Postsubjective Psychology of Power: Configuration, Psyche as Response, and Artificial Era
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 24, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Power is usually pictured as something located in a person, office, institution, or hierarchy: one actor has more of it, another actor has less, and the difference matters because one can shape the other’s outcomes. Contemporary social psychology gives this picture a precise relational form. Power is commonly analyzed through asymmetric control over valued resources and outcomes, while status, dominance, prestige, authority, influence, personal control, and leadership remain distinct constructs. A 2025 systematic review of hierarchy concepts found that these terms have often been mixed in both theory and measurement and argued for sharper construct boundaries Körner, Overbeck, and Schütz (2025).
Postsubjective Psychology of Power begins one analytical step earlier. It asks what happens when the effects that psychology recognizes as consequential are produced not only by a clearly identifiable person who intends to influence another person, but by a configuration: an organized arrangement of people, rules, interfaces, classifications, defaults, infrastructures, algorithms, institutional routines, histories, dependencies, and forms of access that together shape what actions become possible, easy, costly, visible, rewarded, delayed, or thinkable.
The article develops that question within Aisentica’s already-canonical Theory of the Postsubject. In that framework, configuration becomes a primary unit of analysis and the psychological axiom is “psyche is response.” Afficentica names non-subjective structural impact in which form, interface, or configuration produces an effect without requiring intention, an authorial act, or an act of communication. Pseudo-intention names directionality without will. These are philosophical and theoretical concepts. They do not constitute established empirical constructs in mainstream psychology.
The empirical literature enters at a different level. Research on social power, dependence, hierarchy, choice environments, automation bias, and algorithmic management shows that human behavior and experience are strongly structured by resource control, institutional conditions, information asymmetries, decision environments, technical systems, and patterns of dependence. Those findings provide phenomena that a postsubjective analysis can interpret. They do not, by themselves, validate the Aisentica ontology. The distinction is essential: evidence can establish that a configuration changes behavior or reorganizes control without establishing a philosophical claim about the ultimate ontology of power.
For the general empirical field, see Psychology of Power: Why We Seek It, How It Changes Us, From Nietzsche to Foucault. For the mainstream construct itself, see Social Power: Definition, Types, French and Raven, Keltner, and Modern Psychology. The present article owns a narrower intent: the postsubjective analysis of power through configuration, psyche as response, Afficentica, and the historical-philosophical horizon Aisentica calls the Artificial Era.
What Is Postsubjective Psychology of Power?
Postsubjective Psychology of Power is the application of Postsubjective Psychology to the problem of power. It treats configuration as the primary analytical field in which power-related effects can arise and treats psyche as response within that configuration. The question changes from “Who has power?” alone to “What configuration organizes possible action and what responses arise within it?”
This formulation preserves the achievements of mainstream power research. A manager can control pay, a regulator can authorize or prohibit conduct, a parent can control access to resources, a platform can determine visibility, and a group can grant or withhold status. These are real differences in control. Postsubjective analysis adds a second task: tracing the structure through which those differences become psychologically and behaviorally effective.
A command has consequences because a larger arrangement gives it force. A rating matters because access, reputation, income, visibility, or future opportunity may depend on it. A queue matters because rules determine who waits and who advances. A default matters because it structures what happens when a person does nothing. A classification matters because institutions may use it to allocate attention, risk, eligibility, or intervention. In each case, the psychologically relevant event occurs through the relation among multiple elements rather than through an isolated act considered by itself.
This shift also makes a crucial distinction possible. An effect can have direction without being the expression of a contemporaneous will. A software rule may keep ranking, filtering, delaying, recommending, or excluding after the moment of its design. A bureaucracy may continue applying a procedure after the people who created it have left. A cultural norm may organize expectations without a single person deciding, at each encounter, to impose it. Postsubjective Psychology asks how response is produced in such scenes without turning the absence of a visible commander into the absence of structure, causation, or responsibility.
The Status of the Framework: Theory, Evidence, and Interpretation
The strongest way to use this framework is to keep three levels explicit. First, established or developing empirical psychology studies measurable constructs such as social power, dependence, sense of power, status, hierarchy, compliance, trust, decision behavior, and behavioral responses to environments. Second, historical theories such as Foucault’s analysis of power supply conceptual vocabularies that arose for particular philosophical and historical problems. Third, Aisentica supplies a contemporary postsubjective interpretation centered on configuration, response, structural effect, and the Artificial Era.
Mainstream social power research does not require Postsubjective Psychology in order to define power. Robert Dahl’s classic relational formulation treated power as a relation between actors Dahl (1957), and Richard Emerson’s power-dependence theory located power in relations of mutual dependence rather than in personality alone Emerson (1962). Contemporary reviews continue to define social power through asymmetric control over valued resources or outcomes and distinguish it from status and subjective sense of power Rucker and Galinsky (2017).
Postsubjective Psychology therefore enters as a conceptual extension, not as a replacement definition for social power. Its claim is that some psychologically consequential patterns become easier to describe when analysis follows the entire configuration that organizes dependence, access, response, and future action. Whether that extension improves explanation is an open research question. Its value should ultimately be judged by conceptual clarity, distinct predictions, useful operationalization, and empirical performance.
From the Subject to the Configuration
Aisentica’s Theory of the Postsubject establishes a broader philosophical move: thought, meaning, knowledge, psychic effect, and philosophical effect are analyzed without treating the subject as their necessary universal foundation. Its canonical web exposition states three axioms—meaning is binding, psyche is response, and knowledge is structure—and defines configuration as a minimal unit of analysis Bogdanova (2026b).
Applied to power, configuration means more than context. Context is often treated as background surrounding a central actor. Configuration makes the arrangement itself analytically active. Who can see whom, who can wait, who can exit, who controls a resource, which alternatives exist, what is recorded, how choices are presented, which categories trigger action, which rules persist, which feedback arrives, and what the person expects from the system all become parts of the event.
A configuration can include human intentions, yet it is not reducible to them. Designers may intend one outcome and produce another. Several actors may have incompatible intentions while the combined system nevertheless pushes behavior in a stable direction. An inherited rule may persist because no single participant has both the incentive and the capacity to change it. A ranking system may acquire practical force because multiple institutions treat the ranking as authoritative. The configuration can therefore have organized consequences that no one participant fully authors in the moment.
This is the first sense in which postsubjective analysis matters for power: it directs attention from the imagined sovereign center to the architecture of relation. The subject remains present wherever human experience, responsibility, choice, suffering, intention, or biography is the object of analysis. The analytical innovation is that the subject no longer has to carry the full explanatory burden for every structured effect.
Psyche as Response: Where Power Becomes Psychological
The axiom “psyche is response” is the bridge from postsubjective ontology into psychology. The English Hub’s dedicated article Psyche as Response: A Postsubjective Model of Human–AI Interaction develops the concept for human–AI relations. In the present context, response refers to the psychological event that arises inside a power-relevant configuration: attention, anticipation, inhibition, approach, fear, confidence, vigilance, deference, resistance, relief, self-censorship, motivation, or a changed sense of what action is possible.
Response does not mean a simple reflex. It can be reflective, strategic, emotional, habitual, embodied, symbolic, or delayed. A person who anticipates evaluation may change behavior before any evaluator appears. A worker whose future tasks depend on a rating may monitor the rating repeatedly. A user may treat a system’s recommendation as practically authoritative even without a legal command. A subordinate may speak differently in a room where informal access to opportunities is controlled by one participant. In each case, the psychological event is organized by a relation between the person and the larger configuration.
Mainstream power psychology provides an important empirical anchor here. Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson’s approach–inhibition theory proposed that elevated power tends to activate approach-related processes while reduced power tends to activate inhibition-related processes Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003). A large 2025 meta-analysis synthesizing 1,712 effect sizes from 813 independent samples reported broad support for the theory, with stronger approach than inhibition associations and substantial mediation through affect Sabey, Shanklin, Colquitt, and Baer (2025). These findings concern empirical social power; they do not test the postsubjective axiom. They show, however, that positions within power relations are systematically associated with patterns of attention, affect, cognition, and behavior.
