print

Digital transformation and artificial intelligence in the shaping of the political world

Torkunov A.V.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, rectorat@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 498974 | ORCID: 0000-0001-7352-3345 |

Article received: 2025.07.24 21:06. Accepted: 2025.08.05 21:06


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.05.03
EDN: TGGHCI

Rubric: We in the world, the world in us

For citation:

Torkunov A.V. Digital transformation and artificial intelligence in the shaping of the political world. – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.05.03. EDN: TGGHCI

This article acknowledges the support of the research from the Russian Science Foundation (RSF) grant No. 25-18-01128 “Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Civilizational Identity Formation in the Digital Age.” The author expresses gratitude to Professor O.V. Gaman-Golutvina for discussing the ideas of this article during its preparation, including consideration of the topic in domestic and foreign literature.

Abstract

The article is dedicated to reflections on an issue that, in the author’s opinion, may become defining for political science in the coming decades. This is the understanding of the political dimensions of social existence transformed by digitalization and artificial intelligence (AI). The result of digital transformation and the application of AI algorithms has been a radical change in the nature of social reality, including its political facets: natural sociality, which seemed an inherent property of humans as a bio-social species, gives way to a fundamentally new phenomenon – artificial sociality, in which individuals interact not only with each other but also with artificially created structures. In this new reality, fundamentally new models, principles, and mechanisms of socio-political interaction emerge, capable of effectively influencing mass consciousness. Fundamental shifts in the organization of social existence create new challenges for the system of political education and scientific research. While previously the most sought-after metacompetence was the skill of ‘learning how to learn’, i.e., the ability to independently acquire new knowledge, today the relevant metacompetence is the principle of ‘learning to change’, i.e., the ability to manage changes and innovations. No less important is the reassessment of the concepts of power and political subjectivity. Key themes in political science may include the study of algorithms as new forms of governance and global geopolitics of artificial sociality. Another significant dimension is the ethical task of developing normative frameworks for regulating interactions between people and artificial agents. Accordingly, new challenges demand new methodological perspectives and methodical practices. Thus, artificial sociality is not just a challenge for the social sciences in general and political science in particular – it is a unique opportunity for the transformation and reshaping of political knowledge. The study of artificial sociality can open new horizons for political science.

Keywords

digital transformation, artificial intelligence, artificial sociality, political subjectivity, education, metacompetencies.

Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-11.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305115603080

O’Reilly, T. (2011). Government as a platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(1), 13-40. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00056

O’Reilly, T. (2017). What’s the future and why it’s up to us. London: Penguin Random House.

Stephenson, N. (1992). Snow Crash. New York: Bantam Books.

Švec, M., & Madleňák, A. (2017). Legal frameworks for the phygital concept. European Journal of Science and Theology, 13(6), 209-217.

Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Technofeudalism: what killed capitalism. New York: Melville House.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affairs.

Gaman-Golutvina, O.V. (2019). Overcoming methodological differences: the debate about knowledge politics in an age of uncertainty. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 19-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.03

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.)

Rezayev, A.V. (Ed.). (2020). Artificial intelligence on the way to artificial sociality: new research agenda for social analytics. Moscow: VCIOM. (In Russ.)

Smorgunov, L.V. (2021). Digitalization and network effectiveness of public governability. Political Science (RU), 3, 13-36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.03.01

Srnicek, N. (2019). Platform capitalism. (Russ. ed.: Srnicek, N. Kapitalizm platform. Moscow: HSE University Publishing House).

Volodenkov, S.V., Fedorchenko, S.N., & Artamonova, J.D. (2022). Sociotechnical reality of the digital space of contemporary politics: structure and features. Political Expertise: POLITEX, 18(3), 230-253. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23.2022.301

Volodenkov, S.V., & Fedorchenko, S.N. (2022). Traditional political institutions in the context of digitalization: risks and prospects of transformation. Discourse-P, 19(1), 84-103. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17506/18179568_2022_19_1_84

Volodenkov, S.V., Fedorchenko, S.N., & Pechenkin, N.M. (2024). Risks, threats, and challenges of introducing artificial intelligence and neural network algorithms into the contemporary system of sociopolitical communications: the results of expert study. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 406-424. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2024-26-2-406-424

Zinovyeva, E.S., & Shit’kov S.V. (Eds.). (2023). Tsifrovyye mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya: v dvukh tomakh [Digital international relations: in two volumes]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

See also: