print

Political and technical dimensions of the AI age:
mutual constitution

Bordachev T.V.,

HSE University, Moscow, Russia, tbordachev@hse.ru

ORCID: 0000-0003-3267-0335 |

Tikhomirova E.G.,

National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia, EGTikhomirova@mephi.ru

ORCID: 0000-0001-5927-4012 |

Article received: 2026.02.10 10:31. Accepted: 2026.03.09 10:31


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.03.02
EDN: OQUVVD

Rubric: Theme of the issue: Time of the digit – the configuration of political and technical

For citation:

Bordachev T.V., Tikhomirova E.G. Political and technical dimensions of the AI age: mutual constitution. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.03.02. EDN: OQUVVD (In Russ.)

Abstract

This work reconceptualises the relationship between the political and the technical in the age of artificial intelligence. The authors reject the dichotomy that presupposes their ontological independence and propose a framework of mutual constitution: the political and the technical are two modalities of a single process of human representation and self-organisation. The investigation traces the transformation of regimes of representation from ancient Greek τέχνη – the creative supplementation of nature through knowledge and craft – to the rupture in the modern epoch, when technique was reduced to instrumental rationality and politics claimed to preserve meaning. The digital age transcends this division: mathematics and algorithms form a universal metalanguage, unifying political narratives and cultural codes into a single system of representation. Concrete examples – AI regulation in the EU, platform recommendation systems, social credit schemes – demonstrate that political decisions require technical architecture, whilst technical management bears a political character, determining the boundaries of inclusion and defining the enemy. The central analysis concerns the transformation of sovereignty. The sovereign decision (in Schmitt’s understanding) splits into three levels: developer sovereignty (data and objective function selection), algorithmic sovereignty (real-time decisions), and state sovereignty (control over systems). The enemy is redefined as an outcome of statistical computation, a mathematical category. At the level of subjectivity, AI technologies function as anthropotechnics – practices of human self-formation. From self–knowledge through language models to collective mobilisation via recommendation systems and state governance through algorithms, AI permeates all levels. These processes are ambivalent: technologies serve both subjection and resistance. The authors identify three cardinal problems: the democratisation of metalanguages, the revision of fundamental political philosophy categories, and narrowing the gap between technical velocity and ethical reflection. The work reconceptualises the foundations of political knowledge, proposing that technical governance be understood as inseparably linked to politics. The political does not disappear; it reformats itself, acquiring new modes of articulation through algorithms. The investigation opens a horizon for reconsidering the boundaries and possibilities of political action under conditions of distributed sovereignty and algorithmic power.

Keywords

political and technical, artificial intelligence, sovereignty, algorithm, representation, metalanguage, digital culture, anthropotechnic, subjectivity, platforms, political order, Carl Schmitt, friend–enemy, AI regulation, digital sovereignty, τέχνη, distributed sovereignty, algorithmic power, digital transformation.

Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 196-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Harman, G. (2018). Object-oriented ontology: a new theory of everything. London: Pelican Books.

Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.

Katzenbach, C. & Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Antonov, B.A. (2023). The concept of enemy in the politico-legal conception of Carl Schmitt. Prologue: Law journal, 4, 7-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21639/2313-6715.2023.4.1

Aristotle. (1976). Peri psyches (Περὶ Ψυχῆς). (Russ. ed.: Aristotle. O dushe. In Aristotle. Sochineniia v 4 tomah. Vol 1 (pp. 369-448). Moscow: Mysl’).

Barthes, R. (1989). La mort de l’auteur. (Russ. ed. Barthes, R. Smert’ avtora. In Barthes, R. Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika (pp. 384-391). Moscow: Progress).

Foucault, M. (2010). Naissance de la Biopolitioue. Cours au Collège de France 1978-1979. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, M. Rozhdenie biopolitiki. Tsikl lektsii, prochitannyi v Kollezh de Frans v 1978-1979 godakh. St. Petersburg: Nauka).

Garin, A.V. (2025). Economic safety of digital platforms. The role of algorithmic sovereignty. Competency (Russia), 6, 12-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/1993-8780-2025-6-12-16

Heidegger, M. (2007). Die Frage nach der Technik. (Russ. ed.: Heidegger, M. Vopros o tekhnike. In Heidegger, M. Vremya i bytie: stat’i i vystupleniya (pp. 306-330). St. Petersburg: Nauka).

Okorokova, R.S. (2022). The conception of anthropotechnics by Peter Sloterdijk. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Art studies, 1, 36-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2022-1-36-51

Pythagoras. (1895). Aurea Carmina (Χρύσεα Ἔπη). (Russ. ed.: Pythagoras. Zolotye stikhi, pripisyvaemye Pifagoru. In Otryvki iz sochinenii velikikh filosofov (pp. 29-30). Moscow: K.T. Soldatenkov).

Schmitt, C. (2000). Politiscнe Tнeologie. (Russ. ed.: Schmitt, C. Politicheskaya teologiya. Moscow: Kanon-Press-C; Kuchkovo Pole Publishing).

Schmitt, C., & Filippov, A. (2001). Das Zeitalter der Neutralisierzngen und Entpolitisierungen. Russian Sociological Review, 1(2), 48-58. (In Russ.)

Schmitt, C. (2005). Die Diktatur. Von den Anfangen des modernen Souveranitatsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf. (Russ. ed.: Schmitt, C. Diktatura. Ot istokov sovremennoi idei suvereniteta do proletarskoi klassovoi bor’by. St. Petersburg: Nauka).

Schmitt, C. (2016). Der Begriff des Politischen. (Russ. ed.: Schmitt, C. Ponyatie politicheskogo. St. Petersburg: Nauka).

Simondon, G. (2018). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. (Russ. ed.: Simondon, G. O rezhimakh sushchestvovaniya tekhnicheskikh ob”ektov. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Instituta ehksperimental’noi morali).

Sytnik, A.N., & Bazlutskaya, M.M. (2025). Sailing in a storm: Russia and the challenges of digital sovereignty. Russia in Global Affairs, 23(4), 38-52. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2025-23-4-38-52

Tikhomirova, E.G. (2023). Smart culture: Genesis. Vestnik MGUKI, 4, 38-45. (In Russ.) https://doi. org/10.24412/1997-0803-2023-4114-38-45

Tikhomirova, E.G., Dushkin, R.V., & Shtompel, L.A. (2026). Hybrid subjectivity in the context of intellectualised urbanism: towards the concept of the smart subject. Voprosy filosofii, 2, 53-63. (In Russ.) https:// doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2026-2-53-63

See also: