Maka Gurgenidze

Doctoral Program of Social Sciences

GIPA – Georgian Institute of Public Affairs

Tbilisi, Georgia

Abstract

This article develops the concept of digital rationality to explain how digital platforms function as emotionally and symbolically charged environments that subtly shape the process of reasoning and guide behavior. Drawing on Max Weber’s typology of rational action, Geert Hofstede’s notion of mental programming and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power, the article argues that modern hybrid warfare strategies rely on emotional and value-based codes internalized during early socialization. Digital rationality thus emerges as a new medium of symbolic power that impedes transformative social change, demanding further research to better understand and critically scrutinize its mechanisms.

Keywords: digital rationality, value-rational action, symbolic power, hybrid warfare, algorithmic manipulation, emotional coding, digital platforms, cognitive warfare

Introduction

This article introduces the concept of digital rationality to explain how hybrid—and more specifically cognitive — warfare actors use digital platforms to implicitly influence human behavior and guide it in preferred directions (Rid, 2020; Jeangène Vilmer et al., 2018; NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, 2020).

Drawing on Max Weber’s typology of rational action (Weber, 1905/2002; Weber, 1946; Swidler, 1986; Parsons, 1951), Geert Hofstede’s notion of mental programming (2001) and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power (1989), the article aims to conceptualize the essence and effectiveness of digital rationality as a mechanism for manipulating subconscious orientations shaped through early cultural imprinting.

We argue that digital platforms reinforce such deep-seated patterns by tailoring content to users’ emotional and value predispositions, amplifying messages that resonate with these predispositions and creating algorithmic feedback loops that limit exposure to alternative viewpoints. In doing so, they simulate autonomy, generate conformity and subtly direct behavior (Chesney & Citron, 2019).

This process becomes especially consequential during hybrid conflicts (Fuchs, 2017; Morozov, 2011). Here, manipulation goes beyond misinformation—it reactivates emotional codes such as fear, threat perception, moral superiority, national pride or obedience (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2018; Blackbird.AI, 2023). These sentiments are then embedded in persuasive digital narratives that bypass the process of reasoning (Tiilikainen, 2024; Murray & Mansoor, 2012; Pomerantsev, 2019).This article proposes a new conceptual lens to unpack this mechanism at a theoretical level. It seeks to explain how digital platforms sustain actions rooted in emotional and internalized values—even when such actions appear rational on the surface. Which is why in most technologically advanced societies, strategic way of thinking is unable to lead the collective action.

Methodology

The methodological approach of this article is conceptual and theory-driven. It employs a qualitative, interpretive strategy grounded in political sociology and value theory, which is well suited for analyzing the cultural and symbolic dimensions of power (Yanow, 2000; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012).

The primary aim is to explain a growing social and political tendency—the erosion of critical reasoning and the increasing reliance on emotionally and instinctively driven responses. To explore this phenomenon, the article introduces the term digital rationality, which is defined and elaborated through a conceptual framework that integrates sociological perspectives and complementary insights from cognitive psychology.

Building on existing literature on digital influence, disinformation, and algorithmic manipulation (e.g., Jowett & O’Donnell, 2018; Chesney & Citron, 2019; Tiilikainen, 2024), this study seeks to move beyond descriptive accounts by offering a theoretical interpretation of how emotionally encoded value systems are reactivated and operationalized through digital platforms—particularly in the context of cognitive warfare. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how digitally mediated communication influences political behavior through non-rational channels.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation of this article brings together three major perspectives: Max Weber’s theory of rationality (1978), Geert Hofstede’s (2001) concept of mental programming and Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic power (1977).

Max Weber’s theory of rationality provides the conceptual starting point for this framework. Weber emphasized that human action reflects varying degrees of conscious deliberation and distinguished among actions shaped by habit, emotion, or value commitments and those guided by systematic calculation of means and ends. This graded view reveals that what appears rational on the surface may, in practice, be deeply rooted in cultural conventions or moral ideals inherited through socialization. As Swidler (1986) observes, such patterns offer actors stable guides for action, particularly in moments of uncertainty, and often bypass active critical reasoning. This insight is crucial for understanding how digital platforms replicate these ingrained tendencies, sustaining patterns of thought and behavior that appear rational yet rest on enduring affective and cultural codes.

Hofstede’s (2001) theory of mental programming expands on this idea by suggesting that cultural values are instilled through early socialization and persist as subconscious patterns—what he famously calls the “software of the mind” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 2). These mental scripts act as interpretive frameworks for evaluating meaning and guiding behavior. Drawing on Rokeach’s (1973) concept of humans as “evaluating animals,” Hofstede argues that such internalized value-codes shape one’s perception of what is reasonable or legitimate, often rendering them resistant to critical reflection.

Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power adds a structural dimension to the framework. Through his theory of habitus, Bourdieu (1977, 1989, 1990, 1991) explains how social structures are internalized and expressed in patterned behaviors. Symbolic power operates when dominant meanings are perceived as legitimate or self-evident, thereby reproducing existing hierarchies without overt coercion.

Taken together, these theoretical lenses help explain how digital rationality operates: not merely through logic or facts but by activating traditional and emotional dispositions to  maintain emotional authority while simulating rational decision-making.

Digital Influence and Cognitive Manipulation in Contemporary Literature

In the contemporary world, digital landscape often serves as a tool of cognitive warfare, which encompasses psychological manipulation, disinformation and the construction of strategic narratives to achieve political or ideological objectives (Blackbird.AI, 2023).

According to Rid (2020), cognitive warfare represents the most advanced form of information conflict, targeting the mind as the primary battlefield. It does not rely solely on spreading false information but aims to shape how individuals perceive reality itself.

Similarly, Vilmer et al. (2018) define cognitive warfare as a strategy that blends disinformation, narrative control and psychological operations to erode trust and fragment democratic discourse.

The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (2020) describes cognitive warfare as a long-term effort to exploit the vulnerabilities of human cognition, aiming to destabilize societies by subtly altering how individuals think, feel and act.

This process is facilitated by modern technologies and cyber capabilities, which have significantly reshaped the global strategic environment—enabling both state and non-state actors to employ cognitive manipulation to influence the mental processes of targeted populations (Tiilikainen, 2024).

Social media platforms are central to this transformation. According to Chesney and Citron (2019), bots, sponsored posts and targeted campaigns amplify curated narratives, tailoring emotionally resonant messages to segmented audiences. This content often leverages fear, moral outrage or identity-based mobilization to provoke specific behavioral responses (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2018).

Such digital strategies are used for ideological thereby economic and geopolitical influence. Klaus Schwab, for instance, discusses the Fourth Industrial Revolution, defined by the convergence of technologies such as AI, blockchain and biotechnology. He underscores how these transformations are reshaping the economy, society and human life, demanding new policy frameworks and governance models (Schwab, 2017).

Meanwhile, Shoshana Zuboff critically examines how tech corporations like Google and Facebook commodify user data for profit a process she terms “surveillance capitalism.” She warns that this model undermines personal privacy, freedom and democracy (Zuboff, 2019).

Likewise, Fuchs (2017) argues that digital platforms often simulate democratic participation without fostering genuine critical thought, reinforcing existing ideological biases due to algorithmic prioritization of user engagement over diverse deliberation. Morozov (2011) similarly cautions that the internet is not inherently a democratic force. In The Net Delusion, he explains how authoritarian regimes can exploit digital media to manipulate citizens through moralized narratives and identity-based appeals.

Together, these contributions highlight the increasingly sophisticated mechanisms through which digital systems influence cognition, perception and collective behavior.

Discussion

This article interprets current hybrid, in particular cognitive, warfare strategies through the conceptual lens of digital rationality which  draws on the theoretical insights of Max Weber, Geert Hofstede and Pierre Bourdieu. These thinkers help explain what digital platforms actually engage with—and why those structures are especially prone to manipulation.

At the center of this framework lies Max Weber’s theory of rational action, developed across several of his works (Weber, 1905/2002; 1946; 1978). Weber regarded rationality as an evolving phenomenon. With the advancement of science, he believed that individuals would increasingly turn away from mysticism. Religion would not vanish, but rather become one worldview among others—alongside science, politics and economics. For Weber, gaining knowledge of how the world is organized would empower individuals to exert greater control over their lives and environment. This capacity for understanding would enhance critical awareness, allowing people to assess events rationally and to calculate costs and benefits more clearly. In the long run, such development of rational faculties was seen as a necessary condition for the social change (Weber, 1946: 139; Glock, 1988; Shiner, 1967: 216).

Weber distinguishes among four types of meaningful social behavior: traditional, affectual, value-rational and instrumental. According to him, all four are rational as long as they hold the meaning for the actor, but the degree of rationality varies. Traditional actions are based on habituated norms; affectual actions emerge from immediate emotion; value-rational actions (Wertrationalität) are driven by internal commitments to moral or cultural ideals; and only instrumental rational action (Zweckrational) relies on pure deliberate calculation – selection of means toward clearly defined ends. (Weber, 1978; Swidler, 1986; Parsons, 1951).  While Weber emphasized the role of instrumental rationality in enabling systemic social change, he also acknowledged the enduring significance of non-instrumental forms of action.

In the conceptual framework of digital rationality, we rely on Weber’s philosophy of rationality but distinguish more broadly between relatively weakly reflective forms—traditional, affectual, and value-rational—and instrumental rationality, where critical reasoning is central. We argue that despite scientific and technological development, the less reflective forms remain dominant because of their strong presence in mental and emotional codes.

Here, Hofstede’s concept of mental programming becomes particularly relevant. Hofstede (2001) argues that cultural values are instilled during early socialization unconsciously, shaping both perception and action. They serve as enduring beliefs that function as standards or criteria for judgment, making them resistant to change even when confronted with rational arguments (Rokeach, 1973).

Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power (1989) further enhances this analysis. Through the notion of habitus, Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1991) explains how cultural dispositions become embodied over time, allowing dominant actors to impose meanings that appear legitimate not through force but through resonance with existing value systems. In digital settings, this symbolic influence operates through emotionally charged content, storylines and imagery that reaffirm inherited beliefs without invoking critical scrutiny.

In this light, digital platforms do not merely disseminate information—they reproduce cultural codes  by delivering them in symbolic way. This mechanism becomes especially consequential in the context of cognitive warfare, where actors combine military, psychological and informational tactics to shape public perception. Rather than merely delivering propaganda, these strategies aim to strengthen pre-existing evaluative frameworks through which individuals interpret the world (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2018; Chesney & Citron, 2019; Blackbird.AI, 2023; Tiilikainen, 2024).

We frame these processes as digital rationality—that implies the crafting of messages that appear logically coherent while being emotionally encoded to trigger pre-rational responses—especially those tied to fear, identity and obedience. 

What makes these strategies effective is not only their emotional resonance but their alignment with a deeper human impulse: the demand for certainty, orientation and legitimacy. The collapse of sacred frameworks—whether religious or ideological—has not erased the need for structure, meaning and certainty. As Dostoevsky (Dostoevsky, 2003, Book V, Chapter 4, p. 259) presciently warned: If God does not exist, everything could be permitted. This phrase encapsulates the existential vacuum left by the erosion of transcendent and ideological reference points.

Cognitive warfare actors take advantage of this vacuum by spreading digitally shaped stories that offer emotionally powerful but familiar meanings to replace lost certainty.

For example, a compelling example of digital rationality can be seen in the information environment surrounding the COVID‑19 pandemic. Studies show that alternative media outlets framed vaccine narratives—particularly regarding AstraZeneca—using heightened sadness and fear, whereas mainstream sources adopted more neutral or hopeful emotional tones (Semeraro et al., 2022). On social media, politically polarized users clustered into dense echo chambers that amplified emotionally resonant misinformation while filtering out corrective messages (Park et al., 2021). Moreover, research demonstrates that emotionally charged fake news about COVID‑19 spread significantly faster than factual corrections due to algorithmic prioritization of engagement-driven content (Alam et al., 2024). Together, these dynamics illustrate how digital rationality mobilizes inherited emotional and cultural codes—leveraged and magnified by algorithmic systems—to simulate reasoned discourse while guiding public behavior through affect and identity.

During the annexation of Crimea, emotionally charged appeals to national unity, historical justice and cultural belonging were disseminated through digital media. These narratives did not rely on factual argumentation but on symbolic associations and moral cues that resonated with value-rational mental frameworks. Such strategies repackage fear, loyalty, and moral duty in formats that largely bypass critical reflection and activate inherited ideological commitments (DeBenedictis, 2021; Atlantic Council, 2023).

Conclusion

This article introduced the concept of digital rationality to explain how modern digital systems do not function as neutral infrastructures for reasoning, but rather as platforms charged with emotion and value-laden meaning. Drawing on Weber’s typology of rational action, Hofstede’s notion of mental programming and Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power, the article shows how digital rationalization serves as a key mechanism in hybrid warfare strategies.

The purpose of this framework is not limited to theoretical contribution. It also helps explain why, despite modern ideals of reason—central to both Weber’s vision and Enlightenment thinking—instrumental rationality has not led to meaningful social transformation. We argue that it remains overshadowed by traditional, affectual and value-rational modes of action—rooted during the early socialization and now constitute the foundation of digital rationalization.

In today’s media environment, these inherited symbolic codes are reactivated by algorithmic systems that simulate rational discourse through emotionally charged messages. This value and emotional logic sustains the power of digital rationalization, allowing it to shape behavior without overt coercion.

Understanding the success of hybrid influence campaigns therefore requires us to consider the varying levels of reasoning that guide human action. From this perspective, the limits of rationality become clearer. In earlier eras, uncritical thinking was often shaped by rigid ideological or religious dogma. Today, these constraints are less visible but no less powerful: digital rationality increasingly structures perception through emotionally resonant narratives—especially those rooted in religion, national identity and moral conviction.

If digital rationality is indeed the new medium of symbolic power, then a central task for future research is to examine how its invisible mechanisms can be exposed and critically addressed—especially where they prevent transformative change.

Future research could build on this conceptual groundwork by exploring how cognitive schemas (Piaget, 1952), prototype categories (Rosch, 1975) and metaphorical frames (Lakoff, 2008) interact with the symbolic and cultural codes highlighted by Weber, Hofstede, and Bourdieu. Interdisciplinary studies bridging sociology, psychology, and linguistics could illuminate how these mental structures are mobilized alongside emotional triggers in digital contexts to influence political attitudes and collective behavior. Empirical investigations might also examine how specific algorithmic strategies amplify these cognitive patterns, providing insights into how societies could encourage more critical and reflective engagement within digitally mediated environments.

Bibliography

Books

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Dostoevsky, F. (2003). The Brothers Karamazov (R. Pevear & L. Volokhonsky, Trans.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Original work published 1880)

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain. Viking.

Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. McGraw-Hill.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. The Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press.

Pomerantsev, P. (2019). This is not propaganda: Adventures in the war against reality. Faber & Faber.

Rid, T. (2020). Active measures: The secret history of disinformation and political warfare. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.

Weber, M. (1905/2002). The Protestant ethic and the “spirit” of capitalism (S. Kalberg, Trans.). Roxbury Publishing Company. (Original work published 1905)

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Sage Publications.

Journal Articles

Alam, F., Joty, S., & Imran, M. (2024). Emotions unveiled: Detecting COVID-19 fake news on social media. Nature Communications, 15, 1884.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.

Chesney, R., & Citron, D. K. (2019). Deep Fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(1), 175–226.

Murray, S., & Mansoor, A. (2012). The new politics of strategic narratives: The case of the US and counter-radicalization in the UK. Security Dialogue, 43(6), 549–565.

Park, H., Kim, J., & Ryu, J. (2021). Exploring the echo-chamber effect in the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Twitter data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(12).

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.

Semeraro, C., Prosperi, M., Cazzolla Gatti, R., & Gorini, A. (2022). Writing about COVID‑19 vaccines: Emotional profiling unravels how mainstream and alternative press framed AstraZeneca, Pfizer and vaccination campaigns. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(1), 327–345.

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

Weber, M. (1946). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). Oxford University Press.

Web Sources and Strategic Papers

Atlantic Council. (2023). Narrative warfare. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Narrative-Warfare-Final.pdf

Blackbird.AI. (2023). Cognitive warfare: Breaking down narrative attacks. Retrieved from https://blackbird.ai/blog/cognitive-warfare-breaking-down-disinformation/

DeBenedictis, K. (2021). Russian ‘Hybrid Warfare’ and the Annexation of Crimea. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Jeangène Vilmer, J.-B., Escorcia, A., Guillaume, M., & Herrera, J. (2018). Information manipulation: A challenge for our democracies. Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/pdf/information_manipulation_rvb_cle838736.pdf

Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of internet freedom. PublicAffairs.

Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2018). Propaganda & persuasion (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. (2020). Cognitive warfare. Riga: NATO StratCom COE. Retrieved from https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/cognitive-warfare/

Tiilikainen, T. (2024). The cyber and hybrid aspects of cognitive warfare/superiority. In Aspects of Cognitive Superiority, Defence Horizon Journal. Retrieved from https://lcbackerblog.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-human-mind-becomes-battlefield-5th.html

Share this content: