Keywords

The growing networking of computers and the establishment of browsers and the World Wide Web in the early 1990s were perceived early on in the social sciences as drivers of social change processes: It was believed that if the limitations of natural communication were replaced by a mode of exchange where spatial distance no longer plays a role, this would result in an enormous increase of options for each user. New ways of relating to the world would open up and things like work, the neighbourhood in which one lived, friendships or available educational institutions—things that had been determined by spatial proximity since time immemorial—would need to be reassessed in light of global networking (Rheingold 1994; Negroponte 1995). The technological accessibility of the world was equated with new options for action, hailed by the globalisation discourse of the late 1990s.

In the past two decades, academic research on these new conditions has gained more and more momentum, while at the same time the Internet as the object of research has changed rapidly. Whereas the nodes of the digital network used to be computers that users had to operate in a fixed location, they have now become powerful small devices such as smartphones, tablets or wearables that users carry with them. Whereas access to the world used to take place through the use of a keyboard or display, now voice commands, gestures or, increasingly, the mere passing of sensors are enough to trigger automated processes. Whereas until the turn of the millennium the content of the Internet was more like a showcase that could be furnished only by experts, it has since become a participatory and collaborative space (Web 2.0), facilitating the breakthrough of numerous platforms and social networks. Thanks to the recent development toward a semantic web (often headlined as Web 3.0), which contextualises queries and automatically recognises relevance contexts, the growing use of artificial intelligence and, last but not least, the increasing penetration of networked objects into everyday life (Internet of Things), users seem to be empowered even further. As new digital spaces are opening up, mediatisation is becoming a social metaprocess that determines how people communicate (Hahn 2021).

The transformation toward a “digital society” (Housley et al. 2022) will continue and business representatives, scholars and politicians all stress the importance of IT skills as key competencies. However, the question remains if digitalisation can help to break the patterns of the stratification processes shown here.

In a spatial perspective, the question of the importance of digital skills for capital acquisition can first be considered in an extended real space: A change in the quality of everyday life as a result of IT services and the growing connectivity of things should have an impact on the individual's options for perception and action. From low-cost ride sharing services to remote control of household functions or the use of data glasses—all these innovations can help users save money and provide them with contact opportunities or new stimuli, facilitating the acquisition of capital in real space. However, it is by no means clear whether this changes anything about the important connection between everyday spaces of action and the possibility of obtaining resources relevant for advancement. Ultimately, users of modern technologies, as they are physically present in real space, continue to be subject to the same socialisation conditions that have shaped their habitus.

This changes in a situation where people have the option to temporarily withdraw from the real world, while they are still able to obtain essential resources: In cyberspace or virtual space, numerous everyday activities such as shopping, playing games, bookings, maintaining contacts or attending classes can be carried out digitally. Its terms are fundamentally different from real space. Place and time become less significant; what is more, as no other person is physically present, the form of communication, its intensity and commitment all obtain a different quality. It could be argued that local effects tend to lose their influence in this virtual sphere. With its low threshold, cyberspace offers the opportunity to become familiar with the rules, tastes and conventions of distant milieus and then make use of the acquired competencies in real space. Part of such a strategy can be a vigorous self-education, which also seems to be obtainable via numerous offers on the Internet, independent of space, anonymously and at low cost.

Furthermore, the conditions for the constitution of space in the virtual sphere could also be very different from the regulations of real space. A greater influence of disadvantaged population groups could help create a parallel world with fewer hierarchies, providing individuals with convertible resources regardless of their milieu.

This section will therefore examine action and structure in virtual space in more detail, comparing it with the regulations of the physical real space described above. To begin with, an artificial distinction between physical space and cyberspace will be made to help illustrate space-related opportunities. Subsequently, the numerous links between physical real space and cyberspace will be analysed, focusing on the growing use of intelligent control mechanisms in real space as well as the possibility of influencing real space from cyberspace.

Finally, when we consider the new potentials related to digitalised real space and, in particular, virtual space, it must be taken into account that obtaining digital content is possible across society only in an unequal manner. Research in the field of education has identified considerable limitations, which are referred to and analysed as digital divides or digital inequalities. Taking these findings into account, the goal will be to explore the extent to which digitalisation can nevertheless defy the restrictions on capital acquisition that have been highlighted, and in which areas of everyday life the spatial-social regimentation can possibly be dissolved.

3.1 Transformations into the Virtual: Structure and Plot

Spatial structures condition processes of education and upward mobility in a special way. As has been shown, with respect to real space this is true for two reasons: For one, there are numerous site effects, and secondly, opportunities for a constitution of space conducive to advancement are inscribed in these structures. Since in a relational understanding of space which has been explored based on Löw´s theory, spatial structures are not given, but are constituted through action, reproduced in repetitive practices and anchored in institutions, they are to be understood as a reflection of unequal resources. The real space thus produced distorts the conditions for capital acquisition in both directions: It favours the privileged and hampers those segments of the population who lack capital. The spatial experience becomes entrenched and influences the habitus, which in turn determines patterns of perception and action. “The class-specific character of the spaces penetrates into the bodies” (Löw 2016, p. 149).

