THE SECOND DIGITAL DIVIDE!

The 'HAVES' and 'HAVE NOTS'

“The Second-Level Digital Divide describes the difference, or divide in how technology is used, while the Top-Level Digital Divide refers to the difference between the technology haves and have nots (Hargittai, 2002).  This newer divide…the Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD), is no longer a simple delineation between those who have access to technology and those who do not.  The SLDD refers to the difference in how technology is utilized” (Reinart, Thomas, Toriskie, 2008, pg. 493).

     We are ultimately shaped by our life experiences.  This often dictates how we see the world and how we see ourselves and others existing, operating in that same sphere.  When Friedman (2007) visited Bangalore he witnessed the economic revitalization of a once modest section of India.  This reshaping was primarily contributed to industrial growth augmented by advancements in technology.  From Friedman’s optical lens, he observed the erection of once highly regarded American industries in such far away countries as India.  This industrial construction did more than strengthen India’s economic power.  These technological industries symbolized the impact that innovation was having on globalization.  Technology had minimized and shattered the great barriers - land, water, borders, states, countries, governments, regimes and continents – of the world.  People who were once kept apart by these great barriers could now socialize through multiple mediums; interact in meaningful ways; and increase the rate/speed of information sharing.  Symbolically, the world was shrinking not demographically, but geographically.  From this perspective, it’s plausible for Friedman to correlate the geological configuration – flat – of the world with how its inhabitants began to function.  Insomuch that the use of technological devices had expedited communication whereby bringing people of the world closer together.  Yet, Friedman’s theory of how technology has advanced the world socially has minimal correlation of how it has improved the quality of lives for many Americans. 

     Figuratively, the world maybe flat, but this flatness has perpetuated a continual flat-line.  The idea that technology has transferred into creating a leveled playing field is argumentative at best.  Advancement in technology has done little to establish viable American industries where blue collar workers can earn an honest living to sustain a family.  Economically speaking, technology has booster the income of the innovators.  While the poor purchase the cell phones to keep up with an evolving society, the innovators reap the benefits.  It’s acceptable to buy the phone, but we will have natives of other countries make the phones.  Where is the leveled playing field in an economic capitalist structure which supports a vicious cycle by which the rich continues to get richer and the consumer continues to get poorer?  If technology has created a leveled playing field, someone must speak to the economics of the matter.  Somehow, technology has done little to chip away at poverty in the US (see Map). 

     I would argue that innovation and technology has reinforced Karl Marx’ theory on how political and economics play a vital role in forming class struggles thus bringing greater understanding of society's development.  In the article The World is Spiky, the author attempts to express these thoughts.  The spikes generated by advancement in technology represent areas within the U.S. where technology has transferred into economic wealth.  Yet, it is these spikes that demonstrate the inequalities that continue to exist in the United States.

     Technology has made the innovators of products wealthy.  It has created jobs for advanced, skilled workers, but the evolution of these devises have not lead to support a factory industry that once provided jobs to sustain working and middle class Americans.  The technology has done little to contribute to job growth for blue collar Americans.  This is in part due to other  advancing countries producing more skilled workers thus providing US innovators, business leaders with opportunities to made their products at cheaper wages.  This has booster aspects of other countries economy, but not so true for the U.S.

     Whether technology has caused the world to become more flat or spiky, one aspect continues - the world is far from being economically leveled.  If the world is spiky this advances that idea that technology is inexpensive and a quick form for social communication, but continues to perpetuate a divide - the "haves" and the "have nots".  The second digital divide makes these distinctions.  Technology is used by innovators and the educated - haves- to generate wealth and improve their life styles while technology by the poor and less educated - have nots - is used for social interaction that does little to advance their earning power.  Collectively, these typologies are examples of how the US economic capitalist structure forms the country’s economic divides.

 ______________________

Friedman, T.L. (2007).  The World is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century.

     New York, NY: Picador.

Center for International Earth Science Information Network. (2005, October).  The World in

     Numbers: The World Is Spiky, Globalization has changed the economic playing field, but

     hasn’t leveled it. The Atlantic Monthly.