Classism

When it comes to income inequality, the Philippines is one of the top countries in the world. The stark distribution of wealth is visible to all Filipinos; seeing slums and developed cities alongside each other is a day-in-the-life experience.

Hence, this wealth gap is a present influence across all the scenarios. The optimistic one features the theme “Equitable Access”, where anyone can benefit from technological developments. In contrast, the pessimistic view depicts these innovations being enjoyed by a privileged few. The probable scenario believes that inequity would continue to persist.

All these perspectives show that the impact of technological innovation is limited by inequitable distribution.

Classism can be mainly seen in the country’s digital divide.

Filipinos with specific privileges, such as higher education, tech-related employment, or residence in affluent areas, would be the primary beneficiaries of emerging technologies: they can leverage AI for workflow optimization, utilize digital banking for higher interest earnings, and acquire digital identities to expedite transactions.

Meanwhile, those from less privileged backgrounds would dread these same innovations: they would worry about AI replacing their jobs, stick to traditional banking methods out of fear, and struggle with the digital identity registration process.

Such technologies can also be weaponized to control those without access to them, especially in oppressive regimes. For instance, if the Philippines were to implement a social scoring system in the future, Filipinos who cannot afford to acquire a digital identity would immediately become part of the underclass; their status would make their lives more difficult (i.e. acquiring government services, getting a job).

This disparity in access can also be applied to sustainable technologies.

Solutions like hydroelectric power and recycled or sustainable clothing may only be affordable for the wealthy. According to artist & writer Czyka Tumalian, such solutions are often created by experts who do not consult with their target communities, making these solutions misaligned with the communities’ everyday experiences.

Additionally, poor Filipinos are stuck living unsustainable lifestyles because that is all they can afford, as shown by tingi culture: the practice of buying things in small amounts, like sachets in sari-sari stores.

Overall, the inequitable distribution of emerging technology makes it difficult for the lower classes to navigate and succeed in life.

The apparent differences in lifestyles would amplify the class divide by creating resentment.  “...[T]ingin ko magkakaroon ako ng resentment and outrage sa…mga mayayaman natin for further disenfranchising everyday people like us,”  said front-end developer Valerie.

Even Filipinos who do not explicitly enable this disenfranchisement would be judged; those who adopt sustainable technologies may be immediately be perceived as elitist. This resentment may eventually develop into class struggle. For instance, tribalism may emerge between regular electricity users and green energy users; during a typhoon, the former may lose power, leading them to attack the latter so that they could access their energy. We can see in these examples how the inequitable distribution of technology would worsen the disunity amongst Filipinos.

Back to Top