When we look at virtual space or cyberspace, the described conditions of structure and action described above take on a different meaning. Cyberspace provides an environment that can be used for economic-pragmatic, experimental or utopian purposes in equal measure. It shares some of the features of the Internet, which, as a global hypermedium of linked sites with texts, graphics, sounds and videos, also relies on the infrastructure of computer media, allowing for actions in the virtual sphere. Significant areas of cyberspace can be realised within the topography of networks of the World Wide Web. At the same time, cyberspace provides an even larger field of action in that it conveys the illusion of spatial depth and realistic motion sequences within as well as outside of the Internet. In addition to computer games and simulations, it involves virtual realities that allow for total immersion via glasses, data gloves or a 3D mouse. However, as will be discussed further, cyberspace mostly depends on the Internet to actually make relevant resources available.

As a constantly changing space that can be experienced on several levels simultaneously, it is useful to conceive of cyberspace relationally, in analogy to Löw's concept of space. Löw (2016) uses cyberspace as an example to counteract the absolutist/monolithic concept of space, tying it to the relational perspective: “When spaces are reified as territories or concrete places, the constitution of spaces in cyberspace is systematically excluded” (Löw 2016, p. 79). It is obvious that their constitution is also the result of the actions of individuals. However, the transfer of this terminology to cyberspace reveals blind spots that make it clear that Löw was less concerned with its conceptual integration (see also Herrmann 2010, p. 14). To begin with, Löw's main point of departure, defining space as a “relational arrangement of living beings and social goods in places” needs to be specified for the virtual sphere: Virtual arrangements do not refer to the physicality of living beings or physical conditions, but at best to their digital image. Thiedeke uses the term cybernetic sociofacts that result from encounters that take place in a virtualised environment, producing and reproducing a very different reality than physically bound individuals and artefacts (Thiedeke 2004, p. 16). He talks of “cybernetic sociofacts” encountering each other in a virtual environment, (re-)producing a reality that is very different from that of physically bound individuals and artefacts. It is a characteristic of cyberspace that it can be generated within its technical infrastructure solely by means of numbers, not requiring any digital representation of actual physical conditions. But since users have been socialised in real space, numerous translations of real space can be found in cyberspace to make it more relatable. Images are certainly helpful for finding one´s way in the virtual parallel world, providing orientation and making cyberspace attractive as a copy. This virtual continuum is also structured by numerous spatial metaphors (“surfing”, “firewall”, “cloud”, etc.), facilitating operation of synthesis there. In this sense, even localities which according to Löw are “the goal and result of placing”, remain at best abstract analogies in the virtual sphere.

Since action that constitutes space is bound to the synthesis of what exists, virtual actions must also take place in a different mode. This also applies to building, erecting or spacing—processes that only allow for a conceptual transferability in cyberspace where virtual analogies to real space exist already. Moreover, action does not take place through appearing physically, as there are completely different potentials available in cyberspace. Processes of arranging are realised via clicks and mouse movements, sensors or touch screens at a high speed, there is the option of exact copiability, and access options are different. The constitution of space can even take place without any human action, as in virtual space new forms of interaction exist between technical artefacts, each with its own constitution performance (agents, avatars, or bots).

Apart from the need for specification in the transfer of Löw's sociology of space to cyberspace, the crucial question with reference to social stratification processes is about the fundamental opportunities for the constitution of space in cyberspace. At first glance, it is the users who constitute new digital spaces through their actions—producing websites, initiating forums and shaping the spatial structure of cyberspace with their own content.

On closer inspection, however, the possibility of constituting cyberspace is linked to further technical prerequisites. The individual and collaborative creation of spaces does not change the fact that this is possible only within an existing infrastructure, specific software and numerous technical components such as Internet protocols, algorithms, operating systems, platforms, networks and page configurations. Unlike real space, which is socially constructed and enables actions a priori, albeit in highly different ways, there is no virtual space outside of its technical infrastructure. Although it appears limitless and continues to expand rapidly, it relies on a man-made input which follows certain conditions. There are legal and technical limits to the creation of space and many activities are subject to an existing “code”. “Out there on the electronic frontier, code is the law” (Mitchell 1996, p. 111). Beyond virtual space, the rules of the code reach into everyday life in real space and enable or impede actions that constitute space. Kitchin and Dodge (2011) have used numerous examples to examine the power of codes, illustrating how they have become embedded as hidden rules in numerous contexts. They distinguish between “coded space” and “code/space”. Whereas coded space refers to a space in which the software assumes merely a supporting function (e.g., presentation software), code/space creates this space and its function. To give an example, without functioning technology a check-in counter at an airport would be nothing more than an unorganised collection of people. Here, spatiality is the product of the code (Ibid., p. 16). Despite its importance, code/space does not fundamentally determine the design of space, as a variety of spatial arrangements are conceivable depending on the context as well as the interactions of people, which can be irrational and unpredictable (Ibid., p. 18). Nevertheless, it is evident that the resource-based power to constitute space—online as well as offline—is effectively concentrated in the background, emanating in particular from those actors who have the means to access and shape the code. If we explore the question of causation further and ask about the respective origin of the code, the related distribution of power for the constitution process of space seems even less tangible than in the non-digital context that was described above. The exact composition and mode of action of the code itself is equally intransparent. In most cases, the user does not know what is stored by a data medium and who benefits from it and in what way. Authorship is blurred by different forms of participation—cloud providers, network operators, designers, developers or hackers, as well as the possibility of bringing about autonomous decision-making processes via artificial intelligence. In summary, an unequal distribution of power is undoubtedly inherent in cyberspace as well. However, the difficulty of locating this power additionally curtails users´ ability to orient themselves within the system, to make informed decisions and to deal with problems in ways that benefit them. For users who have the necessary skills, it is still possible to benefit from hegemonic code/space contexts (Zook and Graham 2018).

Ultimately, the possibility to participate in the constitution of cyberspace varies between different segments of the population, as it requires specific skills (such as the ability to program) or resources to influence the virtual environment. Such an influence can happen through purchasing technical infrastructure, acquiring web space or participating in a digital business model, which makes it clear that the actual constitution of space does not take place in cyberspace itself, but is controlled by hired programmers from real space. From there, it provides different frameworks of possibilities for users in cyberspace—from pre-programmed virtual reality games to the creation of a new website. Accordingly, the necessary resources one needs to shape the constitution process in the virtual sphere to one´s advantage are not fundamentally different from real space. Depending on one´s position in the system of the web economy, Bourdieu's types of capital are again helpful, whereas their individual significance may differ. While the head of an Internet company can influence cyberspace thanks to their contacts, financial means and education, the significance of these resources can diminish the closer one is to the actual programming work. For a professional programmer, someone who dabbles in IT as a hobby or is active as an independent hacker, specific programming skills diminish the importance of cultural and social capital. The stereotypical programmer nerd, isolated in a cold garage and living on delivered pizza and defying the usual conventions in appearance, language or personal hygiene, demonstrates that the acquisition of economic capital does not necessarily require social adjustment. The ability to constitute space becomes independent of the place of action. The “symbolic and material factors” emphasised by Löw, which can be found in a given situation of action (2016, p. 130f), lose their importance, as does the habitus of the agent that Löw also stresses. Nevertheless, as these and other examples from the new web economy demonstrate, there is no fundamental shift in opportunities in favour of the disadvantaged segments of the population. While the constitution of cyberspace follows different rules than those described by Löw for real space, it still presupposes very specific resources that, apart from IT experts, continue to be largely concentrated in the hands of capital-rich actors who can directly or indirectly influence the code.

In contrast, if we consider the options for action in cyberspace, there actually exist more opportunities for advancement. The scientific euphoria about its possibilities and the numerous opportunities for acquiring capital is based on characteristics that fundamentally distinguish cyberspace from physical space: For one thing, interaction and communication in virtual space are no longer tied to a specific temporal-spatial context. Users can establish a relationship across large spatial distances and without temporal offset. This implies a detachment of users from the social environment of real space and their emancipation from the influence of socially assigned places. In her sociology of space, Löw had emphasised this physical attachment as an essential regulative: “The body thus gains an essential significance in several respects. In the first place, people are physically in the world. They move and take place with the body. In the second place, the physical expression guides both the placements and the syntheses of other people. This bodily expression and its perception are permeated by the structural principles class and gender. The body is thus at the centre of many constitutions of space” (Löw 2016, p. 151). While not all actions in virtual space are independent of physical presence, especially those performed with the help of the Internet completely transcend physical and face-to-face forms of exchange.

In addition, cyberspace also breaks open the information and educational structure of real space by making available things that could not be accessed in the same way in the pre-digital age via books, newspapers or other media. However, it must be taken into account that the actual use of these offers often requires media transfers that lead back into real space. For example, a virtual job ad will usually lead to a face-to-face interview, and deeper social relationships rely on a physical presence preceding or following the virtual contact. After finding a new employee through the Internet, the employer will also expect a physical encounter, and the quality of the digitally acquired skills must be demonstrated in the real world. This does not change the fact that the opportunity of finding information and contacts digitally represents a historically unique potential, which can enable computer users to shed, at least partially, the isolating and limiting conditions of their place of origin.

Furthermore—and this appears to be a fundamental difference from physical space—cyberspace can be accessed and explored largely without any hierarchy, regardless of capital resources. Characteristics of inequality such as income, appearance or status are no longer relevant entry criteria in the virtual world. When it comes to the Internet, every user can navigate it without barriers and under the same conditions, is allowed to enter social meeting places or networks in the same way and can consume instructive content with the same comfort as every other user. As will be explained in more detail, the virtual movement between millions of pages in the virtual medium of the Internet does not take place in a completely unstructured space. Again, the mode defined in the (program) code has a fundamental effect on the user's actions by predetermining what can be done on which page. Furthermore, the link structure creates virtual neighbourhoods that can make it easier or harder to reach certain pages, tying the likelihood of access to visibility and perception. We will come back to this soft control later.

