Humanity in the Space of Digital Communication and Socio-Cultural Codes: Meaning Transformation
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5148-2026-2-81-90
Abstract
Aim. To understand the relationship between human subjectivity and the technically mediated “I” in the context of fundamental transformations of the socio-cultural meanings of digital society.
Methodology. The research is based on the methodology of social philosophy, including critical analysis, systems and socio-cultural approaches. The key core is the method of dual oppositions (“individual- collective”, “rationality-emotionality”, “traditionalism-innovation”), which, in combination with the dialectical logic of ascent from the abstract to the concrete (in the Hegelian tradition), helps to identify the dynamics of the transformation of socio-cultural codes.
Results. It has been substantiated that subjectivity is inseparable from the technical “I,” which acts as an active mediator of social action. It has been established that dual oppositions function in a reduced form, leading to the simplification and instability of sociocultural codes.
Research implications. The results of the study clarify the socio-philosophical understanding of the transformation of subjectivity and socio-cultural codes and helps to understand the problem of the reproduction of cultural values in modern reality.
About the Author
M. E. Ryabova
Moscow City University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina E. Ryabova – Dr. Sci. (Philosophy), Prof., Prof., Department of German Studies and Linguistic Didactics
Moscow
References
1. Stepin, V. S. (2015). Philosophical Anthropology and Philosophy of Culture. Moscow: Academicheskiy proekt publ. (in Russ.).
2. Tatarov, V. Yu. (2025). Modes of Dehumanization of Digital Society. In: Contemporary Philosophical Research, 4, 120–130. DOI: 10.18384/2949-5148-2025-4-120-130 (in Russ.).
3. Kovalev, A. A. (2024). Mental Challenges as a Philosophical and Anthropological Problem in the Context of Hybrid Reality. In: Bulletin of Liberal Arts University, 12 (3), 106–113. DOI: 10.35853/vestnik.gu.2024.12-3.08 (in Russ.).
4. Floridi, L. (2011). The Informational Nature of Personal Identity. In: Minds and Machines, 21 (4), 549–566. DOI: 10.1007/s11023-011-9259-6.
5. Lagunov, A. A. & Ivanova, S. Yu. (2025). The Concept of Socio-Cultural Code in the Context of National Security Discourse. In: RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 29 (2), 302–316. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2302-2025-29-2-302-316 (in Russ.).
6. Hegel, G. W. F. (1971). The Science of Logic. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl publ. (in Russ.).
7. Akhiezer, A. S. (2008). Trudy. Vol. 2. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf publ. (in Russ.).
8. Ryabova, M. E. (2023). Meme Culture and Its Impact on the Development of Modern Society. In: Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Philosophy, 1, 123–132. DOI: 10.18384/2310-7227-2023-1-123-132 (in Russ.).
9. Benasayag, M. (2022). Il cervello aumentato, l’uomo diminuito. Turin: Il Margine.
10. Verdegem, P. (2022). Dismantling AI Capitalism: The Commons as an Alternative to the Power Concentration of Big Tech. In: AI & Society, 39, 727–737. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-022-01437-8.
11. Nachtigal, E. G. (2025). Network Content: Reality and Simulation. In: Bulletin of Moscow State University of Culture and Arts, 4 (126), 70–78. DOI: 10.24412/1997-0803-2025-4126-70-78 (in Russ.).
12. Woolley, S. (2023). Manufacturing Consensus. Understanding Propaganda in the Era of Automation and Anonymity. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
13. Ryabova, M. E. (2025). The Digital Subject in the Culture of Networked Everyday Life: Challenges and Prospects. In: Bulletin of Liberal Arts University, 13 (2), 99–105. DOI: 10.35853/vestnik.gu.2025.13-2.08 (in Russ.).
Review
Views:
80
JATS XML
Email this article 