The peculiarities of the subjectness phenomenon in the context of contemporary technological transformations

The peculiarities of the subjectness phenomenon in the context of contemporary technological transformations

Article received: 2020.12.02. Accepted: 2021.10.14
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.05.04

For citation:

Volodenkov S.V., Fedorchenko S.N. The peculiarities of the subjectness phenomenon in the context of contemporary technological transformations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 5. P. 40-55. (In Russ.).


The active penetration of digital communications into crucial areas of the state and society, the intensive development of artificial intelligence technologies and neural network algorithms, the growing influence of digital platforms as new actors of modern socio-political processes, the reconfiguration of the usual system of social relations in the digital space warrant a review of the content and functional aspects of the traditional phenomenon of subjectness, which is one of the essential elements of the structure of power and society. Carrying out a critical analysis of the current scientific discourse in the field of transformations of traditional subjectness, the authors consider the concepts of platform capitalism and algocracy as explanatory models of the changes taking place in the system of modern socio-political communications. The study shows that digitalization and technological transformations, the formation of a new sociotechnical phygital space have not simply made adjustments to the sphere of subjectness familiar to us but also intensified the processes of its evolution. As a new phenomenon emerging in the digital space, atypical subjectivity is highlighted, associated with the potential for self-communication of AI agents in the conditions of the formation of artificial sociality. Special attention is paid to the new phenomenon of hybrid subjectness, formed within the framework of the functioning of digital centaurs, potentially capable of acting as extensions of the existing political institutions of the state. An attempt is made to show how the modern algorithmizing and technologization of the sphere of socio-political communications are consistent with the approaches of G. Agamben and F. Ankersmit, dedicated to the phenomenon of the “empty political center”. Although the prospects for the formation of new types of subjectness considered in work have not been realized today and are limited by modern technological capabilities, the article nonetheless outlines the potential for their implementation. Two key factors determine this potential: the exponential increase in the complexity of AI-technologies and the trend according to which modern people are increasingly inclined to rely on the ready-made solutions of AI systems. 

the phenomenon of subjectness, technological transformations, digitalization, artificial intelligence, neural network algorithms, algocracy, artificial sociality.


Akinwonmi, A.E., Kuboye, B.M., & Thompson, A.F. (2013). A neural network approach to selection of candidates for electoral offices by political parties. International Journal of Information Science, 3(3), 63-69.

Aneesh, A. (2006). Virtual migration: the programming of globalization. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.

Barber, B. (1998). Three scenarios for the future of technology and strong democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 573-589.

Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13.

Fallis, D. (2021). The epistemic threat of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 623-643.

Hildebrandt, M. (2018). Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376, 2128.20170355.

Khaze, S.R., Masdari, M., & Hojjatkhah, S. (2013). Application of artificial neural networks in estimating participation in elections. International Journal of Information Technology, Modeling and Computing (IJITMC), 1(3), 23-31.

Lewis, M., Yarats, D., Dauphin, Y.N., Parikh, D., & Batra, Dh. (2017). Deal or no deal? End-to-end learning for negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2017. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2433-2443). Copenhagen.

Muchlinski, D., Yang, X., Birch, S., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2021). We need to go deeper: Measuring electoral violence using convolutional neural networks and social media. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(1), 122-139.

Razquin, J.B., & Inigo, E.A. (2018). A friendly approach to Open Government: Chatbots. Navarra: Universidad Publica de Navarra.

Sruthi, M.S., & Shanjai, K. (2021). Automatic voting system using convolutional neural network. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1916.012074, 1-8.

Torres, M., & Cantu, F. (2022). Learning to see: convolutional neural networks for the analysis of social science data. Political Analysis, 30(1), 113-131.


Agamben, G. (2019). Kingdom and glory. Towards a theological genealogy of economics and management. (Russ. ed.: Agamben, G. Tcarstvo i Slava. K teologicheskoj genealogii jekonomiki i upravlenija. Saint-Petersburg: Institut Gajdara Publ.).

Alpidovskaya, M.L. (2021). Digital Leviathan. Problems in Political Economy, 1, 152-164. (In Russ.)

Ankersmit, F. (2014). Aesthetic politics. Political philosophy beyond fact and value. (Russ. ed.: Ankersmit, F. Esteticheskaya politika. Politicheskaya filosofiya po tu storonu fakta i tsennosti. Moscow: HSE Publ.)

Brockman, J. (2020). Possible minds: 25 ways of looking at AI. (Russ. ed.: Brockman, J. Iskusstvennyj intellekt – nadezhdy i opasenija. Moscow: AST).

Castells, M. (2000). Information age: economy, society and culture. (Russ. ed.: Castells, M. Informatsionnaya epokha: ekonomika, obshchestvo i kul’tura. Moscow: HSE Publ.)

Efanova, E.V., & Veremeev, N.Yu. (2017). Political opposition as a subject of electoral process: participation factors, types. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations, 22(6), 30-37. (In Russ.)

Gaman-Golutvina, O.V. (2020). Modern comparative political science facing the challenges of development. Perspectives and Prospects. E-journal, 1, 6-29. (In Russ.)

Gomerov, I.N. (2016). Political subjectness: prerequisites for the definition of the concept. Political Institutions and Processes, 1, 5-13. (In Russ.)

