7. Digital Citizenship & the Digital Divide (Postill--political anthropology)

Your main reading this week is Postill's Digital Politics. The rest of this blog will help contextualize Postill's research. 

Recap 

In the last few sections of this subject, we have moved from the self (Section 2), to communities (Section 3), to romantic relationships (Section 4) to kinship relations (Section 5 & Section 6). 

This Blog 

In this section, we move up to an even larger scale of national and transnational politics. We have seen how digital technologies and politics have interacted in ways that could not have been predicted, When for example, "Netizens" was written in the 1990s, the dream was of equal citizens of the world interacting through Internet free of authoritative control.  Analysis of digital technologies and politics shows that things are far more complex than this. 

Structure

In this blog, we explain the concept of "Political Anthropology" and how "Digital politics" fits in. We then explain that anthropologists understand "digital citizenship" differently to other disciplines. After this, we consider the specific cases of "algorithmic enclaves" and "citizen journalism". We then embark on a close examination of the idea of "digital divide", which shows how anthropologists view this in different and unexpected ways. All this is designed to provide you with some conceptual tools to analyze the world of digital politics. 

Anthropological Concept: Political Anthropology & Digital Politics 

In each section of this course, we have been considering a different anthropological concept.  This week it's not so much a concept but a sub-field of socio-cultural anthropology, which is called "political anthropology". To provide an introduction to political anthropology, we can't think of a better introduction than Palomar College's site on political organization. 

But here's another way to understand political anthropology. In the USA, there is a system based on a constitution with Republicans and Democrats vying with each other for office. The media, parties, social movements, activism, corruption etc. all constitute what we call politics. Whether good or bad, illegal or legal, it's still the stuff you expect to be covered in the politics section of your favourite newspaper. Anthropologists think that this idea of "politics" applies only to certain cultures. This is the starting point of political anthropology.

Political anthropology teaches us that this is merely one way to formalize political power and processes. Different cultures have radically different structures and practices though. From the position of methodological relativism, no system is necessarily superior to the other. 

Digital politics has emerged as sub-sub-field (!) shared by both digital anthropology and other social science disciplines.

Defining "Digital citizenship"

One concept in digital politics is "digital citizenship". This is a term broadly used in the social sciences, not just in Anthropology. What is "digital citizenship"? Let's consider some academic definitions:

1.  the (self-)enactment of people’s role in society through the use of digital technologies. It therefore has empowering and democratizing characteristics (Hintz, Denick, Wahl-Jorgensen 2017) 
2. a set of rights and responsibilities or appropriate behaviors online
3. One website defines it as "An acceptance and upholding of the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to the use of digital technologies."

The way Anthropologists use concepts which we share with other disciplines is often subtly different.  "Digital citizenship" is a case in point. From an anthropological perspective, possibly

1. In the first definition, "empowering" is a normative idea. 
2. The second definition possess an implicitly moral assumption--that correct behaviors exist and we should observe such behaviors. 
3.  The third definition is also normative or moralistic.

As we know from Blog 1, in accordance with the principle of methodological relativism, anthropologists avoid normative or moralistic in analysis. Anthropologists require a less judgemental definition that we can use to identify and explain behaviors in different cultures. As McCosker, Vivienne and Johns (2017, 1) note the concept of "digital citizenship" has emerged as "a highly contested notion primed for critical scrutiny".  So how does McCosker et. al. define "digital citizenship". 

Digital citizenship as 'fluid interface'

 McCosker et al’s (2017: 1) definition encompasses three overlapping elements of digital citizenship:

1.  'new forms of control' such as that by government surveillance of its citizens online, 
2. 'possibilities for contention' through online digital activism to change government policies (for example change.org online petitions), and 
3. the 'capacity for creative cultures of practice' such as using memes as political satire or # hashtags and videos that go 'viral' (#eggboi incident of a teenager filming himself egging Senator Anning for his Islamaphobic comment and the ensuing revolution poster meme of the boy and 'egg' comments). 

In other words, "digital citizenship" is not simply "a set of rights and responsibilities or appropriate behaviors online". Rather digital citizenship emerges as a fluid interface that connects government control mechanisms with people and practices within even the most intimate of cultural contexts. A couple of recent examples of control and intimacy come to mind:

• Indonesian police arrested a Lesbian couple in their homes over their Facebook post with an uploaded intimate photo (of them kissing) under the pornography law.
• China has a good citizenship scorecard. You get points for your 'responsible' social media activity and other government surveillance method)

In what ways, do you think, this idea of 'fluid interface' is useful? Whether useful or not, it would seem that the authors resist positing a clear definition. In the absence of a definition, I point to some examples of what might be called "digital citizenship". 