Overall, however, cyberspace is largely open in its layout. The divisions of real space discussed above, which create inequality between groups of people, as well as the unequal possibility of disposing of spaces as a resource (cf. Löw 2016, p. 233), thus seem to play a lesser role in cyberspace.

For the time being, the following conclusion can be drawn. Although the conditions for the constitution of virtual space remain difficult, the threshold for action in virtual space is lower than for real space. Consequently, we can no longer assume a “duality of space” for cyberspace. This is where the transfer of Löw's concept is no longer useful, as the space-constituting actors act largely from real space, while cyberspace users can only take advantage of digital space once they “enter” it. As demonstrated, different conditions exist between spaces, which, depending on the focus of action, can override the reciprocal referentiality of action and structure.

In the further course of this chapter, we will put aside the rules of the space-constituting actors in order to explore the opportunities for capital acquisition in virtual space. In concrete terms, the three dimensions of restrictions in social space and disadvantages in real space which have been diagnosed can be applied to cyberspace.

3.2 Capital Acquisition in Cyberspace

In contrast to the numerous disadvantages that limit the inhabitant of an urban residential area in the form of physical (health limitations, lack of infrastructure, structural deficiencies, etc.), social or psychological characteristics (social environment, a feeling of confinement, image, etc.), the aim so far has been to capture more fundamentally why social advancement is difficult for the resource-poor sections of the population. Space in its reproducing function, as a condition and result of action, has been the main focus, arguing that the constitution of space results from actions which deprive disadvantaged segments of the population of resources relevant for advancement. Spaces and, more concretely, places as unique and specifically designated sections of space, are mainly based on the interests of capital-strong actors. They are constituted as part of an economic logic of utilisation, and it is no longer possible to understand relations of cause and effect solely in a local context. Amidst such complexity, it is difficult to capture and to act against the disadvantages that result from them. The inability to improve one´s situation is perceived as fateful as abstract market forces negatively impact an individual´s spatial opportunity structure. The resignation in the face of existing spatial conditions corresponds with the general acceptance of the existing order as described by Bourdieu (Doxa) (cf. 1979, S. 322–330). As is true for the spatial environment, this order is perceived as normal and therefore—just like the spatial environment—it cannot be questioned politically.

In this perspective, it has also been made clear that real-space inequality can have many different faces, from gated communities to abstract atmospheres that have an excluding effect. Crucial to the evaluation of these inequalities is the distribution of resources that play a role in the socialisation and education process. Resources represent all material and immaterial means and circumstances that can facilitate an individual´s social advancement, with the goal of improving one´s position in society and participating in society´s goods. At a first glance, this seems to imply the ubiquity of resources, as every place can in principle offer inspiration, contacts or individual support. The importance of habitus, which goes beyond occupational qualification and includes manners, style of dress, taste or language, seems to multiply the sources and places of acquisition in real space as well. At closer inspection, however, this diversity is also characterised by hierarchies and limitations. As has been illustrated, these hierarchies and limitations, together with the ongoing reproduction of unequal conditions produce a highly asymmetrical opportunity structure on a wide variety of scale levels that calls for an examination of all physical and perceived reference points of day-to-day life beyond the residential area, the school or the workplace. A more difficult or even non-existent access to places and persons offering relevant resources has been summarised in three mutually influencing dimensions: (a) physical inaccessibility and distance, (b) lack of perception and (c) social distance.

Because of its wealth of universally accessible resources, virtual space has the potential to overcome real-space limitations. Every user who is able to navigate cyberspace is given a new mobility that requires a reassessment of all three dimensions. In spite of the possibilities that cyberspace offers, it must not be forgotten that human action still requires physical space. Human activity aimed at fulfilling basic needs, as expressed systematically in the seven basic functions of existence (housing, work, consumption, education, recreation, use of infrastructure and living in community) (Partzsch 1970), does not have a counterpart in cyberspace. The place of residence with its functions for the body (shelter, sleep, food) remains a focus of daily life. Furthermore, it is not possible to learn and work entirely removed from real space, and both will also continue to require use of transportation in real space.

At the same time, for all basic functions of existence there are several examples of a partial real-space compensation which weaken the structure of real space and have an enabling quality resulting from the huge range of offers of the digital economy. For housing, it could be argued that location and furnishings partly lose their importance thanks to the options of obtaining numerous digital services. While a large real-space distance to relevant locations (ways of living alien to one´s milieu, contact options, educational infrastructure) might persist, influencing the perception of valuable offers that exist outside of one´s real-space world of daily life, cyberspace offers many alternatives. The variety of options provided by Internet-based services for ordinary needs and activities seems limitless. In the boundless expanse of the Internet, one can find countless offers to get to know content foreign to one´s own milieu and learn things that are relevant for upward mobility. Fundamentally, every user has access to a world promising contact and exchange via social networks, making products available through e-commerce or offering information in a variety of contexts. In the digital age, the simplified acquisition of global information and knowledge resources makes the place from which this takes place relative. In short, Bourdieu´s oft-cited “boundedness” no longer plays a role in the virtual context (Bourdieu 1991, S. 30; 1999, S. 127).