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2006). The multitude: war and democracy in the era of empire. (Russ. ed.: Hardt, M., & Negri, A. Mnozhestvo: voyna i demokratiya v epokhu imperii. Moscow: Cultural revolution Publ.).

Ivanov, V.G., & Ignatovskiy, Y.R. (2020). Deepfakes: prospects for political use and threats to the individual and national security. RUDN Journal of Public Administration, 7(4), 379-386. (In Russ.)

Kaspe, S. (2015). Against autonomous subject: how it is possible and not possible to correct political form. Politeia, 3, 6-36. (In Russ.)

Konurov, A.I., & Budylin, K.Yu. (2012). Subjectness as a political science category. The Authority, 6, 148-152. (In Russ.)

Ledyaev, V.G. (2001). Vlast’: konceptual’nyj analiz [Power: a conceptual analysis]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

Lovink, G. (2019). A critical theory of the Internet. (Russ. ed.: Lovink, G. Kriticheskaya teoriya interneta. Moscow: Ad Marginem, Garazh).

Luhmann, N. (2007). Soziale systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen theorie. (Russ. ed.: Luhmann, N. Social’nye sistemy. Ocherk obshhej teorii. Saint Petersburg: Nauka).

McLuhan, G.M. (2003). Understanding media: external human extensions. (Russ. ed.: McLuhan, G.M. Ponimanie media: vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka. Moscow, Zhukovskiy: KANON-press-Ts, Kuchkovo pole).

Mamina, R.I., & Tolstikova, I.I. (2020). Phygital generation in free global communication. International Journal of Open Information Technologies, 8(1), 34-41. (In Russ.)

Manovich, L. (2018). The language of new media. (Russ. ed.: Manovich L. Jazyk novyh media. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press).

Mikhaylenok, O.M., & Malysheva, G.A. (2019). Political relations in the digital networks context. The Caspian Region: Politics, Economics, Culture, 3, 79-87. (In Russ.)

Miroshnichenko, I.V. (2012). Building subjectivity of network associations in the Russian public policy. Human. Community. Management, 1, 76-86. (In Russ.)

Remarchuk, V.N. (2016). Social technologies as a tool for destructing the state constituent integrability. Humanitarian Bulletin, 12, 1-12. (In Russ.)

Rezaev, A.V. (Ed.) (2020). Ot iskusstvennogo intellekta k iskusstvennoj social’nosti: novye issledovatel’skie problemy sovremennoj social’noj analitiki [From artificial intelligence to artificial sociality: new research problems of modern social analytics]. Moscow: VCIOM. (In Russ.)

Rezaev, A., Starikov, V., & Tregubova, N. (2020). Sociology in the age of ‘artificial sociality’: search of new bases. Sociological Studies, 2, 3-12. (In Russ.)

Rusakov, S.S. (2016). Three-level conception of political power of M. Foucault. Human. Community. Management, 17(1), 114-126. (In Russ.)

Shayhitdinova, S.K. (2014). Political subjectness of Russian mass-media in the situation of information war. The Review of Economy, the Law and Sociology, 3, 243-253. (In Russ.)

Somenkov, S.A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: from object to subject? Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 2, 75-85. (In Russ.)

Srnicek, N. (2020). Platform capitalism. (Russ. ed.: Srnicek, N. Kapitalizm platform. Moscow: HSE Publ.).

Suchman, L. (2019). Human-machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. (Russ. ed.: Suchman, L. Rekonfiguracija otnoshenij chelovek – mashina: plany i situativnye dejstvija. Moscow: Jelementarnye formy).

Toffler, E. (2002). Shock of the future. (Russ. ed.: Toffler, E. Shok budushchego. Moscow: AST Publ.).

Virno, P. (2013). The grammar of the set: towards the analysis of the forms of modern life. (Russ. ed.: Virno, P. Grammatika mnozhestva: k analizu form sovremennoy zhizni. Moscow: Ad Marginem).

Volobuev, A.V., & Orekhovskaya, N.A. (Ed.). (2019). Filosofskie problemy razvitija iskusstvennogo intellekta [Philosophical problems of the development of artificial intelligence]. Moscow: Prometheus. (In Russ.)

When the ties are cut: interview with Zygmunt Bauman. (2017). Sociological journal, 23(1), 156-176. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 5, 2022

See also:

Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Fedotova V.G., Pantin I.K., Kolpakov V.A., Fedotova N.N., Sizemskaya I.N., , Korolev S.A., Oleynikov Ju.V., , Kanarsh G.Yu., Vlasova V.B., , , Kuznetsov D.A., Petrenko N.S., , , Verjaskina V.P.,
The changing sociality: outlines of the future. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No1

Kochetkov A.P., Mamychev A.Yu.,
Russian public policy in the digital age: trends, scenarios and regulatory practices. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No1

Bogdanov K.V., Yevtodyeva M.G.,
Lethal autonomous weapon systems: landscape and perspectives. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No6

Vedeneyeva V.T.,
Algorythms of Hope and the Self-Delusion. – Polis. Political Studies. 1991. No5

Martyanov V.S.,
Federalism: political structure or a pact between elites?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
2 2016

Satarov G.A.
Trust as an Object of Political Sociology. Part II

 Полный текст


   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991