Keywords

The economic opportunities to profit from data-based knowledge are manifold. Academic research and reflection about the long-term consequences of the data economy on social structures are urgently needed.

In the eyes of many critics, digital processing technologies can be understood as the vanguard of a disruptive process that is increasingly fuelled by the commercial exploitation of customer transparency. According to Betancourt (2016), for example, what is emerging in digital capitalism is a valorisation of the individual and their social background. Automated systems constantly interfere in life with offers and services, controlling it to maximise the profits of their creators. In this society of transparency, we are faced with a digital colonisation of the personal (cf. also Han 2013; Zuboff 2015). Such interpretations nonwithstanding, a far-reaching metrisation has already become part of everyday life (Lupton 2016; Kropf and Laser 2019). Practices of measuring, categorising and evaluating of the social characterise numerous new business fields or can be described as conditions of individual competitiveness in traditional business fields. Looking at the networked products and digital services, it is apparent that there are very few technological innovations that benefit only the user. In almost every case, the technology is also able to change the direction of the data flow to turn personal information into something that can be exploited economically. This change of direction shifts the power of action from the user to the provider, whose personalised practices of exploitation are accompanied by considerable regulations. These consequences of digitalisation have not yet been examined in relation to the social question. Disadvantaged segments of the population are being addressed selectively, and instead of resources that could help them to advance socially, they are presented with the known and familiar. Registered and prescribed preferences create mirror cabinets where existing social conditions are reproduced.

The implications for society of this process are made particularly apparent in a spatial perspective: On the one hand, the unequal opportunity structure of physical real space perpetuates social inequality. Following a relational understanding of space, this inequality is produced ongoingly with the disadvantaged parts of the population having less influence on the constitution of space than those with resources at their disposal. Inequality results from the unequal ability to constitute space. Based on this diagnosis, the rules of what is possible, the filters, grids, distances and distinction practices can be fully understood.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the technical preconditions of social influence can be studied in a differentiated manner in spatial contexts. The embedding of sensors in urban spaces, the integration of smart technologies along individual action spaces and the exact recording of actions in shops becomes tangible and analysable on different spatial scale levels. The same is true for the various contexts of personalised targeting. And it is true for cyberspace, which in most areas is also set up with the purpose of data exploitation, addressing the user in the most systematic way possible. In this sense, space provides a structure that is influenced in unequal ways with the help of technology and that in turn addresses individuals in unequal ways, in the form of real space or cyberspace.

All of these processes have recursive mechanisms built into them which make it difficult for milieus lacking in resources to advance socially. This final chapter presents a diagram to summarise and review the social mechanisms of perpetuation, once again highlighting the three forms of social reproduction (“ternary recursivity”) in the digital age. In the outlook, the changing spatial structures will be summarised, addressing the question of which strategies and demands the identified losers of the digital transformation could use when the data economy increasingly curtails their opportunities to advance in society.

6.1 Ternary Recursivity

Socialisation in real space as a learning and internalisation process mediated by society is determined by a person´s social and physical environment. The increasing polarisation of (urban) social spaces is likely to lead to a polarisation of these socialisation influences as well. Opportunities for social contact, educational institutions, leisure activities, mobility options, a neighbourhood´s image, etc., provide a higher potential for capital acquisition or reduce this potential in places where they do not exist. Together, these factors create feedback loops, resulting in an increasing homogeneity of spaces with accessible options on the one hand and limiting restrictions on the other. Because of these restrictions, access to all the world´s knowledge, products and services is limited by the filters of habitual, milieu-specific dispositions. This limitation primarily refers not to the quantity of goods and offers, which can usually be found in less privileged spaces, but particularly to the quality of those offers that are conducive to social advancement. This is the first recursive element of space as material and social environment, as the structure of its offers correlates with the available capital and the habitus. The more outside influences sort populations, the quality of neighbourhoods or leisure infrastructures based on social criteria as a result of a market logic, the more unequal the division of opportunities in space is. Current processes of displacement due to housing shortage, the international real estate market´s luxury homes addressed to wealthy customers, a gastronomy and leisure industry geared to specialised demand or urban upgrading measures in the context of a global competition between cities, all have a huge effect on the opportunity structure of individual residents.

