Covid and the Digital Revolution

The moment in history that the covid-19 pandemic crashed in upon, was already one undergoing rapid technological change. The existence of the internet both ensured the rapid global awareness of the virus’ very existence, and also, for those with access to the technology, the means by which some of the effects of the pandemic could be ameliorated. Digital technologies that had been in existence for more than a decade saw an almost immediate explosion of use. Use of home shopping and delivery services exploded, digital conferencing facilities transformed business working practice and kept friends and families in touch during lockdown. Zoom went from a little-known start up to a verb. Tech share values exploded. Jeff Bezos became richer that Croesus. This interaction between the digital ‘fourth industrial revolution’ and covid has changed every aspect of our lives; our relationship to work, to the cities we live in, the structure of our homes, our relationships with each other, with physical intimacy, with the dissemination of knowledge and power. To what extent have these changes been benign, or are we in a process of a transformation too rapid for the very structure of society to keep pace? Are we accelerating to chaos, where the centre cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world?

The Pandemic Perspectives group debated these issues, guided by Niall Gallen, whose work on accelerationism speaks directly to the questions raised. Niall outlined his hypotheses (article to follow) through a metatextual approach, utilising Sadie Plant and Nick Land’s ‘Cyberpositive’, a manifesto-like essay written in 1994 and part of a collection of writings contained in Mackay and Avanessian’s #Accelerate: the Accelerationist Reader (2014)). Embedded in Niall’s paper where discrete but connected links to articles on changing internet use from the New York Times, on sex and dating from YouGov, Tinder in the Indian subcontinent from Fortune, on domestic workspaces from the BBC, Digital technology and the NHS from the Nuffield Trust, the 5G Conspiracy Theory from The Conversation, Far-right exploitation of Covid from IDB, and the global spread of conspiracy theories from the BBC.

Whilst the totality of Niall’s arguments are too complex for simple summation, the general thrust of the accelerationist argument (from ‘Cyberpositive’s’ perspective) is that the rapid transformations brought about by the digital revolution are multi-faceted and cumulative, and that all attempts to stabilise these changes would, in themselves, cause further changes in the form of ‘positive feedback processes’ acting very like an unstoppable viral contagion. This is perhaps best illustrated by the growth of conspiracy theories, were evidence that ‘throwing science’ at believers merely serves to reinforce their beliefs and ‘make them more hardline’. Conspiracy theories about 5G, that assert that the technology is the direct cause of the virus, have lead, despite the absurdity of the claim, to the destruction of mobile telephony masts across the globe, even in countries such as Bolivia where no such network exists.

Ronan Love pushed back against the argument that such conspiracy theories were a phenomena engendered by technology alone. He argued for an explanation more grounded in socio-political trends, arguing that post-modernist trends in academia, that have denied the possibility of objective knowledge, had filtered into public consciousness, giving ‘everyone the right to an opinion’ whether grounded in evidence or not, downgraded the roles of experts, and ‘loosened the boundaries of knowledge’. He also suggested that the changes in political culture that have lead to a decline in political authority were driven more by the effects of neo-liberalism and thereby facilitated, rather than caused, by technological change. In addition, he noted that many of the conspiracies were linked to geo-political shifts, and that 5G conspiracies in particular were a feature of America’s ‘New Cold War’ against China, such xenophobia being common in times of crisis. Carmen, commenting from New York, supported Ronan’s final point, noting that in the US the 5G conspiracy was explicitly linked to Wuhan, China, and that anti-Chinese xenophobia was a rising force, leading to NYPD directives to protect Chinese-Americans and even a marked decline in the consumption of Chinese food.

The changing position of knowledge and power in the digital age was discussed, with Richard Kendall noting the contradictory shifting of its locus, on the one hand to greater democratisation, and in the other to further centralisation as evidenced by the shift to legacy media for information in the early period of the crisis, and the huge audiences for governmental briefings on the BBC in the UK. Foucault was quoted. Ronan noted that this was typical of times of crisis when people, seeking to navigate a way through the new, sought to utilise the tools of the past, a phenomena that is notable in revolutionary France.

Hanan Fara noted the economic disparities that a digital world created, which greatly increased inequality for those who lacked access to the tools. Sadegh Attari, in a sophisticated analogy relating the evolution of technology to that of the human body (which there is insufficient space to do justice to here), argued that technologic tools were now the equivalent of a bodily organ, leading to speculation that those without access to them were in sense destined to be hampered by the equivalent of a physical disability.

At this point Ellen Smith reminded us that the debate had so far been conducted without regard to a post-colonial critique, and that if we reframed the questions without assuming that the developed world was the centre of the story, the conclusions and even the questions would be profoundly different…

The debate continued… To take part, make a comment, get in touch to join the group or set up your own…