Contents |
The ethical dilemmas raised by Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have only just begun to be understood. The impact of centralised data collection, mass communication technologies or the centrality of computer technology as a means of accessing important social institutions, all pose important ethical and political questions (Moss, 2002) This is an important consideration especially as such traditional power structures are beginning to transcend the boundaries corrupting the decentralised network that is the Internet. Moss (2002) also argues that this is not necessarily a straight-forward process because as with all new information technology it demands that we put its operation into context against a background of public and individual interests.
The concern is that not enough emphasis is put on a language that is closer to some of the more traditional concerns of political philosophy. In order to unravel this concept, power relationships over people have been characterised into three different types; force, coercion and influence (Moss, 2002) The first class of phenomena associated with power-over is exclusionary practices. This is associated with ‘force’ and relates to the lack of access to ICT resources that might be necessary for participation in a social institution or culture. This is primarily a negative relationship in that it prevents an action rather than persuades someone to do something. The denial of access if clearly bears the remnants of ‘force’ even though, in the national setting, it occurs via the operation of the market (Moss, 2002).
The second area of political concern is motivated by a broader category, which after Foucault, can be named ‘discipline’. The most active example of this involves the visual surveillance of people in the public domain and the gathering of information about individuals, controlled predominantly by governments and corporations (Moss, 2002) Coercion differs from force in that it is productive; it causes an action and does not just prevent one from occurring. Instances of this type of power involving the digital divide are where people are coerced into purchasing systems that may be inferior or do not allow adequate access (Moss, 2002)
What is also important here is the extent to which such discipline has the consequences that such individuals are acted upon in a way that defines new aspects of their identity. What characterises influence is that it is a form of power-over that operates not to prevent or coerce but to alter self-understanding of the successfully influenced agent. This might occur where are person is intentionally given information which prompts them to view a situation that a way that corresponds to the view of a dominant agent. An example of this might be where an ICT company portrays industry problems in a distorted or self-serving manner, leading an agent to incorrectly assess a situation and form inaccurate preferences as a result. More importantly, it is able to influence people in a way that masks the manipulative and constraining elements that are more transparent in either ‘force’ or coercion’
This type of false consciousness can be contextualised my media companies such as AOL when they advertise their desire to abolish the digital divide. This is no doubt not asserted because of a refined sense of corporate social responsibility but is just sound business practice as it encourages the viability of an increase in the marketing of ICT technology (James, 2005) There is clearly a parallel in the international digital divide where private corporations will seek to ‘equalise’ the digital divide without considering local understandings of what a countries digital needs might be. This is especially prevalent when referring to the distribution of software to developing countries and its inability to only reflect the cultural values of the country that it originated, which is most likely to be Western countries (James, 2005).
Wikipedia - The Digital Divide
Culture and the Digital Divide
1) James, J. (2005). "The Global Digital Divide in the Internet: Developed Countries Constructs and Third World Realities," Journal of Information Science. Amsterdam Vol. 31 Iss. 2; pp.114
2) Moss, J. (2002). “Power and the digital divide,�? Ethics and Information Technology vol.4, no.2, pp.159-165
--Dane C Allen 11:22, 28 Oct 2005 (EST)
