This post contains thoughts of Giles Crouch (The digital anthropologist)
Technological development increasingly reflects regional and cultural identities (compare external link), yet its rapid pace often outstrips society’s ability to adapt. Unlike earlier innovations like the railroad or telephone, which allowed time for cultural assimilation, modern technologies create a cultural lag, compelling societal behaviors to evolve quickly. For instance, swiping gestures on smartphones have become second nature for those born into a world where such interactions are the norm, fulfilling basic needs as outlined in Maslow’s hierarchy.
A notable example is the rise of WeChat Pay and Alipay in China. Shaped by regional behaviors, these systems exemplify rapid societal adaptation, with cashless transactions now the norm. QR code payments, ubiquitous for daily activities like grocery shopping or public transport, feel natural to those born into this ecosystem. These technologies address fundamental needs such as safety (secure payments) and belonging (participation in a cashless society) while meeting demands for trust and convenience, demonstrating how cultural contexts influence technological success.
Technology not only shapes belonging and culture but is itself shaped by cultural philosophies. In the West, development is informed by Cartesian dualism, emphasizing competition and existential concerns over superintelligent systems. In Japan, “kokoro” (heart and spirit, compare external link) guides the view of tools and robotics as harmonious companions rather than human replacements. India integrates ancient Vedantic wisdom (compare external link), focusing on purpose and utility (“dharma” and “Maya”, compare external link) rather than rigid distinctions of real versus fake. African nations, guided by the communal philosophy of “ubuntu” (“I am because we are”, compare external link), prioritize technology that serves society over the individual. For instance, Kenya uses technology in agriculture to preserve traditional knowledge while boosting productivity.
Across cultures, data has become the modern equivalent of colonial-era spices, powering “techno-feudalism” (compare external link). Technology companies wield immense influence akin to colonial “company states,” with oversight boards acting as global arbiters and marketplace rules functioning like commercial laws. Unlike physical commodities, data grows in value with use, creating dependencies that resemble colonial-era networks. Tech giants’ “civilizing missions,” such as Meta’s goal to connect the world or Google’s aim to organize the worlds information, echo colonial narratives, raising concerns about digital colonialism.
The digital divide adds another layer of complexity, extending beyond economic disparities to socio-technical gaps (compare external link and idea of “Value Engineering”). Those who embrace advanced tools gain significant advantages, while those who lack access or reject such technologies risk falling further behind, exacerbating societal inequality. Ironically, former colonized regions and their “company states” (compare external link) are now leading new forms of digital colonization, as partnerships between corporations redefine power dynamics and challenge foundational cultural concepts.