One of the basic functions of existence, education, which is the prerequisite for qualified work and a key factor in lowering inequality (cf. Piketty, 2014, p. 40), can be obtained by taking up and accepting the right virtual offers. Media literacy is of central importance here, its acquisition in school and everyday life providing new access to resources. The opportunities highlighted lie in the diversity of resources available via mobile phone or tablet, in new forms of teaching that weaken reproductive mechanisms in favour of technical skills, game-based approaches or group work, they lie in the individualisation of learning opportunities or in innovative programmes for the self-acquisition of knowledge (Choudhury et al. 2023).

Referring to Bourdieu and the practices of distinction detailed above, education requires not only school curricula, but also the possibility to get to know the relevant dimensions of taste and opinion which create distinction and demarcation in everyday life. Without doubt, the habitus continues to be shaped by the family as the traditional place of socialisation as well as by the larger social and spatial environment, and a person´s inner and outer reality are developed primarily in real space. Nevertheless, cyberspace always offers the chance to at least perceive content foreign to the milieu and even become part of a new community. The limitations of real space can be overcome by frequenting virtual facilities and online communities—at all times and in all places. Finding out about the latest trends in the virtual sphere does not require a day trip to the nearest metropolis. Museums make their content available online, and innovative computer games engage users with the experience of the unfamiliar. The exchange about trends, the display of taste and the articulation of social currents takes place on the open stage of streaming platforms, promotional videos, forums and networks. Real-space barriers and distances that contributed to a reproductive logic of stratification (club effects) are countered in cyberspace by universal accessibility.

Social network services in particular can be viewed as new virtual social spaces which, within the framework of the provider´s fixed terms of use, serve every user´s relationship and information management (Koput 2010; Schmidt et al. 2009, S. 27). While Bourdieu stressed the logic of the constitution of groups based on internal exchange and mutual recognition, contributing to the consolidation of group boundaries (Bourdieu 1983, S. 192), in cyberspace membership can be achieved after a few clicks. Now users can share their messages with everyone, express their interests in specialised communities, exchange ideas and join other groups at any time. Thereby, social spaces are not only pluralised, but they can overlap. Due to its size and diversity of use, Facebook is the ideal platform for studying how contacts are created and maintained. It allows one to look at other people´s profiles, to leave messages there, to collect “friends” or to join groups with shared interests. As demonstrated by the study on adolescents´ media activity conducted by Brüggen and Schemmerling (2014) with respect to Facebook, virtual social spaces are basically permeable. It is easy to make a first casual contact. In contrast, the study also found that the adolescents rarely make deliberate connections between different social spaces and in most cases, users interact with friends or friends of their friends. While in practice people do not necessarily connect with groups foreign to their own milieu, the technological conditions to do so do exist. Besides the access to cultural capital, network services also offer access to social capital. Numerous studies have been conducted drawing attention to the potential Facebook has in this respect. Relationships on social networks can strengthen real-space contact and help rekindle offline relationships from the past (Ellison et al. 2007; Subrahmanyam et al. 2008). Other studies have stressed how teenagers build relationships in the digital sphere (Manago et al. 2012), underscoring the positive correlation between the acquisition of social capital and the number of online friends as well as the time invested (Ellison et al. 2011; Steinfield et al. 2008). More recent investigations of the acquisition of social capital put a stronger emphasis on the way people act on the network. Intensive use of digital channels, it is shown, does not automatically lead to capital gains. It could be demonstrated that it takes more targeted messages to significantly improve individual consent (Bohn et al. 2014) or that introverted behaviour can seriously impede the acquisition of social capital compared to extroverted users (Weiqin et al. 2016). Despite the different preconditions that users bring with them, the opportunity for a casual and partly anonymous appearance on the net can alleviate the burdens of face-to-face interaction. Socially anxious and shy people seem to find it easier to express themselves and come into contact with others (Ellison et al. 2007), which can lead to positive self-effects (Valkenburg 2017).

