Haven’t we been here before? A critical analysis of the fourth industrial revolution

Expectations of a ‘new’ technological era in which work and domestic spaces would be characterized by automation and robotization on a bigger scale than previously known has been periodized as marking the birth of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). The dominant narrative about this revolutionary moment has promoted the benefits and inevitability of this highly technologized epoch. While in the global north some of these technological disruptions have already occurred, the picture of what this means for the global south is less certain. Because of the unfulfilled promises of earlier revolutionary processes, sceptics have been quick to shed light on the structural factors, which might forestall the benefits from trickling down to all and sundry in the global south. Others have raised serious concerns about the possible continuation of the unequal spread of change that has characterized earlier revolutions and appropriations of advanced technologies. A classic example relates to the so-called ‘e-commerce revolution’, which was supposed to usher in an online universe where buyers, sellers, regulators and intermediaries would be interlinked to execute their transactions from all corners of the globe. Just like the techno-enthusiasts and their digital sublime predictions of the revolutionary features of the 4IR, ecommerce proponents point to an online transaction system that already is vibrant, global, and convenient for significant sectors. But who has been left behind? And what of those for whom this disruption means nothing but a loss of income and a redundancy of their skills? Is the planning for this supposedly ‘new epoch’ sufficiently inclusive of a broad church of stakeholders, so that the new transitions are anthropocentric, sensitive to global diversities, and ensure that no communities are left behind? This article is motivated by the sheer desire to critique some of the taken-for-granted assumptions of the 4IR, and adopts what we call a ‘technological-realist standpoint’. It steers the debate away from technological solutionist claims towards the appreciation of the complex interactions between society and technology. It cautions against the reproduction of social and economic inequalities, urging that the dividends of the so-called ‘revolution’ be shared equally so that no one is left behind, as articulated by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SGS).