Digital Divide: Inequality and Alienation on the Era of Digital Democracy

Digital technology revolution is changing the future of the world. Although digital technology has reduced the barriers of time and distance, at the same time it also producing the so-called “digital divide,” which is another form of inequality. There are two levels of the digital divide; the first level is the lack of access to IT and the second level is inequality in the utilization of these technologies. This paper analyzes various forms of the digital divide, especially from the aspect of socio-demographic variables and their impact on democracy and politics in the era of mass society. A literature review shows that digital technology is changing the democracy and its study; internet use for politics is also not equal depending on skills and motivational factors; and its affects how religious communities change their perceptions regarding the use of the Internet and negotiate the discrepancy between their needs and its advantages.Technological alienation comes to be an increasingly dominant description of capitalist society as a whole. In technological alienation, human beings are not only dominated by the commodities they produce, but also by their instruments of production, including digital technology (Internet).

Keywords: Digital Divide, Democracy, Inequality, Alienation, Technophobia, Technophilia

A.      Background

The digital divide is a gap between different individuals, households, businesses and geographical areas at different social-economic levels about their opportunities to access Information Technology (IT) and their use of the Internet (OECD, 2001). Previous social inequalities not only affect digital divides but exacerbate pre-existing social inequalities. Furthermore, several patterns that characterize and shape social structures, such as education, skills, income, occupation, and gender, influence access to and use of the Internet (Deursen &Dijk, 2014). Social inequalities are the root of digital inequalities, seen as the different skills for using information sources and the opportunities, which are the major cause of digital divides; at the same time, digital divides increase and reinforce social inequalities already present in a stratified social sphere (Ragnedda & Muschert, 2015). For this reason, the digital divide is a part of global inequality, which is defined as the level of inequality between all inhabitants of the world (Bourguignon, 2015:9).

In 2016, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has released a report on trends in the use of internet among students. The study compared data from 63 countries, analyzing the differences patterns of internet access and utilizationbased on the factors of their socio-economic background. The results show two important facts. First, the digital divide matters in developing countries, particularly the gap between students from wealthy and low-income families. Second, when access to the internet has been obtained, students fromlow-income families tend to use the internet for things that are less productive, such as they spent the time to play games online - either alone or in groups - much longer than students from wealthy families. Like inequality in race and social class, children from high-poverty schools and families may have less skill and capacity to use the internet. The lack of access to the internet contributes significantly to school crime and fear in the US (Putnam, 2015:170-171).

 Figure 1. Internet Access in the U.S. (ACS, 2013)

Figure 1 shows variations in access to the internet in different parts of the United States. This research reminds us that not only access but also the utilization of internetstill matters, both regarding horizontal reach (coverage areas), vertical range (social stratification) and utilization for education (learning and education). Thus, it is true that the digital divide is not only happeningin developing countries but also in developed countries like the United States. Data released by the Council of Economic Advisers Issue Brief (2015) shows that the digital divide is still happening in the US, especially affecting some rural communities, residents of old age, citizens of less-educated, and low-income families.Furthermore, their focus has been on improving the quality of access, which reduces the limitations of choice and improving the quality of network speed.

In general, internet access in the US is only able to reach 74.4% of all households (ACS, 2013). Households with an head have the highest connection to the internet (86.6%), followed by whites (77.4%), Hispanics (66.7%), blacks (61.3%) and NativeAmerican (58.2 %). This portrait shows that factors causing the digital divide are admittedly very complex. Starting from the inequality of physical development (infrastructure, network, energy, electricity), cultural factors (mastery of language, gender inequality), economic factors (income), geography (remote areas, mountains, islands), human resources (education level, literacy, skills), and perceived relevance by families of the need for internet content.

It is often said that increasing physical capacity – e.g., high speed transmission lines - will reduce this digital divide, but not enough just to give access without improvement of internet skills themselves. As shown by the results of the OECD research, without the empowerment and education of targeted internet users may not improve internet use.For example, children can more quickly master the Internet than adults or the elderly. Children perceive the internet or computer as an interesting and challenging for them. In contrast, some teachers or parents looked at the internet and computer as something strange and difficult to master. Although the opportunity to access theinternet is relatively equal, this different perception led to a gap in the pace of mastery.Therefore, when awakened perception is different, then the result would be different. Perception creates reality itself.

Besides the inequality of perception, the next challenge is the empowerment of the public in terms of digital literacy and digital democracy. Opportunities to speak in the digital democracy era need to be coupled with the readiness and maturity of democracy itself. Digital technology affects how democracy works (Gilardi, 2016). For example, currently the internet is flooded with racial propaganda, terrorist political mobilization, pornography, violence, defamation, and bullying, which shows the negative behavior of the users of social media.It shows that without an increase in the capacity of the Internet users, the digital technology becomes useless, ignorant and divisive in a virtual sphere. For this reason, it is important to dismantle certain perceptions and to foster literacy among the public. The maturing of digital democracy will thereby encourage the variety of knowledge, innovation, creativity, economy, strengthening of democratic education to improve the quality of social life.

B.       Research Question

The digital divide phenomenon raises critical questions about the impact of digital technology on the social life of our society. Does disclosure of information and easier access to the internet, for instance, lead to other forms of social inequality? Conversely, how does social and economic inequality that affect the digital divide between countries and within a country? What is the future of human social interaction in the digital era of democracy? To answer these questions, we need to explore the things that shape our contemporary society, which means the digital society.

C.      Literature Review

This literature review may examines writings on a digital divide from recent sources (books and international journals). Its purpose is to place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of digital divide, describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration and point the way forward for further research in the context of existing literature. This overview will review the literature on digital democracy, inequality, alienation, and technophobia/technophilia.

D.      Digital Technology and Digital Democracy

There are multiple access divides: motivational divide, access divide, skills divide, and usage divide/usage gap. The classic digital divides is access, and the second-level divide is related to usage patterns and skills that influence online political engagement. Scholars have also worried that the rise of online activism would lead movements to move further and further away from marginalized people because digital divides in access would affect who became involved in movements. However, this is not reflected in who uses the Internet for online advocacy (Elliot & Earl, 2016). For instance, once people are online, age does not affect the likelihood of engaging in online protest. The most powerful predictors of online participation are those associated with micro-mobilizationlike being asked to participate, being embedded in supportive networks, and possessing an interest in political issues. It shows an apparent link between both offline and online resources; how both offline and online inclusion go hand in hand.

Digital technology also affects how the digital divide arises among closeknit religious communities. Research from Rivka Neriya-Ben Sahar (2016) illustrated how Amish and ultra-Orthodox women in the US and Israel respond to the internet. The Amish are an ethnocultural religious group affiliated with the Anabaptist Church, residing in the United States and Canada. They number close to 300,000, or less than 0.001% of the American population. Their religious and social lives are dictated by the Ordnung (literally, order), a set of rules that stresses humility, simplicity, and obedience. The ultra-Orthodox are a Jewish religious group that constitutes 9.1% of Israel’s adult population.Their religious and social life is bound by a rigid interpretation of Jewish religious law, a commitment to the study of Torah, and unquestioning faith in rabbinic authority.

The leaders and ideologies of Amish and ultra-Orthodox may reject the internet, because of fearing it will damage the souls of their followers. Ben Sahar studiesexplore how women in these two devout religious communities cope with the Internet.  As a result, only 20% of the Amish women had ever used the Internet, compared to 50% of the ultra-Orthodox women. While both communities reported using the Internet for informationsearching and shopping, the ultra-Orthodox use it mostly for work. These findings indicate that both communities reported a low but significant level of use. The leaders have made some accommodations that permit cautious use under strict limitations. Then, the internet is not completely prohibited, only restricted. They negotiate the tricky path between opting to meet the community’s needs and limiting themselves to stay within the boundaries of the permissible (by the authorities) and the acceptable (by their peers). This complex relationship reflected their perceptions regarding the use of the Internet and how they negotiate the discrepancy between their needs and its advantages, on the one hand, and their community’s values and their leaders’ positions, on the other. Ideology versus practice and social surveillance versus self-control are indicators of how digital technology has played an important role in shaping democratic processes and creates new digital divides among isplated religious community members.

