Digitalization, Power, and Online Tyranny
How can we clarify the role of digitalization in the “crisis in democracy?”
In recent years, there has been concern about the role of the digital world in movements and forces that could be considered to be anti-democracy. But what, if anything, has the online world changed in the public sphere and democracy that could potentially contribute to anti-democratic behavior and cause an alleged “crisis in democracy?” To address this broad question, I begin by adopting some definitions of what we are talking about.
I adopt a loose definition of democracy as concerning collective decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at some essential stage of the collective decision making. Free and fair discussion is at the heart of democracy, and a deliberative democracy needs informed voters. From this definition, anti-democracy would be some form of opposition to collective decision making and/or equality among participants and/or free and fair discussion.
Digitalization
Digitalization has two main aspects: information and communication. With digitalization, we now can store and have access to unprecedented amounts of information. As someone who wrote his first university paper on a typewriter after going to the library’s paper card catalog to locate paper books, I am very aware of how digitalization has increased access to information. The Internet, or what I will call the “online world,” allows us to communicate information quickly, easily, and widely with nearly anyone.
The question I pose is whether the changes in digital storage and dissemination of information and communications have a significant effect on the public sphere and democracy. I answer that when we consider the vital role of recognition and misrecognition in the public sphere, we see a mixed picture that casts doubt on the idea that our era of digital communication is fundamentally different in human behaviors that affect attitudes toward democracy and inclusion.
I adopt the critical language of recognition aware that the concept has limitations, but I think it can be helpful in understanding the public sphere. Recognition is a vast, complex topic, but for my purposes here, I take recognition as the relations between people by which people are justified and valued by others. My view of recognition relations inclines toward Cillian McBride’s justice-focused view on recognition’s role in social distinction and stratification, and also social inclusion and justice. In this sense, recognition is a basic need of people in part because recognition is essential for social and self esteem and social and legal inclusion; misrecognition is damaging to those important aspects of human life. Misrecognition is to disregard and exclude others from community and moral consideration on interpersonal, intergroup, or sociopolitical levels. Therefore, social misrecognition has a corrosive effect on democracy by excluding people from free and fair discussion and collective decision making.
Digital Communication
Turning attention to digital communication: Some say that online communication is not real communication compared to face-to-face communication because online there is a lack of recognition of other people and their ideas caused by the lack of the physical presence of other people. But by that definition, books, newspapers, television, and radio are also not real communication because those communication mediums also lack the physical presence of other people. In contrast to the top-down one-way communication of traditional print and broadcast media, online communication offers the possibility of two-way communication, enabling people from anywhere in the world to communicate interactively with each other. So, on the one hand, online communication replaces physical face-to-face communication, but, on the other hand, it also replaces some top-down, one-way communication by enabling the possibilities for more direct two-way or interactive communication. Essentially, digital online communication is still communication, and it stands to reason that human behaviors in the online world would be fundamentally similar to behaviors in the so-called real world.
However, as many have observed and experienced, the online world is not a place of real communication. Trolling, flaming, brigading, bullying, and censorship are widely present, causing many people to feel that people are more hostile online. The relative anonymity of the online world does embolden people to say negative things that they would be less likely to say face-to-face. There is a growing awareness of cyberbullying online, but, of course, we call it cyberbullying because it is a type of bullying. The online world makes it easier to express hostile thoughts and feelings, but digitalization did not invent hostile thoughts and feelings. Online anonymity encourages the frequency and intensity of hostile comments, but it is not the cause of the hostility.
The idea that the online world is more hostile than so-called real life is an understandable but false impression created by the character of online written statements. Hostile comments live longer on the Internet than in real life. An insult spoken does not linger as long as an insult written online. Also, a heated argument in a pub does not spread much further than the table at which it is spoken, whereas a heated argument on an online forum allows for anyone with access to jump in and prolong or intensify the argument. The reach of online written statements protracts hostile comments, but it is not the cause of the hostility.
Hostility as Misrecognition
Within all hostility toward others is misrecognition — disregard and exclusion of other people from community and from moral consideration. Hostility, from playground bullying to institutional racism, is misrecognition of the moral status of other people as human beings with legal rights and social standing. Expressions of hostility, such as bullying behaviors, are a kind of self-recognition in that one feels a sense of superiority and power over the target of the hostility. People who feel disempowered can manufacture a sense of power by being hostile toward others.
These dynamics of recognition and misrecognition are basic human behaviors that predate both democracy and digitalization. They manifest in both the online and so-called real world. We as critical theorists and social scientists would do well to look at how these basic human behaviors manifest differently in the online world to illustrate the dynamics of prejudice and injustice. The online world intensifies some human interactions and behaviors, and this can help illuminate social life.
Digitalization makes misrecognition of others easier and more prevalent, as seen in the phenomena of online trolling, brigading, and so-called fake news. Analyzing misrecognition behaviors in digital communications clarifies some of the negative influences on the public sphere, such as those that manifest in so-called right-wing populist movements and movements that can be considered to be anti-democracy.
As I mentioned, I believe that recognition and misrecognition are matters of justice. Recognition is, among other things, a value judgment that an individual is behaving appropriately — recognition brings individuals into a circle of social inclusion. Denying recognition leaves an individual outside of the social circle — it is saying, “You are not acceptable to us.” Human societies, social groups, and individuals draw us-them circles of moral concern using the double-edged sword of social recognition. In this way, recognition and misrecognition are exercises of power that privilege some and subject others to domination.
Byung-Chul Han on Power
To look at how recognition functions in the public sphere, I take Byung-Chul Han’s perspective on power. He argues that power is better understood as a mediation between ego and other that creates a complex array of reciprocal interdependencies. Power can be exercised not only directly against the other but also within and through the other, and this involves a much higher degree of mediation. This idea connects with Hegel’s notion of recognition and the dynamic that one needs recognition to exercise social power. Others must value you and recognize your thoughts and actions as acceptable to follow your lead.
This line of reasoning helps illuminate how reactionary social and political movements arise and function, especially in the online world. Winning recognition can enable a leader to exercise power through the mediation of others. One way is to convince people to draw the us-them circle in such a way that the us is the leader in opposition to the them. The leader’s action is therefore the power actor and the leader’s welfare is important. In Byung-Chul’s terminology, the leader has power mediated by the followers. Mediated power, combined with another human behavior that I will discuss shortly, is how reactionary movements can be stoked. The online world is just one way that power can be mediated but it does so in an intensified way.
The online world intensifies opposition to democracy and social inclusion because the speed and reach of digital communications intensifies age-old human behaviors by providing channels for leaders to mediate power and by making it easier for individuals to fall into misrecognition of other people. Again, digitalization enhances rather than creates these phenomena, but analyzing online misrecognition allows us to identify more readily how misrecognition contributes to injustices in all areas of society.
To illustrate, let’s take a brief look at fake news, which is blamed for influencing elections. Propaganda is what we used to call what we now call “fake news,” and propaganda has existed for a long time. Jacques Derrida in 2002 outlined a short history of what he called “pseudology.” Hannah Arendt in the 1960s and 1970s wrote about totalitarian propaganda. Even Kant in the 1790s wrote about the problem of false information. There is an old adage that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on — and this was said and repeated long before the Internet made this literally and vividly true.
The Internet has been showing us how propaganda works by speeding up the spread of propaganda, making its diffusion and effects more readily visible. Byung-Chul Han’s perspective helps us see that power and freedom are not opposed to one another but are manifestations of the same power, differing in the degree of mediation. Online communication allows users to feel a sense of freedom in their consumption and sharing of information, unaware that their activities are mediated by corporations and the algorithms those corporations create for online content. This mediated power is present whether or not there is nefarious intent.
Askonas on Online Tyranny
Jon Askonas[1] writes that Internet tech giants have fostered an online tyranny: “YouTube’s recommendation feature has helped to radicalize users through feedback loops, not only by helping clickbait conspiracy videos go viral, but also by enticing users to view more videos like the ones they’ve already looked at, thus encouraging the user merely intrigued by extremist ideas” to become immersed in them. Similarly, he says, “Google hoped to provide users with more ‘Useful’ information, but if you already know what you want to believe, Google exaggerates confirmation bias by feeding you more of what you want to hear.” These and other Internet sites constantly feed users related posts and videos that match their interests but also feed misrecognition and its prejudice and hostility. Askonas does not blame the Web site designers, who he says, “did not imagine the algorithms themselves shaping users by feeding their basest impulses, turning the high of a notification ping into whatever behaviors result in more pings — snarkier tweets, sexier pictures, or more feverish posts.” This behavior, I point out, is recognition, and these Web site giants cater to the human need and thirst for recognition, no matter how puerile.
Askonas concludes that Bruno Latour was correct that technology stabilizes in concrete form what societies already find desirable and that the authoritarians’ love for digital technology is no fluke. I completely agree. What we humans desire, perhaps more than anything, is to be recognized and included by others and to feel that we have freedom. The online world creates a sense of unmediated and unrestrained communication because in the echo chambers one hears no other voices. Absolutist claims and conspiracy theories go not only unchallenged but also receive only “likes” and “hell yeahs.”
These real phenomena are long-existing human behavior that the online world enhances. People have long willingly self-segregated themselves into communities of like-minded people. For example, cities in Europe had separate neighborhoods based on religious heritage. Cities in the United States have had, and often still have, ethnically separate neighborhoods. We should not be surprised that people self-segregate online and that the abundance of choice provided by online technology simply makes this easier.[2] Facebook, for example, inflicted a “filter bubble” on users that fed them only those news stories related to news stories they had previously seen. But this is not fundamentally different from how news was distributed in the past. There were newspapers in the US that openly identified themselves by name as Democratic and Republican papers, and people today still perceive particular newspapers and television news networks as having a political slant. In the past, individuals self-segregated by gathering in particular bars or clubs; now they can also do that online. If Facebook or Twitter aretoo diverse for people, they can go to particular forums or Web sites that cater only to their viewpoints and reinforce their chosen opinions.
Online posts that “trend” or “go viral” are manifestations of the human desire for recognition, and the possibility for recognition is greatly enhanced by belonging to a community where everyone thinks the same way. Every online “like” or “upvote” is a small bit of recognition. Because feedback online can come almost instantly, people can use online posts like a slot machine, pouring in memes and quips seeking immediate gratification of virtual recognition. So, although the online world has created spaces where people can connect with others in new ways to bridge divisions, it also has created spaces where divisions can be accentuated and reinforced. The tools of the online world permit both types of community, and the reality is that many people choose to self-segregate in the online world just like they do in the real world.
Circling back to the idea that digitalization is not a driver of anti-democratic actions but serves as a vehicle for the forces behind those anti-democratic actions, I will attempt to connect the dots on the topics on which I have touched. All people seek recognition, and the struggle for recognition is a struggle to exercise freedom. One exercise of freedom is to seek inclusion in social institutions, such as receiving legal rights including the right to vote. Another exercise of freedom is to shelter oneself from opposing viewpoints and seek justification for this self-segregation. These competing exercises of freedom — recognition and misrecognition — are both facilitated by digital online technology. Online tools assisted the Arab Spring in Egypt and the #MeToo movement. Online tools also assisted rape epidemics in India and race-based anti-democratic movements. Just as a knife can be used in the service of productive or destructive aims, so can any digital online tool.
Human Behavior
Where that leaves us is that in this age of digitalization the human condition remains the same. The same issues of justice and injustice are still present, only in a broader diversity of forms. What we need to address is less the presence of online filter bubbles and the like and more the human propensity to misrecognize and separate from others that the filter bubbles exploit. We need to address the cause, not the symptom, of anti-democratic feelings that corporations and reactionaries exploit. The digital era offers people the chance to learn anything they want, talk with anyone in the world. Online communication offers the possibility to bridge geographical hindrances, speed communications, and create instant communities, yet online tools are just tools. They are neutral. They do only what people want to do with them.
Danah Boyd has concluded that “what makes people willing to hear difference is knowing and trusting people whose worldview differs from their own. Exposure to content cannot make up for self-segregation.”[3] It has long been a human tendency for people to seek those who agree with them. Some people do not want collective decision making or open and free discussion. The pitfall of the online world is that the technology provides highly effective tools for self-segregation and the dissemination of prejudiced propaganda. Online, people seek those who would potentially “like” their social media posts and avoid those who would not. We need only click on on-screen icons to silence other voices. I stress again though, that this fear of the Other — of those who disagree with them and could potentially upend their worldviews — exists both in the online world and the so-called real world. That fear of the Other drives the use of online tools.
From this, I argue that the “crisis in democracy” today and the related issue of so-called right-wing populism are not new phenomena, but age-old social tendencies enhanced by digitalization. By placing democracy, the public sphere, digitalization, and misrecognition into their proper interrelations and seeing how digitalization of information and communications intensifies the speed and visibility of social tendencies, we can gain insights into the public sphere, democracy, and the threats to them.
[1] Jon Askonas, “How Tech Utopia Fostered Tyranny,” The New Atlantis, Number 57, Winter 2019, pp. 3–13.
[2] Danah Boyd, “Self-segregation: how a personalized world is dividing Americans,” The Guardian, 13/07/17, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/self-segregation-military-facebook-college-diversity, accessed 29/05/19.
[3] Danah Boyd, “Self-segregation: how a personalized world is dividing Americans,” The Guardian, 14/07/17, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/self-segregation-military-facebook-college-diversity, accessed 29/05/19.
