Oldenburg sociologist Katharina Block is researching whether digitalisation has the power to change social structures. In this interview, she discusses the extent to which the coronavirus pandemic is having or could have an impact in this regard.
You deal with the "sociology of digitalisation" - so the coronavirus pandemic and its side effects should be an exciting area of research for you?
The social impact of digitalisation is particularly exciting because a lot is still unclear in this process. The perspective of a sociologist is different to that of a computer scientist, for example. I see digitalisation as a process that is relevant to the structure of society, similar to the so-called economisation or politicisation of society. In other words, a development is set in motion in a certain area that has consequences for society as a whole, which in the case of digitalisation are far from exhausted. So the question is whether digitalisation has the power to change social structures. It is precisely this macro level that interests me.
To what extent is the increased shift of all possible activities to the digital realm as a result of the pandemic having an impact on society - one that may already be visible?
There is a general tendency to shift more and more to digital. Whether the pandemic is reinforcing this is a very complex question that can only be answered by way of example at the moment and for which it is not yet possible to provide an overarching perspective. One thing that can be observed quite clearly is that digital is becoming more prominent. For example, people are now making even greater use of information from the internet and communicating digitally.
What opportunities and risks does this harbour?
As a scientist, I see myself as a detached observer who first and foremost wants to understand what is happening - initially without making any normative judgements. There are certainly two sides to the coin. On the one hand, we have the opportunity to access more information, but on the other hand, complexity is also increasing. The decision about what we consider to be true and false is becoming individualised. I increasingly have to decide for myself: which sources do I trust and which do I not? Information is viewed much more quickly as supposedly reliable knowledge. It is interesting to see how the public deals with this.
Because they are not used to dealing with uncertain knowledge?
Exactly. Experts in virology, for example, were initially highly frequented, then their constantly changing statements were criticised. In the face of an unknown pathogen, they too are caught between information and knowledge. In order to reduce the complexity in this area of tension, some people create bubbles for themselves - they are driven by the need for reliable knowledge, but realise that they cannot access it because it does not yet exist. We also see bubbles like this with conspiracy theories, which are of course an extreme case. I believe that the vast majority don't subscribe to them. But it's exciting to see how quickly this has reached alarming proportions. The changes in communication and knowledge production are currently getting a boost from the pandemic.
If more intensive digital exchange often replaces, or has to replace, interpersonal contact, what does that mean for society?
Contact between people who are physically present is decreasing - this was already evident before the pandemic. For some time now, we have seen a trend towards more and more communication taking place without physical contact, mediated by technical devices. Now, due to the strict hygiene regulations, it is also affecting traditional forms of gathering - whether it's shooting festivals, fairs and folk festivals, even the Oktoberfest has been cancelled. Perhaps such events and gatherings will generally be cancelled in the future. However, the increased digital exchange seems to me to be perceived as more of a problem by those who didn't grow up with it in the first place.
So there are simply different perspectives on the effects of digitalisation.
In fact, this seems to be a generational issue. For younger people, a large part of their communication takes place digitally anyway - they don't have to perceive it as problematic because they don't know any different. This gap in the perception of whether something is problematised or not is a very interesting field of research for me. The same applies to the view of surveillance, for example through tracking apps in the fight against the pandemic. Here too, opinions differ. Overall, there is great concern that the freedom of the individual could be lost as a guiding value. The fact that we experience ourselves as free individuals with inalienable human rights is an important guiding value of the modern age. However, if such invisible surveillance and control mechanisms become increasingly normalised in the course of advancing digitalisation, then the potential loss of our guiding value would be practically "de-problematised" - with social consequences.
Is there a gap in perception here too?
For me, this is one of the most exciting general questions facing us: to see whether the free individual as a normative guiding value is actually receding more and more into the background - and whether this will even be seen as problematic by the next generations. From my own personal normative perspective, the loss of our self-image as a free individual would be problematic. That sets alarm bells ringing. From a research perspective, on the other hand, the question is to what extent future generations will perhaps no longer share this problematisation that we feel? Perhaps in 50 years' time we will know whether or not society still needs this guiding value to maintain its structure and what this will change.
What consequences will the increasingly digital interpersonal exchange have for the cohesion of society?
That's difficult to say because we're right in the middle of it. The decrease in physical co-presence can certainly lead to isolation or loneliness. At the same time, new forms of socialising are emerging. Work processes are perhaps a good example. A lot of things now happen ad hoc, and it works much better than expected. Many of us remain guided by a dominance of physical co-presence, but new patterns and routines could emerge. Social protests could also change: It is becoming increasingly normal to join together digitally.
What might only be a temporary phenomenon and what could change our society in the long term?
Much remains speculative and can only be determined by analysing the times. Sociologists will have to take a closer look in the coming years and decades. Then it will be possible to see whether and how social structures, norms, values and forms of knowledge have changed in the long term. And perhaps the really exciting question is: what will only be temporarily problematic and what will remain problematic? If I had to speculate now, I would cite questions of responsibility as an important area. The fact that algorithms are increasingly controlling processes will make it more and more difficult to decide who is responsible for something in the future. Decisions can be distributed much more widely and many more players are involved, for example in automated driving. This will lead to a major problematisation, and this will also open up an important field of research for sociology.
Interview: Deike Stolz
