Anatoly Anatolyevich Trunov
This article offers a philosophical-anthropological analysis of the transformation of ideology under the conditions of digital capitalism. The relevance of the study lies in the fact that, within contemporary social reality, ideology increasingly loses its predominantly discursive and narrative forms and comes to function as an infrastructural mechanism of social power embedded in the architecture of digital platforms, algorithmic systems, and user interfaces. As a result, not only the modes of ideological influence are transformed, but also the very conditions under which human subjectivity is constituted, which calls for a reconsideration of established theoretical models for analysing the ideological. The aim of the article is to propose a philosophical-anthropological reconceptualisation of ideology through an analysis of its transformation from a discursive form into an infrastructural form of social power that organises the conditions of possibility of human perception, choice, and action. To achieve this aim, the article pursues several objectives: it develops a critique of discursive and normative interpretations of ideology; analyses digital platforms and algorithmic systems as forms of infrastructural domination; and identifies the anthropological consequences of algorithmic rationality for the structures of human experience, existential choice, and responsibility. Methodologically, the study is grounded in philosophical-anthropological analysis combined with the perspective of infrastructural critique of the functioning of digital platforms. The theoretical framework draws on critical theory, political philosophy, and the philosophy of technology, as well as on concepts of algorithmic selection, regimes of visibility, and interface design as mechanisms structuring the field of possible social action. The article demonstrates that, under digital capitalism, ideology operates predominantly at a pre-conceptual level of human experience, pre-structuring the conditions of perception, choice, and action. It is argued that the object of ideological influence is no longer limited to social practice but extends to the very structure of human subjectivity itself, which allows us to speak of the emergence of a new, infrastructural form of ideological domination and, simultaneously, of its anthropological limit.