Research on Social Inequality Behind Dehumanization and Objectification in Media Context

Qiongfang  Hu

doi:10.54691/v458te19

Authors

Qiongfang Hu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/v458te19

Keywords:

Media objectification; Dehumanization; Social inequality; Algorithm recommendation; Digital labor; Culture Industry.

Abstract

Digital media has seeped into almost all areas of our lives. This has, in turn, changed how we socially communicate and how we think. There are new forms of dehumanization and objectification. This article aims to adopt Frankfurt School's criticism of the cultural industry and help understand the media context of objectification. We will analyze five areas: theoretical origins, algorithm suggestions, social media images, digital labor, stigmatization and social inequality. We will articulate how these areas are interconnected. Based on multiple sets of empirical data analysis, as of December 2024, the number of short video users in China reached 1.04 billion, accounting for 93.8% of the total number of internet users; according to the 2025 Global Media Monitoring Project, women only account for 26% of news reporting subjects and sources; a study of digital platforms in Ibero-America finds that women earn 40% less per hour than men, with a weekly income gap of 67%; as of December 2024, there are 313 million rural internet users in China, and the urban-rural digital divide remains prominent. Media objectification cannot be simply attributed to technology itself. It is intertwined with and mutually reinforces existing structures of social inequality, and the logic of capital and power relations lie at the root.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Polity Press.

[2] Honneth, A. (2008). Reification: A new look at an old idea. Oxford University Press.

[3] Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society, 23(1), 97 123.

[4] Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp.167 184). New York University Press.

[5] Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Macmillan.

[6] Roth Cohen, O., Kanevska, H. S., & Eisend, M. (2023). Gender roles in online advertising. Journal of Gender Studies, 32(2), 186 200.

[7] Posetti, J., Shabbir, N., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., & Aboulez, N. (2021). The chilling: Global trends in online violence against women journalists. UNICEF.

[8] Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. Routledge.

[9] Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56 75.

[10] Pescosolido, B. A., & Martin, J. K. (2015). The stigma complex. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 87 116.

[11] Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.