Democracy as Telecracy?

Bernard Stiegler on the Erosion of Democracy

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.23.2026.102.13

Keywords:

democracy, telecracy, Bernard Stiegler, citizen, consumer

Abstract

This paper examines Bernard Stiegler’s concept of telecracy as a structural threat to democracy, analyzing its epistemological, political, and ontological consequences. Stiegler argues that modern democracies are increasingly dominated by media and algorithmic perception management, transforming active citizens into passive consumers. Drawing on classical political thought – from Plato’s critique of democracy’s susceptibility to demagoguery to Aristotle’s emphasis on civic virtue – the study highlights how contemporary information systems undermine deliberation and participatory governance. The shift from citizen to consumer, driven by drive-based capitalism and psychopower, erodes democratic engagement, reducing politics to a market-driven spectacle rather than a space for rational discourse. The paper further explores how noetic entropy, the decline of critical thinking, results in a political landscape shaped by algorithmic control rather than informed decision-making. Ultimately, it argues that democracy’s survival depends on reclaiming the public sphere from media-driven manipulation through an ‘ecology of attention’ – restructuring digital and educational institutions to promote reflective political engagement. Without such reforms, democracy risks degenerating into a technocratic system where sovereignty is nominal and political agency is merely a symbolic gesture. The study contributes to political philosophy and media theory by critically evaluating the contemporary transformation of democratic subjectivity under telecratic conditions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Piotr Rutkowski, Civitas University

    Holds a master’s degree in political science from the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Warsaw. He is currently a doctoral candidate at the same institution. His research focuses on political theory, political philosophy, anthropology, and psychology, particularly on critical theories – e.g. Michel Foucault’s, Bernard Stiegler’s or The Frankfurt School. He is especially interested in the transformations driven by modern technologies and their implications for politics.

References

Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, Public Domain Books, 2009.
View in Google Scholar

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. R.C. Bartlett, S.D. Collins, Chicago 2011.
View in Google Scholar

Aristotle, Politics, ed. by M. Deslauriers, P. Destrée, Cambridge 2013.
View in Google Scholar

Baranzoni S., “After Politics: Governing through Affect,” Deleuze and Guattari Studies, vol. 18, no. 1 (2024), pp. 120-142, https://doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2024.0545.
View in Google Scholar

Baudrillard J., The Consumer Society. Myth & Structures, London–Thousand Oakes–New Delhi 1998.
View in Google Scholar

Bauman Z., Consuming Life, Cambridge 2007.
View in Google Scholar

Bauman Z., Globalization. The Human Consequences, Cambridge 1998.
View in Google Scholar

Bevir M., Rhodes R.A., “Interpretive Theory,” in D. Marsh, G. Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science, Houndmills 2002.
View in Google Scholar

Chambers S., “Deliberative Democracy and the Digital Public Sphere: Asymmetrical Fragmentation as a Threat to Democracy,” Constellations, vol. 30, no. 1 (2023), pp. 61-68, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12662.
View in Google Scholar

Dahlberg L., “The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring the Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 4, no. 4 (2001), pp. 615-633, https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180110097030.
View in Google Scholar

Dahlberg L., “Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: From Consensus to Contestation,” New Media & Society, vol. 9, no. 5 (2007), pp. 827-847, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081228.
View in Google Scholar

Deleuze G., Guattari F., Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Minneapolis 1983.
View in Google Scholar

Deleuze G., Guattari F., A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Minneapolis 1987.
View in Google Scholar

Filipowicz S., “Idola Theatri. Interpretacja i zagadnienie realizmu,” Teoria Polityki, no. 3 (2019), pp. 103-121, https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.19.005.10288.
View in Google Scholar

Filipowicz S., “O fundamentalnej roli interpretacji,” Politeja, vol. 12, no. 4 (36) (2015), pp. 191-204, https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.12.2015.36.12.
View in Google Scholar

Gadamer H.G., Truth and Method, London 2004.
View in Google Scholar

Habermas J., A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics, Cambridge 2023.
View in Google Scholar

Heawood J., “Pseudo-public Political Speech. Democratic Implications of the Cambridge Analytica Scandal,” Information Polity, vol. 23, no. 4 (2018), pp. 429-434, https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180009.
View in Google Scholar

Hobbes T., Leviathan, Oxford 2014.
View in Google Scholar

Hobbes T., Writings on Common Law and Hereditary Right, Oxford 2005.
View in Google Scholar

Horkheimer M., Critical Theory. Selected Essays, trans. M.J. O’Connell, New York 2002.
View in Google Scholar

Hu M., “Cambridge Analytica’s Black Box,” Big Data & Society, vol. 7, no. 2 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720938091.
View in Google Scholar

Kassner M., “O pierwszeństwie interpretacji przed ontologią. Przyczynek do krytyki realizmu w filozofii nauk społecznych,” Teoria Polityki, no. 3 (2019), pp. 123-145, https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.19.006.10289.
View in Google Scholar

Kułakowska M., “Interpretive Theories in Political Science,” Teoria Polityki, no. 4 (2020), pp. 31-41, https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.19.014.11780.
View in Google Scholar

Locke J., An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. A. Campbell Fraser, introd. W.R. Ott, 2004.
View in Google Scholar

Locke J., Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. and introd. I. Shapiro, New Haven 2008.
View in Google Scholar

Plato, The Republic, Cambridge 2018.
View in Google Scholar

Rousseau J.J., The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, Cambridge 2019.
View in Google Scholar

Rutkowski P., “Homo Cōnsūmēns. Kulturowy model człowieka w epoce zglobalizowanego kapitalizmu kognitywnego,” Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis, Studia Politologica, vol. 22, no. 297 (2019), pp. 37-52, https://doi.org/10.24917/20813333.22.3.
View in Google Scholar

Schäfer S., Muller P., Ziegele M., “The Double-Edged Sword of Online Deliberation. How Evidence-based User Comments Both Decrease and Increase Discussion Participation Intentions on Social Media,” New Media & Society, vol. 23, no. 3 (2024), pp. 1403-1428, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211073059.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler B., The Age of Disruption. Technology and Madness in Computational Capitalism, Newark 2019.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler, B., The Decadence of Industrial Democracies, Cambridge 2011.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler B., La Télécratie contre la Démocratie, Paris 2006.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler B., The Neganthropocene, London 2018.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler B., States of Shock. Stupidity and Knowledge in the 21st Century, Cambridge 2015.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler B., Taking Care of Youth and the Generations, Stanford 2010.
View in Google Scholar

Stiegler B., Technics and Time, vol. 1: The Fault of Epimetheus, Stanford 1998.
View in Google Scholar

Zuboff Sh., The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, New York 2019.
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

29-05-2026

How to Cite

“Democracy As Telecracy? : Bernard Stiegler on the Erosion of Democracy”. 2026. Politeja 23 (2(102): 233-53. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.23.2026.102.13.