E.       Digital Divide and Inequality

The 'digital divide' is an issue in the fields of economics, sociology, business and information studies. In the past two decades, the world is perceived as having entered a new form of economic activity thatso-called'information economy.'In the 21st century, some people complain of 'information overload,' while others complain of 'information famine.'New terms, such as 'information capitalism,''info-rich,''digital divide,''knowledge workers,' etc. reflect the fact that this is a new area for both the social sciences and business studies. When access to information, and the ability to manipulate it, is the main competitive edge for individuals, lack of it can be detrimental to any form of economic progress (Berner, 2002).

The “divide” refers to the difference in access rates among one or more groups. For example, the racial digital divide is the difference in computer and Internet access and usage rates (at home, school, work, or other locations) between racial groups with higher rates of access and usage (Whitesand Asian/Pacific Islanders) and those with relatively lower rates of access and usage (Native Americans, African Americans, and Latinos). But this traditional understanding of the digital divide fails to capture the full picture of inequity and alienation that is reinforced by these gaps. A more comprehensive approach to studying the digital divide looks at several dimensions of access and use that may influence people’s use of the medium and thus potentially leads to different divides. DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) suggests the term “digital inequality” to captures the complexity of inequalities and understanding the differences in access and use of information technologies. Digital inequality considers avariation on five dimensions:

First, inequality in technical apparatus. Technical apparatus is the problem of the physical availability of suitable equipment, including computers of adequate speed and equipped with appropriate software for a given activity. As bandwidth increases and more and more Web sites require late-model browsers and application to display, inferior technical apparatus reduces the benefits users can gain from the Internet directly and indirectly. As a result, users with slow connections, older software, and old hardware are simply unable to access certain sites. Furthermore, their experience on the Web is less gratifying and enable users to derive the full benefits that access can provide

Second, inequality in theautonomy of use. An important aspect of this dimension is the question of where users have access? Is at home, at work, school, libraries, or other community access centers? If access is outside the home, how much flexibility does the user have to access the Internet? How far does the user have to travel? To what extent is use circumscribed by regulations, time limits, filters or other technical impediments to access? If access is at work, what kinds of use are permitted (and how does this vary with the organizational role), what kinds of filtering or monitoring systems are in use, and how stringently are rules enforced? If access is at home, to what extent mayautonomy be limited by the actions of other family members? Does in-home access have different effects on educational outcomes than access from other locations? All studies show strong associations between educational attainment, income, race, and having Internet access at home. Among people with access to the Internet, the greater the autonomy of use, the greater the benefits the user derives.

Third, Inequality in skill. Inequality in users’ possession of skills refers to inequality in “cognitive access”: the extent to which users are trained to find and evaluate the information they seek. Internet users vary in their possession of relevant knowledge and integrative knowledge about the way the Web operates that can enable them to navigate more effectively. These kinds of knowledge constitute what we might call communicative competence and Internet competence: the capacity to respond pragmatically and intuitively to challenges and opportunities in a manner that exploit the Internet’s potential.

Fourth,Inequality in the availability of social support. Based on the observations of competence, users without know-how are frustrated and turn away. The major reason for this is that they cannot draw on social support from more experienced users when they reach the limits of their skills. Although the Internet is commonplace in today’s contemporary society, and most of us have gained considerable experience in using it, people still tend to seek support from their social networks (Courtois & Verdegem, 2016).

Fifth,variation in use. Not all uses are equal. There are different kinds of reasons forusing the internet, such asto increase economic productivity (skill-enhancement, learning about employment opportunities, consumer information, or education) or social capital (using the Internet to follow the news, gather information relevant to electoral decision-making, learn about public issues, engage in civic dialogue, or take part in or organize socialmovement activities), and those that represent consumption of entertainment.

F.       Digital Divide and Alienation

The relationship between technology and culture is not one-sided, but a two-way affair. Technology is a core component of culture. Bothare linked by a web of causes and effects. Because the technological and scientific circumstances of age also shape its social structure and culture. These interactions are, however, very complex so that it is often unclear who influenced whom and how (Nebler, 2011:4). For many, the changes underway on a global scale aredramatic. This ongoing transformation requires acritical social theory to engage new relations between the economy, state, culture industry, science and technology, social institutions and everyday life. In this context, talking about technology and alienation is not just an academic affair, but rather concerns the fate of the human being in the contemporary world and thus requires serious reflection and discussion whether the changes in society, culture, and human existence.

Marx’s characterization of alienation has developed since the1844 Manuscripts. In alienated labor, Marx often denotes alienated conditions in his later work. The locus of alienation is also no longer the isolated object, nor the distribution of products and tools, but “the personified conditions of production” as a whole. In these conditions, the worker is alienated (1) from the objects produced, (2) from the means of production (i.e. the tools and instruments through which production is carried out), and (3) from the process of objectification itself, because they finds that their practical life activity stunts, abuses, and undermines itself (Wendling, 2009).This alienation is the transformation of objectifying life activity. The problem is not only an inequality of distribution of the means and products of production: it is the mode of production as a whole and the kind of human action it mandates.

The construct of alienation refers to a sense of social estrangement, an absence of social support or meaningful social connection. To be alienated is to lack a sense of belonging, to feel cut off from family, friends, or school. Alienation consists of six dimensions: social isolation, cultural alienation, self-isolation, powerlessness, meaninglessness, and normlessness (Rovai &Wighting. 2005:98). In technological alienation, human beings are not only dominated by the commodities they produce, but also by theinstruments of production such as tools, machinery and buildings that serve again and again for longer or shorter periods during repeated processes of production. More importantly, from Marx’s perspective, machines deprive work of interest and character. As they are progressively introduced to all aspects of productive labor, machines increase the scope of technological alienation. Technological alienation comes to be an increasingly dominant description of capitalist society as a whole.Machine fetishism is a product of technological alienation. The machine increasingly displays the very functions of which the worker is progressively deprived: mobility, diversification of tasks and skills. The alienation expressed by commodity fetishism in the sphere of exchange is expressed by machine fetishism in the sphere of production.

A study about internet access in Singaporeis helpful in understanding how is technological alienation among peoples occurs. Singapore isknown as a highly wired society, where the Internet and mobile phone penetration ranks amongst the highest in the world. However, there still exists in Singapore a ‘socio-digital divide’ which refers not to the conventional digital divide caused by inequalities in access to ICTs. Instead, it refers to a socially-charged digital divide within the family unit, where older family members suffer from social exclusion due to their unfamiliarity with newer technologies. Traditional family relations have been strained by the adoption of newer ICTs, as a result of which inter-generational communication is hampered, and older members of the household find themselves increasingly alienated (Lim & Tan, 2003).Thus there arises the paradox of high aggregate access combined with low individual access so that the individual who is responding as an individual feels isolated and capable of identifying himself his anonymous fellows (Kornhauser, 2008:234)

During the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th Centuries and with it the onset of capitalism, the genre was defined by the fear of machines—technophobia—as industrially mechanized labor became status quo and man came to more and more resemble the machine. With the Digital Revolution, intelligent computer technology became sentient limbs to the human condition and the affection for machines in our lives—technophilia— and now dominates the new millennium. Relationships between people and their intelligent machines and our age’s obsession with the gadgetsare defining our lives and create our world-view today. For this reasons, our anxieties are now with the digital technology that we love to hate, but cannot live without it.

G.      Technophobia versusTechnophillia

As new technology continues to proliferate through almost every aspect of our existence, a large group of individuals hasbeen identified who possess a fear of this technology. This fear can range from avoidance of technology to palpitations and sweating when thinking about using technology. It affects up to one-third of the entire population. The notion that this technophobia is a passing phenomenon affecting older individuals is being disproved. Generally speaking, technophobia represents a negative psychologicalreaction toward technology,  which can arise in varying forms andintensity. However, technophobia does not apply to people who feeluncomfortable or stressed by computers due to a lack of informationor experience (Sinkovics, et.al. 2002:480).

Much research suggests that things are getting worse rather than better. As with technophobia, psychological gender has been implicated in relating to feelings towards science. Both attitudes and achievement in science are related to the variable of gender-role perceptions of male and female adolescents. Thus, the impact of psychological gender upon technophobia discussed in this book may well be related to anxieties about science and mathematics, or ‘genderized’ subjects generally (Brosnan, 2003). Rosen and Weil (1990) have defined technophobia as including (1) anxiety about current or future interactions with computers or computer-related technology; (2) negative global attitudes about computers, their operation or their societal impact; and (3) specific negative cognitions or self-critical internal dialogues. ‘Uncomfortable users’ are slightly anxious as they lack enough information about computers to use them effectively. High levels of anxiety can lead to avoidance, but they can also lead to impoverished performance.

Many individuals fear interaction with technology, due to intimidation, and the possibility of damaging the product. Others may avoid interaction with technology, simply because of their beliefs. Eco-Feminists for example, believe computers and technology were created by men, as a method to control women and nature. Evidence shows that younger people adopt new technologies better than older generations. This differences may be due to increased exposure to technology initially introduced at an earlier age by their parents, compared to older generations where such technologies were not available to them in the past. Others may be concerned with integrated features; the addition of cameras to mobile phones has been convenient to many. However, the media have shown an increase in inappropriate use such as stalking,bullying,and physically abusing others. This reluctance to take part or even own mobile phones because of these causes is described as ‘Mobile Panic Anxiety’ (Gyu Ha, et.al. 2011)

Research from Gyu Ha et.al (2011) has concluded that technophobia with regards to age and sex-types is inconclusive. They found that there is no relation between age, gender or education with regards to technophobia during his research. Therefore, no generalization can be establishedto combat technophobia to a particular age and sex-type group. It was concluded that designers need to pay more attention to the needs of the technophobe. They should not be abandoned in a society where interaction with technology is becoming the perceived ‘trend.'

Digital technology shape the complex relationship between new media and social change, especially in the rise of new technological and media-oriented ideologies.Unlike the traditional information-revolution theories, the concept of the attention economy privileges what is most scarce and desirable now is about ‘attention.' While information is overflowing on the Internet, attention remains discretely limited. Much of human activity involves attention to exchanges other than monetary ones. The attention economy carries its kinds of wealth, class divisions, transactions, and property, all of which make it incompatible with the current industrial, money-market-based economy. We live in an age of growing environmental, social, and economic crises that call for further responsibility, connectivity, and personal commitment. In this context, the term consumption may be an antiquated tool of analysis. Still, it remains the most appropriate description of how we behave (at least much of the time) under the influence of new technology and media.

The comprehensive use of new media has made us “consumers” on a more complex level than even before. In the coming years, should we remain “consumers” of technological culture, or must we become “cultural users” of technology? We have got to have cultural evolutions so that we start to treat each other and the environment on which we all depend much better. Faced with the rapidly increasing impact of new technologies and the media on our behavior, how can we manage the transition from the passive notion of “consumer” to the active notion of “cultural user” through a more responsible, non-dogmatic, and cosmopolitan use of new media tools? (Benedikter & Fitz, 2011). Digital Intelligence or “DQ” is the set of social, emotional and cognitive abilities that enable individuals to face the challenges and adapt to the demands of digital life. These abilities can broadly be broken down into eight interconnected areas (Park, 2016):

1.      Digital identity: The ability to create and manage one’s online identity and reputation including an awareness of one's online persona and management of the short-term and long-term impact of one's online presence.

2.      Digital use: The ability to use digital devices and media, including the mastery of control to achieve a healthy balance between life online and offline.

3.      Digital safety: The ability to manage risks online (e.g. cyberbullying, grooming, radicalization) as well as problematic content (e.g. violence and obscenity), and to avoid and limit these risks.

4.      Digital security: The ability to detect cyber threats (e.g. hacking, scams, malware), to understand best practices and to use suitable security tools for data protection.

5.      Digital emotional intelligence: The ability to be empathetic and build good relationships with others online.

6.      Digital communication: The ability to communicate and collaborate with others using digital technologies and media.

7.      Digital literacy: The ability to find, evaluate, utilize, share and create content as well as competency in computational thinking.

8.      Digital rights: The ability to understand and uphold personal and legal rights, including the rights to privacy, intellectual property, freedom of speech and protection from hate speech.

These values facilitate the wise and responsible use of technology – an attribute which will mark the future leaders of tomorrow. Furthermore, these abilities should be rooted in desirable human values such as respect, empathy, and prudence Indeed, cultivating digital intelligence in human values is essential for the future of our kids to become masters of technology instead of being mastered by it.