Digital citizenship examples

For examples of digital citizenship, let's consider Indonesian and Filipino migrants. Both Indonesian and Philippine diasporic communities are able to mobilize through social media transnational political causes, 90% of Indonesians living overseas, for example, voted for the eventual election winner Jokowi in 2014. They were active online as part of his volunteer grassroots campaign movement. Indonesian women in 32 different countries lobbied under (Mixed Marriage Group Through Mothers Hands) KPC Melati to change Indonesia's citizenship laws to allow dual citizenship for children under the age of 18. A vocal Philippine diasporic social media movement campaigns against Duterte. An example is Migrante, the Philippine international migrant association.

China, on the other hand, has strict government regulation on social media but has the worlds largest population using an alternative social media platform to that of Facebook, called Weibo that is also actively used internationally amongst its diasporic community, specifically communicating with Chinese characters.

Lim: Algorithmic enclave

Digital citizenship often comes to the fore during elections.  Parties compete using digital platforms, and specific social media strategies to gain citizens votes and voters loyalty. Merlyna Lim describes a phenomenon called "algorithmic enclave" whereby the algorithms created through the online messages and social media campaigns created by opposing political fractions amplify the beliefs of social media followers. In other words, one will only get social media feeds that support their preferred political party's message. It may even be 'fake news' or news created to discredit that political party. Citizens may use their voice online to push for their own specific political agendas during the elections, for example as part of a lobby group, or to sway members of their immediate social circle towards their political beliefs. 


Instead of public debate, people only engage with people of similar beliefs. Subsequently, these beliefs become increasingly extreme and entrenched. For instance, in 2016 doctored YouTube video footage showed the ethnic Chinese mayor of Jakarta quoting a Koranic verse in a manner deemed blasphemous. This created mass demonstrations against the mayor. The Indonesian digital communities formed into algorithmic enclaves anti-Chinese vs. Anti-Muslims.  The mayor of Jakarta was eventually jailed on blasphemy charges.

Filter bubble

The concept of "filter bubble" connects closely with "algorithmic enclave".

An image explaining the 'negative effects of "Filter Bubbles" to Indonesians. 

Filter bubbles it explains are an "Adverse effect of social media and search machine algorithms on the Internet". Indonesians have adopted social media readily and issues surrounding digital politics evoke public reflection, as in this image.

Enclaves or Antagonism?

Thailand's 'flame wars', as described in another section of this blog, demonstrate a different tendency. Antagonists--southern 'rebels' and Thai nationalists-- actually engage with each other. But this engagement is hostile; through hate speech.

Citizen Journalism

Another concept for consideration is "citizen journalism". This concept refers to everyday people recording events and 'newsworthy' matters. It generally has a radical or progressive implication: e.g. "citizen journalism" could be used to describe a normal person recording police brutality at a climate protest. Clearly, citizen journalism has been facilitated by social media, so the term sometimes arises in discussions of the political uses of Facebook, Twitter, etc. For more, see Winarnita et al, "Gendered Digital Citizenship: How Indonesian Female Journalists Participate in Gender Activism"

Digital divide

If there is one concept that people outside Digital Anthropology know of, it's "digital divide". The concept refers to a gap (hence "divide") between those who have access to a comparatively fast Internet connection, mobile/cell phones and other such technologies (hence "digital"). This concept seems to have emerged fairly early in the history of the Internet. The screengrab above seems to date from the turn of the century. For the Computer Science students, the concept of "digital divide" has a highly normative element--the divide is something to be bridged. 

Computer Science students at Stanford Uni apparently created by this website just at the turn of the century. 

"Digital divide" definition

So what does analytical concept "digital divide" refer to in such contexts? We could say something like "unequal access to digital technologies". But this doesn't cover the political and economic determiners of this unequal access. How can we address this political-economic aspect in a definition? One Internet source defines it as:

The global digital divide describes global disparities, primarily between developed and developing countries, in regards to access to computing and information resources such as the Internet and the opportunities derived from such access.

This seems simple enough. We might add that the digital divides exist within, not just between, societies. We might also add other sociological categories: gender, ethnicity, class, age and so on to provide a more nuanced picture of inequality in access to the Internet and other communications technologies.

Examples of "Digital Divide"

We could point to examples of the digital divide operating at different levels.

 The first level is between nations, specifically, 'developed' vs developing nations. One blog demonstrates a clear disparity in the uptake of new technologies between Korea and Papua New Guinea. 

