{"id":35,"date":"2023-12-19T22:38:38","date_gmt":"2023-12-19T22:38:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/writingfordigitalmedia\/?post_type=chapter&p=35"},"modified":"2024-02-07T00:24:53","modified_gmt":"2024-02-07T00:24:53","slug":"privileged-spaces","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/writingfordigitalmedia\/chapter\/privileged-spaces\/","title":{"raw":"Privileged Spaces","rendered":"Privileged Spaces"},"content":{"raw":"

As we continue our critical investigation of digital technologies and practices, it\u2019s important to consider the many ways that social inequalities are perpetuated in digital spaces.<\/a> In fact, the word \u201ccritical\u201d has a deeper meaning that goes beyond thinking carefully about a topic from different perspectives. It can also be applied more specifically to the examination of power structures within a particular culture and how systems are often used to reinforce the unequal distribution of benefits among different groups of people. In fact, many issues that you might debate with someone are really about power: Who should have the power to make and enforce decisions? Which perspectives, behaviors, and people should be prioritized? Which ones should be subordinated or ignored?<\/p>\r\n

This type of critical analysis requires constant self-awareness and self-discipline to identify flawed thinking, uncover \u201cblindspots\u201d and \u201cself-delusions,\u201d and apply different modes of thinking (e.g., scientific, social, economic, moral) in order to reach a conclusion that will inform personal growth and positive action. It also requires repetition, making you examine the same issue over and over again as you encounter it in different contexts. This is perhaps the most challenging\u2014and important\u2014aspect of critical thinking: adopting a growth mindset that remains open to authentic self-analysis and revision, even (and especially) when it\u2019s an issue in which you struggle to engage with opposing perspectives.<\/p>\r\n

What does critical thinking have to do with social justice? Everything. Your actions are driven by your values and beliefs\u2014your ways of thinking about the world. We all fall into habits of mind based on personal perspectives and social norms, which guide our daily interactions and routines; more often than not, we\u2019re not fully conscious of where our underlying beliefs came from, how they align (or not) with our core values, and what consequences they have on other people. We might overlook or ignore how our actions perpetuate the status quo in big and subtle ways. In contrast, critical thinkers do the difficult work of asking questions, wrestling with contradictions and complications, and silencing the natural feelings of defensiveness and dismissal that emerge when existing assumptions are challenged. The Foundation for Critical Thinking<\/span><\/a><\/span> describes critical thinkers like this:<\/p>\r\n

They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society.<\/p>\r\n

It\u2019s not about guilt. As we studied in chapter 3, everyone has their own terministic screen that shapes the way that they interpret information. Being a critical thinker means that you examine your perspectives and personal biases and that you try your best to understand other viewpoints and experiences that are vastly different from your own.<\/p>\r\n

When it comes to digital technology, this means looking beyond the utopian perspective of technology as being always inherently beneficial for everyone. In fact, contrary to what many people believe, digital technology has not leveled the playing field for minority groups. While it is true that the web was originally intended to be a marketplace of ideas where lots of different voices could be heard, the reality is that the internet has reinforced social inequalities based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education level, age, and so on. Minority groups don\u2019t have equal access to digital technologies, which is particularly true if we consider the different types of access. In his book Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground<\/em><\/span>, Adam Banks identifies five types of access: (1) material access, \u201cequality to the material conditions that drive technology use or nonuse\u201d (41); (2) functional access, having \u201cthe knowledge and skills necessary to use technological tools effectively\u201d (41); (3) experiential access, \u201caccess that makes the tools a relevant part of [the users] lives\u201d (42); (4) critical access, \u201cunderstandings of the benefits and problems of any technology well enough to be able to critique, resist, and avoid them when necessary as well as using them when necessary\u201d (42); and (5) transformative access, \u201cgenuine inclusion in technologies and the networks of power that help determine what they become, but never merely for the sake of inclusion\u201d (45).<\/p>\r\n

Indeed, minority groups struggle with multiple levels of \u201caccess,\u201d and as our culture becomes more reliant on digital technologies for social<\/span><\/a><\/span> (Helsper and Deursen), educational<\/span><\/a><\/span> (Human Rights Watch), professional<\/span><\/a><\/span> (Townsend), and financial<\/span><\/a><\/span> (Sridhar) activities, the digital divide<\/span><\/a><\/span> continues to grow (Li). What\u2019s more, when they are online, minorities continue to experience different forms of discrimination<\/span><\/a><\/span>, such as exclusion, stereotyping, and hate speech intended to belittle and discourage (Nguyen et al.). As you probably know already, hate speech is often more aggressive when done online because people can reach a wider audience; navigate in an echo chamber of other like-minded users who are unlikely to challenge in-group bias; and hide behind keyboards, pseudonyms, and anonymous avatars.<\/p>\r\n

This chapter takes a critical look at the social inequalities that exist within\u2014and are often made worse because of\u2014digital technologies and online spaces. First, we will define what \u201cprivilege\u201d is and how it functions in different contexts. Then we\u2019ll look at some of the social consequences of inequality and how the status quo is perpetuated in digital spaces, even amid technologies that are intended to promote positive change. Finally, we\u2019ll look at some practical tools you can use to evaluate the digital spaces you visit\/support as well as your own digital messaging so you can act as a positive force in the fight for social justice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n