The relevance of the topic of the article was determined by the need to understand the trends in the development of modern political anthropology in the context of digitalisation of discourse. In this context, it also seemed appropriate to outline the phenomenological vision of the mentioned issues. The purpose of the study was to outline the directions and mechanisms of the existence of political discourse in the conditions of transformation of the lifeworld and reframing of digital subjectivity, as well as the significance of political anthropology as a methodology for studying not only the sphere of politics, but also communication in the digitalised world in general, since within it the distribution of information subjectivity emphasised the relationship between the elements and components of the political, social, cultural, etc. whole. The article used phenomenological, analytical and anthropological approaches to the problems of the transformation of human subjectivity under the influence of digitalisation of the socio-political space. It was established that the traditional methodology of political anthropology in the conditions of digitalisation of social communication, political relations and virtualisation of culture was insufficient, for which the method of historical and philosophical analysis was applied. The transformations of human subjectivity under the influence of the total digitalisation of socio-political space were investigated. Political anthropology was interpreted in the context of searching for an answer to the crisis of classical models of the rational subject, as one of the methodologies that offered a heuristic analysis of discursive mechanisms that determined the boundaries of the human lifeworld through the analysis of political and authority relations. It was stated that the rapid introduction of digital technologies blurred the concept of social and political action due to the need to include non-human formats of agency in this concept. The conclusions indicated that the boundary of the human was an ontological and political category that defined the right to vote and responsibility in terms of identity and presence. A vision of political anthropology as primarily a philosophical, rather than a political science subdiscipline, was proposed. The practical value of the study lay in the possibility of applying the considerations expressed and the conclusions proposed by specialists in social philosophy, political science, as well as in the process of teaching socio-humanitarian disciplines in higher education institutions
Political anthropology of the subject: Digitalisation of discourse and the boundaries of the lifeworld
Abstract
Keywords
social philosophy; discursive practices; reframing of political activity; political subjectivity and agency; lifeworld
- 2025 word of the year: Slop. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year.
- Balandier, G. (1967). Political anthropology. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
- Byung-Chul, H. (2023). The crisis of narration. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz Berlin.
- Cap, P. (2020). Critical discourse analysis – theories, methodologies, domains. Discourses on Culture, 13, 215-254. doi: 10.36145/doc2020.09.
- Chong, D., & Druckman, J.N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103-126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.
- Clastres, P. (1974). Society against the state. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
- Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatized conflict: Developments in media and conflict studies. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
- Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Erdocia, I., Schneider, B., & Migge, B. (2025). Language in the age of AI technology: From human to non-human authenticity, from public governance to privatised assemblages. Language in Society, 55(3), 523-543. doi: 10.1017/S004740452500017X.
- Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1940). The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Floridi, L. (2025). AI as agency without intelligence: On artificial intelligence as a new form of artificial agency and the multiple realisability of agency thesis. Philosophy & Technology, 38, article number 30. doi: 10.1007/s13347-025-00858-9.
- Foucault, M. (2002). Power. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
- Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
- Ghedzyk, A.A., Kovalova, T.V., Kotsiurba, O.Yu., Kravchenko, O.O., Kutsepal, S.V., Sadivnycha, M.V., Salata, N.T., Snihovska, O.V., Trebin, M.P., & Khodanych, Yu.M. (2024). Digital era: Interdisciplinary discourse. Kharkiv: Pravo. doi: 10.31359/9786178518141.
- Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
- Jones, G.M., Satran, S., & Satyanarayan, A. (2025). Toward cultural interpretability: A linguistic anthropological framework for describing and evaluating large language models. Big Data & Society, 12(1). doi: 10.1177/20539517241303118.
- Karas, A.F., & Skrynnyk, Z.E. (Eds.). (2024). Transformation of human existence and society in the context of modern civilizational development. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv.
- Kebuladze, V. (2017). “Lebenswelt” by Husserl and “Dasein” by Heidegger: Problems of translation. Philosophical Thought, 5, 99-108.
- Khodus, O.V. (2024). Digitalization of sociality: Levels of manifestation, challenges and consequences. In Ukrainian society in the conditions of digital transformations: Challenges, trends, opportunities: Monograph (pp. 7-32). Dnipro: Innovation. doi: 10.15421/342461.
- Kretov, P.V., & Kretova, O.I. (2022). Transformations of socio-political action in the cultural and educational space of Ukraine: The experience of war. In The Russian-Ukrainian war (2014-2022): Historical, political, cultural-educational, religious, economic, and legal aspects. Scientific monograph (pp. 745-751). Riga: Baltija Publishing. doi: 10.30525/978-9934-26-223-4-90
- Kroon, F., & Voltolini, A. (2023). Fictional entities. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/fictional-entities/
- Krysenko, O.V. (2015). Political anthropology: Conceptual field and institutionalization of studies. The Journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Issues of Political Science, 14(839), 6-12.
- Lewellen, T.C. (2003) Political anthropology: An introduction (3rd ed). London: Praeger.
- Lykhatskyi, A. (2024). The convergence of artificial intelligence and human identity in contemporary philosophical discourse. Culturological Almanac, 1, 206-212. doi: 10.31392/cult.alm.2024.1.25.
- Marek, J. (2008). Alexius Meinong. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/meinong/.
- McLuhan, M. (1964). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. New York: Random House.
- Morgan, L.H. (1877). Ancient society: Researches in the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
- Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosiphycal Review, 82, 435-450. doi: 10.2307/2183914.
- Narwaya, S.T.G. (2021). Discourse analysis in the perspective of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Journal Communication Spectrum: Capturing New Perspectives in Communication, 11(1), 1-11. doi: 10.36782/jcs.v11i1.2106.
- Palahuta, V. (2024). Transformation of the subjectivity of the modern individual in the context of the digitalization of society. Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Philosophy, Pedagogy, 2(2), 19-23. doi: 10.54891/2786-7013-2023-2-4.
- Prisniakova, L., Aharkov, O., Samoilov, O., Nesprava, M., & Varakuta, M. (2023). Psychology of self-development: Strategies and factors of effective personal growth. Brazilian Journal of Education, Technology and Society – BRAJETS, 16(2), 109-118. doi: 10.14571/brajets.v16.nse2.109-118.
- Puzio, A. (2025). The material agency of a large language model. Digital Society, 4, article number 73. doi: 10.1007/s44206-025-00225-3.
- Schlaufer, C., Kuenzler, J., Jones, M.D., & Shanahan, E.A. (2022). The narrative policy framework: A traveler’s guide to policy stories. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 63, 249-273. doi: 10.1007/s11615-022-00379-6.
- Scott, J.C. (1972). Comparative political corruption. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Skordili, B. (2003). Small narrative. In C.E. Winquist & V.E. Taylor (Eds.), Encyclopedia of postmodernism (pp. 253-254). London: Routledge.
- Skyrtach, V.M. (2018). Transformation of the concept “subject” in the clinical discourse of philosophical anthropology. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 13, 7-16. doi: 10.15802/ampr.v0i13.131770.
- Sokolov, B. (2025). Digital discourse in social networks: Methodological challenges of discourse analysis. Sloboda Scientific Journal. Philology, 10, 44-48. doi: 10.32782/philspu/2025.10.7
- Steblyna, N.O. (2021). State politics’ digitalization as the discourse of modernity. (Doctoral dissertation, Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine).
- Taylor, H. (2024). “Brain rot”: Oxford word of the year 2024 reflects “trivial” use of social media. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/dec/02/brain-rot-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024.
- The Oxford Word of the Year 2025 is rage bait. (2025). Retrieved from https://corp.oup.com/news/the-oxford-word-of-the-year-2025-is-rage-bait/.
- Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- VandenBroek, A.K. (2017). Superconnected: The internet, digital media, and techno-social life. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1834-1836. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1346137.
- Wang, F., Zhang, C., Yang, S., Liu, X., & Liu, Y.-H. (2024). Human subjectivity in information practice and AI governance. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 828-832. doi: 10.1002/pra2.1111.
- Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.
Kretov, P., & Kretova, О.
(2026).
Political anthropology of the subject: Digitalisation of discourse and the boundaries of the lifeworld.
Philosophy, Economics and Law Review,
6(1),
6-18.
https://doi.org/10.63341/2786-491X-2026-1-06