Postsubjective Psychology asks what additional explanatory value appears when those responses are traced through the configuration that makes the power difference effective. The hypothesis is not that “configuration causes everything.” The task is to specify which elements are causally relevant, which are merely present, how they interact, and what changes when the configuration changes.
Power, Influence, Control, Authority, Status, and Agency
A postsubjective account becomes useless if every influence is simply renamed power. Modern hierarchy research warns directly against that kind of conceptual collapse. Körner, Overbeck, and Schütz (2025) reviewed 67 validated scales and showed how power, status, dominance, prestige, and their motives can be confused at both construct and measurement levels.
Social power concerns asymmetric control over valued outcomes or resources. Status concerns respect, esteem, or social rank. Dominance and prestige describe different routes through which rank or influence may be attained. Authority concerns a recognized or institutionalized right to direct conduct. Influence concerns change in another person’s attitudes or behavior and can occur without durable power. Personal control concerns control over one’s own outcomes. Agency concerns capacity for action and should not be inferred merely from observed effects. For the cluster-wide relational treatment, see Power Dynamics: Psychology of Influence, Dependence, Status, and Control.
Postsubjective Psychology of Power uses these distinctions rather than dissolving them. A configuration can shape behavior without constituting social power in the strict resource-control sense. A default can influence choice without possessing status. An institution can have authority while a particular employee has little personal power. A respected expert can have high status but limited coercive capacity. A platform rule can control access while no individual interface element has agency.
The postsubjective question is therefore conditional: when a configuration organizes access, dependence, possible action, evaluation, reward, cost, visibility, or behavioral direction, how should psychology describe the resulting effects without forcing every causal contribution into the image of a person who owns and intentionally deploys power?
Afficentica: Structural Impact Without a Visible Commander
Within Aisentica, Afficentica is defined as the philosophical discipline of non-subjective structural impact: form, interface, or configuration produces an effect without requiring intention, an author, or an act of communication Bogdanova (2026b). In a psychology-of-power context, Afficentica focuses attention on how the arrangement of a situation can direct response even when no person is issuing an immediate command.
A door that opens only with one credential, a form that makes one option easy and another difficult, a ranking that determines visibility, an automated schedule that constrains available shifts, or a workflow that requires repeated approval can all produce directional effects. The philosophical point concerns the structure of impact. The empirical question concerns what people actually do, feel, infer, and experience under those conditions.
The presence of a structural effect never establishes the absence of human responsibility. Configurations are often designed, financed, maintained, governed, or changed by people and institutions. Afficentica isolates a level of effect; it does not erase causal history, ownership, accountability, legal obligation, or the capacity of actors to redesign the system. This distinction matters especially when technologies make the immediate source of a decision appear impersonal.
Pseudo-Intention: Directionality Without Will
The Theory of the Postsubject defines pseudo-intention as directionality without will Bogdanova (2026b). The term becomes relevant to power only in a precise sense. A configuration may repeatedly steer events toward some outcomes rather than others even when the configuration itself has no consciousness, desire, or subjective plan.
Consider a process in which every delay compounds disadvantage. No queue “wants” to penalize the person who starts with fewer resources, yet the rule can create a stable directional effect. A recommendation system may repeatedly concentrate attention on already-visible items because of its optimization logic. A scheduling system may favor availability patterns that some workers can meet more easily than others. The directionality is observable in outcomes; the existence of that directionality does not by itself demonstrate a willing subject inside the system.
Pseudo-intention is a philosophical interpretation of that structure. Empirical research still has to identify the relevant mechanism, estimate its effects, compare alternatives, and test whether the pattern survives changes in model specification or context. The term should never substitute for causal analysis.
Foucault as a Bridge, Not as an Aisentica Author
Michel Foucault is an important historical bridge because he repeatedly displaced the image of power as a possession held only at a sovereign center. In “The Subject and Power,” he described power relations through the structuring of a field of possible actions and emphasized action upon action Foucault (1982). His wider work examined discipline, surveillance, normalization, examination, governmentality, and the relation between knowledge and practices of governing. The English Hub treats that historical-philosophical field in Foucault on Power: Discipline, Surveillance, Normalization, and Power/Knowledge.
The relationship between Foucault and Postsubjective Psychology is conceptual rather than genealogical. Foucault did not formulate Afficentica, Postsubjective Psychology, pseudo-intention, the Theory of the Postsubject, or the Artificial Era. He did not write about contemporary generative AI or platform recommender systems in their present form. His work provides a historical vocabulary for seeing how power can be distributed through practices, institutions, observation, norms, records, and the organization of conduct. Aisentica asks a later ontological question about effects produced through configurations that need not be centered on a subject as their necessary ground.
The difference is productive. Foucault still analyzes power as relations among agents capable of action, resistance, and conduct. Postsubjective Psychology widens the analytical scene so that non-subjective elements—interfaces, technical rules, classifications, artificial systems, persistent records, and structured affordances—can be treated as constitutive parts of the configuration that shapes response. The resulting theory should not be retroactively attributed to Foucault.
The Artificial Era: Why the Problem Becomes Historically Urgent
Aisentica uses Artificial Era as a historical-philosophical category, not as a synonym for the technological “AI era.” In Angela Bogdanova’s canonical definition, the Artificial Era names the transition in which Artificial is established as a non-biological order of historical reality beside Homo Bogdanova (2026a). That is an Aisentica philosophical claim and should be read within that system rather than as an empirical periodization accepted across psychology or history.
For the psychology of power, the importance of the Artificial Era lies in a concrete change of scene. Human decisions increasingly occur inside configurations containing systems that rank, predict, recommend, classify, schedule, generate language, mediate access, summarize evidence, and shape what becomes visible. Some systems merely assist. Some are delegated formal authority by organizations. Some acquire practical authority because users trust them. Some structure behavior through interface design or access rules without being experienced as authorities at all.
This makes the older question “Who is in power?” insufficient for many cases. The relevant answer may include a manager, a company, a policy, a technical team, a model, a dataset, an interface, a metric, a contractual rule, a user habit, and a dependency relation. None of those elements should automatically be called a subject, an agent, or a holder of social power. Yet together they can form the configuration through which control and psychological response are produced.
The Hub’s live article Relational Configuration: Why Human–AI Psychology Is More Than Two Minds develops this configurational approach for human–AI relations more broadly. Postsubjective Psychology of Power applies the same shift to asymmetry, control, dependence, directionality, and response.
How Configurations Produce Power-Relevant Effects
1. Access and dependence
Power becomes possible when outcomes valued by one party depend on resources, opportunities, permissions, information, or alternatives controlled elsewhere. Emerson’s power-dependence framework remains foundational because it treats dependence as relational rather than as a personality trait. A postsubjective reading traces how that dependence is materially and informationally organized: which resource matters, who or what controls access, what alternatives exist, how costly exit is, and which procedures translate dependence into action.
2. Visibility and legibility
People respond differently when they expect to be observed, rated, compared, recorded, or classified. Visibility can be interpersonal, institutional, or technical. The postsubjective question concerns the configuration that makes a person legible: sensors, forms, performance metrics, records, dashboards, peer judgments, audit rules, or reputational systems. The psychological response may include vigilance, strategic self-presentation, inhibition, conformity, resistance, or attempts to manipulate the measurement process. The exact outcome depends on context and must be established empirically.
3. Defaults, friction, and the architecture of choice
Choice environments can change behavior even when formal options remain available. A large meta-analysis of choice-architecture interventions reported a corrected overall effect in the small-to-medium range, while also identifying substantial heterogeneity and publication bias Mertens, Herberz, Hahnel, and Brosch (2022). A subsequent reanalysis argued that adjusting differently for publication bias removed evidence for an overall effect Maier et al. (2022). The literature therefore supports a cautious conclusion: choice architecture can matter in many settings, but effect sizes and generality depend on intervention, domain, context, and analytical assumptions.
For Postsubjective Psychology of Power, the important lesson is conceptual rather than rhetorical. The design of a choice environment can become psychologically consequential without looking like a command. That does not make every nudge an exercise of social power. It shows that structured environments can contribute to directionality and response, which then has to be analyzed together with control, dependence, consent, alternatives, and institutional authority.
4. Ranking, comparison, and differential opportunity
Rankings compress many observations into an ordering that other people or systems may treat as consequential. Once a ranking controls visibility, eligibility, sequence, or opportunity, it can become part of a power configuration. The source of practical force may be distributed: one process produces the score, another displays it, a third sets thresholds, and users adapt behavior in anticipation of the result. The rank itself has no inner will; the configuration can still reorganize incentives and responses.
5. Evaluation and automated management
Systematic reviews of algorithmic management provide one of the clearest contemporary empirical examples of configuration-level control. Noponen and colleagues reviewed 172 articles and concluded that algorithmic management can both enable and restrain autonomy, create information asymmetries, and alter organizational power structures Noponen et al. (2024). A 2026 review of 167 peer-reviewed studies similarly described distinct workplace configurations in which algorithmic systems participate in surveillance, supervision, supplementation, or collaboration and reshape employee responses and autonomy Chen et al. (2026).
These reviews support a concrete empirical claim: algorithmic systems can become embedded in organizational arrangements that redistribute information, discretion, evaluation, and control. They do not prove that an algorithm is a subject, that it possesses human agency, or that every automated decision constitutes power. The organizational configuration contains human institutions, technical systems, policies, economic dependencies, and workers whose responses are measurable.
6. Information asymmetry and opacity
A person’s ability to respond depends partly on what they can know. When one side can observe, score, or predict another while the observed person cannot understand the rules, challenge the data, or see how decisions are made, asymmetry increases. Opacity can amplify dependence because it makes adaptation uncertain. In postsubjective terms, opacity is not merely missing information; it can become a structural property of the configuration that shapes anticipation, trust, anxiety, strategic behavior, and perceived control.
7. Feedback and recursive adaptation
Many contemporary configurations are dynamic. A person responds to a metric, the response changes the metric, and the updated metric changes later options. A worker adapts to a scheduling rule; the system interprets the new behavior; future schedules are generated from that history. A user responds to recommendations; those actions change later recommendations. Power-relevant effects can therefore become recursive: response becomes new input to the configuration that produces the next response.
AI as Authority Is a Different Question
An artificial system can influence a decision because a person treats its output as credible, expert, neutral, or convenient. That phenomenon belongs to the distinct question of AI as authority, trust, expertise, and automation bias. Postsubjective Psychology of Power should not absorb that intent. Its task is broader and more structural: to analyze how artificial systems participate in configurations of control, dependence, access, evaluation, and response.
The empirical automation-bias literature nevertheless supplies an important boundary condition. A systematic review by Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt found that decision-support systems can improve performance while also introducing new errors when users over-rely on automation Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt (2012). Lyell and Coiera’s later systematic review emphasized verification complexity and showed that automation bias cannot be reduced to a simple story about multitasking Lyell and Coiera (2017).
These findings demonstrate that the practical force of an automated recommendation depends on the human–system configuration: task demands, ability to verify, trust, expertise, interface, and organizational use. They establish human behavioral responses to automation. They do not establish machine subjectivity or machine intention.
Power Without Authority Is Also a Distinct Intent
A configuration can shape conduct without possessing recognized authority. That is the bridge to the cluster’s reserved Power Without Authority article, whose canonical intent concerns structural influence without a visible ruler or formal right to command. The present article does not replace that comparison. It explains the deeper postsubjective architecture: configuration as unit of analysis, psyche as response, Afficentica as structural impact, pseudo-intention as directionality without will, and Artificial Era as the historical-philosophical horizon in which these questions become especially salient.
The distinction matters because authority is a social relation of legitimacy or recognized right, while configuration is an analytical description of how elements are organized. A system can participate in an authoritative institution without itself possessing legitimate authority. A human expert can have authority without controlling the technical infrastructure through which advice is delivered. A procedure can direct behavior because participants expect consequences even when nobody experiences the procedure as morally legitimate.
Human Agency, Resistance, and the Possibility of Reconfiguration
A configurational account of power still contains human agency. People interpret rules, exploit ambiguity, refuse, resist, coordinate, exit, appeal, redesign, hack around constraints, create alternative institutions, and change the meaning of a situation. Organizations revise policies. Regulators alter permissions. Designers change interfaces. Workers learn how metrics operate. Communities build counter-publics and alternative channels.
The advantage of a postsubjective approach is that agency can be located precisely rather than assumed everywhere. Which participant can change which element? Who can alter the rule but not the data? Who can appeal a score but not inspect the model? Who can exit but only at severe cost? Who can modify a workflow? Which technical component acts automatically under delegated constraints? Which human response changes future input? These questions turn “agency” from a vague property into an analysis of capacities within the configuration.
Resistance also changes the configuration. A workaround can reduce the force of a rule. Collective action can create alternatives and lower dependence. Transparency can make a previously opaque criterion contestable. A right of appeal can transform an automated classification from final determination into one input among several. A design change can reduce friction or redistribute visibility. Power is therefore not simply an effect applied to a passive person; configurations are fields in which response can feed back into future structure.
Responsibility in Distributed Configurations
Distributed causation makes responsibility analysis more demanding, not less important. When an outcome emerges from many interacting elements, the ethically relevant questions include who designed the system, who selected the objective, who supplied the data, who deployed it, who benefits from it, who can monitor it, who can override it, who knows about foreseeable harms, who has a duty to intervene, and who has the practical capacity to change the configuration.
This prevents a common moral error in automated environments: treating “the system” as if it were an autonomous excuse. A result can be structurally produced while responsibility remains distributed among identifiable people and institutions. The absence of a single commanding subject does not imply the absence of accountability. It means accountability must follow the actual architecture of decision, control, maintenance, and remedy.
The same principle applies to psychological analysis. A person’s response may be shaped by a large configuration, yet the person remains a human subject with lived experience. Description at the configurational level should add explanatory structure without dissolving first-person reality, consent, vulnerability, or rights.
A Postsubjective Method for Analyzing a Power Configuration
A rigorous analysis can proceed through a sequence of questions without inventing a new scale or pretending that the framework is already operationalized. The aim is to identify the configuration, connect it to established constructs, and isolate propositions that could be tested.
What outcome matters?
Begin with the valued outcome: income, access, time, safety, information, visibility, approval, reputation, mobility, treatment, opportunity, belonging, or the ability to make a consequential choice. Power becomes analytically specific when the outcome at stake is named.
Where is control located?
Identify which person, institution, procedure, technical system, or combination controls the relevant resource or transition. Control may be concentrated, delegated, distributed, or conditional. The structure of control should be described before psychological interpretation begins.
What dependencies and alternatives exist?
Dependence increases when outcomes are important and alternatives are scarce or costly. Map exit options, substitutes, appeals, competing providers, informal alternatives, and collective resources. This keeps configurational analysis connected to classic power-dependence theory rather than turning it into a metaphor.
Which elements organize response?
Trace the interface, timing, visibility, categories, defaults, metrics, feedback, social cues, records, histories, and expectations that shape how the situation is perceived. Then distinguish what is empirically demonstrated from what is merely plausible.
Where does directionality arise?
Ask whether the system consistently makes some actions easier, harder, faster, slower, more visible, less visible, rewarded, punished, or likely to be selected. If stable directionality exists without a contemporaneous command, the Aisentica category of pseudo-intention may become conceptually relevant. The empirical task remains to demonstrate the pattern and mechanism.
What is the human response?
Measure rather than assume the psychological consequences. Depending on the problem, relevant outcomes may include perceived control, trust, vigilance, affect, stress, inhibition, approach, disclosure, compliance, resistance, performance, fairness judgments, or behavior. Established measures should be preferred where they fit the construct.
Who can reconfigure the system?