These social mechanisms of exclusion and demarcation of milieus, as well as different practices of distinction and the meanings of types of capital can be analysed with Bourdieu´s site effects. However, since Bourdieu puts societal processes above physical space, completely excluding technical as well as supra-local factors of influence, his analysis tools are limited. These shortcomings have been repeatedly criticised in recent discussions of Bourdieu (Lamont et al. 2015). They become particularly apparent when the focus lies on the process of space creation, as done by Martina Löw (2016). As a “relational arrangement of living beings and social goods”, space is constituted by spacing and synthesis performance. By contrast, Bourdieu´s concept of space (in addition to the purely metaphorical “social space”) is rigid and social processes are merely inscribed into it. As a result, he is forced to leave out a second recursive element, which is the habitus-bound and resource-dependent ability of each individual to influence spatial conditions. While actors with a lot of capital can constitute space in a manner that benefits their social positioning, the segments of the population lacking in capital have less potential to improve their social position through spatial arrangements. Here as well, the specific perception (“synthesis performance”) influences the scope of options and, as with Bourdieu, is related to the internalised social order. What is missing in Löw´s relational concept of space is a deeper look at the space-constituting forces of the market economy in relation to the social question. In fact, the described inequality of the opportunity structure can be analysed particularly well in the context of an economic exploitation of space by powerful actors. Following economic principles, spacing takes effect on different spatial levels, creating barriers and social distance. This happens especially where there is a demand for social homogeneity or even exclusivity. Luxury travel destinations, exclusive hotel lobbies, fancy restaurants or gated communities are extreme examples of such a demand. These institutional arrangements, which perpetuate inequality through the polarisation of resources, also involve supra-regional actors. They make it even harder for populations lacking in capital to identify the causes of the discriminating structures.

In summary, physical accessibility, habitualised perception and social accessibility can be understood as socially stratifying mechanisms which have a strong effect in real space. If we succeeded in reducing this impact in cyberspace through new forms of accessibility, digital technologies would have an enormous potential for social empowerment, and there are cases where they actually do. For instance, the socially stratifying rules of real space can be overcome through virtual spaces of interaction where social and cultural capital can be shared. However, this acquisition of resources still needs to have an effect in real space.

Experts in socialisation and education view the unequal opportunities to obtain digital content as another limitation. In addition to availability, they mainly point out the unequal use of cyberspace: Once again, real-space socialisation, habits and an unequal capital endowment pre-structure the access to digital offers. These obstacles, often referred to as digital divides, seem to indicate that social inequality can be overcome only with the help of digital technologies: The task of policymakers then lies solely in providing the technical infrastructure and end devices as well as in helping users to obtain digital resources across social classes.

However, this completely ignores the fact that obtaining digital technologies comes at the cost of far-reaching measuring practices, and it is precisely these costs that run counter to the goal of equal participation. This measuring provides businesses with personal data which are exploited economically in a way that cements existing social conditions. In this process we can find the third recursive element, which has been the main focus of this work.

In Fig. 6.1, the individual is positioned between real space and cyberspace with his or her individual pattern of perception, thought and action (habitus) and capital endowment (resources). In the age of digitalisation, both spaces influence socialisation, both offer resources (contacts, education, information) that can facilitate social advancement. An individual can “enter” cyberspace and real space simultaneously, as they physically remain in real space even while on the internet, playing an online game or using a virtual reality application. At the same time, both spaces intersect in cases where, for example, digital technologies are embedded in real space (Internet of Things, smart cities) or real-space representations are mediated digitally (augmented reality).

Fig. 6.1
An illustration of types of recursive address. Cyberspace with opportunity structure and real space with opportunity structure which is connected with habitus resources that include the acquisition of data and data processing.