In relation to resource access, these new conditions of making contact on Facebook and many other networks refer mainly to social distance in real space, where barriers exist even though the resources can be perceived and are within reach. This inability to fulfil implicit expectations, the problem of feeling out of place and not having the necessary capital, was the main focus of the works of Bourdieu. (cf. Bourdieu 1991, S. 32). As ascriptive characteristics (gender, appearance, clothes) do not really play a role in cyberspace, structures which in real space immediately lead to a milieu-specific pre-categorisation seem to lose their importance. The “subtle differences” in appearance, the refined codes in the choice of clothing or references associated with a self-designed living space—they all temporarily lose their importance in the virtual sphere. Some sensory impressions, such as smell or touch, play no role at all in digital interactions, and this is also true in part for auditory and visual expressions (cf. Suler 2015, S. 112ff). Across the spectrum of different communication channels, it is up to the user to decide which characteristics they want to hide at first and which ones they want to highlight. One could, therefore, argue that a partial concealment of the habitus gives one the possibility to acquire new resources in cyberspace. In addition, this opens up possibilities for an alternative self-definition. It is a free play of identities where new worlds of experience open up, bringing each user a bit closer to fulfilling their desire to choose their role. In her extensive studies about “Life on the Screen”, Sherry Turkle captured in great detail the strategies and effects of the “newly chosen self” in qualitative interviews (Turkle 1998, S. 289ff). The chance to be whoever or whatever we want to be, experiment, act out fantasies, put on a disguise—they all severely undermine Bourdieu´s distinction mechanisms. While the effects of socialisation still exist, they can be expanded or concealed in a playful manner. As an expert in a community of one´s own choosing, a specialised blogger or anonymous activist, one can shed stereotypical categorisations about them, strategically putting the focus on strengths and interests. From a psychological perspective as well, it has been demonstrated how digital interaction detached from copresence influences personality and identity (cf. Renner et al. 2005).

In the meantime, offers on the Internet and in cyberspace have increased to such an extent that the chance to partly conceal the habitus, selectively highlighting available forms of capital, also works for other forms of social interaction: A virtual town hall, telemedical consultation, Internet banking or online shops deprive authorities, doctors, lenders or businesses of a lot of information they might have used to the client´s disadvantage in the pre-digital age. In addition, there other alternatives liberating users from constricting conventions, such as anonymous chats or self-chosen roles in virtual reality. Search engines, first and foremost Google, guide users toward their interests free of charge.

With regard to the basic function of existence “living in community”, matchmaking agencies and dating apps could be mentioned, which at first also undermine negative pre-categorisations. The logic of likely contacts in the real-space environment of home, school or work as well as acquaintances from the familiar milieu is undermined in cyberspace. Finally, encounters can occur between people who would never have met in real space due to different action spaces, a lack of awareness of these spaces and of the possibility of social connection.

Finally, the basic functions of existence “participating in infrastructure” or “recreation” could, implemented in the virtual sphere, also make it possible to overcome the three restricting dimensions. While the opportunity to overcome spatial distances as a central characteristic of cyberspace has already been pointed out, this is only partially true for recreation, as in a vacation far from home. On the one hand, the digital possibilities of exploring far-away places (e.g., Google Earth, Bing Maps) and conditions (e.g., travel blogs, evaluation portals) can help to broaden one´s horizon. Seeing how others live, how they spend their free time and what their milieu looks like makes partial access possible, but this is certainly not the same as going somewhere for recreation (or for inspiration and education). What is more, it greatly depends on the available capital. At the same time, digital technologies make travel easier through price comparisons, and the quality of the stay can be improved. A smartphone with Internet access can be a valuable travel companion for everyone, independent of the social background. As demonstrated in studies by Wang et al. (2012, 2016), tourists feel safer thanks to the use of smartphones and are encouraged to explore more places and try out new things.

In summary, a look at the different basic functions of existence demonstrates that there are digital applications for all relevant areas of life that can build a bridge to resources relevant for social advancement. The example of the central square which has lost its agora function due to power-based arrangements and mechanisms of exclusions was used to illustrate the reproducing logic of stratification in real space. It seems that in the age of digitalisation; numerous new virtual squares are opening up that are accessible independent of one´s capital endowment. Neither inaccessibility nor distance nor perception or social distance are relevant dimensions of resource deprivation in cyberspace. Rather, the virtual sphere seems to offer the opportunity to acquire capital alternatively through education, contacts, information or creative forms of access.

However, the virtual sphere is usually not yet sufficient for their “valorisation” in the process of social advancement. The acquired social and cultural capital is still preliminary to the extent that it needs to prove itself in real space. After meeting a new partner through the Internet, it still needs to be determined if they are compatible in real life, and an applicant for a job or an apartment still has to face a personal interview. By the same token, virtual places cannot take over all functions of the public real space. Yet it cannot be denied that favourable preconditions for a successful date in the central square mentioned or a positive job interview at the office of a potential new employer can be created in the virtual sphere.

The ability to use the illustrated technological possibilities successfully is a sine qua non for capital acquisition. That means that in addition to the question of the convertibility of resources obtained in cyberspace, another limitation comes into play, bringing back the habitus through the back door.

3.3 Digital Divides, Inequalities and Digital Habitus

The term digital divides refers to inequality in terms of access to information and communication technologies as well as the ability to use them. In the recent past, the term digital inequalities has also come into use: From a global perspective, there are considerable differences in development, with many regions having neither the infrastructure nor enough end devices to enable people to participate in digitalisation at all. The technologically isolated sections of the population are at a disadvantage, and in an interconnected world economy this can affect their overall development opportunities as the gap between well-equipped and poorly equipped regions keeps getting wider (global divide). At a smaller scale, contrasts between urban and rural areas, differences in the speed of transmission, Wi-Fi density as well as politically motivated access restrictions can be identified. Finally, the quality of access to information and communication technologies must also be classified in the context of social and economic expectations.

But in the age of digitalisation, these inequalities regarding the access to technology and their far-reaching effects on the socially and digitally disadvantaged represent only one aspect of a structural disadvantage. A “second” digital divide becomes apparent when we look at the different abilities to use the available technologies. According to various studies, there are basic usage limitations and inequalities in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, health impairments and disabilities or due to different personality types (see DiMaggio et al. 2001, p. 311ff; Robinson et al. 2003, p. 17; Van Dijk 2014, p. 60). More specifically, when it comes to a capital-enhancing use of the new communication and information technologies, especially Internet use, we are again faced with the problem of social inequality, as the corresponding competencies are tied to a person´s social background. Statistically, there are clear correlations: The higher the educational level, the higher the level of Internet literacy and the more varied, differentiated and critical the use of digitally transmitted information will be (Kammer 2014, p. 99ff; Zillien 2009; van Dijk 2020).

This second level of digital inequality becomes all the more apparent as differences in availability hardly exist anymore in affluent service societies. This is also the case in Germany, where user devices are now almost ubiquitous, regardless of social milieus and educational backgrounds (MPFS, 2019, p. 5ff). With regard to the socio-spatial influence on socialisation, we therefore need to investigate in more detail to what extent the freedom to break out of one's own milieu with the help of technology is lost again due to a lack of knowledge and interest. Ultimately, we can only speak of “digital inclusion” if the unequal conditions of real space do not spill over into the virtual sphere. In fact, it is precisely these limitations of real space that are expressed in the numerous studies on young people's media usage. While young people from educated milieus demonstrate a bigger interest in the Internet as a source of knowledge and information as well as a greater ability to search for information in a targeted manner, those with a lower level of education also show a significantly lower degree of mastery in their use of the Internet (Hatlevik and Christophersen 2013; Iske et al. 2005; Otto et al. 2005). A person´s educational background also influences the use of video platforms, and young people with a lower level of education are more likely to use media in a consumerist and uncritical way. The same applies to the use of search engines to look for information (Hargittai and Hinnant 2008; Iske et al. 2007, p. 78) or profitable participation in e-commerce (Buhtz et al. 2014).

The great significance of the differences in use has to do also with the developmental stage of the adolescent subjects: The increased use of media in late childhood and especially in adolescence coincides with an important stage of socialisation in which the aim is to build up a stable ego identity and become a full member of society. In the conflict between personal individuation and social integration, the challenging task is to develop a stable inner system in face of the numerous demands for action and offers of everyday life. In this context, the possibilities of cyberspace as described above provide numerous templates, while also presupposing a certain ability to decide what is relevant amidst diverse and contradictory content (Hurrelmann and Bauer 2018, p. 83ff).

From the perspective of society as a whole, a correlation between education, social class and Internet use can also be identified. A large majority of users with little familiarity with the Internet comes from disadvantaged milieus (e.g., DIVSI 2016). The similarity of the Internet milieus to the well-known Sinus milieus (which correlate basic social views and orientations with the social milieu) suggests that social strata and basic attitudes are carried over from the offline to the online world.

There is another reason why the vision of an expanded freedom of action in cyberspace has its limits: The individual's own conditioning also accompanies the particular types of action in the virtual world (interaction with others, selection of topics, setting of preferences, etc.) as well as the perception of the resources to be acquired. Since media usage is always based on existing interests and abilities, a more precise differentiation of the various motives and contents in virtual space is necessary. Beyond important capabilities such as literacy, language skills, prior knowledge and the capacity for critical reflection, it is evident that the demand for and communication about available content, forums and networks in cyberspace differ across social milieus (Biermann 2009; Ragnedda and Ruiu 2018). It is the dispositions acquired in real space that also guide users in the digital sphere. The habitus becomes the “digital habitus”.

The transfer of unequal social conditions into cyberspace can again be studied by looking at the use of social networks. The opportunity for new self-presentation through the profile, including the choice of a photo, which Ellison et al. praised as a “social lubricant” for establishing contact (2011, p. 887f), can only help to reach people outside of one´s own milieu if it corresponds to their interests and tastes. Being able to maintain old contacts, expressing interest and receiving responses and successfully participating in topic-related communities—none of these things automatically mean that one is able to obtain resources that are relevant for upward mobility. Rather, the digital habitus relegates users to those contacts and contents that have already been part of their development in the real-space socialisation process. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitualised usage practices in cyberspace reflect milieu affiliations and patterns of virtual appropriation are associated with processes of distinction (Boyd, 2014; Lambert, 2016; Meyen, 2007; Witzel 2012; Yates and Lockley, 2018).

In contrast to the opportunities that were postulated with the virtual elimination of real-space limitations, these studies show that the beneficiaries of the digital age can be found among the already privileged: A high capital budget results in increased capital accumulation in cyberspace. The fact that the educated and wealthier segments of the population profit more can be interpreted as a growing distancing from the socially and economically disadvantaged segments of the population, exposing the Internet as a tool of social stratification. Massimo Ragnedda identifies this logic of reproduction as a third digital divide, resulting from the unequal social gains of Internet use (2017, p. 76).

