DIGITAL INEQUALITY AS A PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD
Опубліковано 30.01.2026
Як цитувати
Завантаження
Авторське право (c) 2026 Rudych Anastasiia

Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Анотація
The study utilizes bibliometric network analysis to identify the disciplinary structure and research gaps in studying digital inequality via analyzing extent literature between 1999 and 2025. The study investigates the phenomenon of digital inequality in the face of a globalized world as a logical consequence of economic development polarization. It reveals the essence of digital inequality and elucidates its philosophical and methodological foundations. The author specify the impact of digital polarization on communities’ engagement in three areas of human activity, namely societal, political and economic areas. The study examined the role of digital platforms and their influence tools on enhancing digital inequality. Digital platforms are becoming the modern regulators of social behaviour, a political instrument for crowd manipulation, displacing classic offline formats of interaction between people. Digitalization alters institutional architecture at all levels of management. Thus, ubiquitous digitalization is shaping a new reality and limits an individual in their right to choose. The author’s model of structural levels of digital inclusion incorporate the digital core, the connected majority, the forcibly excluded community, the unconnected and excluded groups. The categories of power, autonomy of the individual and justice in terms of digital presence in the network were redefined, based on the concepts of Arendt, Rifkin and Foucault.
Посилання
- 1. Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago & London.
- 2. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.
- 3. Hayles, N. K. (2025). Bacteria to AI: Human Futures with our Nonhuman Symbionts. University of Chicago Press.
- 4. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. The University of Chicago Press.
- 5. Kuhn, C., Khoo, S. M., Czerniewicz, L. et al. (2023). Understanding Digital Inequality: A Theoretical Kaleidoscope. Postdigital Science and Education, 5, 894–932. DOI: 10.1007/s42438-023-00395-8.
- 6. Livingstone, H. (2025, December 10). Australia has banned social media for kids under 16. How will it work? BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo.
- 7. McCullagh, D. (2011, February 2). Egypt’s Internet Still Offline, a Day Later. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/amid-unrest-egypt-went-offline-roundup.
- 8. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London and New York.
- 9. Maniukov, O. (2021). Measurements of inequality in political metamodernism (Hanzi Freinacht) and the age of access (Jeremy Rifkin). The Journal of V. N. Karazin National University, 65, 22-31. DOI: 10.26565/2226-0994-2021-65-3.
- 10. Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2000/documents/charter.html.
- 11. OECD glossary of statistical terms (2008). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2008/09/oecd-glossary-of-statistical-terms_g1gh9ad7/9789264055087-en.pdf.
- 12. Scopus : abstract and citation database. https://www.scopus.com/.
- 13. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2013). A Theory of the Digital Divide. In M. Ragnedda & G. W. Muschert (Eds.), The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective, 73,
- (pp. 29-51).