Neoliberal Digitization as Natural Disaster or Cultural Effect

The discursive examination of digitization has its roots in bourgeois modernity. Bourgeois modernity emerged in the European cities of the Middle Ages. The urban bourgeoisie set itself apart from the ruling nobility. These ruling nobles legitimized their claim to power with reference to God. The given hierarchies and power relations are God-given and, therefore, natural. Personal life paths appeared to be manifestations of divine will and not the result of individual effort. Against this meta narration, the bourgeoisie set the narrative of self- development. The afterlife was replaced by a this life. In this world, man creates himself by his strength and effort. It is not surprising that coffee is the bourgeois drink par excellence since this drink gives power for more effort. Man creates himself. Thus the distinction between nature and culture also became relevant. With his culture, man overcomes the challenges of nature. This can be seen in the baroque horticulture. Man subdues nature by turning plants into sculptures and determining the growth of plants. In the educational theoretical discourses of early modernity, this narrative is also visible: man must be 'refined'; Lazy branches have to be cut off so that the pupil is well educated (the cutting off was, of course, metaphorical, but it legitimized strict education). Since the early days of bourgeois society, Dichtomoy Nature/Culture has emphasized the subject's power of action. With culture, he gains control over The World Threatening Nature. Natural disasters are irrational and come through people. It is a result of discourse-analytical research that cultural phenomena such as globalization and digitalization are increasingly being presented as natural events. Globalization is coming, and it is oiled to react to it appropriately. Digitalization is happening, and here too, it is necessary to respond appropriately. In these narratives, the human being with his cultural creative power becomes a delivered actor. As in the case of a natural disaster, man must react appropriately to the challenges of digitization. Man does not constitute the phenomenon of digitalization - which is strictly speaking a cultural phenomenon since man created it.

# Behind this, we lose sight of what the cultural effects are from which phenomena such as digitization arise. in the case of digitization, the cultural framework can be defined well: In the early 1980s, the computer age developed. Personal computers are becoming home PCs and are increasingly becoming part of the household infrastructure. In the 1990s, the Internet, long a project of the military and elite scientific circles, is opened up for commercial use. In the 2000s, the Social Web establishes itself. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp increasingly dominate the digital infrastructure and our daily lives. The HompePc has given way to mobile digital devices such as the laptop, the tablet, the Smartwatch. This increasing development and spread of the Internet since the 1980s, although its roots go back to the 1950s, runs parallel with neoliberal social policy. In 1979 Thatcher established neoliberal social policy in Britain. Since 1980 in the USA. In Germany, more and more since 1998. Neoliberal social policy increasingly established neoliberal thinking or neoliberal meta narration. This neoliberal meta narration also inscribed itself into digitalization.

A neoliberal digitalization is taking place. The narrative structure can be summarized as follows: Digitisation leads to a changing labor market. Established offers are threatened. Whole industries become precarious. The hotel and taxi industries are threatened by digital platform capitalism a la Uber and Airbnb. Disruptive changes are taking place. These disruptive changes are sweeping away everything old - like a tornado sweeping away a village of wooden huts. Digitalization is leading to new economic models, and it is necessary to react to these economic models and their disruptive energy. The reaction lies in a neoliberal social policy that ultimately leads to precarization through neoliberal

Both individuals and states must react to the flexibility of neoliberal digitality: The demands of the labor market can change at any time with the advent of new digital technologies. Other individuals or countries react to this disruptive, irrational, and unpredictable dynamic of digitalization by making employment relationships more flexible. In order not to let other individuals/countries fall behind in global competition, it is necessary to react flexibly. Jobs must be adapted to the demands of global neoliberal digitalization. Against the background of the disruptive energy of digital development, temporary jobs would be a burden, as the flexibility needed by an employer to react to the unpredictable dynamics of digitization would be lost. Digitization is thus being stylized as a natural phenomenon. The cultural aspect, the dimension that people themselves produce the handling of digital media, is lost. Instead, on the basis of neoliberal digitalization, precarity is legitimized. Precarity can be described as stable instability. People are always threatened: by the innovations of digitalization, which threatens well-known securities such as job security. Due to the neoliberal framework, digitization is a phenomenon of competition. Those who do not act appropriately in the dynamics of digitization are left behind - like Kodak, Yahoo, or AOL. People have to learn to live with this precariousness and also with the burnout that the disruptive challenges of digitization bring with them. Or you can critically reflect on the fact
that "Digitalisation" is a cultural effect that creates precariousness. Like any cultural effect, it can also be changed through concrete action. In other words: Precarity is an effect and not an irrational natural phenomenon to which the individuals are subjected.

Add new comment

Log in or register to add a comment.