up. By 2019, some five and a half billion people had internet access, with the fastest growth rates since 2000 in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. As digitization has become embedded in social life, younger generations are the ‘digital natives’ socialized and comfortable in the era of the internet, robotics and AI.
Castells (2006, 2015) argues that we have created a networked, globalizing world which generates new forms of expression, sociability, cybercrimes, work, social movements and much more. Protests in Hong Kong in 2019 against legislative change and Extinction Rebellion’s 2019–20 direct actions on global warming made extensive use of social media, and reports of the protests were often live-streamed by activists themselves, illustrating Castells’s idea of ‘networked social movements’. Formerly discrete media forms have also become intertwined, in a merger process known as media convergence, with the internet at its centre. For instance, newspaper sales have declined, but news has moved online, while global video providers, such as Netflix, have transformed television watching with live-streaming and catch-up via smartphones and other devices.
For some, digitization also changes the character of capitalism and, with it, the world of work. A ‘gig economy’ has developed in which workers are treated as self-employed contractors, and firms operate as online platforms supplying ‘gigs’, absolving them of conventional employer responsibilities. Srnicek (2016) theorizes that we may be entering a period of ‘platform capitalism’ where data is the key resource for capitalist expansion – harvested, collated and used to improve services and products and to sell on at a profit. The danger is that this results in the erosion of privacy and confidentiality as the public–private boundary is further eroded. Zuboff (2019) theorizes the situation as one of ‘surveillance capitalism’, in which the enormous promise of the digital revolution is being lost to corporate interests. Surveillance capitalists exploit devices such as the Amazon Alexa, smart thermostats, speakers, routers and even home security devices, collecting data for analysis, predictions of consumer behaviour and, thus, increased sales. Indeed, intensified surveillance is a key theme in many studies of the digital age.
Critical Points
The digital transformation in communications is clear, but whether this constitutes a genuine ‘revolution’ can be queried. As Zuboff points out, for all the novel applications we have seen so far, capitalist profit-seeking continues to be the main driver of socio-economic change and the industrialized societies remain recognizable as such. After all, industrial production is still required to manufacture microchips, tablets, smartphones, robots and computers, and it may be more realistic to see the current phase as a continuation of industrialization, with its characteristic replacement of human and animal labour by machines.
Inequalities of internet access and ownership of digital devices are described today as digital divides, but these are still marked by existing inequalities of disability, class, gender, race and ethnicity (Andreasson 2015). Early adoption of digital technology was largely across the Global North, which reinforced existing global inequality, though the gap between North and South is gradually closing. Digitization may be ‘revolutionary’ in some respects, but it does not seem to be changing long-established patterns of social inequality. Others accept that digitization may have revolutionary consequences but see these as, on balance, negative, leading to social isolation and a denuded human experience. The idea of online experience as somehow ‘not real’ is a common refrain among digital critics.
Continuing Relevance
The continuing relevance of the concept of a digital revolution should already be clear. However, it is worth noting that contemporary debates have moved beyond simple positive / negative evaluations of digitization. More recent studies reject the idea that cyberspace is essentially different or divergent from the material social world. Empirical studies show that online life is not a denuded form of the material world, but more likely an extension of it. This is clear in research into social media, where it has been found that most people’s interactions are generally with existing friends, relations and people they already know from face-to-face contact, not with strangers and anonymous, ethereal ‘profiles’. Similarly, Baym (2015) argues that a more realistic account shows that relationships today flow from online to offline and vice versa, and, as digital technologies become increasingly embedded within our everyday routines, this is exactly what we might expect.
For sociologists, the digital revolution raises the question of whether existing ways of carrying out research are appropriate for the study of interactions in online environments. Do we now need novel research methods and tools? Selwyn (2019: 2) addresses this issue directly, arguing that, in fact, what we need is a ‘proactive “digital” approach toward all aspects of sociological work’. This is because all social settings have become ‘profoundly digital and digitized’. For example, communications routinely involve texting, email and social media, while many leisure pursuits and entertainment forms, such as gaming, watching films or TV and listening to music, take place online. Scholars working on social and government policy cannot now ignore the vast digital bureaucracies through which education, health and welfare are delivered and accessed. In the future, analysis of the enormous amount of data collected via the Internet of Things may tell us much more about how social life is actually lived than conventional methods such as interviews, focus groups and surveys. In sum, Selwyn’s overall argument is that developing a digital sociology is not an esoteric project pursued by a small number of technology geeks, but is absolutely essential if sociology is to be relevant in the digital age.
References and Further Reading
Andreasson, K. (ed.) (2015) Digital Divides: The New Challenges and Opportunities of e-Inclusion (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press).
Athique, A. (2013) Digital Media and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge: Polity).
Baym, N. K. (2015) Personal Connections in the Digital Age (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity).
Castells, M. (2006) The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).
— (2015) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity).
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
Selwyn, N. (2019) What is Digital Sociology? (Cambridge: Polity).
Srnicek, N. (2016) Platform Capitalism (Cambridge: Polity).
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (London: Profile Books).
Globalization
Working Definition
The various processes through which geographically dispersed human populations are brought into closer and more immediate contact with one another, creating a single community of fate or global society.
Origins of the Concept
The idea of a worldwide human society can be traced back to discussions of the prospects for ‘humanity’ as a whole during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment period. Globalization can also be distilled from the nineteenth-century ideas of Marx on the expansive tendencies of capitalism and Durkheim on the geographical spread of the division of labour. However, the first dictionary entry for ‘globalization’ in the modern sense was in 1961, and
