{"id":5099,"date":"2026-03-04T21:10:28","date_gmt":"2026-03-04T20:10:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/de\/?p=5099"},"modified":"2026-04-30T14:03:46","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T12:03:46","slug":"eine-politischere-bildung-zur-digitalisierung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/eine-politischere-bildung-zur-digitalisierung\/","title":{"rendered":"Why We Need a More Sociopolitically Oriented Education on Digital Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download article<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Education for Democratic Citizenship empowers learners to participate and co-create democratic decision-making, to develop the competence to be a critical thinker in regards to the political and to contribute to democratic culture. In line with the perspective of the Council of Europe, it is clear that such a pedagogy addresses both the (analytical) ability to think and judge, as well as the (also practical) skills and attitudes needed to participate as an active citizen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Education for democratic citizenship means education, training, awareness-raising, information, practices and activities which aim, by equipping learners with knowledge, skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviour, to empower them to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (Council of Europe CM\/Rec(2010)7 )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Such a pedagogical approach, to which we are committed, achieves this by opening up socio-political learning opportunities. It seeks out the political in everyday life and at the same time addresses socio- political debates and developments through the lens of democracy and human rights. This creates a link between the everyday acts of politically effective action as citizens (my own actions and actions in my immediate environment) and the structurally effective spheres of politics (such as governance, lawmaking and law enforcement, fundamental decisions and guiding principles).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The digital is political<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is obvious that education that focuses on \u201cthe political\u201d cannot be satisfied with a discourse on digitalisation that largely ignores the social, political, economic and cultural impacts of digital policy and digital development. In recent years, awareness has risen on the political character of developments such as platformisation, AI, structural decisions in the information ecosystem and competitive decisions in the digital market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Education must take decisive action here. It must take learners seriously as citizens and address them as such, rather than merely as consumers or so-called \u201cusers\u201d. This is what we refer to in the title \u201cMore than going with the flow\u201d. If one always goes with the flow, at some point one will no longer know what it means to swim against the tide. Maybe one would also like to learn more about water and the ecosystem or perhaps experiment with forms of coexistence, aquariums and swimming variations that are not traditionally envisaged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the normative frame of reference in which education operates is not cyberspace, the future or the digital world. Essentially, it is about the future of democracy in the digital and analogue worlds and in their intersections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With its imagery, attitude and focus on the \u201cnew\u201d and \u201cinto the new\u201d, the digital world still harbours the adventurous mindset of (European and North-American) coloniser-explorers, which are otherwise viewed critically. Many position digitalisation against considerations that lean towards what Beck describes as reflexive modernity:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe are therefore concerned no longer exclusively with making nature useful or with releasing mankind from traditional constraints, but also and essentially with problems resulting from
techno-economic development itself. Modernization is becoming reflexive; it is becoming its own theme. Questions of the development and employment of technologies (in the realms of nature, society and the personality) are being eclipsed by questions of the political and economic \u2018management\u2019 of the risks of actually or potentially utilized technologies\u2026\u201d (Beck, 1992, p. 19).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If digitalisation were the rebirth of solutionism<\/strong> (and the engineering spirit that can solve everything), what consequences would this have for society, interpersonal and human-machine relations? The entry into a \u201crisk-ignorant society\u201d, led by global super-platforms and managed by engineering problem solvers? Would that be civilisatory progress?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, there is no reason to paint an overly dark picture. A decentralised, open, free and accountable internet<\/strong> exists and is growing, albeit largely under the radar of the public in the machine room of digitalisation. Discourse and counter-discourse are essential for progress. This makes it all the more important for our societies to inform themselves about debates concerning technology policies and to engage in them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digitalisation and the state:<\/strong> Depending on the civic culture we grew up in, we have different perspectives on the state, politicians, law enforcement or the legal system. In democracies, the state <\/strong>plays a fundamental role in decision-making and digital governance<\/strong>. So the point is not to promote trust or mistrust in the state, but to encourage critical thinking about how the state, the economy, civil society, media and citizens complement and balance each other. As digital technology becomes an important factor in all areas of life, the general capacity of a democratic state<\/strong> to act is increasingly measured by how well it manages to achieve good and efficient digital governance: from concrete decisions about a smart city or digitalisation projects of a public administration to far-reaching platform governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because digital policy in Europe is largely shaped at the supranational level, an approach outlined in this way is also an example of how education about Europe<\/strong> can be conceptualised beyond a basic understanding of institutions. However, because European public opinion is very weak, governments and polarisers have long exploited this. Ground-breaking European