It would be premature, however, to dismiss the new possibilities for action that cyberspace and the Internet offer because of these unequal returns on use. For one thing, in the context of a comprehensive digitalisation, the information and communications revolution must be viewed as a framework for society as a whole, which includes the attempt to find solutions to the social question. As digital technologies gradually penetrate all areas of life, a change is under way that will eventually affect everyone in society, forcing us to come to terms with the new conditions. The failure to look at the options involved is tantamount to giving a relative advantage to those segments of the population that use the technology.

Second, regarding the opportunity for social advancement of capital-poor milieus, the digital divides do not mean that the opportunities for acquiring capital in cyberspace no longer exist. Compared to the stratifying mechanisms in real space, cyberspace remains a sphere of high accessibility, clearly different from the fixed socialisation context with its social and physical realities. The possibility to use it in the process of capital acquisition is facilitated by the option to strategically conceal the habitus in order to prevent negative distinction practices and be able to practice one's own distinction. The fact that access to these options always depends on the resources available (second digital divide) and that these can have a reproductive effect (third digital divide) does not put the options themselves into question. It is rather an issue of how the automatic transition from the habitus shaped by real space mitigated if the former implies disadvantages.

Thirdly, it must therefore by no means be assumed that overcoming these divides is impossible. Ideally, resource acquisition in cyberspace requires motivated and informed users who know how to navigate the digital sphere. What is needed is the potential to reflect, so that exclusionary processes of distinction in cyberspace are recognised, and a corresponding awareness, so that milieu-induced self-exclusion does not stand in the way of advancement from the outset. Against this background, research in the fields of media pedagogy and education increasingly focuses on measures that could offer disadvantaged adolescents development opportunities beyond their milieu of origin (Ragnetta 2017, p. 91ff; Van Dijk 2014, p. 113ff).

3.4 Interim Conclusion: The Digital Acquisition of Opportunities?

Increasing the value of cyberspace with the help of new sources of information and contact, new offers of access and perception could help overcome the limitations of real space which have effectively and reflectively constricted the socially disadvantaged segments of the population. Beyond the usual residential environment, there is the possibility to relate to geographically distant places, anonymous forms of communication diminish the importance of cultural capital and sources of knowledge acquisition multiply. In this way, the Internet and the mobile usage devices associated with it (cell phones, tablets), as well as other gateways to cyberspace take on enormous relevance for socialisation and education. With the help of virtual contacts, the immediate physical environment can be enriched and even skipped. Reproductive institutions of the neighbourhood tend to lose their social significance.

Conversely, managing this new-gained freedom and being able to access information on the Internet at will also means that obtaining these options depends on the user´s interests and skills. For the capital-poor segments of the population, this carries the danger of the habitus once more negatively impacting the individual's acquisition of resources, as that which has been acquired in the real world will rub off on the digital habitus. In the context of digital inequalities, digital space must by no means be viewed as an egalitarian alternative space, as inequality is perpetuated in it. Accordingly, academic research focuses on individuals´ restrictions of action, which are believed to reside primarily in users´ lack of skills, online as well as offline. In this respect, media literacy means the ability to make use of the variety of resources already available. The deprivation of opportunities in real space illustrated above could be counteracted with a “digital acquisition of opportunities”.

What is surprising is that this widespread academic focus on user skills ignores the possibility that resource acquisition may also be systemically constrained by the provider.

In comparison with real space, which is constituted by actions, cyberspace is characterised by a far-reaching predefinition of what actions are basically possible. As has been illustrated by reference to programmed codes and their significance, space-constituting practices can affect the system of cyberspace without the actors responsible for them (programmers, financiers, etc.) acting within this system. In the virtual world, they create framework conditions for the actions of others, conditions which they themselves are independent of. In contrast, the actors in real space can also be located in this space and are subject to the social and spatial structures of this system (Löw 2016, p. 145f). Arrangement and spacing in real space is possible only under the rules and resources that exist there, exerting recursive influence primarily in these contexts (disregarding, for the time being, mixed forms due to the partial digital penetration of real space) (cf. Ibid., p. 141).

With the separation into two separate spheres, the recursivity as well as the “duality of space” cease to exist. Those who constitute the spaces of digital platforms, games or social networks have a high degree of freedom and great power, since they are, as it were, outside the system, intangible even for users.

As the focus mostly lies on accessibility, individual benefit and the fact that it is free of charge, this power is hardly ever questioned. In the context of socialisation and education, cyberspace is perceived as offering numerous options, and with the help of certain skills that still need to be promoted the right contents or contacts can be selected. Although the largest and most heavily used part of cyberspace is provided by commercial operators, the costs of using the available content are hardly ever mentioned. In fact, payment consists in the data-based registration of all activities. As will be shown in the next section, the collection of this user data leads to a highly unequal and recursive use of digital offerings, which means that the opportunity for social advancement ultimately means much more than overcoming the aforementioned divides.