It seems to me that people are slowly, ever-so-slowly, coming to terms with the idea that there are ways in they have certain privileges that make their lives easier and more successful in ways that they can’t see.
I myself have an incredible set of privileges. For example, because I am a white male, I know that I am more likely to receive an employee job referral, higher salary when I get a job, and I am less likely to be harassed and assaulted.
I grew up with parents who loved and supported me and gave me a safe environment in which to thrive. I live in the United States, which means I have a higher life expectancy than in other parts of the world. And as a bonus, I’m also less likely to be eaten by a lion.
These, and other privileges, have benefited me in ways I am completely unaware of. Would I not have gotten the job / into that college / gotten off with a warning if I had had a different skin color?
Privilege is tricky to talk about, because so much of it is invisible, and therefore people act as if it doesn’t exist. (Listen to anyone talk about how they are “self-made” and “got where they were with hard work alone” to see just how pernicious this is.)
But it needs to be talked about.
And so today I ask: is living without a smartphone a sign of privilege?

The Hoodie Life
Silicon Valley has a fashion problem. There is a conscious decision made to dress like you don’t have time to dress any better. Witness the famous hoodie worn by the famous multizillionaire. Dude can afford nicer clothes right?
But he doesn’t need to. And that’s significant.
When you are economically disadvantaged, or have less privilege in society, you can’t get away with this. You may not be seen otherwise. You have to play the part.
So right of the bat, the clothes we wear have an undercurrent of privilege.
It’s not hard to see how this might extend to other economic indicators. Choice of car, where one lives, etc. These indicators do not guarantee wealth and privilege, but we often mistake it for such, and so it’s important for some people to make those signs.
Signifying smartphones
Does this argument extend to smartphones?
According to a Washington Post article from 2017:
“For many lower-income Americans, smartphones are the only realistic way to get online. As many as 10 percent of U.S. adults — more than 24 million — pinch pennies by paying for a smartphone plan only. […] It’s this same dynamic that forces some schoolchildren to do their homework from McDonald’s, or to stand outside their school grounds after dark hoping to catch a bit of WiFi from the hotspot inside.”
The argument here is that a smartphone is seen as a necessity for economically-disadvantaged people.
It’s certainly true that if you suffer from housing insecurity, your smartphone is the only way you can get reliable internet without going to public places.
But could these people get a feature phone and use internet in some other way? Spend the money on a laptop instead of a smartphone?
Perhaps. But this is starting to feel a little punitive isn’t it? It also doesn’t sound very important or relevant.
The social cost is real
Bucking societal trends incurs a social cost. It’s not peer pressure per se, but merely the subtle “othering” process that happens when everyone is doing something and you’re not. Oh, you’re not on Facebook? Oh, well, I guess I could text you when events happen, but really, we all just figure it out on Facebook.
This cost can be worse depending on how stable and valued you feel in your community.
Which brings me back to privilege. Again, as a white male with economic security, I operate from a position of strong privilege. If I choose to not use a smartphone, the cost that I incur may be real, in that I miss out on things, can’t communicate in the manner that others do, and can literally be left out of conversations and trends.
But I can afford that cost, because I have a strong community, I have plenty of economic and social security, and I don’t need a smartphone to exhibit the fitting-in that other people might.
In other words, while I want to fit in, but I don’t need to fit in in this way.
And not everyone has that luxury.
So with an economic argument (in that a smartphone is a lifeline that is more affordable to people of limited means) and a social argument (in that a smartphone allows someone to better fit in and be a part of their community), does this mean that not using a smartphone is something accessible to only those with a certain amount of privilege?
To be honest, I’m inclined to say: yes.
What now?
Maybe there is less here than it seems. After all, just because something is primarily available to those with privilege doesn’t mean that it’s not important.
What we discuss on this site are matters of self-fulfillment and connection to others. If you’re able to focus on those concerns, you’re pretty high up on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Put against the problems of food insecurity, housing insecurity, income inequality, demographic inequality, right-sizing your relationship to technology doesn’t feel that important.
But please don’t make the error that because someone is suffering with an affliction that you don’t have, your suffering doesn’t matter or isn’t allowed.
We are all on this journey toward fulfillment, and everyone is in a different place. Even if we recognize our privileges, that doesn’t mean that we have anything to apologize for. What we can—must—do instead is work to make both our lives and those of others better.
Living without a smartphone might be a privilege, but all the more reason to know it, and let your privilege spur you on to work toward a more just world.
Do you think not using a smartphone is a sign of privilege?