Social networks and inequality
Contemporary social science is engaged in the active research of network organization of social life. Networking is originally regarded as a positive phenomenon, as a possibility of citizens’ self organization to solve social problems that the unwieldy state structures fail to tackle. However, as networks were becoming an element of daily life, it became evident that their widening presence might have unintended consequences. Social networks adopted new communication technologies and thereby created new challenges for modern societies. These challenges were made obvious in economy where the principle of networking failed to contribute to greater equality in life standards and norms of economic activity in developed and developing countries. Networking underlying modern economies led to growing disparity between the elites, using fully the advantages of globalization, and the rest of the population. Social networks created an environment that became fertile ground for the revival of archaic values and practices, ethnocentrism closed to the rest of the world. Social networks are actively used by both private and state agents to collect data on citizens without violating existing laws. It is necessary to have a balanced view on networks with an awareness of their consequences for society and individuals
Chernysh, M. F. (2022), “Social networks and inequality”, Research Result. Sociology and management, 8 (2), 4-15. DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2022-8-2-0-1
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Greenfeld, L. (2012), Nacionalizm. Pyat' putej k sovremennosti [Nationalism. Five paths to modernity], PER SE, Moscow, Russia.
Castells, M. (2000), Informacionnaya epoha. Ekonomika, obshchestvo, kul'tura [The Information Age. Economy, society, culture], STATE UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, Moscow, Russia.
O`Neil, K. (2017), Ubijstvenno bol'shie dannye. Kak matematika prevratilas' v oruzhie massovogo porazheniya [Killer Big Data. How mathematics became a weapon of mass destruction], AST Publishers, Moscow, Russia.
Peccei, A. (1980), CHelovecheskie kachestva [Human qualities], Progress, Moscow, Russia.
Fukuyama, F. (2019), Identichnost'. Stremlenie k priznaniyu i politika nepriyatiya [Identity. The Pursuit of Recognition and the Politics of Rejection], Alpina Publisher, Moscow, Russia.
Fukuyama, F. (2005), Konec istorii i poslednij chelovek [The End of History and the Last Man], AST, Moscow, Russia.
Eisenstadt, S. (2017), Multiple Modernities. Ed. by S. Eisenstadt. L.: Routledge, 31.
Ghosh, B. N. (2019), Dependency Theory Revisited, L.: Taylor and Francis, 190.
Habermas, J., Derrida, J. (2003) “After the War: The Rebirth of Europe”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [Online], available at: http://www.brettmarston.com/blog/2003/06/habermas-and-derrida-in-english.html (Accessed 15 Marth 2018).
Hargittai, E. (2011), “The Digital Reproduction of Inequality”, The Inequality Reader, 936-944, L. Routledge.
Kakabadse, A. (2011), Global Elites. The Opaque Nature of Transnational Policy Determination, L.Palgrave Macmillan.
Lash, S., Urry, J. (1994), Economies of Signs and Space, L.: Sage.
Netkin, R. (2018), The Chinese Social-Credit System Experience, N.Y.A, National Reputation System in the Making, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
The article was prepared within the framework of the project “New social inequalities in the era of digitalization” supported by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 21-18-00489)