Digitalization of education as a subject of philosophical reflection: main contrasts and contradictions

Elena F. Moros
Additional contact information
Elena F. Moros: Krasnoyarsk Rail Transport Institute – Branch of Irkutsk State Transport University

Russian Social and Humanitarian Studies, 2026, vol. 18, issue 2, 120-140

Abstract: Background. The introduction of digital technologies into education is traditionally viewed as a technical or methodological problem. However, behind the change of tools lies a deeper transformation: the nature of knowledge, the status of the student, the modes of pedagogical communication, and ultimately the very purpose of education are changing. Philosophical analysis shows that these changes are not evolutionary but contrastive in nature: they generate contradictions that cannot be resolved by technological or administrative measures. Nevertheless, in the pedagogical literature such contrasts are most often ignored or reduced to particular methodological difficulties. Purpose. To identify and analyze the fundamental contrasts of digitalization of education (ontological, subjective, geopolitical, anthropological), to demonstrate their irresolvable character, and to propose the foundations for a transition from technological optimization to value-oriented educational policy. Materials and methods. The study draws upon philosophical works in pedagogical anthropology (K.D. Ushinsky, L.S. Vygotsky), philosophy of technology (M. McLuhan, N. Carr, S. Zuboff), phenomenological critique of digital learning (G. Wellner), and research on digital sovereignty (D.A. Degtyarev). The empirical base consists of data from cognitive psychology and studies of educational platforms. The methodological toolkit includes: the phenomenological method (clarifying the mode of givenness of knowledge, subjectivity, and value in the digital environment); comparative analysis (contrasting classical and digital educational models); the method of paradoxalization (identifying immanent contradictions that are irresolvable through technological means); and conceptual modeling (constructing alternative strategies – the subject membrane, the digital Confucian, value autonomy). Results. The conducted analysis has revealed four fundamental contrasts that digitalization introduces into education. The first – ontological – arises between knowledge, which requires personal effort, and information as a discrete, alienated resource. The accessibility of information not only fails to guarantee understanding but often reinforces «clip thinking». The second contrast concerns subjectivity. The declared autonomy of the learner turns into algorithmic normativity – platforms predetermine choices, narrow the horizon with «filter bubbles», and provoke mental absence during physical presence (the «Zoom-bie» phenomenon). The third contrast is geopolitical. Global platforms are not neutral: they convey the values of the developer countries, creating a risk of «digital colonialism». The fourth, anthropological contrast – between technological efficiency and human integrity. The massive use of generative AI leads to a risk of cognitive atrophy and the substitution of education by simulation. All these contrasts are not temporary but essential in nature. They cannot be eliminated by improving interfaces; rather, they require value-anthropological reflection. Conclusion. The resolution of the identified contradictions lies not in the technological domain but in the value-anthropological one. A transition is needed from an instrumental model of digitalization to a model that subordinates technology to the goals of educating a personality capable of independent judgment and responsible action. Key conditions for this transition include developing algorithmic literacy as part of critical thinking; creating domestic educational platforms with a value-content policy (not only technological independence); preserving live, event-based communication in the educational process as the foundation of subjectivity formation.

Keywords: digitalization of education; philosophy of education; knowledge and information; algorithmic normativity; digital sovereignty; subjectivity; anthropological contrasts; artificial intelligence in education (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://soc-journal.ru/jour/index.php/mssi/article/view/560/425 (application/pdf)
https://soc-journal.ru/jour/index.php/mssi/article/view/560 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cxm:russhs:18:2:2026:120-140

DOI: 10.12731/3033-5981-2026-18-2-560

Access Statistics for this article

Russian Social and Humanitarian Studies is currently edited by Fanuza H. Tarasova

More articles in Russian Social and Humanitarian Studies from Science and Innovation Center Publishing House 9 Maya Str., 5 office 192, Krasnoyarsk, 660127, Russian Federation.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Yan Maksimov ().