هوش مصنوعی و تحول سوبژکتیویته سیاسی: در جست‌وجوی یک راه‌حل
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
منصور انصاري
1
,
سامان مهدانیان
2
1 - استادیار گروه اندیشه سیاسی پژوهشکده امام خمینی و انقلاب اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 - کارشناس علوم کامپیوتر، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: هوش مصنوعی, حکمرانی الگوریتمی, سوبژکتیویته سیاسی, هانا آرنت, عمل سیاسی.,
چکیده مقاله :
تحول بنیادین فناوری‌های هوش مصنوعی در دهه‌های اخیر، به چالشی هستی‌شناختی و سیاسی برای مفهوم مدرن «سوژه» و «سوبژکتیویته سیاسی» انجامیده است. این مقاله با طرح این پرسش که «سوژه‌گی سیاسی انسان در عصر حکمرانی الگوریتمی، چه سرنوشتی خواهد یافت؟» بر آن است تا نسبت میان قدرت الگوریتمی، زوال اراده انسانی و امکان بازسازی کنش سیاسی را واکاوی کند. در پاسخ، دو رویکرد عمده بررسی می‌شود: نخست، دیدگاهی بدبینانه که پایان سوژه‌گی انسان را در عصر داده‌محور مفروض می‌گیرد و دوم، دیدگاهی که امکان بازسازی یا احیای سوژه سیاسی را از خلال رویکردهای فلسفی جدید ممکن می‌داند. روش تحقیق، تحلیلی- تفسیری با رویکردی بین‌رشته‌ای است که مفاهیم فلسفه سیاسی مدرن را با تحولات فناوری معاصر پیوند می‌زند. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که بازتعریف سوژه‌گی، تنها در صورت به رسمیت شناختن حریم شناختی، حق تفکر مستقل و بازسازی میدان گفت‌وگوی بین‌الاذهانی ممکن خواهد بود.
Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation
of Political Subjectivity: In Search of a Solution
Mansour Ansari*
Saman Mahdanian**
The fundamental transformation of artificial intelligence technologies in recent decades has led to an ontological and political challenge to the modern concept of the "subject" and "political subjectivity." This article, by posing the question "What fate will human political subjectivity face in the age of algorithmic governance?" seeks to examine the relationship between algorithmic power, the decline of human will, and the possibility of reconstructing political action. In response, two major approaches are explored: first, a pessimistic view that assumes the end of human subjectivity in the data-driven age; and second, a view that considers the possibility of reconstructing or reviving the political subject through new philosophical approaches. The research method is analytical-interpretive with an interdisciplinary approach that links concepts of modern political philosophy with contemporary technological developments. The findings of the study indicate that redefining subjectivity is only possible through the recognition of cognitive privacy, the right to independent thought, and the reconstruction of the field of intersubjective dialogue.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Governance, Political Subjectivity, Hannah Arendt, Political Action.
Introduction
These days, artificial intelligence is rapidly entering the daily lives
of humans and is expected to become a commonplace tool in the not-so-distant future. Initially, at least in a country like Iran, its entertaining and humorous aspect was more prominent, and shortly thereafter, this joke- and laughter-based interaction gave way to greater astonishment and wonder. The root of this amazement returns to the question: with this technology, what becomes of our role as humans in life and work? This intelligence, whose origin is unclear, to what extent will it surpass human intellect and intelligence? And if someday artificial intelligence becomes powerful enough to compete and clash with humans, what will happen to humanity? These questions, now common currency in public discourse, have been the subject of extensive and wide-ranging research over the past couple of decades. A multitude of small and large, philosophical and social, simple and complex, light and weighty studies have been produced on this topic. Although there is much disagreement and dispute over its technical and non-technical aspects, there is almost complete consensus on one point: artificial intelligence will transform human life in such a way that none of the previous innovations and events can compare in terms of importance and impact.
In response to the question of what will happen to the political subject in the age of artificial intelligence, at least two perspectives exist: those who believe that in the age of AI dominance, political subjectivity will be completely destroyed, and those who believe that by reconstructing the concept of human political subjectivity, a path to its salvation can be found. In this article, while examining the arguments of both groups, we aim to show that although artificial intelligence has fundamentally challenged the foundation of human political subjectivity, by drawing on the intellectual foundations of great thinkers like Hannah Arendt—who faced the crisis of the political subject decades ago—a meaningful solution can be found.
