Power, communication and the internet

The study of the digital divide has its roots in the historical investigation of the social and political ramifications of media and communications. This chapter looks at the evolution of ICTs and the contribution of new ICTs to the emergence of the so-called 'information society' with its inevitable inequalities and biases. It highlights the central role of information in the production of power as it has been argued that when information becomes 'useful' and productive, it turns into knowledge (Borgmann, 1999; Roberts, 2000) and so into a potentially powerful social and political tool. The internet is currently one of the main media through which one can transfer and diffuse information worldwide. It is also an important channel used by dominant actors within the information society to exercise and expand their control, and thus produce information and knowledge inequalities.

In exploring the asymmetry of information production and diffusion, one finds that contemporary disciplinary and cross-disciplinary studies offer a range of understandings, assessments and critiques. The internet is a relatively new technology, and it is therefore not always simple to evaluate its social impact, especially while it is still in the process of diffusion and institutionalisation. Nonetheless, given that the internet was developed from previous technologies and within an existing social context, it is wise to observe the history of media and the use of information first, rather than to rush into forming new theories and frameworks of analysis. Exploring how media and communications were historically used to gain social, economic and political power, this chapter delineates the background to understand the significant role of the internet and search engines today, suggesting that in line with previous patterns they offer limitations as well as possibilities for social change. The following chapters will examine more specifically the role of search engines and Google in this context, particularly their contribution to the digital divide of information uses.

Communication and power

Over the years, dominant actors have used communication in order to exert power and control, and communication practices have in return shaped the way in which power is exerted. Two leading media and communication theorists, Harold Innis and Armand Mattelart, provide an historical account of the relation between communications and political power and, in many ways, construct the foundations of the concept of the digital divide. The writings of Innis are particularly relevant for his development of the key concepts of communication bias and monopoly of knowledge. Mattelart provides a comprehensive and wide analysis of the political aspects of communications, the information society and the digital divide, which will be used throughout the book.

Innis was one of the first to examine the operation of empires from a media and communication perspective. His basic proposition is that the 'effective government of large areas depends to a very important extent on the efficiency of communication' (Innis, 1972: 7). He defines 'empire' as an institution within a civilisation that promotes a monopoly of communication and therefore also a monopoly of knowledge. Monopoly of knowledge has three applications in his work: (a) monopoly of knowledge by one dominant form of communication (such as oral or written communication); (b) monopoly of knowledge by one dominant resource and technology (such as printing and paper, papyrus or parchment); and (c) monopoly of knowledge by one dominant class or group (such as the clergy or the middle class). Innis finds similar communication patterns among empires throughout history. He believes that the monopoly of knowledge eventually threatens the stability of the empire, suggesting that successful and efficient empires could usually maintain a certain balance between a variety of media forms, resources and users.

From a different perspective, Mattelart (1980) explains the role of communication in reinforcing dominant social and political norms and structures. Using a Marxist framework, Mattelart describes how the mass media of radio and television were used to reinforce the dominant bourgeois ideology in Chile in the mid-1970s. The Marxist notion of 'dominant ideology' shows similarities to the 'monopoly of knowledge' described in many of Innis's texts. While Innis provides various applications of the 'monopoly of knowledge', Mattelart focuses mainly on class hegemony. Both Innis and Mattelart argue that this dominant ideology, disseminated through media channels and 'unifying' people under similar knowledge patterns, eventually forms imperial power. Interestingly, Mattelart claims that a long-lasting empire is one that can maintain a plurality of expressions, while Innis talks about heterogeneous media that have both time and space orientations, and a balance between writing and oral traditions.1 The plurality of Mattelart is somewhat different from that of Innis: it is a plurality that offers the opportunity to express different opinions. Only media that allow the receiver to transmit can obtain and maintain this plurality.

Innis's 'monopoly of knowledge' is related to a useful (though not problem-free) distinction between two types of media. The first type is concerned with duration over time, while the second deals with extension in space. Time-biased media and communication tools refer to heavy materials such as stone that lasts for a long time but has a limited diffusion. For example, the ancient theocratic empires used stone architecture to communicate 'authority' and to exert control locally. Innis also considers the spoken language as a time-biased communication tool as it is inherited locally and not so easily diffused. Space-biased media and communication tools refer to lighter materials such as paper, which has a relatively short life but great diffusion. Later empires used the press and other light technologies to communicate and exert control globally.

The development of monopolies of knowledge (based on dominant media forms, resources or class) and their inevitable biases can be seen throughout history. The invention of paper and later the press, a spaced-biased medium à la Innis, contributed to urbanisation, as paper could be produced cheaply, primarily in cities. Ultimately, this is why when the innovation of paper reached Europe, it transferred control over media production from rural monasteries to urban cathedral schools and universities. It also encouraged the revival of a vernacular literature, rather than one dominated by Latin, and consequently helped in the development of a collective feeling of a national 'imagined community' (Anderson, 1983) as well as a new political bureaucracy. Together with the popularity of paper as a medium, the printing press emerged, leading to the mass production of texts in many languages. At first, these texts were predominantly religious, but gradually prose, science and politics also benefited from the Gutenberg revolution (McLuhan, 1962). Newspapers, published daily, became a force in disseminating current events as well as strengthening public awareness and engagement in social and political life.

For the British Empire, the press helped to reinforce literary activities, and the English language was employed to establish cultural domination within its colonies (Ngugi, 1986). The invention of the telegraph and the telephone linked distant places and worked toward the expansion and control of greater areas. By 1880, the British Empire had an extensive international telecommunications system that provided economic and geopolitical control (Headrick, 1991; Hills, 2002). The emergence of radio and wireless technology increased the economic and military coordination and efficiency across the oceans and later also in the air. This technology was employed by the USA and Germany to a greater extent than by the UK, which was still counting mainly on its global telegraph and cable systems. Thus, McMahon (2002) believes that the failure of Britain to lead the development of radio was a factor in the reduction of its global power and influence. In contrast, Hills (2002) suggests that it was not the lack of technological capabilities as much as Britain's insistence of retaining radio broadcasting under state ownership, unlike in the USA where companies began broadcasting worldwide on a commercial basis.

The mass production of newspapers and radio provided fertile ground for advertisements and propaganda, as well as for nationalism and communism. Their unidirectional nature served the conflicting interests of dominant actors leading to the Second World War. By the beginning of the Cold War, the USA had invested heavily in developing ICTs, which translated into global economic and political advantages. In 1975, satellites and microwave technologies provided the USA with the possibility of full global coverage and control over information worldwide, carrying voice, telex, television, fax and other data simultaneously. Furthermore, satellite technology was so expensive and complex that the supply of equipment was dominated by the USA, the Soviet Union and a few wealthy Western countries. Encouraged by governmental support, US corporations, particularly communication companies, gradually formed worldwide dominant monopolies and...