Another level of the digital divide lies within nations. Juris (2012, 275) notes that within the US:

Although the gap is shrinking, African Americans and non-English-speaking Latinos still lag behind whites in terms of Internet use. At the same time, people of color are far more likely to access the web via mobile phone technology

The digital divide also exists between urban and rural populations within a nation. The above blog points to this in PNG. We can see other examples though, According to the UNESCO report, Indonesia's 'digital divide' rests on digital access concentrated on the urban highly populated areas with young men being prominent as a major demographic trend. 

The urban and rural/regional digital divide does not only exist in developing countries such as Indonesia. It also can be identified in Australia, where remote rural areas, particularly Indigenous communities have limited access to the internet.  

This rural Australian digital divide ties into the topic of diaspora as discussed in the previous section.  The comparative lack of Internet access in Australian remote areas means that there is low retention of health care services such as aged care workers from a migrant background. They find it difficult to live in isolated communities without the support of family and friends through digital communication technologies.

Digital Divide (image by Toby Morris)

Weaknesses of the "digital divide" concept

Nevertheless, some anthropologists call the usefulness of the "digital divide" concept into question. Discussing how Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) might assist in developing nations,  Tacchi (2013, 220) writes:

The term ‘digital divide’ emerged as a stark indicator of those who are part of, and those who are not part of, these new developments, but the term has recently been questioned and has largely fallen out of use except by those who are focused mainly on technologies and infrastructure. The concept has been considered less useful than ‘digital inequality’ or ‘digital inclusion’ (DiMaggio and Hargittai 2001; Selwyn 2004) as ways to describe the relationships between ICTs and development to those who are more focused on development itself. There are complex interrelationships between social and technological networks and issues of access versus effective use or engagement (Warschauer 2003). While the term ‘digital divide’ was useful in highlighting gaps in infrastructure as well as more fine-grained issues of social and economic status and access, a major problem was the way digital divide policy debates focused almost exclusively on macro issues, assuming that digital technologies are beneficial to all citizens and the only barrier to closing the gap is lack of access. As Robin Mansell (2002) pointed out, interpretations of the causes and consequences of the divide were inadequate, and because of this, so were actions to bridge the divide or to understand its consequences. The disadvantages of being on the wrong side of the divide were seen as stemming from the ways in which social and technical relationships were understood at a position removed from actual practices rather than how they were lived. 

For these reasons, from the development perspective, Tacchi prefers 'digital inequality' or 'digital inclusion.

How wide is the divide?

Other studies emphasize the ease of access on who has access to digital technology demonstrate economic disparity and prejudice characterizes Internet use. Jurriens and Tapsel see the potential of digital Indonesia (2017). They quote journalist Elisabeth Pisani (2014: 3) who observed villagers climbing trees in order to get 2G phone reception. "Millions of Indonesians live on $2 a day and are on Facebook"’, she wrote. In other words, they may be poor but they are still connected! So the 'digital divide' may not always play out as expected. 

Digital divide: language rather than money?

So if there is a digital divide, it is not necessarily about money. Research by Raelene Wilding of La Trobe finds that, for elderly migrants, using technology is not so much a challenge as language. Here she talks about older adults using technology. This fascinating radio segment has been translated into multiple languages, too!

 

Summary

Increasingly, the digital is political and politics is digital.  To explain this development, Anthropologists have turned to concepts such as "algorithmic enclave", "digital citizenship", "digital divide", and "fluid interface". These concepts provide some insight in the emerging field of digital politics. These concepts relate  to unequal access to digital technologies and the paradoxes of new levels of control and freedom, democracy and authority.  

Significance

 But as we might expect, given that Digital Anthropology is still an 'embryonic' discipline, more conceptual tools are needed. Generally, as Postill demonstrates in the main reading for this section, anthropology is ideally positioned to contribute to the discussion.  

Further research

 In the next section, we consider possibilities for activism, as well as extremism, in more detail.

   

Select Bibliography

     Postill, John. 2013. “Democracy in an Age of Viral Reality: A Media Epidemiography of Spain’s Indignados Movement.” Ethnography 15 (1): 51–69.
     Lim. M. (2017) ‘Freedom to hate: social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia’, Critical Asian Studies, 49(3): 411-427.
    McCosker, A., Vivienne, S. and Johns, A. (2017) Negotiating Digital Citizenship, Rowman & Littlefield. London and New York.
    Jurriëns E. and Tapsell R. (2017) Digital Indonesia: Connectivity and Divergence. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

    Winarnita et al, "Gendered Digital Citizenship: How Indonesian Female Journalists Participate in Gender Activism"

     Leach,  Political Systems of Highland Burma. This is the greatest work of Political anthropology, here's the start of the famous discussion of gumlao and gumsa. What makes this description interesting is the similarity (the flux between authority and egalitarianism) as well as the differences (no political parties, etc. active in highland Burma when Leach did his research).