Digital Technology and Our Utopian / Dystopian Future: Democracy or Mob Mentality?

Image Credit:  STCroiss. Creative Commons 

I am currently taking a Coursera course on "E-learning and Digital Cultures". This course is taught by a team of teachers from the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. One of the initial questions in the course is whether or not our outlook on information and communication technology is essentially Utopian or Dystopian.

The Utopian claims, according to M. Hand and B. Sandywell, in their book "E-topia as Cosmopolis or Citedal" (2002), are that digital and internet information technology inherently have a democratizing effect. The technology itself is neutral but its application is such that it democratizes the power of speech and access to information. Cyber-politics, under the Utopian vision, focuses on maximizing public access to digital technology hardware and software so that more people will be empowered.

Dystopian claims, according to Hand and Sandywell, are that the technology is inherently de-democratizing. Again, dystopians acknowledge that the technology, itself, is neutral but ownership of digital hardware and software, which determines access to dissemination of content, allows the technology to be controlled by anti-democratic forces. Cyber-politics, under this dystopian vision, focuses on resisting anti-democratic attempts to control and limit who gets heard and who has access to information.

Both Utopian and Dystopian views tend to be technologically deterministic to the extent that they argue that technology is destiny -- for better or for worse. The deterministic perspective minimizes the significance of human agency. They minimize the degree to which the online experience is created through the interaction between human beings and technology use. They under-emphasize the degree to which human beings create meaning and shape their own experiences through the use of this technology.

I don't subscribe to technological determinism, in any form, because I have seen people use technology in ways that were not anticipated by its creators, just as they have with other artifacts in the social environment. The entire premise of Hip Hop culture, for example, arose from sampling from all forms of popular culture and transforming the meaning of these signs in ways the signifiers had not originally intended. This is something that human beings tend to do with all forms of popular culture; they take what is given and they adapt it in ways that transform the original context and make it their own.

Anti-democratic forces are, no doubt, trying to use digital technology in ways that are dis-empowering, but the nature of the technology is such that it gives more people opportunities to document and share their thoughts, creations, and experiences, and to network with others they would never have had the opportunity to interact with in "real" space.

That is my Utopian side talking.

My Dystopian side is impressed (and not in a positive way) with how people are using this technology to lower the bar of social and political discourse. My Dystopian side points to the way people create their own "facts" to re-enforce what they already want to believe, and it points to how people post content on the internet that is incendiary, just because they can get away with posting it, without being held accountable for what they post.

Quotes, of questionable authenticity, are widely circulated on the internet and people use social networks to re-enforce each other's biases and to insult those who do not agree with them, rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to consider new perspectives on things. The illusion of anonymity on the internet often brings out the worst in people, "freeing" them to engage in hate speech on a level they would never even consider in a face-to-face encounter.

My Utopian side is glad that unpopular ideas have the chance to be expressed, weighed, and considered by a larger audience. This side of me is excited by the possibilities of having speech without self-censorship, or censorship that is externally imposed. My Utopian side is also thrilled with the idea that corporate media are less able to shape the consciousness of individuals who can now more easily curate the content they consume and decide for themselves what is important and what is not. Information is no longer so easily prioritized by a few publishers and media networks.

My Dystopian side is concerned about the potential for this technology to strengthen ignorance and the mob mentality of mindless movements, which are antithetical to the deliberative process. My Dystopian side is concerned that the internet is being used to feed the passions of people who are not interested in hearing all sides of an issue, but are only interested in looking for someone to fear or something to torch.

Digital technology can create the conditions for greater and more meaningful social interaction and engagement, but it can also encourage the tendency of people to isolate themselves and wallow unchallenged narratives that circulate among those who share their narrow exposure and biases.

I see both tendencies occurring. Part of this excites me, while the other part frightens me. It is not technology that will determine our destiny -- our destiny will be determined through our interaction with technology as it shapes us, even as we are finding new ways to apply it and give it meaning.