H.      Conclusion

Social inequalities are the root of digital divide, seen as the different skills for using information sources and the opportunities. There are multiple access divides: motivational divide, access divide, skills divide, and usage divide. Digital divide is a part of global inequality, and it is not only happening in developing countries but also in developed countries like the United States, mainly affecting some rural communities, residents of old age, citizens of less-educated, and low-income families. It is often said that increasing capacity is believed to be able to reduce this digital divide, but not enough attention is given to access and improvement of internet skills. Digital inequality must be considered on five dimensions: inequality in technical apparatus, inequality in the autonomy of use, inequality in skill, Inequality in the availability of social support, and variation of use. On the other hand, there is a continuum between technophobia and technophilia in the digital era. Ideology versus practice and social surveillance versus self-control are indicators of how digital technology have played an important role in shaping democracies process and creates new digital divides among community. Digital technology also shapes the complex relationships between new media and social change, especially in the rise of new technological and media-oriented ideologies. For this reason, a new set of social, emotional and cognitive abilities are required to enable individuals to face the challenges and adapt to the demands of digital life.

Work Cited

Ben-Sahar, Rivka Neriya. 2016. Negotiating Agency: Amish and ultra-Orthodox women's responses to the internet. New Media and Society Journal I-15

Benedikter, Roland & Nicholas Fitz. 2011. Technophilia and the New Media: Contemporary Questions of Responsible Cultural Consumption. A Call for Public Debate. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy 2011

Bourguignon, Francois. 2015. The Globalization of Inequality. Princeton University Press

Brosnan, Mark J. 1998. Technophobia: the Psychological Impact of Information Technology. USA and Canada: Routledge

Council of Economic Advisers Issue Brief. 2015. Mapping the Digital Divide.

Courtois, Cedric & Pieter Verdegem. 2016. With a Little Help from my friends: an Analysis of the role of social support in digital inequalities. New Media and Society Journal. Vol 18 (8)  1508-1527.

Deurson, Alexander JAM van & Jan AGM Van Dick. 2014. The Digital Divide Shift to Differences in Usage. New Media and Society Journal. Vol 16(3) 507-526

Elliot, Thomas & Jennifer Earl. 2016. Online protest participation and the digital divide: modeling the effect of the digital divide on online petition-signing. New Media and Society Journal I-22

Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2016. Digital Democracy: How Digital Technology is Changing Democracy and Its Study. University of Zurich

Gyu Ha, Joon, Tom Page, Gisli Thorsteinsson. 2011. A Study on Technophobia and Mobile Device Design. International Journal of Contents, vol 7, issue 2, pp.17-25

Hargittai, Eszter. 2001. Second-Level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in People’s Online Skills.

Jae Min, Seong. 2010. From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use.

Kornhauser, William. 2008. The Politics of Mass Society. USA & UK: Transaction Publishers.

Lim, Sun Sun and Yen Ling Tan. 2003. Old People and New Media in Wired Societies: Exploring the Socio-Digital Divide in Singapore. Media Asia, 30(2): 95-102

Nebler, V Boehme. 2011. Caught Between Technophilia and Technophobia: Culture, Technology, and the Law. Pictorial law. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

OECD. 2001. Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD Publishing

OECD. 2016. Are there differences in how advantaged and disadvantaged students use the internet? PISA in Focus: 2015/07. Paris: OECD Publishing

Park, Yuhyun. 2016. 8 Digital Skills We Must Teach Our Children. Monday 13 June 2016.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/8-digital-skills-we-must-teach-our children?utm_content=bufferd89c3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferaccess on 12/12/16, 16.31 pm

Putnam, Robert D. 2015. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster

Ragnedda, Massimo & Glenn W. Muschert. 2015. Max Weber and Digital Divide Studies. International Journal of Communication 9(2015), 2757-2762

Rovai, Alfred P & Mervin J. Weighting. 2005. Feelings of Alienation and Community Among Higher Education Students in a Virtual Classroom. Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 97 – 110

Sinkovics, Rudolf R. et.al. 2002. Reluctance to Use Technology-Related Products: Development of a Technophobia Scale. Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 44(4) 477–494, July–August

Wendling, Amy E. 2009. Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan