In an article published in La Vie des Idées, the sociologist Pierre Mazet draws up a stimulating, severe and well-founded report on the effects of exclusion produced by the dematerialization of the administrative relationship.
The contribution of this article does not lie in the collection of facts or observations (it is largely based on the work of the digital society mission, the Digital Barometer, the Capacity report or the reports of the defender of rights), but in the analysis it proposes of a demand for connectivity that weighs, first and foremost, on the most fragile groups: it introduces, in particular, a distinction between "digital exclusion and "exclusion by digital means" (as a result of implicit norms of dematerialization that prevent individuals from exercising their rights). He also formulates, in conclusion, a concern about digital inclusion steps that would not tackle "the social inequalities that structure digital inequalities".
Pierre Mazet observes, first of all, that "today we do not have a precise census of all the dematerialized procedures. (...) Far from being anecdotal, this state of affairs is symptomatic of a deployment carried out without anticipation or real management, the coordination of the multiplicity of its actors being complicated by the absence of any body or structuring framework of national dimension. (...) This shift towards dematerialization of the relationship appears all the more powerful because it has occurred at the same time as a reduction in physical reception and other modes of contact, reinforcing the perception of a dehumanization of contact with the administrations.
As connectivity is becoming " a sine qua non condition for access to administrative procedures", Pierre Mazet is reviewing the work on "non-digitally autonomous" people.
"Statistically, the profile of people with "digital difficulties" is clearly established. All the studies indicate a strong correlation between digital use and age, level of education and level of resources: those who are not connected are older, less educated and have fewer financial resources than those who are connected; this remains true for those who are "distant" from the digital world. On the other hand, we have "no figures that would allow us to relate the degree of digital autonomy to the online procedures that the people described must carry out. In other words, they are often blind in terms of measuring the effects, and make any reliable and realistic projection of the impacts of a generalization of the dematerialization of procedures - and therefore of the scope of the measures to be put in place to remedy the situation and support the public - uncertain.) It is indeed a constant in the announcement of administrative simplification to evade the requirements of dematerialization.
These requirements are financial and material (connection, equipment) but also cognitive and cultural: " the use of administrative sites supposes other competences than the only ability to know how to connect to Internet": interfaces, procedures of identification and validation, capacities of navigation and location in the succession of the pages and the global architecture of the sites")
What's more, "administrative digital technology has its own requirements that distinguish it radically from other online uses (leisure, entertainment, commercial, information). On the one hand, because it is above all administrative: it therefore assumes a minimum of administrative autonomy in order to find one's way around the administrative universe and language; on the other hand, because the effects of a mishandling are out of all proportion to other online uses: a mistake can have dramatic consequences in terms of suspension of rights, often essential to the financial equilibrium of precarious households dependent on the payment of benefits.
"Exclusion through digital technology"
The administrative obligation to connect is thus "very unequal between individuals: a person receiving social rights subject to a quarterly declaration of resources is automatically more obliged to connect than a person not receiving social benefits. We find here the famous double penalty already described by Credoc in 2016, and denounced, regularly, by many associations and by the Defender of Rights. It is the most precarious individuals, both economically and in terms of social isolation, who are the least connected, even though they are more dependent on social rights and benefits and have a greater obligation to do so.
"More than digital exclusion, which would refer to a lack of skills of individuals who would not be at ease with the digital, this unequal exposure to the obligation to connect leads us to speak of exclusion by the digital: it is primarily the implicit norms of dematerialization that make users unable to request their rights.
Pierre Mazet proposes a reversal here: he invites us to look "at the production of exclusions by technical processes" rather than "at the (digital) incapacities of individuals, which would make them personally responsible for the withdrawal of their rights.
"In many situations, individuals are made unable to apply by the material and behavioral standards required" .. . This incapacitation concerns all the sequences of the access to law process: "on the application process, but also on access to information (increasingly exclusively online), the follow-up of one's approach or even the making of an appointment; it also concerns people with the capacity to use ("digitally autonomous"), but lacking equipment or a satisfactory connection, making it all the more difficult to engage in the process and more likely to abandon it."
Disabling effects probably underestimated
"We do not currently have any figures that would allow us to objectively assess the impact of dematerialization on non-use," adds Pierre Mazet. "However, feedback from the field is all converging to attest to the extent of the phenomenon: front-line receptionists, social workers and volunteers all describe the influx of people who come to them because they don't know how to use "digital" technology...
The national strategy for digital inclusion in May 2018 had identified these phenomena of postponement of the public in difficulty with the digital to the Communal or Intercommunal Centers of Social Action, town halls, social centers, even media libraries or libraries.
In a survey conducted in a priority district of the city's policy, researchers Gwenhaël Burgy, Vincent Dubois and Thierry Renaudier described as "public intermediaries by overflow" these local public actors who come to the aid of people to carry out procedures.
Pierre Mazet adds that "what these digital inclusion actors and mechanisms have in common is that they often rely primarily on non-professional actors (volunteer associations and civic services), that they leave the definition of autonomy relatively open-ended (often reduced to the ability to carry out administrative procedures online on one's own), and that they do not commit to the sustainability of the means they implement.
Paradoxically, concludes Pierre Mazet, " these devices for fighting against the effects of digital exclusion within the framework of dematerialization risk missing the challenges of digital inclusion (...) Express formulas of one-shot mediation will therefore neither allow individuals to acquire stable digital skills, nor organizations to empower their users, who will inevitably come back to ask for help at the first modification of the exchange interface.
Référence :
