Intergenerational Solidarity as a Prerequisite for Digital Justice

It becomes problematic, however, where this differentiation collides with structural realities that cannot be ignored. Especially with regard to social cohesion as a whole – reflected, among other things, in the adoption and use of technological innovations – it is essential to strive for a new form of intergenerational solidarity.

Digitalization is not merely a technical phenomenon. It amounts to a profound transformation of how we live and work. In its wake, modes of communication, access to knowledge, forms of work, political discourse, intimate relationships, and cultural practices are changing. Anyone who understands digitalization merely as a means to an end underestimates its societal significance. It is infrastructure, a factor of power, and a social space all at once.

In this new digital lifeworld, generational differences become especially visible. While younger people grow up with digital technologies and naturally integrate them into the formation of their identities, many older people experience digital transformations as a more or less severe imposition – sometimes accompanied by a dizzying acceleration or even a loss of familiar orders. Yet the debate is often framed in oversimplified terms: some are seen as “digital natives,” competent and flexible; others as “left behind,” the proverbial brake on progress. Such labels are not only reductive and simplistic in nature – they are also symptomatic of a deeper problem.

This problem is rooted above all in a societal paradigm that places tendencies toward individualization above solidarity. Under an excessive individualism, responsibility is increasingly privatized (cf. Rose 1999; Abels 2016: 369 ff.). Those who fail to keep up with digital technologies are considered to be at fault themselves. Those who withdraw from the logic of constant optimization are labeled as backward. Social participation becomes tied to individual adaptability. And that is a fatal misdevelopment. Because digitalization is anything but an individual choice. It is a structural reality whose effects are manifested primarily in intersubjective ways. Public services, medical care, educational opportunities, banking, political information channels – all of these areas are increasingly shifting into digital spaces. Those who lack access, skills, or resources are structurally excluded. This exclusion is not an individual failure, but a collective, societal one.

Intergenerational solidarity therefore means more than mutual understanding or well-intentioned dialogue formats. It also entails acknowledging inequalities and collectively taking responsibility for fair participation. It does not ask, “Why don’t older people keep up with the times?” or “Why are younger people pushing ahead so fast?” Instead, it is about a fundamental question that concerns both groups alike: “How do we shape the conditions so that no one feels left behind?”

And it is not only about older people. Younger generations, too, are vulnerable in specific ways. They grow up in a digitalized world whose economic logics are built on attention, self-presentation, and constant competition. They are the target group of data-driven business models whose effects on mental health, self-perception, and social relationships are far from fully understood. If we speak of intergenerational solidarity, we must also acknowledge that digital skills are not automatically synonymous with full sovereignty (cf. Endter 2021).

Excessive individualism exacerbates these dynamics. It suggests that anyone can free themselves from structural constraints through the right choices, sufficient self-optimization, and technological adaptation. Yet digital infrastructures are shaped by economic interests, political decisions, and global power relations. They are not neutral. Anyone who uses them moves within explicitly preconfigured architectures.

Intergenerational solidarity opens up a different horizon here. It shifts the focus from individual performance to collective agency and interpretive power. Viewed through an intergenerational lens, it becomes possible to understand digitalization as a societal task. The key questions then become: How can we design digital spaces so that they are inclusive? How can we connect technological innovation with social responsibility? How can different generations learn from one another without devaluing each other?

Such a shift in perspective requires that we do not treat generations as homogeneous blocs. Even within a single age group, there are profound differences in education, income, cultural capital, and access to technology. The generational conflict often obscures social inequalities. Anyone who speaks of “the young” or “the old” simplifies complex realities and draws idiosyncratic dividing lines precisely where bridge-building is actually needed.

Intergenerational solidarity therefore also means refusing to depoliticize social questions. Digital participation depends on infrastructure, educational opportunities, financial resources, and institutional conditions. If we are willing to understand digitalization as a societal project, we must negotiate it democratically. This includes taking different lived realities seriously – those very realities inhabited by different generations.

Older generations bring historical perspectives, experiential knowledge, and a more critical view of technological promises of salvation. Younger generations contribute intuitive media literacy, a willingness to experiment, and new forms of communication. Both perspectives are necessary. Where they meet, a space emerges in which digitalization is understood not as an inevitable form of progress, but as a process that can be shaped.

A society that takes intergenerational solidarity seriously invests not only in technical infrastructure, but also in spaces for encounter. It creates places where knowledge is shared and where both groups benefit sustainably from one another. It understands learning not as a one-way transfer, but as a dialogical process. And it acknowledges that resistance to certain developments can be legitimate – whether in the name of protecting privacy or of enabling almost immediate feedback.

Solidarity never means mere blind agreement. It goes hand in hand with the ability to endure differences and ambiguity – and still pursue a shared goal. In the context of digitalization, this means we must be allowed to argue about which technologies we want to use, how we want to use them, which risks we are willing to take, and where we intend to draw boundaries. But we must not conduct these disputes along rigid generational lines.

Excessive individualism in our time, by contrast, promotes an atomization that undermines collective responsibility (cf. Morton 2019). When everyone is primarily preoccupied with optimizing themselves, there is little room left for structural reflection. Digitalization then becomes yet another arena in which competition and self-promotion unfold. Solidarity all too often appears as a moral add-on rather than a structural necessity. That needs to change. If we grant everyone the opportunity to be heard, we also lay the foundation for friendly encounters.

Without intergenerational solidarity, digitalization risks becoming an amplifier of existing inequalities. With it, by contrast, it can become an instrument of social opening – one capable of placing the idea of human solidarity on a new footing. That requires political course-setting, institutional reforms, and cultural sensitivity. Above all, however, it requires an attitude: an attitude that recognizes we live in a shared lifeworld, both analog and digital. An attitude that does not rigidly delegate responsibility, but shares it organically.

Understood in this way, intergenerational solidarity is neither a nostalgic ideal nor utopian wishful thinking. It is a pragmatically attainable necessity in a time of profound transformation. It reminds us that progress should not be measured by speed alone, but by the question of whom it serves.

If the digital infrastructure of our future is to deliver on its promises, it needs offerings that speak to everyone. Ultimately, the way we shape it will also determine the true quality of our life together.

Whether we end up living in fragmented parallel worlds or in a shared space that allows for diversity and strengthens social cohesion is not a purely technical question. It is a societal one.

Intergenerational solidarity is one of several normative guideposts for this. It links justice with empathy, structural critique with a willingness to engage in dialogue, and technological change with social responsibility. At a time when individualization is often treated as the highest good, it reminds us that inclusion cannot be conceived in isolation, but presupposes a form of collective responsibility (cf. Morton 2019).

Digitalization affects all of us. Shaping it is therefore a shared task for all of us – across generational boundaries.

Abels, Heinz (2016): Identität. Über die Entstehung des Gedankens, dass der Mensch ein Individuum ist, den nicht leicht zu verwirklichenden Anspruch auf Individualität und Kompetenzen, Identität in einer riskanten Moderne zu finden und zu wahren. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Endter, Cordula (2021): Assistiert altern. Die Entwicklung digitaler Technologien für und mit älteren Menschen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Morton, Timothy (2019): Ökologisch sein. Matthes & Seitz, Berlin.

Rose, Nikolas (1999): Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.