious, cultural” (Feenberg, 1999, p. viii). However, the social environment is also a crucial factor for the direction of any technological development (Feenberg, 1999; Green, 2002). MacKenzie and Wajcman (1984, as cited in Green, 2002) argue that it is the social environment that determines which technologies are adopted and which are rejected. If a particular technology is not useful for society, it will not be further developed or promoted. What counts then is technology’s relationship and usefulness to the social environment, not its intrinsic property (Green, 2002). Because of that, technological development is constrained by cultural norms, ideologies, standards, and privileges, mostly by the principles and beliefs of those who have the most say in allocating the resources and directing the future (Green, 2002). According to Feenberg (1999), the relationship to technological systems depends on one’s position; those who hold the dominant position such as managers and technical personnel treat technology as raw material and those who are in the subordinate position, meaning ordinary people “encounter technology as a dimension of their lifeworld” (p. x). Thus, technologies’ essence is a subject of debates, and technologies alone are subjects to interpretations.

This discussion about the nature of technology and its impact on society or social impact on technology introduced two different approaches: technological determinism, claiming that it is the features of technology that determine its use and society adapts to it (Feenberg, 1999; Green, 2002) and social determinism, promoted by constructivists and suggesting that society is responsible for the development and deployment of particular technologies (Feenberg, 1999; Green, 2002; Hutchby, 2001). Over time, the popularity of these two theories have varied; however, with the growing body of literature on technology and society, numerous scholars started to oppose these one-sided technological or social determinisms, arguing that both factors are essential and interrelated. As Castells explains, “technology does not determine the society: it embodies it. But nor does society determine technology: it uses it” (2000, p. 5). Society does not just adapt to the technology, it uses and benefits from it, and through that changes it. Same with technology, without economic, political and socio-cultural elements or existing infrastructures technologies would not be deployed. Hutchby (2001) proposed to see technology in terms of its “affordances,” meaning that “technologies can be understood as artefacts which may be both shaped by and shaping of the practices humans use in interaction with, around and through them” (p. 444). Additionally, various social groups address and use certain technologies for different purposes and by doing so challenge their designs and structures, which might lead to their transformation. Not only do regular users handle technology differently, but different cultures and political regimes may also utilize technologies in “radically different ways” (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2003, p. 5), as delineated below.

Since the very beginning, some voices have claimed that technology is neither neutral nor autonomous but has political implications (Feenberg, 1999). Because technology is constrained by certain norms, beliefs and ideologies, the design process represents the interests of certain, usually dominant, groups. However, ordinary users’ interventions may modify technology by addressing the problems and meanings ignored in the early production and, by doing so, transform the system. The participation of ordinary actors and the possibility of transforming society due to technological development might lead to technological utopianism or technological dystopianism. The question about technology’s influence on individuals, society and culture is crucial for further social development, democratization, social hierarchy and equality. Feenberg (1999, p. 76), for example, highlights two attitudes toward technological development and its effects on social hierarchy: “conservation of hierarchy,” which claims that social hierarchy can be preserved and reproduced as new technology is introduced, and “democratic rationalization,” insisting that social hierarchy can be undermined by new technology or at least force it to meet the needs it has long ignored.

The introduction of the internet and the development of Web 2.0. powerfully impacted the political, economic and socio-cultural environment, as well as the personal lives of millions of people. Deriving from technological utopianism and the failure of our society to achieve liberation and equality, cyberspace started to be viewed as a possible utopian environment (Barlow, 1996; Yar, 2014). Simultaneously, other voices insist that the online sphere might damage social relationships, reproduces and amplifies power relations and social hierarchies, and widens the divide between the rich and the poor (e.g. Powell & Henry, 2017; Vickery & Everbach, 2018; Yar, 2014).

Digital Inequalities and the Struggles for Material and Symbolic Resources

The internet has transformed economic, political and socio-cultural environments. Since the very beginning, the internet has been a subject of various debates about its role and impact on society; be it revolutionary, where promises of democratization, equality, liberation and unity can be realized, or destructive, in which the internet leads to alienation, exclusion and bigger surveillance over citizens (Yar, 2014). Cyber enthusiasts promised a space without “privilege and prejudice” (Barlow, 1996), easier participation in political activities, social movements and protests (Cammaerts, 2015; Downing, 2018), empowering marginalized groups and individuals and much more. The openness of the internet, active participation of various groups, wide reach and the possibility to debate and highlight issues of importance should create an egalitarian space. The omnipresence of the internet and its features enable ordinary users to be not only consumers of online content but also a part of production and distribution (KhosraviNik, 2017; Kopytowska, 2020). These factors should widen the inclusion and narrow the existing divide between individuals and groups. However, the access to the internet and experiencing it vary depending on numerous factors such as region, race, class, technological abilities, and access to numerous material and symbolic resources, to name a few (Siapera, 2018; Tomczyńska, 2017; van Dijk, 2005). Early on, scholars noted that groups with resources to get ahead, meaning better access to education and higher income, also had better access to the internet (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001).

The uneven access and participation are observed within countries and between countries. Following Siapera (2018), the spread of the global internet exposes patterns of inequality, which reflect the unequal distribution of material resources and income. Those patterns of inequalities reflect differences in material, economic and political factors, as well as in individual resources (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Tomczyńska, 2017).

The Internet World Stats annually present the internet’s global distribution and penetration rates. Penetration rates are crucial because the internet users distribution around the world does not reflect the actual distribution of the internet across the continents’ population; the penetration rates show the extent to which the internet is diffused (Siapera, 2018). According to Internet World Stats (2021), the internet users distribution globally is as follows: Asia has the highest number of internet users (53.4%), then Europe (14.3%), and Africa (11.5%), leaving behind Latin America/Caribbean region (9.6%), North America (6.7%), Middle East (3.9%), and Oceania/Australia being the last one (0.6%). However, if we look at the internet penetration rates, the situation drastically changes. North America has the highest number of inhabitants using the internet (93.9%), followed by Europe (88.2%), Latin America/Caribbean (75.6%), the Middle East (74.9%), Oceania (69.9%), which was the last one in worldwide internet users distribution, and at the end now are Asia (63.8%) and Africa (43.2%), both regions are below average world level (65.6%).

This illustrates the dominance of the internet by the Western world. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2021), the United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies, also established that the number of people using the internet reached 4.9 billion in 2021. However, 2.9 billion people, which is 37% of the world’s population, do not use the internet, either because they do not have access to it or lack other resources. Additionally, 96% of these 2.9 billion people live in developing countries. This reflects the material and symbolic inequalities that prevent numerous people from participating online. During the COVID-19 pandemic the number of users grew, more than 10% in the first year of the pandemic, but the growth has been uneven as in the poorer nations internet access is unaffordable (ITU, 2021). This uneven access to the internet and information and communication technologies (ICT) is known as the digital divide. As illustrated above, the Western world enjoys bigger access to the internet, but inequalities do not only exist among regions, various factors influence the digital divide, such as race, gender, age and more. For instance, in 2019, 48% of women were using the internet globally, compared to 58% of men (ITU, 2020). While in the early days of the internet, the digital divide simply meant having access to the internet versus not having it, with the increasing importance of the internet, the divide became a more complex issue. DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) suggest the term digital inequality and argue that the divide is more about the abilities, material resources and knowledge than simple access to the computer and internet. They propose five dimensions of digital inequality, namely: in technical means, the autonomy of use, skills, social support and the purpose of using the technology. Tomczyńska (2017) calls the uneven access to technologies and consequently to information and knowledge digital exclusion and similarly explains that the division is much more social, economic and technical in nature. Van Dijk (2005) also agrees that the digital divide is a more complex issue, which will not disappear with access to the computer and internet, and proposes four factors that affect persistent inequalities: motivation access, material access, skills access and usage access. The divide should be seen as a social problem, not a technical one, which of course, does not mean that the properties of technology are not relevant.

“Technology & Computers”
by Austin Public Library is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND.

The proliferation of digital communication technologies has affected, among others, social relationships, education, work and entertainment. The internet offers access to knowledge and skills, and if utilized meaningfully, it might improve individuals’ social and economic position. Thus, in contemporary society, especially during pandemic times, being offline means missing various opportunities and information. Scholars agree that access to the internet alone will not solve other obstacles. Many factors such as age, race, abilities, intelligence, or simply personality play a role in participation online. However, material resources that will allow for access are much needed. Without resources such as developed infrastructure, broadband connection is not possible. The low income and being unable to afford equipment further hinder the experience. The material access (van Dijk, 2005), or technical means (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001), restricts the access to the internet, and involves the issue of equipment (e.g. computers, smartphones) and software/subscription (e.g. Wi-Fi services or applications needed to efficiently use the computer/internet). The number and types of digital technologies and subscription services are also crucial (Siapera, 2018). All of these provide a different online experience as without proper equipment, slow internet connection or older software, some websites are unavailable. This also leads to lesser knowledge and proficiency in digital skills. Skills to meaningfully navigate through the online sphere are vital. Kling notes that users should possess “know-how, a mix of professional knowledge, economic resources, and technical skills, to use technologies in ways that enhance professional practices and social life” (1998 as cited in DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001, p. 10). The proper digital skills allow for improvement in professional competencies, social relationships, involvement in socio-political debates, or the enjoyment of various entertainment offered online. The digital skills can be divided into medium-related skills, which are the basic technical skills needed to operate the internet, and content-related skills, referring to information skills, finding and evaluating online sources of information, and strategic skills, used to reach particular goals through the internet (Siapera, 2018; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2009). Digital skills, especially content-related skills, allowing for navigating through the internet are crucial because online information “is likely to be a dangerous and potentially toxic mix of rumor, gossip, conspiracy, lies, misinformation and disinformation, as it is reliable, balanced or factually accurate” (Yar, 2014, p. 60). Thus, users must be able to evaluate online sources of information.

The possession or not of various resources by individuals, plus socio-cultural and political factors, affect online participation or its lack. It also shows that the division between haves and have-nots is oversimplistic, especially in contemporary society, where being online and effective use of the internet is connected to many opportunities and gains.

Access and skillful participation online bring many benefits, especially if someone is using the internet for economic, social and political gains. People who have better access to material and symbolic resources dominate in the online sphere and gain the most from it. As Yuan (2021) claims, “Actors differ in their capacities to mobilize resources in terms of networks, know-how, techniques, and perceptual and linguistic skills” (p. 57). The unequal distribution of resources among countries and within countries enhances hierarchical order and impacts socio-political issues. People without the resources and skills are getting behind and miss various opportunities. Zheng & Pan (2016, as cited in Yuan, 2021), who analyzed the Chinese population online, indicate that the internet affords more opportunities for the socio-economically advantaged groups.

Additionally, the internet became a public sphere and online visibility is as important as offline visibility. However, Yuan (2021) argues that not all communities and individuals are equally represented. Constricted access to the internet excludes some from active participation in public life, and the restricted access to technologies that provide a voice and visibility impacts mostly already underrepresented groups. The internet allows for mobilizing people, highlighting civic issues, staying informed, and handling various affairs, starting from family to business and financial affairs. Furthermore, online not only well-known figures but ordinary users as well can produce and distribute the discourse (Kopytowska, 2020). Lack of resources hinder possibilities to articulate one’s interests or highlight some social issues, it also reduces educational, occupational and economic chances as various activities and offers are now online. Without resources to access and use these opportunities, some are staying behind and struggling for economic and social justice.

Conclusion

To some degree, the internet provides users with numerous economic, socio-political and entertainment opportunities. The internet can be a powerful tool for highlighting civic issues, mobilizing people, and gaining extra educational or economic advantages. Additionally, technological affordances of the internet enable ordinary internet users to not only be consumers of the content but also produce and distribute it (KhosraviNik, 2017; Kopytowska, 2020). However, it constitutes an arena for ongoing struggles for material and symbolic resources to an even greater extent. Various factors play a role in digital inequalities, often reflecting the offline material, socio-economic and socio-psychological struggles (Siapera, 2018; van Dijk, 2005). The diffusion of the internet, accessibility, affordances and participation online reflect the unequal distribution of numerous resources within and between countries. The less-skilled, less-educated, and the poorer are getting behind and cannot make most of the internet’s abilities and possibilities it may offer. At the same time, people with enough resources and digital skills to enjoy the internet and its possibilities sometimes are forced to drop out from the internet due to online incivility and abuse.

