The Structure and Mechanisms of Digital Domination

Digitalization, as a tool for constructing a new normality, not only changes the needs and attitudes of individuals, but also forms symbolic structures of domination and mechanisms of public administration capable of integrating them. The purpose of this study is to determine the consequences of digital transformation in the context of recognizing the current structure of political domination, identifying risks to state sovereignty and subjectivity of individuals. The research methods are: the paradigm of social construction, supplemented by the method of comparative analysis. The main conclusions of the conducted research are the following provisions: a) digital platforms, initially considered as tools for improving the quality of governance, have actually turned into autonomous entities that duplicate the functions of the state in the digital space. The consequence of this is their clash with traditional management structures that do not want to give up their monopoly right in the management structure.; b) digital platforms, through their algorithms, create discursive matrices of controlled space that define the meanings and behaviors of individuals, thus exercising symbolic dominance. Being moderators of the imposition of new social practices, they act as opponents of legitimate state institutions, using resources to control public opinion.; c) the absence of a basic discourse in the context of a multitude of differentiated “reality producers” (mass media) operating in the digital space leads to the formation of a specific reciprocity and the absence of a general picture of the world. A possible panacea in this situation is the use of algorithmization tools in order to achieve a common reciprocity and a common picture of the world. The multiplicity of signal sources may not be amenable to imposing the basic discourse directly, however, they all operate within the digital space, where it is possible to impose a basic algorithm that will be based on the discourse required by the state and which will set certain directions and frameworks for the rest of the “producers of reality.” The theoretical significance of the study lies in identifying the consequences of digitalization for the configuration of the dominance structure, the erosion of state sovereignty and the subjectivity of individuals.

1. Volodenkov, S.V., Fedorchenko, A.V., Artamonova, M.A. Digitalization of the space of modern politics in the context of global technological transformations: Current scientific approaches, models and scenarios. Bulletin of the Moscow University. 2022;12(2):46-57. URL: http://vestnikpolit.ru/articles/article/8188/?ysclid=mnhbvkheej470339888; URL: https://elibrary.ru/gxrfwy (In Russ.).

2. Couldry, N., Mejias, U.The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press. 2019. 352 p. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754

3. Zuboff, S. The Age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs; 2019. 717 p. URL: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01100-0 URL: https://library.mastel.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-Age-of-Surveillance-Capitalism_-The-Fight-for-a-Human-Futureat-the-New-Frontier-of-Power-PDFDrive-.pdf

4. Hintz, A., Dencik, L., Wahl-Jorgensen K. Digital citizenship in a datafied society. Cambridge: Polity. 2019. 180 p. URL: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/commun 2020-2086

5. Fuchs, S. Digital democracy and the digital public sphere. Routledge; 2022. 320 p. URL: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003331087

6. Popova E.V., Ustyuzhantseva O.V., Gao H.Constructing digital sovereignty in the media of Russia and China: Big Data analysis. Bulletin of the RUDN University. Series: International Relations. 2025;25(2):251-266. URL: https://elibrary.ru/vvwtwd (In Russ.).

7. Mukhaev, R.T., Chubarov, A.I. Cultural contexts of digital transformation of public administration: A comparative analysis of Western and Eastern models. Journal of Political Studies. 2024;8(2):42-58. URL: https://doi.org/10.12737/2587-6295-2024-8-2-42-58 (In Russ.).

8. Bedenkova, A.S. Digital government as a conceptual development of e-government. Polylogue. 2021;5(3):15. URL: https://doi.org/10.18254/S258770110015808-0 (In Russ.).

9. Latour, B., Vakhstein, V., Smirnov, A.On interobjectivity. The Sociological Review. 2007;6(2):79-98. URL: https://elibrary.ru/jwuryh (In Russ.).

10. Berger, P., Lukman, T. Social construction of reality. A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Moscow: Medium. 1995. 323 p. URL: https://skepdic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Berger_Lukman_-_Sotcialnoe_konstruirovanie_realnosti_Skepdic.ru_.pdf (In Russ.).