Types of recursive address (a–d)

Full size image

A relational concept of space can be transferred to both spaces. Through actions and perceptions, structures are constituted as arrangements in real space just as they are in cyberspace. However, there is a fundamental difference: The “duality of space” stressed by Löw, which transports the interaction between action and structure to space, is valid for cyberspace only to a limited extent. From real space, cyberspace can be constituted independently, and it is not determined by the structures of cyberspace itself. This means that in the virtual sphere, structure and action can be related to each other only to a limited extent. At the same time, the respective rules of the constitution of space differ from each other. In real space, spacing takes place through a power-based negotiation process involving private actors, but also local policymakers, authorities as well as intermediary agencies such as clubs, associations and NGOs. They act within a legal framework and with clear rules (i.e., construction law), following practices that are established in society.

Structures that result from a spacing in virtual space are much less regulated and, due to their abstract nature, are not much discussed by society. Companies have been making use of this freedom and established structures in cyberspace that the general public mostly uses or “fills up” with information instead of changing it. There is an imbalance of power between provider and user, which is expressed in a structural embedding of data collection capacity. Many digital applications require users to reveal personal information, and with every action they take in cyberspace, their transparency is increased. The new digital technologies record personal data, they exploit, analyse and store them. They do this across spaces, as they combine online and offline data, making use of the increasing options of data collection in (digitalised) real space as well. On data markets, data traders collect all the information and process it to meet the demand. The economic value of information on the user is expressed in numerous commercial exploitation contexts. For companies offering products and services, the dream of customer and market transparency seems to be coming true. They know about people´s wishes, preferences, weaknesses, risks and needs, and they have the ability to take these into consideration immediately and exploit them commercially. This translation results in a data utilisation that reaches customers in a recursive manner by mirroring the familiar and keeping from them other content or information that could be instructive. By reflecting collected dispositions, it solidifies social classes. Ultimately, it confines individuals to their fully recorded biography, whereas personal development would result from breaking out of this biography. In this manner, the market directly intervenes in socialisation. In contrast to the goals of education policy, private actors aim at profit maximisation. The perpetuation of social conditions is not intended, but it is directly created through the practice of data utilisation.

The user is addressed recursively in four different ways. First of all, (Fig. 6.1a) personal data have an influence on cyberspace itself. Via ads, customer portals, social networks and news providers, what is shown and when can be determined in a personalised way. Invisible, externally defined algorithms decide over what is visible and what remains hidden, they offer incentives, draw boundaries and suggest what is suitable. The structures of the virtual sphere change in accordance with each user. Spacing in the virtual sphere is characterised by the ability to adapt specifically to each user. At the same time, offers and information reach the user directly (Fig. 6.1b) without a restrictive adaptation of the structures of virtual space. A tailored loan or the right insurance, offered via e-mail, for example, do not have an effect on the accessibility of cyberspace. However, they do represent offers that, due to their preselection, have a recursive effect. The numerous channels of personalised address, as exemplified in the empirical evaluation, again suggest a considerable influence on perception, on the definition of what is desirable and attainable. As digital forms of address are often based on characteristics of similarity of neighbourhood residents (cf. Chapter 5), they also have an indirect influence via the social environment.

In real space, the individual ability to perceive and act can also be distinguished in the two variants of direct data-based addressing on the one hand and data-based modification of the spatial structure on the other. As has been extensively demonstrated for the fields of marketing, people search or risk management and substantiated with further examples from the interconnected daily life, users are also targeted with more and more personalised offers and information offline. It must be assumed that sales talks and services (e.g., interactions in a store or at a hotel) will be making increasing use of existing information about customers. With the help of findings from business psychology, it is most likely that such interactions will be guided by economic, taste-related considerations.

Finally, the economic exploitation of personal data has an influence on the structure of real space. The increasing penetration of buildings and cities with interconnected objects (sentient city) creates further possibilities for addressing people with tailored content in their everyday lives (Fig. 6.1d). In the long run, it will not be necessary to use digital end devices such as smartphones, as cameras, sensors and auctors function independently. In such a spatial structure, in which virtual mirrors are embedded, the transitions to cyberspace become fluid.

While these developments can be dismissed as utopian, there are additional types of recursive acquisition regardless of the degree of interconnectedness. As clearly demonstrated by the empirical analysis of data trading, companies are already making use of digital databases to design spaces for specific target groups. As a consequence, the individual opportunity structure is highly dependent on which infrastructures, shops and product range are considered profitable in a neighbourhood. Exact data on the residents not only make it easy for companies and retailers to address them directly, but also to transfer their purchasing power and preferences into building structures and commercial products in real space. It is a spatial constitution by design where the arrangement of (urban) space can be organised in social correspondences. To the degree that people are addressed according to their milieu, socialisation influences become entrenched in a neighbourhood.

Therefore, the logic of social distinction and exclusion in a neighbourhood and of resource-dependent processes of arrangement need to be conceptualised differently in the age of digitalisation. It is a powerful spacing, accompanied by the economic valorisation of data (online as well as offline), which, together with the direct addressing of target groups, increasingly contributes to social stratification by a sorting of the socially suitable.

6.2 Outlook: Social Determination as an Overarching Challenge

In today´s digitalised world, the old question of equality of opportunity and mobility in a society presents itself in a completely new form. The digital transformation is taking place at a time when social and socio-spatial polarisation processes are being registered on a growing scale, as inequality is being discussed publicly against the backdrop of new job requirements, growing precariousness, rising revenues for real estate owners and dramatic rent increases (OECD 2019; Wacquant 2018; van Ham et al. 2021).

All these facts could give reason to assume that unequal opportunities for action will solidify and that spatial structures will persist which are characterised by limitations for the disadvantaged and benefits for the privileged. These are the conditions that the data-based economy finds itself under, and that it recursively takes up in numerous business fields, translating individual characteristics into suitable offers.

Cyberspace creates particularly favourable conditions for such a translation. For one thing, the data economy is able to use a medium the structures and conditions of which have not yet been questioned or influenced much by the users. What must never be forgotten is the fact that a large part of the offers of cyberspace are provided by private actors. In comparison with real space, large areas of the internet´s infrastructure are not financed by taxpayer money (as opposed to roads, public places or educational facilities), but have expanded thanks to private investors. The “road signs” relevant for orientation and “directions” (search engines) as well as the most popular sites of information exchange (social media sites) have a commercial orientation and function via personalised ads. The new digital sites of supply, information or entertainment in cyberspace are likewise oriented toward a valorisation of personal data. Correspondingly, the socialising influence of cyberspace must be interpreted primarily in the context of an economic logic of utilisation. Most of the content is aligned neither with social ideals like justice in general nor with concrete measures to foster inclusion, education and social mobility in particular. It is geared toward profit, the only guiding principle being the demand of its users, as opposed to set rules or goals of educational policy.

In the second place, the programmed spaces make it all but impossible for users to understand how the virtual offers directed at them are created. The interference into real space by powerful actors with a limiting effect on the individual becomes even more abstract with regard to cyberspace. The structures of cyberspace are based on programming causing a veiled form of spacing, and this is taking place under legal conditions that are still rather fuzzy or simply ineffective. These structures can permanently follow, protocol and contact the user, they can adapt individually and automatically, and they have a highly encouraging effect. Because of the individual use of cyberspace, users also miss out on the chance of a shared experience. This makes it more difficult to publicly discuss these structures on the basis of shared insights. As a result, in comparison with real space the opportunity to actively influence the conditions for action in the digital sphere diminishes.

Thirdly, by entering their data, users are confronted with a new form of remuneration for the use of the digital opportunity structure, the value of which they can hardly assess. Data processing is happening everywhere and at all times; it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine the origin and the goal of the data. As this data currency can benefit the most through recursive forms of address, it tends to personalise services, products and information in all areas of life. This targeting will become even more automatic with the growing use of artificial intelligence.

Many of these characteristics of cyberspace generally apply also to real space, which, from the point of view of private business, is constituted in a personalised way and which also evaluates, assesses and addresses. Even though economic interests are only partly involved, a rapidly growing ambient intelligence in cities or buildings is clearly emerging. In the complex interplay between cyberspace and digital real space, it is apparent that individuals are slowly being deprived of exclusive control over their privacy, while for businesses it is becoming easier to exploit personal preferences, online as well as offline.

As a consequence, a new conservative element is spreading in society which strongly limits social permeability in the age of digitalisation. The disadvantaged require a great deal of knowledge and effort to counter the increasing predetermination of the scope of individual opportunity. The same is true for policymakers, whose past attempts to mitigate neighbourhood effects with educational and infrastructure measures were already not very effective. Now, they are faced with the filter bubbles of the data economy which create social divides in cyberspace as well as in real space.

A preliminary assessment of the data revolution cannot overlook the fact that there are already numerous counter-movements that attempt to gain control over digital knowledge about the individual with the help of education, political action and protective measures. Successful initiatives like the European Directive on Data Protection notwithstanding, it is evident that the amount of personal data will only increase. So far, there is no indication that public awareness about the exploitation of data can keep up with the revolutionary technologies, the growing possibilities of data collection and the huge expansion of commercial business fields. Every day, new hardware and software solutions reach the market, offering price advantages, convenience, exclusive information and ubiquitous access to goods and services in real time—but in almost every case, consumers are required to reveal information about themselves.

On the other hand, simply abstaining from digital offers does not seem to make much sense. Given established communication practices, it would lead to self-isolation, entailing significant cost and information disadvantages. In our digitalised world, it is hardly possible to conceal individual characteristics anyway. Commercial providers will collect data about every individual, even those who try to reveal as few data as possible.

If they care about equal opportunity, policymakers must face the consolidation of social conditions due to the data economy and how it will shape the future. Laws for data protection will not be enough to keep up the promise of social mobility. Ultimately, the process of mirroring is about nothing less than economic actors displacing public institutions from spaces of socialisation.

As long as individual and institutionalised protection is not sufficiently effective, those affected could in the end be left with an adaptation strategy that, while bowing to the logic of segmentation, evaluation and allocation, specifically influences them. In order to escape the shackles of individual and milieu-related categorisation, databases would have to be provided with cross-milieu information, and a wide range of interests as well contradictions would have to be communicated. The opportunity to obtain these resources lies in the targeted disclosure of those attributes that are transformed into resources relevant to advancement. The implementation of this strategy would require a lot: In addition to the competence to leave habitualised dispositions behind, at least partially, in the display of interests and tastes (second digital divide), the ability to reflect on the technical and economic utilisation of data would be necessary. This would require an awareness that can only come about through education as well as a new understanding of the social system shaped by the data economy that is based on academic research. If this field of research benefits from a spatial perspective, as has been emphasised throughout this study, then spatial disciplines like geography can most certainly contribute more to this field.

The relationship between digitalisation and education is already part of the public discourse. In the future, labour markets will require more digital skills, and digitalisation also opens up new sources for individual education. Technological change is recognised to have the potential for professional and social mobilisation. However, an emphasis on the opportunities of empowerment clouds the fact that the digital transformation is also massively changing the spatial environment that conditions action. Without a critical look at the exploitation practice of the data economy in its social consequences, the opportunities for advancement in the age of digitalisation cannot be adequately grasped. Without a thorough exploration of the effectiveness of new spatial restrictions, the presorting of what is accessible cannot be understood. The promise of empowerment through digitisation is tied to conditions that place a heavy burden of responsibility on individuals, educational institutions, policymakers and, not least, academia. Thus, the message of the introductory slogan must also be understood as an urgent task: Where do you want to go today?