Research Method
In theoretical research, especially in fields such as philosophy, political science, and critical theory, the analytical method based on argumentation holds a foundational place. This method does not focus on collecting empirical data but rather on precise conceptual analysis, evaluation of argumentative structures, and clarification of theoretical assumptions. The researcher in this approach seeks to examine propositions for logical coherence and argumentative strength using the tools of critical rationality and to reach rational judgments about complex issues through conceptual analysis. In the present article, an effort has been made to provide precise conceptual clarification, analyze the arguments concerning artificial intelligence and its impact on human subjectivity, and then propose an alternative idea to preserve human subjectivity.
Artificial Intelligence and the Decline of Political Subjectivity
The concept of the subject and political subjectivity has been under serious critique from the outset. With the emergence of the digital world and the rise of artificial intelligence, researchers such as Shoshana Zuboff, Bernard Stiegler, Katharina Hiels, Benjamin Bratton, and others—mostly following a Foucauldian approach—have sought to provide broader analyses of the decline of human subjectivity in relation to AI. Given the deep crisis of subjectivity in the age of artificial intelligence, theorists and philosophers engaged in this field have proposed solutions. These solutions can be categorized into several approaches:
Existentialist Revival of the Subject Han, in his book The Expulsion of the Other, proposes an existentialist solution for reviving the human and political subject. In his view, in a digital culture where humans only encounter what they like, think, and prefer—and where there is no place for the Other—the only solution is to revive the subject through the Other: “Only the Other allows us to experience the world and ourselves anew” (Han, 2018: 2).
Epistemological Solution Rouvroy, in her effort to revive the human subject, believes that a qualitative distinction must be reconstructed between human life and statistical data receptivity. She argues that this requires defending the right to error. Error should not be eliminated from human life but preserved as part of human freedom. Only where error is possible, freedom is also possible.
Legal Solution Zuboff, a prominent researcher in the field of artificial intelligence, believes that the most important solution for reviving human subjectivity is drafting a Universal Declaration of Cognitive Rights, which recognizes the right to mental privacy and the right to think without machine intervention (Zuboff, 2019: 485). She also believes this right requires full transparency of platforms and governmental regulation.
Hybrid Subject Katharina Hiels is one of the few thinkers who, avoiding nostalgia for a return to the modern subject, opens a path to confronting the complex reality of the data and automation age. She suggests that we must distance ourselves from consciousness to become subjects again—a subject that is not independent but continuous, multi-layered, and engaged with a hybrid cognitive world.
Reconstructing the Arendtian Solution: Reviving Politics as Reviving Political Subjectivity
Margaret Canovan, in describing Arendt’s work, said she is one of the few thinkers who always allows us to look at familiar matters from a different angle, and her power of innovation lies precisely in her different perspective (Ansari, 2000: 177). Arendt proposed her ideas during a time when the specter of totalitarianism had brought the world to ruin. Young Arendt began her intellectual work with the question: where did this catastrophe come from? The human world was on the brink of collapse, and savagery, violence, and war had engulfed humanity. In the totalitarian situation, the machine of violence had called human subjectivity into question—just like the current situation with the emergence of artificial intelligence. As mentioned in the introduction, with the rise and hegemony of AI, the question has arisen in public discourse: what will happen to human thought, reason, and intelligence?
Using Hannah Arendt’s political thought to explain new and emerging matters such as artificial intelligence requires elaborating on many nuances of her ideas, which is not possible in this article and necessitates selective focus (for more on Arendt’s political thought, see: Ansari, 2000). Among the wide range of concepts and themes Arendt developed, two concepts—“action” and “thinking”—which are more closely related to human political subjectivity, are more relevant to this article. It should be noted that Arendt fundamentally opposed the modern interpretation of subjectivity, politics, economy, society, and revolution, and her thought developed in contrast to modern intellectual traditions. Therefore, if we define human subjectivity as the capacity and will to determine one’s political destiny and nature, then the concepts of political action and thinking will regain their proper meaning.
The concept of action and politics in Arendt’s thought was proposed in response to the loss of human agency during the darkness of totalitarianism. Arendt’s question at that time is strikingly similar to the question now being asked in reaction to the loss of human subjectivity in the age of artificial intelligence. Although one was a curse and the other a blessing, the critical issue has been the loss of human subjectivity and humanity. Arendt’s response to the rise of totalitarianism was the death of politics and action. In her view, action is what distinguishes humans from all other beings and makes them unique.
Conclusion
The transformation of political subjectivity in the age of artificial intelligence is more than a merely technological or theoretical issue. It is, in fact, a fundamental and existential question about the nature of humanity, the essence of freedom, and the fate of politics in the contemporary world. In the past, the political subject was recognized as a conscious, responsible, and active being who, based on will and choice, could participate in public and political spheres, make decisions, and shape the future. But with the emergence of artificial intelligence and the development of advanced algorithms that possess capabilities beyond direct human control and understanding, we are witnessing a profound—and perhaps revolutionary—transformation in the concept of the political subject: a transformation that turns the subject from an independent being into an entity whose behavior is regulated and controlled by data, predictions, and algorithmic trends. This transition, occurring alongside the growing influence of digital technologies and social networks, seriously questions the foundations of modern political philosophy and even challenges the very meaning of being human.
In this context, Hannah Arendt’s thought offers us a different and profound perspective. By redefining concepts such as political action and thinking, Arendt reminds us that authentic politics is rooted not in efficient management of affairs but in the possibility of initiating action, intersubjective dialogue, and appearing in the public realm. Algorithms, no matter how complex, cannot “begin,” because they lack lived experience, individual difference, and the concern of being with others. Therefore, the main danger of artificial intelligence is not merely the replacement of humans in tasks, but the replacement of political action with technocratic decisions.
References
Abensour, M. (2011) Democracy against the state: Marx and the Machiavellian movement. Polity Press.
Althusser, L. (1971) Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In B. Brewster (Trans.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–186). Monthly Review Press.
Ansari, M. (2000) Hannah Arendt and the critique of political philosophy. Markaz. [In Persian/Farsi]
Arendt, H. (1951) The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace.
Arendt, H. (1958) The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H. (1961) Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. Penguin.
Arendt, H. (1978) The life of the mind. Harcourt.
Arendt, H. (1982) Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
BarthemeB, F., & Furbach, U. (2023) AlphaZero and artificial reason. Springer.
Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014) The ethics of artificial intelligence. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence (pp. 316–334). Cambridge University Press.
Brunnhuber, S. (2024) The third culture: The impact of AI on knowledge, society and consciousness in the 21st century. Springer Nature Switzerland.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Dennett, D. C. (1992) Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Company.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1972) What computers can't do: A critique of artificial reason. Harper & Row.
Floridi, L. (2013) The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Foucault, M. (2001) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (N. Sarkhosh & A. Jahandideh, Trans.). Nashr-e Ney. [In Persian/Farsi]
Foucault, M. (2011) The will to knowledge (N. Sarkhosh & A. Jahandideh, Trans.). Nashr-e Ney. [In Persian/Farsi]
Han, B.-C. (2017) Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso.
Han, B.-C. (2018) The expulsion of the other: Society, perception and communication today. Polity Press.
Han, B.-C. (2017) Facebook philosopher: An introduction to the thought of Byung-Chul Han (A. Barzegar, Trans.). Tarjomaan Website. [In Persian/Farsi]
Hayles, N. K. (2017) Unthought: The power of the cognitive nonconscious. University of Chicago Press.
Jorion, P. (2024) L’avènement de la singularité: L’humain ébranlé par l’intelligence artificielle. Textuel.
Kant, I. (1991) An answer to the question: What is Enlightenment? (H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant: Political writings (pp. 54–60). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1784)
Kurzweil, R. (1999) The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. Viking Press.
Kurzweil, R. (2005) The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking Press.
Lacan, J. (1966) Écrits. Seuil.
Luger, G. F. (2025) Artificial intelligence: Principles and practice. Springer Nature Switzerland.
Minsky, M. (1986) The society of mind. Simon & Schuster.
Rouvroy, A. (2013) The end(s) of critique: Data behaviorism versus due process. In M. Hildebrandt & K. de Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn (pp. 143–168). Routledge.
Rouvroy, A. (2016) Algorithmic governmentality and the end of critique. Transversal Texts. https://transversal.at
Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013) Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163
Rouvroy, A., & Stiegler, B. (2013) The digital regime of truth: From the algorithmic governmentality to a new rule of law. La Deleuziana, (1), 319–336.
Searle, J. R. (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
Teuscher, C. (Ed.). (2004) Alan Turing: Life and legacy of a great thinker. Springer.
Turing, A. M. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. (2007) The philosophy of philosophy. Blackwell Publishing.
Zuboff, S. (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.
* Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Political Thought Department, Imam Khomeini and Islamic Revolution Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.
m.ansari51@gmail.com
** B.A. in Computer Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
mahdanian.saman@gmail.com
انصاری، منصور (1379) هانا آرنت و نقد فلسفه سیاسی، تهران، مرکز.
فوکو، میشل (1380) مراقبت و تنبیه: زایش زندان، ترجمه نیکو سرخوش و افشین جهاندیده، تهران، نشرنی.
--------- (1390) اراده به دانستن، ترجمه نیکو سرخوش و افشین جهاندیده، تهران، نشرنی.
هان، بیونگ چول (1396) فیلسوف فیس¬بوک: درآمدی بر اندیشه بیونگ چول هان، ترجمه علی برزگر، تهران، وب¬سایت ترجمان.
Abensour, M. (2011) Democracy Against the State: Marx and the Machiavellian Movement. Polity Press.
Althusser, L. (1971) Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In B. Brewster (Trans.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–186). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Arendt, H. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace.
------------- (1958) The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
------------- (1961) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. Penguin.
------------- (1978) The Life of the Mind. Harcourt.
------------- (1982) Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
BarthemeB, F., & Furbach, U. (2023) AlphaZero and Artificial Reason. Springer.
Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014) The ethics of artificial intelligence. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 316–334). Cambridge University Press.
Brunnhuber, S. (2024) The Third Culture: The Impact of AI on Knowledge, Society and Consciousness in the 21st Century. Springer Nature Switzerland.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
Dennett, D. C. (1992) Consciousness Explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1972) What Computers Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Harper & Row.
Floridi, L. (2013) The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Han, B.-C. (2017) Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. Verso.
------------ (2018) The Expulsion of the Other: Society, Perception and Communication Today. Polity Press.
Hayles, N. Katherine. (2017) Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. University of Chicago Press.#3 Jorion, P. (2024) L’avènement de la Singularité: L’humain ébranlé par l’intelligence artificielle. Textuel.
Kant, I. (1991) An answer to the question: What is Enlightenment? (H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant: Political Writings (pp. 54–60). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1784).
Kurzweil, R. (1999) The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. Viking Press.
--------------- (2005) The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking Press.
Lacan, J. (1966). Écrits. Seuil.
Luger, G. F. (2025) Artificial Intelligence: Principles and Practice. Springer Nature Switzerland.
Minsky, M. (1986) The Society of Mind. Simon & Schuster.
Rouvroy, A. (2013) The end(s) of critique: Data behaviorism versus due process. In M. Hildebrandt & K. de Vries (Eds.), Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn (pp. 143–168). Routledge.
-------------- (2016) Algorithmic Governmentality and the End of Critique. Transversal Texts. https://transversal.at.
Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013) Algorithmic Governmentality and Prospects of Emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163.
Rouvroy, A., & Stiegler, B. (2013) The Digital Regime of Truth: From the Algorithmic Governmentality to a New Rule of Law. La Deleuziana, (1), 319–336.
Searle, J. R. (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756.
Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press.
Teuscher, C. (Ed.). (2004) Alan Turing: Life and Legacy of a Great Thinker. Springer.
Turing, A. M. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433.
Vallor, S. (2016) Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. (2007) The Philosophy of Philosophy. Blackwell Publishing.
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.
