Quinn Slobodian, professor of international history at Boston University, has written a quite interesting essay, "Digital Bandung" which appeared on the website of the Open Society Foundation Ideas Letter (14 May 2026). It is reposted below.
Quinn Slobodian argues that contemporary critiques of AI, Big Tech, and digital capitalism increasingly rely on the language of “empire” and “colonialism,” but that these metaphors are often more emotionally powerful than analytically precise. He traces the rise of terms like “digital empire” and “data colonialism” in recent scholarship and journalism, noting that they replaced earlier critiques centered on psychology and manipulation—such as “surveillance capitalism” and behaviorist models of social control. The newer imperial framework, he argues, usefully foregrounds questions of power, territory, infrastructure, and sovereignty, especially given the global dominance of a handful of US technology firms.
Still, one might want to underestimate the power of emotion and its
metaphors. They make possible the shift in perspective that no amount of
precision in analysis might overcome. Semiotics suggests that, at least
with respect to mass politics and the politics of collective meaning
making it is precisely the values, premises, expectations and framing of
the language used to approach a subject that may well be dispositive in
shaping as well the precision of analysis that derives its power from
the language of the collective. The language, the cognitive cages of "empire", of "colonialism", ironically enough may not displace but rather situates more precisely the earlier language (one with which leading intellectual forces in developed states are more comfortable) of "surveillance capitalism" which is itself meant as a signifier of a whole ideology of meaning and with its a necessary set of "marching orders" that are meant ot take a society"forward" toward whatever goals the language itself embeds. . .in and as itself.
Slobodian's examination, though, takes him down a different path. He suggests that much of the “digital empire” literature oversimplifies both historical empires and present-day digital capitalism. Empires historically were not systems of total centralized domination but depended on delegation, local intermediaries, and complex exchanges. Likewise, Big Tech companies do not operate outside states; rather, they are deeply intertwined with governments and regulatory systems. Calling these arrangements “empires,” he suggests, often adds rhetorical force without increasing explanatory clarity. This, though not wrong, may be perhaps too literal (situating the notion of empire as a sort of museum piece embedding in time, place and space. But it is also too narrow. Still as the necessary foundation for the argument he advances it serves a useful purpose.
A major theme of the essay is that contemporary critics frequently cast users as passive victims analogous to colonized peoples. Slobodian argues this analogy is strained. Unlike subjects of classical colonialism, digital users often derive real pleasure, convenience, and economic benefit from digital systems. He emphasizes that many people in wealthy countries are financially entangled with Big Tech through pensions, mutual funds, and stock ownership. That point does fit comfortably within the orthodox narratives of historical empire and colonialism--especially (since the term appears to be reduced to this one and singular instance of colonialism in the current historical era) to European colonialism of the 19th century. For Slobodian this appears to make users not simply “digital natives” being exploited, but something closer to “digital creoles”: populations simultaneously shaped by, benefiting from, and subordinated to digital capitalism. Others might suggest a different perspectives when one de-links the language and sensibilities of colonialism and empire from its singular focus on Europeans in the 19th century.
To deepen the analysis, Slobodian introduces three underused concepts from imperial history:
Compradors: local intermediaries who collaborated with imperial systems and facilitated exchange. He argues digital capitalism similarly depends on users, contractors, local elites, and states that actively participate in platform economies.
Creoles: populations who occupy ambiguous positions between colonizer and colonized. Digital users in advanced economies often fit this role because their financial welfare is linked to the success of tech firms.
Counter-colonization: strategies of resistance that resemble national sovereignty movements more than popular revolt. He points to efforts such as data localization, digital sovereignty policies, and coordinated state regulation as examples.
Quite interesting is Slobodianis suggestion that the tendency among some theorists to "see" (that is to understand and by understanding imbuing a word/concept with a particular ideology of values and presumptions) colonialism as an unending structure that survives all formal independence. While acknowledging enduring inequalities, he warns that this framework can make every solution appear futile or co-opted. Instead, he suggests shifting from purely political metaphors toward economic and class analysis.
That brings one back to the great third rail of contemporary political theory--class. Drawing on Vili Lehdonvirta’s work, Slobodian proposes that digital capitalism may be producing new forms of class formation rather than straightforward imperial domination. Gig workers, software engineers, and tech employees increasingly organize collectively, developing forms of political consciousness and labor resistance. Ideas such as platform cooperatives, data trusts, and worker organizing may therefore offer more practical avenues for contesting digital power than the language of empire alone.
Slobodian suggests that society may not be moving (back) toward the lived realities of feudal imperialism now under the overlordship of the masters of techno-empires (territory is a 20th century thing) or of techno-feudalism, but under modern capitalism in a new digital form. I only note that the West's infatuation with that protean term "capitalism" continues to fascinate--another detritus of 1968--see my discussion in
The
Vulgarization of the French Post-Modern, "Truth", Irony, and "First
Principles": A Reflection on a Short Essay (an Apologia) Posted to X by
Brivael Le Pogam). Thus the suggestion, in the essay of avoiding grand gestures of denunciation of “digital empires,” but focus on knowledge and action (to understand the complicated ways people are simultaneously exploited by, invested in, dependent on, and capable of resisting the structures of digital capitalism).
Professor Slobodian's essay follows in full below.
