Invisibility, Inequality and the Dialectics of the Real in the Digital Age

Abstract

In the digital age, the practical possibility of engaging inequalities as political problems, that is, as problems related to the competition for the control over the distribution of values in society, is undermined by the digital invisibility of reality 
 In the current state of affairs, the digitalization of society reflects the influence of capitalist interpellation and brings about the invisibility of the real. The invisibility of the real through capitalist digitalization, in turn, conflates digitization and digitalization subordinating the latter to the former. Construed as a process inspired by technological rationality, capitalist digitalization undermines the possibility of mobilizing knowledge and legitimizing practices in support of the interpretation of invisibilities in relation to inequalities and injustice. 
 In line with the critical perspective of Andrew Feenberg and others, my approach is that the influence of capitalism in the digital age results from an epistemic appropriation of a technological development. This appropriation is the source of invisibilities that support inequalities and ultimately injustices that can and should be opposed. Leading on from this, my point is that opposition to this influence depends on the possibility of establishing alternative epistemic grounds and the formulation of alternative interpellations for the production of digital subjectivity. 
 To foster the normative agenda of critical theory, I discuss this possibility in terms of the ‘dialectics of the real’, the re-politicization of the social construction of reality in the digital age and the role of critical media literacy.

Official Media Discourse of ‘Active Longevity’: an Attempt to Popularize the Idea of the Inclusion of Older People into Society or to Conceal Undesirable Forced Choices

“…If, "voice is power, storytelling -which facilitates voice -is empowering" (Sehmi, 2000, p. 8), then the selection of stories shown votes only in favour of one idea, thus making invisible those who don't fit into the desired state concept. We can agree with the statement of Fisher (2010) that, "discourse legitimizes patterns of (in)visibility and (in)equality that contribute to the legitimization of capitalist socio-political order" That is why it is important either what is revealed or what is hidden (Stochetti, 2014;2018). Furthermore, invisibility is related to injustice, and it would be very useful to conduct a quantitative study of the representation of older people in the Belarusian discourse and that share of the discussed problems related to this group of people presented in media materials.…”

“…The main characteristics of the political field of Belarus (according to researchers) is a split into power and opposition parts with the president's dominant position as the main subject determining the institutional design of the entire political system and the content of the power narrative (Chulitskaya, 2014). Nevertheless, despite the problems and limitations associated with functioning in a non-democratic state (Balmaceda, 2014;Bassuener, 2013;HRC Viasna 2016, 2018, in the media space the competition of alternative information sources beyond the control of the state is growing, though the reach of state media is still dominant (BAJ, April -June 2016; 2019).…”

Ageism in the era of digital platforms

“…A general principle to tackle discrimination should consider giving the user control of their personal data, that is, control on how the data provided to digital platforms can be used, which implies a movement toward more transparent algorithms. In addition, intelligent algorithms should compensate for the underrepresentation of collectives in less favorable conditions ( Stocchetti, 2018 : 23). It is therefore necessary to design algorithms that are capable of setting up bias-free training data sets ( Pedreschi et al, 2009 ).…”

Structural Ageism in Big Data Approaches

“…Discrimination also operates by making some collectives invisible (Hendricks, 2005), ignoring their particular practices of use, interests and values in the design of new technologies. Invisibilization reinforces inequality and injustice (Stocchetti, 2018), as poor, marginalized and vulnerable collectives may suffer the negative consequences from weapons of math destruction because data models do not consider their interests (O'Neil, 2016).…”