projects e.g. are debated far too little on a national level. Sometimes, the opposite of what is announced in the national political arena is being proclaimed in Europe. Populists take every opportunity to stir up sentiment against Europe. This is particularly problematic for European digital policy in the European Union and the Council of Europe. Citizens usually only hear about the respective projects when the lobbying battle is almost over. That is why the editors of this brochure believe that European democracy depends particularly on more European-oriented education on digital issues. Educators, familiarise yourselves with digital policies. Read the newsletters of the digital civil society and listen to European experts and researchers, particularly those with a critical political understanding of digitalisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the European dimension, digitalisation has a global dimension<\/strong>. The internet itself, transnational infrastructures and global value chains of digital capitalism and hardware production should be integrated into global citizenship education. Critical research provides global perspectives on developments and highlights asymmetries and inequalities. The exploitation of raw materials and rare minerals has long been a topic in some educational practices, often in the context of development aid. However, youth work and education must keep pace with current scientific and social debates. Data colonialism<\/strong> points to the irregular or badly paid workers that make the “miracle” AI work, e.g. and to the fact that platform capitalism depends on unfair and often immoral appropriation \u2013 \u201cplacing datafication within the longer history of colonial appropriations of territory and natural resources on a global scale\u201c (Couldry & Mejias, 2019, p. 11). A short look at who delivers our food or who has to fight for basic workers\u2019 rights in the factories of the IT industry also makes it clear that this is not a matter of academic debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about the environment and the climate<\/strong>? Although it is widely recognised that e-waste, raw material mining and their devastating ecological consequences are part and parcel of IT hardware, the opposite
picture is projected on the software side. Politicians often want something similar to the EU\u2019s climate law, with variations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cDigital transformation, technological innovation and research and development are also important drivers for achieving the climate-neutrality objective\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(EU Regulation 2021\/1119)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Data and developments, as explained in the respective chapter of this handbook, point in a different direction: currently, digitalisation is jeopardising climate targets, the achievement of a circular economy, the longer use of resources and more ethical supply chains. For education, this means examining data and strategies, initiating discourse and supporting it: Which types of digitalisation, hardware and services can contribute to greater sustainability and which threaten general sustainability goals?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The digital economy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Datafication and platformisation have become culturally formative. However, they can only be understood by addressing the economics behind them<\/strong>. If \u201cdata is the oil of the digital economy,\u201d then we are talking about economics and economic management, and therefore about IT engineering based on economic premises. Education and youth work should discuss the different suggestions how to understand the economy of the digital such as: data capitalism, platform capitalism, surveillance capitalism, European data space, \u201cGAFAM\u201d or \u201cbig tech\u201d. We could also sharpen our awareness of the real and still viable alternatives to these models \u2013 the resilience of the free, interoperable, open and diverse internet
ecosystem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, economics education also includes practical financial education and consumer education.<\/strong> Consumer protection services regarding purchasing decisions, the risk of debt, consumer rights, decision-making and dark patterns in the online context should not be reserved for the privileged few. For we see that increasingly young people are acting as producers, as providers of content (e.g. content creators) or traders of goods or speculating with financial products.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The digital is an experiential space<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Some people may consider our approach to be very intellectual, but that is not the case. On the contrary, we are enthusiastic users of digital technology and believe that curiosity and a critical attitude go very well together. Digital education should always be a field of experimentation and an empowering space \u2013 game-based, working with media, experimental, interactive, fun. Curiosity should not only extend to what others set as a standard, but also to alternative digitalisation, that which is growing between the mainstream platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We hope we have made it clearer where we see the difference between education with digital tools and socio-politically conscious education about digital technology: learning with <\/strong>digital tools, services and platforms; learning about <\/strong>these services and platforms, the interests associated with them and their impact on society; and learning that empowers people to advocate for <\/strong>the kind of digitalisation and digital policy that corresponds to their wishes and value<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This perspective highlights what other concepts of digital literacy often fail to address or only address peripherally: critical thinking, independent action, self-directed change and questions about the ethical and political framework of any digital policy and digital capitalism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We would therefore like to invite the readers to view the guidelines and models for strengthening digital skills that they encounter through a political lens. Even though we have the impression that this political
perspective is often overlooked, we firmly believe that young people are grateful when they are given the opportunity to think fundamentally about digitalisation, to learn how it all works in the engine rooms of tracking and analysis and to understand their rights and opportunities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The control paradox<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
One paradox of digitalisation is that people accept it and use digital services and devices because they believe it gives them control and security \u2013 such as access to their bank account, to information or to their social network at any time.<\/td>At the same time, the risk of losing control increases. The more ubiquitous technology is, the less people feel able to actively intervene. They have learned to live with the fear of losing control, but it does not go away.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Rethinking technology in a non-deterministic way<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When asked about your relationship with technology, what do you say? What does your partner say and what do your students say? From our experience, we know that the answers can vary widely, but they rarely correspond to the narrative<\/strong> surrounding digital technology \u2013 exciting, revolutionary, magical. If we want to get a balanced picture and not just reinforce the hype, we need to break away from such determinism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s listen to people\u2019s authentic (and often contradictory) feelings<\/strong> about devices, platforms and services. People who believe they are not competent enough tend to apologise for it. But are they or are they just being too self-critical? Is the need to learn clever prompts at all proof of the technical imperfection of supposedly intuitive systems or of those sitting in front of the screen?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building on this, we can turn to critical digital literacy<\/strong>: how do young people learn to be more than just \u201cusers\u201d \u2013 how do they question, design, hack or use IT differently? We need citizens, not just users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Overcoming a distorted debate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The picture of digitalistaion and in political proposals regards the attitude of citizens to the digitalisation is distorted. Survey data do not <\/strong>suggest that everyone is alarmed or that things cannot go fast enough for them or that they are uncritical users or that they fear their country (whichever it may be) will fall behind due to a lack of digital resilience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even before Elon Musk\u2019s takeover of Twitter, tech companies were already being viewed critically. People have always considered effectively enforceable digital rights to be important. At the same time, society has also consistently demonstrated openness. Public opinion is therefore generally somewhat more balanced than the communication of companies<\/strong>, which often portray the problematic aspects of digital transformation as necessary disruption and digitalisation itself as a universal solution to social problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Impact of digitalisation on daily life<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In your view, what impact do the most recent digital technologies currently
have? Values in brackets show the change since 2017<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td>Very
positive<\/td>		Somewhat
positive<\/td>		Negative
overall<\/td>		Very
negative<\/td><\/tr>
Economy<\/td>12 %
(-11 %)<\/td>		50 %
(- 2 %)<\/td>		18 %
(+8 %)<\/td>		5 %
(+2 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Quality of Life<\/td>12 %
(-4 %)<\/td>		50 %
(=)<\/td>		19 %
(+5 %)<\/td>		5 %
(+1 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Impact on Society<\/td>10 %
(- 5 %)<\/td>		49 %
(- 3 %)<\/td>		26 %
(+6 %)<\/td>		7 %
(+2 %)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: Eurobarometer Spezial 554, QB 1 (2024); In brackets: Change compared to Eurobarometer 460 (2017)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can see a longer trend toward greater criticism<\/strong>: in 2017, people generally welcomed digital transformation with more enthusiasm, but by 2024, the very positive assessments had slightly declined (the
changes between 2017 and 2024 are shown in brackets). At the same time, more critical attitudes increased, especially regarding the impact of digitalisation on society and on the labour market\/economy. In 2024, the topic of AI was very prominent. There was debate about the EU AI Directive and ChatGPT and other large language models became very well-known and widely used. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Europeans in general tend to view digitalisation more critically than people in other parts of the
world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Youth perspectives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One consideration that guided the editors\u2019 actions was that when a young generation grows up with digitalisation, they generate, analyse, share and store digital data from early childhood onwards. This data cloud is no longer just a fragmentary reflection of the self, but part of it. How can we give them more control and agency in relation to their digital selves? While this question is not new for other generations, it is less fundamental for \u201cus\u2019\u201d whose lives are not yet completely digitalised. In this sense, greater data protection and privacy contribute to \u201cintergenerational empathy\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a long time, there was debate over whether the so-called \u201cdigital natives,\u201d the generation that has grown up naturally with digital technology, handle this technology more wisely or more carelessly. Empirically, it cannot be confirmed that this generation possesses higher competence. Young people have a rather more positive and optimistic attitude than other generations, as the following statistic on AI in the workplace illustrates. On the one hand, this can be explained by the everyday nature of the digital for them; on the other hand, by the fact that, compared with other generations, they have so far had relatively little experience in work contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Youth on AI applications in the job<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Improving working conditions<\/td>77 % (\u00d8 EU 67 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Allocating tasks for workers\/scheduling<\/td>62 % (\u00d8 EU 49 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Collecting & storing personal data<\/td>57 % (\u00d8 EU 44 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Gathering additional information about job applicants<\/td>53 % (\u00d8 EU 43 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Selecting job applicants<\/td>46 % (\u00d8 EU 36 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Assessing workers\u2019 performance<\/td>49 % (\u00d8 EU 36 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Monitoring workers<\/td>44 % (\u00d8 EU 31 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Automatically firing workers<\/td>23 % (\u00d8 EU 16 %)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: Eurobarometer Spezial 554, S. 58 (2024); n=26.415; age group: 15-24 in comparision to average of all survey participants<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compared to other generations, young people\u2019s concerns are also somewhat more moderate, broken down here by groups of actors. They express significantly less intense worries regarding employers, advertisers, criminals\/fraudsters, other governments or intelligence services:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Youth concerns: Access to data without permission by\u2026<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>Highly<\/strong> concerned<\/td>Moderatly<\/strong> concerned<\/td>Not<\/strong> concerned<\/td><\/tr>
Employer<\/td>13 %
(\u00d8 17 %)<\/td>		43 %
(\u00d8 36 %)<\/td>		43 %
(\u00d8 46 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Advertisers\/ businesses<\/td>23 %
(\u00d8 31 %)<\/td>		44 %
(\u00d8 42 %)<\/td>		32 %
(\u00d8 26 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Government<\/td>17 %
(\u00d8 20 %)<\/td>		40 %
(\u00d8 41 %)<\/td>		42 %
(\u00d8 39 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Criminals\/ fraudsters<\/td>46 %
(\u00d8 55 %)<\/td>		36 %
(\u00d8 30 %)<\/td>		18 %
(\u00d8 14 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Law enforcement agencies<\/td>16 %
(\u00d8 17 %)<\/td>		37 %
(\u00d8 36 %)<\/td>		46 %
(\u00d8 45 %)<\/td><\/tr>
National secret services<\/td>21 %
(\u00d8 26 %)<\/td>		37 %
(\u00d8 36 %)<\/td>		40 %
(\u00d8 37 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Foreign governments<\/td>23 %
(\u00d8 30 %)<\/td>		37 %
(\u00d8 33 %)<\/td>		38 %
(\u00d8 35 %)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: FRA Fundamental Rights Survey 2020, Europeans (n=4.195), age group: 16-29, \u00d8: EU 27 results for all age groups, n=20.930<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As mentioned above, young people often perceive the digital environment that has surrounded them naturally since birth only little or unconsciously, just as Nicholas Negroponte anticipated in 1998:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cLike air and drinking water, digital existence will be noticed only in its absence, not in its presence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(N. Negroponte 1998)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Empirical data helps us to understand our fears, concerns, hopes and political interests better. In particular, it helps us to gain a critical perspective on the representativity in the discourse, who drives it and whose voices are underrepresented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From an intergenerational perspective arises a productive (generational) tension for education: on the one hand, the youth perspective is essential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, an educational mission emerges particularly from those aspects of digitalisation that are perceived by the younger generation as natural or not even as \u201cdigital,\u201d because they generally overlook the social and political constructedness of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this in mind, digital youth work and political youth education must reflect the controversies and dilemmas surrounding the digital realm itself. It is often only through these controversies that the socio-political nature of the digital world becomes apparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Published in:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

More than Go with the Flow<\/a>. From platform users to active citizens.
(German: Mehr als mit dem Strom schwimmen. Impulse f\u00fcr eine politische(re) digitale Bildung)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is a slightly abridged and slightly edited version of the original article: The Sociopolitical Aspects of Digitalisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Theory, Culture & Society. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019). Making data colonialism liveable: how might data\u2019s social order
be regulated? Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.14763\/2019.2.1411 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Council of Europe (CM\/Rec(2010)7 ). Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 May 2010 at the 120th Session. https:\/\/www.coe.int\/en\/web\/edc\/charter-on-education-for-democratic-citizenship-and-human-rights-education, accessed 21\/10\/2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

European Union (2021\/1119). Regulation (EU) 2021\/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and
amending Regulations (EC) No 401\/2009 and (EU) 2018\/1999 (\u2018European Climate Law\u2019). Official Journal of the European Union L 243\/1 pp. 1\u201317 http:\/\/data.europa.eu\/eli\/reg\/2021\/1119\/oj <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Negroponte, N. (1998, Dec. 1). Beyond digital. Wired,12.
https:\/\/www.wired.com\/1998\/12\/negroponte-55\/, accessed 21\/10\/2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

European Commission: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. (2024). Special Eurobarometer 554. Artificial Intelligence and the future of work. Eurobarometer Report. European Commission. https:\/\/data.europa.eu\/doi\/10.2767\/8591026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2020). What Do Fundamental Rights Mean for People in the EU? Fundamental Rights Survey. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2811\/606553<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Education for Democratic Citizenship empowers learners to participate and co-create democratic decision-making, to develop the competence to be a critical thinker in regards to the political and to contribute to democratic culture. In line with the perspective of the Council of Europe, it is clear that such a pedagogy addresses both the (analytical) ability to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5170,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-learning","category-digitale-transformation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5099"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5099\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5193,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5099\/revisions\/5193"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/civilresilience.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}