Essay on Internet and Social Inequality

Introduction

This essay will encompass a bird’s eye view of the theories on social inequality, power relations and democracy in the information society; drawing on a number of rationales to include the likes of Manuel Castells, Henri Lefebvre Jurgen Habermas, Anthony Giddens and Roberto Unger.

To begin with, the essay aims to bring out the problems and issues of social inequality on the basis of the digital divide. Secondly it will visit and interpret some of the effects the Internet has on power relations and players and address important points being addressed in the digital society; and last it will discuss and contrast how the Internet plays a new role in the shaping of a democracy.

The impact of the Internet on Social Inequality

The Internet and Social Inequalities stand beyond the discussion embedded by the concept “the digital divide,” and enlarges the concern of the evolving nature of the Internet. The Internet is massively intertwined with, and ultimately is a source for inequality. When using the Internet, you are participating in a social world in which patterns of inclusion and exclusion are present (Witte, Mannon 2010: 23). Based on a set of compelling data, authors Witte and Mannon put forth a multi-faceted picture that follow patterns that speak undoubtedly to how internet use is organized around social statuses, especially race, class, gender, education level, occupational attainment, and age (Witte, Mannon 2010). Not only, they believe that the Internet serves to exacerbate existing social inequalities; but they also reflect the use of technology can draw upon, transform, institutionalize, and encapsulate social structures of inequality. Therefore a question is raised: Is there a single successful model of information economy society to converge on?

Coincidentally, there are examples of societies that have used technology and evolved into model systems such as the Finish model providing a better path to a more humane information society. Unfortunately, the global trend for the informational economy is to connect to its network those who seem valuable to it, and to disconnect those the society deems valueless. This results in increasing social injustice in the form of income inequality, polarization, and poverty (Castells, Himanen 2002:8).

In order to go deeper into the roots of the digital divide, one must reach into the social implications; and the benefits and disadvantages the internet provides. For example, do digital technologies promise a better society (Utopia or Distopya)? (Lee 2010). For many young people today, it’s hard to imagine a time before the Internet, harder still to imagine a time when people relied on typewriters and whiteout. But consider these statistics. As late as 1994, only 11 percent of American households had access to internet (NTIA 1995). By 2007, that statistic was well over 60 percent. Here in the UK, 10 million adults have never used the internet, and four million of them are among the least advantaged members of society (Walker 2010). In the span of just one decade, the Internet had entered our homes, our schools, and our workplaces, not to mention our libraries, our cafes, and our mobile phones. As there are reasons to celebrate the arrival of the internet, can we really see what other profound effects it has on society?

Even in the early days of the Internet, many suspected that information technology was echoing rather than transforming social divides in the United States (Witte, Mannon 2010: 15). More recent research suggests that new “digital divides” are on the rise, as Internet technology evolves and certain groups become more sophisticated at navigating the web (DiMaggio et al. 2001: 25).

On a different note, according to Tim Walker’s newspaper article the information gap in a society are clear signs of a digital divide. For example, he points out that five percent of Britons believe Steve Jobs is a second division footballer based on a survey recently conducted by a PR firm, Lewis (Walker 2010). Perhaps society is split between those who embrace technology and those who don’t have the skills, or the money to live a wired world as pointed out by Tim Walker. Education and lifelong learning have become essential here in Britain, but the department of education showed that most teaches did not have the education or training in using such technology in teaching. Only fifteen percent of teachers reported having at least nine hours training in education technology in the period of 1994-2000 (Castells 2000: 213). This sort of distortion in the system creates a divide, and further repercussions follow that place a shadow on society.

In addition, social inequalities have are broadening, as political participation moves online, newspapers and books evolve into digital formats, social networking occurs through web applications, and e-commerce expands, participation in public life demands some Internet access. When using the Internet, you are participating in a social world in which patterns of inclusion and exclusion are present. Those without an email address or a Facebook account may become excluded from the larger society. Further, “Internet access and use, then, are not simply mapped onto existing inequalities; they may exacerbate them over time as offline groups become marginalized from the Internet and from popular forms of political, social, and economic participation”(Witte, Mannon 2010: 34).

With regards to public policy in developing countries, poor policy does not improve the situation per say: having no telecommunication infrastructure is a major hurdle. Similarly to the early discussion, the digital divide is section based in the developing world; whereby technology is marginally available in key urban centers. And may only be used for key globalized activities such as in financial institutions, media, international business, military, hotels, and government institutions. What is more, higher education social groups are being included in the internet, while most regions and most people are switched off. To that effect there are liabilities emerging in the information society.

The effects of the Internet on power relations

To follow patterns of exclusion, various writers indicate additional divides based on the social, political, and economic potential of the Internet. For instance, who enjoys access to the Internet is linked to variables like income and education. As well as to who turns a profit, consolidates power, and marks a status. This section discusses some views on the role of the Internet on power relations in society.

The effects of the Internet on our society can be also compared to the social change that technology brings to the modern world. Anthony Giddens explains the sociological aspects of the modern institution in his book Modernity and Self-Identity and says:

“Modernity radically alters the nature of day to day social life and affects the most personal aspects of our experience.” Giddens, 1991.

The power the Internet brings to society is yet to be reckon with and Giddens is right to assume that radical modern changes shape societies. But how does it shape society? One view is that of the media guru of the 70s and 80s, Noam Chomsky, who takes a very dystopian view of the Internet as a potential area for greater political freedom in the future. Chomsky's position is at odds with those who claim that, because the Internet is not yet owned or controlled by states and corporations, it has the capacity to challenge existing power structures in ways that have never existed before. (Foley 2000) The apparent breakdown of traditional notions of the nation-state in the globalised economic/communications era may seem by some to be evidence of the Internet's potential to re-arrange and restructure political power relations in the future, but what realistic projections are we able to make at this time?- This is a great point Foley makes on his article Power, Politics and the Internet.

There is a clear debate as to whether the Internet might be changing the nature of power relations and political activity in society. What might be the future possibilities of empowerment or dis-empowerment for social/political movements, nation states and transnational corporations? Can we consider whether the Internet might facilitate the centralization or decentralization of power, wealth and control? (Foley 2000)

“All communication media, not just the Internet-enabled kind, are inherently political.” Rheingold, 1998.

These are all good questions to make and they can be answered in different ways based on the parties at interest. Ultimately, what role should governments or civic organisations or even politicians play in shaping the digital future? (Lee 2010).

Peter Dahlgren focuses his attention on the interactional dimension of the public sphere.

Specifically, he takes on some of the recent research findings in how deliberation proceeds in the online public sphere in the current destabilized environment of political communication (Dahlgren 2005: 4) He finds the notion of deliberative democracy useful, though its rationalist biases and what he calls civic cultures offer an enhanced way to understand the significance of online political discussion.

Similarly, Jurgen Habermas speaks with regards to justice and rationality that the more we employ noncoercive public debate to resolve our deepest collective moral, political, and social disputes, the better (Chambers 1996: 22). One can draw from Habermas view that the Internet has created a medium for debate that must be utilized at all levels of society and especially politics. The good news is that the mass majority of information is now digitized and transmitted via the Internet at the fastest speeds in history. The advent of news flash through Twitter and other social engines has allowed the individual to surge, assess and distribute their own broadcast.

“We don't stop with asking what a tool does. We ask about what kind of people we become when we use it”. Old Amish man; Foley, 2000.

Looking at a different angle from Habermas on the modern life, Henry Lefebvre unveils everyday life’s ideological structure and expresses a duality between everyday life and public affairs. He points out to the dialectical nature between where we live, what we consider natural and decisions, which have been made, or not being made by people in government and corporate states (Wander 1984: 5). On his book, Philip Wander speaks about Lefebvre’s ideological views and one can perhaps draw that Lefebvre’s notion of information dissemination via the Internet may one day change the resolves of government and the corporate bodies in society. One of the most attractive attributes of the Internet for political activists would be its ostensibly uncontrolled nature. The fact that the “Internet is able to render irrelevant the laws and controls of nation-states, and the essentially 'anarchic' quality where there can be genuine freedom of expression are qualities that attract those who have been voiceless in the past” (Foley 2000).

A clear example of the impact of the Internet in our recent days is the campaign that let to the election of U.S. President Barack Obama. In a way the convergence of digital technology and creative culture has helped articulate the vision for the future by allowing the political activists to have the whole world as a potential audience for their propaganda via web sites, e-mail and discussion groups. Barack Obama’s electoral success was due to his team’s mastery of databases, online fundraising, and social networking. Obama’s use of new media is bound to be the subject of many articles and books. But to claim the primacy of technology over politics would be to disregard Obama’s larger–than–life charisma, the legacy of the stunningly unpopular Bush administration, the ramifications of the global financial crisis, and John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate. Despite the campaign’s considerable Web savvy, one cannot grant much legitimacy to the argument that it earned Obama his victory (Mozorov 2009).

As it appears the Internet is re-setting the rethinking in identity, trust and power through it’s many outlays of creative domain. As far as the open, public, private proprietary systems that allow it to exist, we are yet to see how the major corporate interests (including Australia's Packer and Murdock family empires) are able to ultimately impose their commercial muscle to gain control and censorship over the system (Foley 2000). It is no surprise that the major corporations are turning the Internet into a global vehicle for consumption and commerce similarly to television, in the 50s and 60s. However complex the control and power the Internet brings there are proponents of good hope. Pierre Levy believes that the technology of cyberspace will have a humanizing influence on us, and foster the emergence of a "collective intelligence" - a meeting of minds on the Internet - that will validate the contributions of the individual.

As computer ownership becomes more a reality for many in the world, the individual will have access to a multitude of ways to explore and find expression on the 'net' (Levy 1997: 3). Hopefully the freedom of the Internet today is alive and healthy for future generations.

The influence of the Internet on Democracy

The way the Internet has manifested in the last fifteen years is a revelation of the debate of a direct democracy. The technological developments the internet unravels present new tools of freedom which can liberate citizens from the grip of the propaganda machines called conventional mass media, which have turned the public discourse into a carnival show of politicians, pop stars, priests, fortune-tellers, psychics, and whatever ugly thing there is in our society keeping the intelligent and creative citizens hostages to the choices of the manipulated, ignorant masses (Morozov 2009). Consequently, Dahlgren reminds us of the public sphere as an expression of and a contribution to positive and negative influence of manifestations on the Net. It is there that we find the real “vanguard” of the public sphere, the domain where the most intense developments are taking place—what we might call the cyber transformation of the public sphere (Dahlgren 2010: 151). Looking at public spheres in the context of the internet expanding democracy, the public access to information, can, on one hand, inspire political participation and political creativity, and on the other provide the means for a new way of political organizing and thus lead to the replacement of the present inadequate political system of representative democracy by a new efficient system of governance.

“A Constitutional style designed to accelerate politics and to favor the repeated and frequent practice of basic reform should combine a strong plebiscitarian element with a broad range of channels for the political representation of society” Unger, 1998.

However, as Roberto Unger promotes political communication as a citizen’s vocation along with new digital public spheres getting more democratic; they are also heavily polluted by government operators, making them indistinguishable from the old, tightly controlled analogue public spheres (Dahlgren 2005: 173).

Nevertheless, the Internet is transforming communities, civic institutions, social networks and movements worldwide. The diffusion of ‘Open Networks’ within closed authoritarian regimes presents both an opportunity and a challenge for their leaders. In a survey carried by The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, showed the political impact of the Internet would vary with a country’s social and economic circumstances, it’s political culture, and the complexity of its national Internet infrastructure. (Morozov 2009). It is also important and good for democracy that information technology costs have dropped in the last years, because information that is disseminated will bear results for faster economic development for many nations.

Moreover, the transformation that we see in communication, social relationships and life style is allowing for more democratising of systems. For instance, does social networking, blogging, and video and photo sharing—represent the flowering of the Internet’s democratizing potential? At the same time, Internet censorship is an obstacle for many to have access to the web; it is through digital content that millions of Iranians and Chinese are now able to experience the Internet. In Ukraine young activists relied on new media technologies to mobilize supporters during the Orange Revolution. Colombian protesters used Facebook to organize massive rallies against FARC, the leftist guerrillas. The shocking and powerful pictures that surfaced from Burma during the 2007 anti-government protests, many of them shot by local spectators with cell phones quickly traveled around the globe (Morozov 2009). All of these grassroots attempts to bring people closer attest to the growing importance of technology in spreading democracy.

Similarly the Internet is famous for the abundance of organisations in knowledge sharing and learning that exist in the creative industries.

Creative Field:“A constellation of workers, firms, institutions, infrastructures, communication channels, and other active ingredients stretched across geographic space.” Scott ,2006.

Creative fields are part of an ever expanding democratic ideal that exemplifies the capacity of the individual to grow in all aspects. It can also be said that the Internet has allowed for the existence of a ‘Creative Milieu’- defined as a physical setting where a critical mass of entrepreneurs, intellectuals social activists, artists, administrators, power brokers or students can operate in an open-minded, cosmopolitan context and where face to face interaction creates new ideas, artifacts, products, services and institutions and as a consequence contributes to economic success” (Landry 2000: 133). Subsequently, there is the notion of a Creative Class or “creative people who are the holders of creative capital; and who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas.” (Florida 2002: 223). In essence, the Internet is providing new platforms of interaction that have never existed before and the debate lies also with the question of having too much freedom on the web. Obviously, censorship is viewed as a way to counter such predicament.

Conclusion

We need to be aware of that the Internet’s potential as a means of freedom, productivity, and communication comes hand in hand with the ‘the digital divide’ induced by inequality on the Internet. Whether system models such as the one in Finland can reshape the gap that technology brings. Governments need to pay more close attention to educating the masses and empowering them with tools for a better tomorrow. In our enthusiasm for the potential of the Internet to change our lives, we should be wary of the more subtle alterations in our sub-conscious and our attitudes to each other as human beings. Although nations differ due to technological gaps and institutional and capability lags, the internet continues to close the divide by way of globalization, by way of opening up vast social and political possibilities for most, and thereby further empowering the historically voiceless. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Internet continues to develop in the manner it has to date, the prospects look good for a broader decentralization of power and control in both local and global communities.

But drawing conclusions about the democratizing nature of the Internet may still be premature. The major challenge in understanding the relationship between democracy and the Internet, aside from developing good measures of democratic improvement has been to distinguish cause and effect. That is always hard, but it is especially difficult in this case because the grandiose promise of technological determinism the idealistic belief in the Internet’s transformative power has often blinded even the most sober analysts.

List of References

Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society. Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Castells, M. and Himanen P. The Information Society and the Welfare State: The Finnish Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Chambers, S. Reasonable Democracy: Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Dahlgren, P (2005) 'The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation', Political Communication, 22: 2, 147-162

Dimaggio, P. (2001) “Social Implications of the Internet” Department of Sociology: Princeton University. New Jersey. pp. 1-45.

Foley, G. “Power, Politics and the Internet” Gary Foley’s Koori History Website, 2000

http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/essay_16.html

Giddens, A. “Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Modern Ages”.

Stanford University Press Stanford, California © 1991 Stanford University Press, 1991

Lee, Soo Hee Lecture Notes. E-Business: Strategy and Policy. Birkbeck, University of London. London. Lecture 9, 9 Mar. 2010

Lefebvre, H. Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.

, 1996.

Levy, P. “Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace” Perseus Books Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.

Morozov, E. Texting Toward Utopia: Does the Internet spread democracy?. Boston Review, March/April 2009.

Rheingold, H. 'Community Development In The Cybersociety of the Future', BBC Online, 1999.

Silverstone, R. 'Television and a Place Called Home', Television and Everyday Life, New York & London: Routledge, 1992.

Uzzell, D. (2008) “People-Environment Relationships in a Digital World.” Journal of Architectural Planning Research. Vol . 25(2), pp. 94-105.

Wander, P. Henri Lefebvre: Everyday life in the modern world. Transaction Publishers, New Brunwick, New Jersey. 1984

Witte, J and Mannon, S. The Internet and social inequalities. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Walker, T. “Decoding Brittain’s Digital Divide” Independent Life, The Independent 2010. Birkbeck E-Library 3 Feb. 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/decoding-britains-digital-divide-1887395.html

United States Dept. of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration: Annual Report 1995. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/annualrpt/95ANNREPT.htm

Unger, R. “Democracy Realized: The Progressive Alternative.” New Left Books, Verso, London UK, 1998.