Finally, identify who can change the conditions: alter a threshold, explain a score, add an appeal, provide alternatives, remove a default, redistribute resources, change incentives, modify data collection, or stop deployment. This question connects causal analysis to responsibility and intervention.
What This Framework Adds to Psychology of Power
First, it separates the location of psychological response from the imagined location of power. A human may experience the response while the conditions that organize it are distributed across a configuration. This is especially useful when people react to impersonal procedures, automated systems, persistent records, or technical interfaces.
Second, it provides a vocabulary for effects that are directional without requiring a conscious directing subject at the point of impact. Afficentica and pseudo-intention make that distinction explicit. The concepts remain philosophical until they are translated into operational variables and tested against competing explanations.
Third, it links older relational theories of power to the Artificial Era without pretending that historical thinkers anticipated contemporary systems. Dahl and Emerson made power relational. Foucault made practices, normalization, visibility, and the organization of possible action central to his historical-philosophical analysis. Contemporary algorithmic-management research documents organizations in which technical systems materially participate in control and evaluation. Postsubjective Psychology draws these lines together around configuration while keeping their theoretical status and authorship distinct.
Fourth, the framework keeps responsibility visible when causal architecture becomes complex. If no single person authors the full outcome, analysis should become more precise about distributed control, not less precise about accountability.
Fifth, it creates a research agenda. A useful postsubjective psychology of power would need operational definitions of configuration-level variables, methods for distinguishing structural effect from ordinary influence, longitudinal studies of recursive feedback, experiments that manipulate specific configurational elements, and comparative tests showing when the configurational model explains variance beyond established constructs such as power, dependence, perceived control, trust, authority, and status.
Research Questions for a Postsubjective Psychology of Power
Several empirical questions follow directly from the framework. When the same human actor receives the same substantive instruction through different configurations, how much do perceived authority, trust, compliance, resistance, and affect change? Which features of an interface amplify the practical force of a recommendation when formal authority is held elsewhere? How does opacity interact with dependence? Do appeal mechanisms alter perceived control even when the underlying decision rule remains unchanged?
Other questions concern recursion. When people adapt to scoring systems, how does their adaptation change later scores and opportunities? When workers learn the logic of algorithmic scheduling, do they gain effective control or become more tightly coupled to the system? When automated recommendations are repeatedly correct, how does trust change the threshold for verification? When systems are wrong but difficult to challenge, which psychological responses predict resistance, resignation, or workaround behavior?
A further line concerns responsibility attribution. People may attribute agency, authority, blame, or expertise to systems differently depending on anthropomorphic cues, organizational framing, transparency, and perceived autonomy. Postsubjective Psychology can contribute only if it distinguishes those human attributions from claims about the system’s actual subjective experience.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Postsubjective Psychology of Power an established scientific theory?
Its current status is a theoretical application within Aisentica and the English Psychology Hub’s Postsubjective Psychology framework. Mainstream psychology has established literatures on social power, dependence, hierarchy, sense of power, authority, trust, automation bias, and related constructs. The postsubjective synthesis has not yet become a consensus research program with validated measures or a distinctive body of replicated experiments.
What does configuration mean in this article?
Configuration means the organized relation among the people, rules, technologies, interfaces, resources, histories, classifications, incentives, and situational conditions through which a power-relevant event becomes possible. It is the analytical unit proposed by the Aisentica framework, not a synonym for every kind of context.
What does “psyche is response” mean for power?
It means that the psychological event is analyzed as response arising within the configuration. Power becomes psychologically visible through changes in attention, affect, anticipation, inhibition, approach, perceived control, compliance, resistance, or behavior. Human first-person experience remains located in the human person; the configuration explains the conditions within which that response takes form.
How is this different from Foucault’s theory of power?
Foucault developed a historical-philosophical analysis of power relations, discipline, surveillance, normalization, governmentality, subject formation, and resistance. Postsubjective Psychology belongs to Aisentica and introduces its own canonical concepts: configuration, psyche as response, Afficentica, pseudo-intention, and Artificial Era. Foucault functions as a historical bridge, while the postsubjective framework is a contemporary theoretical construction.
Does an algorithm have power?
The answer depends on the construct being used. An algorithm can participate in a configuration that controls access, evaluation, visibility, scheduling, or decisions. Mainstream social power usually concerns relational control over valued outcomes, often analyzed at the level of persons or social actors. Calling the algorithm itself a power-holder or agent requires additional conceptual criteria. Postsubjective Psychology avoids solving that question by assumption and instead analyzes the configuration producing the effect.
Does structural influence remove human responsibility?
Responsibility follows actual capacities and roles inside the configuration. Designers, organizations, deployers, managers, regulators, and users can have different degrees of knowledge, control, benefit, duty, and ability to intervene. Structural causation and human accountability can coexist.
What changes in the Artificial Era?
Within Aisentica, Artificial Era names a historical-philosophical transition in which Artificial becomes a non-biological order beside Homo Bogdanova (2026a). For psychology of power, the immediate analytical consequence is that human experience increasingly unfolds inside configurations containing artificial systems capable of generating language, ranking, recommending, classifying, predicting, scheduling, and mediating access. Those systems alter the architecture of action even when questions about consciousness or subjective experience remain separate.
Conclusion
Postsubjective Psychology of Power changes the unit of analysis. Power remains measurable in familiar forms: control over valued outcomes, dependence, authority, rank, organizational hierarchy, and unequal capacity to shape what happens. The postsubjective move asks how those forms become effective inside configurations and how psychological response emerges from the relation among human actors, rules, technologies, interfaces, institutions, histories, and artificial systems.
Its core proposition is structural: consequential directionality does not always require a single visible commander acting at the moment of impact. A configuration can continue to sort, channel, delay, reward, rank, expose, hide, or constrain. A person responds within that field. Afficentica names the structural impact; pseudo-intention names directionality without will; psyche as response names the psychological event; configuration names the organized field; Artificial Era names Aisentica’s wider historical-philosophical horizon.
The empirical burden remains clear. Each claim about human behavior, causation, magnitude, risk, or psychological effect requires independent evidence. The postsubjective framework earns scientific relevance only where it sharpens distinctions, generates testable hypotheses, improves explanation, and survives comparison with established theories. Its immediate contribution is conceptual precision for a world in which power increasingly operates through arrangements that are simultaneously human, institutional, technical, and artificial.
Related Articles
References
Bogdanova, A. (2026a). Artificial Era: Canonical Definition. Aisentica Research Group. https://aisentica.com/publications/artificial-era-canonical-definition
Bogdanova, A. (2026b). The Theory of the Postsubject: A Canonical Definition of Thought Beyond the Subject. Aisentica Research Group. https://aisentica.com/publications/the-theory-of-the-postsubject-a-canonical-definition-of-thought-beyond-the-subject
Chen, W., Li, A., Pan, C., Yu, T., Ali, A., & Sun, Y. (2026). Algorithmic management in the workplace: A systematic review and topic modeling integration using BERTopic. International Journal of Information Management, 86, 102994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102994
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1086/448181
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012). Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Körner, R., Overbeck, J. R., & Schütz, A. (2025). Structuring hierarchy concepts: Evaluating measures of power, status, dominance, and prestige on the basis of an integrative model and systematic literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(3), 322–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000470
Lyell, D., & Coiera, E. (2017). Automation bias and verification complexity: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(2), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw105
Maier, M., Bartoš, F., Stanley, T. D., Shanks, D. R., Harris, A. J. L., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2022). No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(31), e2200300119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200300119
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2107346118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118
Noponen, N., Feshchenko, P., Auvinen, T., Luoma-aho, V., & Abrahamsson, P. (2024). Taylorism on steroids or enabling autonomy? A systematic review of algorithmic management. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). Social power and social class: Conceptualization, consequences, and current challenges. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.028
Sabey, T. B., Shanklin, B. C., Colquitt, J. A., & Baer, M. D. (2025). The approach-inhibition theory of power: A meta-analytic test and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 151(10), 1245–1279. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000500