The Most Radical Act: Intellectual Curiosity as Political Resistance
Imagine walking into a library. You pull a volume of Marx from the shelf, and instantly—every conservative thinker dissolves into mist. Burke, Tocqueville, Hayek—gone. You reach for Chateaubriand, and suddenly Luxemburg, Gramsci, and Fanon vanish without a trace.
If a librarian did this, we would call it censorship. If a government did it, we would call it propaganda. When an algorithm does it, we call it personalization.
This is the political condition of 2026.
The central ideological conflict is no longer simply left versus right. It is human complexity versus algorithmic reduction. The machines that mediate our public life operate under a singular economic imperative: maximize engagement. Engagement means time. Time means data. Data means profit.
Nuance is a drag on this business model. Nuance slows momentum, introduces doubt, invites reflection. Outrage, by contrast, scales beautifully. So the algorithm learns: if you consume Jordan Peterson, you will want ten more Petersons. If you quote Judith Butler, the rest of the intellectual world should disappear from your feed. What passes for a public square is in fact a hall of mirrors.
The right complains that universities and cultural institutions have become ideological echo chambers. This is not entirely untrue. Yet the right has simultaneously constructed its own digital echo chambers, where every crisis—from inflation to climate instability—is reduced to a single cultural scapegoat.
The left warns that reactionary populism and conspiracy culture are metastasizing across the internet. This is not entirely untrue either. But the left has also cultivated spaces where questioning certain orthodoxies brings swift excommunication.
Both sides profess horror at polarization. Both sides are exquisitely optimized for it. Algorithms did not invent tribalism—human beings were already formidable at that. What they did was industrialize it, transforming cognitive bias into infrastructure.
Historically, intellectual life was built on productive friction. Orwell engaged both socialists and conservatives. Arendt critiqued capitalism and revolutionary dogma with equal severity. Baldwin dismantled liberal hypocrisy and conservative racism in the same paragraph. Today, the algorithm politely spares us such inconvenience. It determines that if you admire Baldwin, you must never encounter Sowell. If you quote Sowell, you must never read Davis. The result is not ideological clarity. It is intellectual atrophy.
The deepest effect of algorithmic life is not merely polarization but a peculiar form of secularization. Not the disappearance of religion, but something more insidious. Traditional societies were bound by shared narratives—religious, philosophical, civic—that anchored identity in something larger than the self. The algorithm replaces these with micro-tribes, defined entirely by what you click, what you seethe over, what you performatively condemn. You no longer join a community; you subscribe to a feed. Feeds require constant stimulation. Outrage becomes ritual, scandal becomes liturgy, cancellation becomes excommunication. Welcome to the algorithmic church, where engagement metrics serve as gods and retweets as sacraments.
The irony is exquisite. Both the radical left and the radical right cast themselves as resistance movements. Both are among the most efficient products of the system they claim to oppose. Algorithms reward the loudest voices, the sharpest insults, the simplest narratives. This is why thoughtful political thinkers rarely trend. A viral tweet is not the natural habitat of Amartya Sen or Isaiah Berlin. But it is the perfect habitat for ideological gladiators. The algorithm loves a fight—preferably one that never concludes.
Defenders of algorithmic culture offer a familiar rejoinder: no one forces you to watch anything. Technically true. But the same defense could be offered for a library where half the books vanish depending on which volume you open first. Choice without exposure is not freedom. It is curated ignorance.
The most radical act available today is deceptively simple: read someone you disagree with. Open Marx and Hayek in the same afternoon. Read Fanon and Burke. Let Baldwin argue with Sowell in your own head. The algorithm will resist this—it will try to pull you back into the familiar, the affirming, the outrage that keeps you scrolling.
Resist anyway. Because the real danger of the digital age is not that we disagree. It is that the machines have quietly arranged it so that we never truly encounter one another. To break that arrangement is no longer just an intellectual habit. It is a political act.
____________________________________________
Raïs Neza Boneza is the author of fiction as well as non-fiction, poetry books and articles. He was born in the Katanga province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Former Zaïre). He is also an activist and peace practitioner. Raïs is a member of the TRANSCEND Media Service Editorial Committee and a convener of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environmentfor Central and African Great Lakes. He uses his work to promote artistic expressions as a means to deal with conflicts and maintaining mental wellbeing, spiritual growth and healing. Raïs has travelled extensively in Africa and around the world as a lecturer, educator and consultant for various NGOs and institutions. His work is premised on art, healing, solidarity, peace, conflict transformation and human dignity issues and works also as freelance journalist. You can reach him at rais.boneza@gmail.com –
http://www.raisnezaboneza.no
Tags:Algorithms,Artificial Intelligence AI,Casino Capitalism,Control,Emotions,Human behaviors,Humanity,Mind Control,Profits
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 25 May 2026.
Algorithims are a neutral concept and they do not intrinsically reward polarisation or anything else.
People in control of these algorithms have chosen to build business models around attention and addictive forms of engagement, which means in practice negativity. Jaron Lanier and many others have detailed this for a long time.
Algorithms can be just as easily deisgned to reward positive and connection building engagement, instead. There was a famous case in Taiwan many years ago where they build a model to consult the public on potential legislation, and the model was built around promoting the ideas and suggestions that generated the highest degree of positive reactions from people who would otherwise have been considered to be polar opposites in tendencies. In other words the algorothm rewarded bridge building.
Of course that was Taiwan a long time ago. By the current day Taiwan’s govt is now trying to polarise its own people.
It is not always the technology that is the problem. Most often the problem is the broken human beings that are in ownership of the tecnology or in charge of it, and chosing broken ways of defining the goals and objective and rewards of these systems.
Yes, yes and yes !