There is still a long way to go for the internet to become more inclusive, just and affordable for the majority of people. Additionally, it is necessary to remember that even the right technology at the right time will not solve the problems that bigger socio-cultural and political institutions have created, such as racism, classism, misogyny or ableism. Due to its technological affordances, the internet can be a place of building community, sharing ideas and creating innovative actions, and a sphere where people can express themselves more freely and “speak the truth about themselves and the world as they see it” (Citron, 2016, p. 60). Simultaneously, the internet is also a conducive environment for digital crimes and discriminatory behaviors. Because of all of that and the omnipresence and importance of the internet for social, political and economic environments, and for private life, online behaviors and actions should not be treated as unreal, and inequalities in accessing and using the internet should be overcome as quickly as possible.

References

Barlow, J.P. (1996) A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from: http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/ barlow_0296.declaration.

Cammaerts, B. (2015). Social media and activism. In R. Mansell & P. Hwa (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society (pp.1027–1034). Wiley-Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. Blackwell Publishing.

Citron, D.K. (2016). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Harvard University Press.

DiMaggio, P. & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’ to ‘Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series 15. Princeton University.

Downing, J. D. H., (2018). Looking back, looking ahead: what has changed in social movement media since the internet and social media? In G. Meikle (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (pp. 19-28). Routledge.

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. Routledge.

Green, L. (2002). Technoculture. From Alphabet to Cybersex. Allen & Unwin.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, Texts, and Affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441-456.

International Telecommunication Union. (2021). Facts and Figures 2021: 2.9 Billion People Still Offline. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/hub/2021/11/facts-and-figures-2021-2-9-billion-people-still-offline.

International Telecommunication Union. (2020). Measuring Digital Development. Facts and Figures 2020. Retrieved from https://itu.foleon.com/itu/measuring-digital-development/gender-gap/.

Internet World Stats. (2021). Internet Users Distribution in the World – 2021 [Graph]. Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.

Internet World Stats. (2021). Internet World Penetration Rates by Geographic Region – 2021 [Graph]. Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.

Jenkins, H. & Thorburn, D. (2003). Introduction: The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy. In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and New Media (pp. 1-17). The MIT Press.

KhosraviNik, M. (2017). Right Wing Populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers. Insight Turkey, 19(3), 53–68.

Kopytowska, M. (2020). Proximization, Presumption, and Salience in Digital Discourse: On the Interface of Social Media Communicative Dynamics and the Spread of Populist Ideologies.[Special Issue on Social Media Critical Discourse Studies]. Critical Discourse Studies.

Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual Violence in a Digital Age. Palgrave Macmillan.

Siapera, E. (2018). Understanding New Media (2nd edition). SAGE Publications.

Tomczyńska, W. (2017). Digital Exclusion: Definitions, Causes, Countermeasures. Adeptus. Pismo Humanistów, 10, 1-16.

van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2009). Using the Internet: Skill Related Problems in Users’ Online Behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21, 393-402.

van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2005). The Deepening Divide. Inequality in the Information Society. SAGE Publication.

Vickery, J. R. & Everbach, T. (2018). The Persistence of Misogyny: From the Streets, to Our Screens, to the White House. In J.R.Vickery & T. Everbach (Eds.), Mediating Misogyny. Gender, Technology, and Harassment (pp. 1-27). Palgrave Macmillan.

Yar, M. (2014). The Cultural Imaginary of the Internet. Virtual Utopias and Dystopias. Palgrave Macmillan.

Yuan, E.J, (2021). The Web of Meaning. The Internet in a Changing Chinese Society. University of Toronto Press.