The Political Subjectivity of Digital Actors in the Context of Ensuring Digital Sovereignty

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The modern political life of society is being intensively transformed in connection with the development of the digital space of political communications. The emergence of new subjects of formation and management of discourse and processes of political coding (S.N. Fedorchenko) becomes a factor of redistribution of power in society and a challenge for the institutions of power. Based on the methods of structural-functional and discursive approaches, as well as a communicative approach to identify the importance of political communication in the digital space of the Internet in the processes of managing public consciousness and behavior of citizens. Using the methods of hermeneutics, general scientific descriptive methods, analysis and synthesis, the author’s approach to the study of digital sovereignty is presented. Based on the analysis of the algorithms in the digital Internet space, the risks and threats that a modern state may face are identified. New subjects of political coding are identified, and it is also shown in which cases algorithms on the Internet acquire the features of coding subjects. It is shown that this phenomenon can lead to the redistribution of actual power in society, as well as to the formation of noninstitutional forms of power, to which the state and its bodies are forced to obey in the absence of digital sovereignty. The loss of subjectivity in the processes of communication and the formation of discourse is a factor in the loss of power and loss of control over the processes of governance of society by the state. The achievement of digital sovereignty, the components of which are defined in the article, is the most important condition for protecting the value-semantic and information space from interference by external actors and the introduction of destructive narratives, which allows preserving the political stability of the state.

About the authors

Albina B. Romashkina

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: albrom@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-2452-0738

PhD in Political Sciences. Assistant Professor of the Department of Comparative Political Science

Moscow, Russian Federation

Daria A. Kirichuk

RUDN University

Email: kirichukda@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-0378-4443

Postgraduate student of the Department of Comparative Political Science

Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Adamopoulou, E. & Moussiades, L. (2020). Chatbots: History, technology, and applications. Machine Learning with Applications, 2, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2020.100006 Bernays, E. (2013). The engineering of consent. Polis. Political Studies, (4), 122–131. (In Russian).
  2. Beznosov, M.A. & Golikov, A.S. (2022). Digital echo chambers as phenomenon of political space. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 24(3), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2022-24-3-499-516
  3. Сastells, M. (2017). The power of communication. Moscow: The Higher School of Economics Publishing House. (In Russian).
  4. Fedorchenko, S.N. (2023). The power of the algorithm: Technologies of legitimization of political regimes in the conditions of digitalization. Moscow: Prospekt. (In Russian).
  5. Harel, T.O., Jameson, J.K., & Maoz, I. (2020). The normalization of hatred: Identity, affective polarization, and dehumanization on Facebook[90] in the context of intractable political conflict. Social Media + Society, April-June, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120913983
  6. Interian, R., Marzo, G.R., Mendoza, I., & Ribeiro, C.C. (2023). Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: an annotated review of measures and reduction methods. International Transactions in Operational Research, 3(6), 3122–3158. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13224 Kapto, A.S. (2011). Artistic culture: Concept, essence, main functions. Moscow: Akademiсa. (In Russian).
  7. Luhmann, N. (2001). Macht [Power]. Moscow: Praksis Publications. (In Russian).
  8. Nikonov, V.A., Voronov, A.S., Sazhina, V.A., Volodenkov, S.V., & Rybakova, M.V. (2021). Digital sovereignty of the modern state: Content and structural components (based on expert research). Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy Sociology and Political Science,
  9. (60), 206–216. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/60/18
  10. Russel, S. (2020). The goal embedded in the machine. In J. Brokman (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence — hopes and fears (pp. 49–63). Moscow: AST Publishing House. (In Russian).
  11. Scheibenzuber, C., Neagu, L.M., Ruseti, S., Artmann, B., Bartsch, C., Kubik, M., et al. (2023). Dialog in the echo chamber: Fake news framing predicts emotion, argumentation and dialogic social knowledge building in subsequent online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107587
  12. Shinyaeva, O.V., Poletaeva, O.V., & Slepova, O.M. (2019). Information and digital inequality: Searching for effective population adaptation practices. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal, (4), 68–85. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.14515/ monitoring.2019.4.04
  13. Streltsov, A.A. (2017). Sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state in the environment of information and communication technologies in the context of international security. The International Affairs, (2), 87–106. (In Russian).
  14. Van Dijk, T.A. (2015). Discourse and power: Representation of dominance in language and communication. Moscow: URSS, “LIBROCOM”. (In Russian).
  15. Volodenkov, S.V. (2020). The phenomenon of contemporary state’s digital sovereignty in the context of global technological transformations: content and features. Journal of Political Research, (4), 3–11. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.12737/2587-6295-2020-3-11
  16. Volodenkov, S.V., Fedorchenko, S.N., & Artamonova Ju.D. (2022). Contemporary state in the context of digital technological transformations: Political opportunities, risks, and challenges. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 24(3), 351–366. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2022-24-3-351-366
  17. Wolleback, D., Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., & Enjolras, B. (2019). Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859
  18. Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
  19. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affairs.

Copyright (c) 2023 Romashkina A.B., Kirichuk D.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies