Digital Reflexivity and the Global Self: Individuality and Social Justice in Algorithmic Cultures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2025.v10.n10.021Keywords:
Digital ethics, individuality, social work, algorithmic culture, reflexivity, moral agency, critical media studiesAbstract
Background: The algorithmic age has redefined individuality, moral agency, and responsibility. In an environment where visibility and conformity determine social legitimacy, the capacity for inward reflection—the ethical foundation of individuality—faces unprecedented erosion. Method: This article examines the global crisis of individuality through the integrated lenses of digital ethics, critical social work, and media theory. Using a conceptual synthesis of peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2025, the paper argues that social-media infrastructures reconfigure moral subjectivity by rewarding performative participation and punishing reflective resistance. Result: Drawing on interdisciplinary literature from communication, sociology, and social work, it explores how algorithmic platforms commodify attention and redistribute visibility, producing inequities of recognition and eroding the conditions for moral depth. Conclusion: The paper concludes by advancing a model of inward responsibility: a praxis of reflective engagement that reclaims ethical autonomy within algorithmic systems. Implications are discussed for digital literacy, platform governance, and civic pedagogy.
References
Afrouz, R., & Lucas, J. (2023). A systematic review of technology-mediated social work practice: Benefits, uncertainties, and future directions. British Journal of Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173231165926
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G., & Guidry Moulard, J. (2020). Authenticity under threat: When social-media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. Sage.
Behan-Devlin, L. (2022). Slow social work: Toward reflective practice in a digital age. Qualitative Social Work, 21(5), 845–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221087425
Berryman, R., & Ferguson, R. (2021). The influencer industry and the digital transformation of self. New Media & Society, 23(3), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820908537
Broussard, M. (2023). Moral machines: The ethics of AI and algorithmic bias. MIT Press.
Diefenbach, S., & Christoph, L. (2023). The social media paradox: Review of social media use and its positive and negative effects on well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 49, 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101565
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
Floridi, L. (2021). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107–120.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Gautam A. & Bansal S. (2014), Community-based approach as an innovation in mental health care in India, Archives of Mental Health, 15(1), 19-23,
Gautam, A., & Nainwal, R. (2025). Framing the self: Media’s role in shaping individual and collective identity. International Journal of Advanced Mass Communication and Journalism, 6(2 B), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.22271/27084450.2025.v6.i2b.126
Helberger, N. (2020). Democracy under the influence: How to regulate online platforms? European Law Journal, 26(1–2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12325
Jha , S. K.; & Sharma S. (2023).The Transformative Role of Tools in Educational Research:
Unlocking Insights and Advancing Pedagogy. Research as a Mode of Exploration:Some Examples; SCERT, 66-70
Kaftanski, W. (2023). The vice of social comparison in Kierkegaard: Nature, religious moral psychology, and normativity. Religions, 14(11), 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14111394
Lazer, D. M. J., et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). Integration of qualitative evidence: Toward theory building. Qualitative Research, 10(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110376044
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2018). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
Mishna, F., Milne, E., Bogo, M., & Regehr, C. (2021). An international study examining social workers’ use of information and communication technologies in practice. Child & Family Social Work, 26(3), 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12836
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Polanco-Levicán, K., Saavedra, J., & Campos, R. (2022). Understanding social media literacy: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6581–6607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11200-4
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-228
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
