Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

A Critical Perspective on Access, Content and the Digital Divide

Author: Oliver Moran, A Sense Of Place Network | January 18th, 2005 Communities:Content

Introduction

“The concept of a digital divide gained headway in the mid-to-late 1990s, at the same timethat the Internet dot-com booms were under way in the United States. In a sense, the digitaldivide approach – which often emphasized getting people connected anyway they could at allcost so that they wouldn’t be left behind – reflected the general spirit of the times, which were based on a superficial understanding of the Internet’s relationship to economic and socialchange. At an economic level, too much emphasis was being put on the so-called Interneteconomy, reflected in the wild surge of dot-com businesses, many of which went bankruptafter failing to earn a single dollar. At the societal level, the hottest idea was that of cyberspace, supposedly an entirely different plane of existence (e.g. Barlow, 1996). Both of these perspectives reflected the errant view that information and communication technology(ICT) was creating a parallel reality and that it was thus necessary for people to make the leapacross the divide from old reality to the new one in order to succeed.” (Warschauer, 2003)I have included the above description of the epistemological origins of the concept of thedigital divide as a summation of my approach to criticising still prevalent understandings of it.The recent Information Society Commission report on ‘eInclusion’ (O’Donnell et al, 2003)and preceding policy documents at European-level, in which context it is best understood,continue a tradition of encouraging the development and uptake of relevant technologieswithout learning the lessons to be taken from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. It is atradition that imagines that the Internet through its sheer existence, without reference to whatapplications it may have, alters the order and form of social life and thus those that do notaccess it or are unable to use it risk social exclusion. The evidence to support such a claim is purportedly further strengthened by referring to the fact that those who are already socially

excluded do not have access to such technology. Warschauer in part agrees with this claim,arguing that to be without access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) is aform of social exclusion, but argues also the a more sensible point that such a statementshould also be read backwards. To bear many of the most obvious forms of social exclusion(e.g. poverty, educational disadvantage, illiteracy) will cause a person to be without and/or exclude them from access to ICTs and so simply providing access will not, in itself, solve the persistent causes or problems of social exclusion.In this paper I will outline my position that the current sense of urgency to adapt ICT in thesocial sphere, as opposed to the economic sphere where it is already prevalent and wellintegrated (see Central Statistics Office, 2003), and thus in some ways invent the idea of thedigital divide,

is derived from the discourse of economic globalisation rather from a more practical desire to utilise the technology in socially-derived ways – building from the topdown rather than from the ground up. This is not to discount the potential of the technology but to explain that, just as with the dot-com phenomenon, the technology on its own andcertainly as it is presently provided is not good enough. It needs to be redesigned and fitted to benefit social practices and settings rather than be machines for business drafted-in for homeor community use. These issues are not argued as fully as they may be for to do such may beyond the scope of this paper, however, towards the end, I will discuss the potential that thetechnology has to be developed in future. If that is done then the discussion of a digital dividewill become more urgent, however, such discussion before that time is pertinent given thesense that we wish to use these technologies to fundamentally alter society and the obviousdesire that when we do so, we get it right first time.Aside and in complement to this, is the notion that even preceding such time that it is notunimaginable that we may use the technology to solve social problems that we encounter today. The development of applications and uses of technology that are of immediate benefitand located in, addressing and naturally arising from social contexts will undoubted help us indeveloping the radical reinvention of society through placing ICT as a key element in it, if that is what we wish to do. Thus far ICT and the social change that is believed it will bringabout are, in my view, best seen as an unfinished project but one that is often mistakenly

perceived as already being completed. It is my position that root of that misconception lies inthe radical altering of economic and business practice brought about by the computer andassociated technologies. The post-Fordist model of business and the post-industrial economy,Third Industrial Revolution or ‘informationalism’, as it is called by Warschauer (citingCastells in Warschauer, 2003), forms the centre-piece of new economic thinking and realityand is commonly accepted as an entire break from previous industrial and economic states. Itis an ideological position that is currently without credible opposition and so dominatescontemporary discourse, seeping into social life.

‘Informationalist’ Discourses

By adopting the informationalist economy, Ireland’s material wealth has benefitedenormously and our economy has been revolutionised over recent decades, as too has our society and polity by association. Much of the factors that have facilitated such a turnaroundin our fortunes have come externally from sources as diverse as the WTO agreements, previously only-imagined developments in telecommunications and the drive for Europeanintegration but even more striking have been our internal responses to changing internationalcircumstances. We have provided inviting fiscal policies and purpose-built services such asthe IDA for foreign-investors and remodelled our educational system and labour-force tomatch international needs, not to mention the often-times astonishing work of Governmentsand ministerial departments in promoting Ireland as a good place to do business. Our willingness to adapt and to meet with a globalised and ‘informationised’ world economy isawe-inspiring and suitably we have become a model for other nations, the number one export-orientated economy in the world, out-stripping even Singapore and Hong Kong, all “from anisland, off an island, off Europe”. However, despite these changes, we are still ailed by thesame persistent issues that, in light of the opportunities that have benefited us economically,appear a little ‘old-school’ for the pallet of those wanting similarly fresh, quick and innovativesolutions to other problems.Housing, childcare, drugs, poverty, mental illness, disability, unemployment and educationaldisadvantage, in no particular order and by no means exhaustively, are still at the root of