Vol. 2 (2025)
Original Articles

The peripheral machine: Algorithmic sovereignty and the fractured geographies of sense

PDF
  • Edmondo Grassi
Edmondo Grassi
Università San Raffaele, Roma, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/jep-20881

Published 2026-07-18

Keywords

  • peripheral machine,
  • algorithmic society,
  • epistemic extractivism,
  • fractured geographies,
  • algoagents

Copyright (c) 2026 Edmondo Grassi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This article examines artificial intelligence as a “peripheral machine,” a dispositif that simultaneously extracts, reworks, and re-injects cultural and cognitive practices into global circuits of meaning. By analyzing emblematic cases such as Albania’s algorithmic avatar Diella, biased medical datasets, and automatic translation systems privileging dominant languages, the paper highlights how AI infrastructures reproduce asymmetric relations between centers and peripheries. Building on theories of epistemic extractivism, algorithmic sovereignty, and fractured geographies of sense, the analysis shows that AI does not merely optimize processes but reorganizes the very conditions of signification, reshaping who can speak, what counts as knowledge, and which lives are protected or excluded. Against universalist narratives of technological neutrality, the article advocates for a situated ethics of AI and the recognition of algoagents as co-constructive actors in the production of imaginaries, subjectivities, and collective futures. It calls for plural imaginaries and counter-spaces where communities and technologies can negotiate new forms of justice and emancipation.

PDF

References

  1. Burrell, J. (2016). How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
  2. Couldry, N. & Mejías, U.A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  3. Cross, J.L., Choma, M.A. & Onofrey, J.A. (2024). Bias in Medical AI: Implications for Clinical Decision-Making. PLOS Digital Health, 3(11): e0000651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000651
  4. Danaher, J. (2019). Automation and Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World without Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  5. Engin, Z. & Treleaven, P. (2023). Algorithmic Government: Automating Public Services and Supporting Civil Servants in using Data Science Technologies. The Computer Journal 62(3): https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxy082
  6. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison; ed. it. 2014. Sorvegliare e punire. Nascita della prigione. Torino: Einaudi.
  7. Gibson, W. (2014). The Peripheral. New York: Putnam; ed. it. 2017. Inverso. Milano: Mondadori.
  8. Grassi, E. (2024). Per una sociologia algomorfica. Il ruolo degli algoritmi nei mutamenti sociali. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  9. Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  10. Hasanzadeh, F., Josephson, C.B., Waters, G., Adedinsewo, D., Azizi, Z. & White, J.A. et al. (2025). Bias Recognition and Mitigation Strategies in Artificial Intelligence Healthcare Applications. npj Digital Medicine, 8: 154. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01503-7
  11. Helm, P., Bella, G., Koch, G. & Giunchiglia, F. Diversity and Language Technology: How Techno-Linguistic Bias Can Cause Epistemic Injustice. ArXiv, abs/2307.13714
  12. Hildebrandt, M. (2020). Law for Computer Scientists and Other Folk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Hui, Y. (2016). The Question Concerning Technology in China: An Essay in Cosmotechnics. Falmouth: Urbanomic.
  14. JuLIA Project (2023). JuLIA Handbook on AI and Public Administration. European Commission. https://juliahub.eu/handbook.
  15. Kayser-Bril, N.. 2021. Automated Translation Is Hopelessly Sexist, but Don’t Blame the Algorithm or the Training Data. AlgorithmWatch, March 29, 2021. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/automated-translation-sexist/.
  16. Kline, N.S., Clynes, M.E. 1960. Cyborgs and Space. Astronautics, September, 26–27, 74–75.
  17. Lanfrica Labs. 2025. Mapping the Landscape and Trajectory of AI in Africa. Lanfrica. Accessed September 2025. https://lanfrica.com/en.
  18. Latour, B.. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Lazarsfeld, P.F. & Merton, R.K. (1954). Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis. In Freedom and Control in Modern Society, M. Berger, T. Abel & C.H. Page (Ed), 18–66. New York: Van Nostrand.
  20. Lordon, F. (2014). Willing Slaves of Capital: Spinoza and Marx on Desire. London: Verso.
  21. Malabou, C. (2008). What Should We Do with Our Brain? New York: Fordham University Press.
  22. Mbembe, A. (2016). Nécropolitique, Paris: La Découverte.
  23. Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. Ogburn, W.F. (1964). Technology and Governmental Change; ed. it. 2006. Tecnologia e mutamento sociale. Roma: Armando
  25. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Pasquinelli, M. (2019). How a Machine Learns and Fails – A Grammar of Error for Artificial Intelligence. Spheres: Journal for Digital Cultures, 6. http://spheres-journal.org/how-a-machine-learns-and-fails-a-grammar-of-error-for-artificial-intelligence/
  27. Preciado, P. (2015). Testo tossico. Sesso, droghe e biopolitiche nell’era farmacopornografica. Roma: Fandango.
  28. Ricaurte, P. (2019). Data Epistemologies, The Coloniality of Power, and Resistance. Television & New Media, 20(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419831640
  29. Rouvroy, A. 2020. Algorithmic Governmentality and the Death of Politics. Green European Journal, 27 marzo 2020. https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/algorithmic-governmentality-and-the-death-of-politics/
  30. Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  31. Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
  32. Shaw, A. (2014). Gaming at the Edge: Sexuality and Gender at the Margins of Gamer Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  33. Simondon, G. (1958). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques; ed. it. 2021. Del modo di esistenza degli oggetti tecnici. Napoli: Orthotes
  34. On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Translated by C. Malaspina & J. Rogove. Minneapolis: Univocal.
  35. Stengers, I. (2005). The Cosmopolitical Proposal. In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, B. Latour & P. Weibel (Ed), 994–1003. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  36. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2014). Cannibal Metaphysics. Minneapolis: Univocal.
  37. Wajcman, J. 2004. TechnoFeminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  38. Wynter, S. 2003. Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation – An Argument. The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41949874
  39. Yeung, K. (2017). Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
  40. Zahrae, P.S. & Ali, E.. 2025. Translate With Care: Addressing Gender Bias, Neutrality, and Reasoning in Large Language Model Translations. arXiv, 2506.00748
  41. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.