Writing under algorithmic rule: digital authoritarianism, surveillance, and counterpublic imagination in contemporary Indonesian fiction

Authors

  • M. Ansori Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.67490/ijpl.v1i2.924

Keywords:

algorithmic governance, contemporary Indonesian fiction, counterpublic imagination, digital authoritarianism, surveillance

Abstract

Background: Digital authoritarianism has increasingly transformed public communication into a terrain of algorithmic visibility, surveillance, informational control, and anticipatory conformity, yet its cultural representation in contemporary Indonesian fiction remains insufficiently examined. Objective: This study aims to investigate how Indonesian fictional narratives represent algorithmic rule, surveillance practices, authoritarian memory, and counterpublic imagination under digitally mediated conditions of power. Method: Using qualitative digital literary analysis, this study examines selected contemporary Indonesian fictional texts alongside scholarly and contextual materials through thematic coding, narrative interpretation, and comparative textual analysis. Results: Findings indicate that algorithmic rule is represented primarily through mediated visibility, data profiling, platform dependency, and self-censorship, showing how digital power enters everyday subject formation. Surveillance is narrated less as direct coercion than as anticipated monitoring, historical fear, informational restriction, and socially distributed observation. Implication: Counterpublic imagination emerges through alternative public formation, symbolic resistance, memory-based solidarity, narrative reclaiming, and future-oriented imagination, suggesting that fiction preserves critical spaces for meaning-making under conditions of control. Novelty: This study offers a novel contribution by bridging digital authoritarianism studies, surveillance studies, and Indonesian literary criticism to show how fiction functions as an interpretive arena where algorithmic power becomes culturally visible, emotionally intelligible, and politically contestable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. Pearson, “Defining digital authoritarianism,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 37, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13347-024-00754-8.

[2] T. Roberts and M. Oosterom, “Digital authoritarianism: A systematic literature review,” Information Technology for Development, vol. 31, pp. 860–884, 2024, doi: 10.1080/02681102.2024.2425352.

[3] A. Hermawan, “Intra-oligarchic struggles and the rise of digital attacks on civil society in Indonesia,” Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 56, pp. 407–429, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00472336.2025.2505918.

[4] A. R. Nurizki, C. M. Setyabudi, and S. Yuliatiningtyas, “Governing disinformation through preventive digital policing: Technology, legitimacy, and social implications in Indonesia,” International Journal of Science and Society, 2026, doi: 10.54783/ijsoc.v8i1.1609.

[5] A. Akbari and D. M. Wood, “Towards a critical political economy of surveillance and digital authoritarianism,” Surveillance & Society, 2025, doi: 10.24908/ss.v23i1.18917.

[6] O. Schlumberger, M. Edel, A. Maati, and K. Saglam, “How authoritarianism transforms: A framework for the study of digital dictatorship,” Government and Opposition, vol. 59, pp. 761–783, 2023, doi: 10.1017/gov.2023.20.

[7] S. F. Maerz, “How practices of digital authoritarianism harm democracy,” Democratization, vol. 33, pp. 163–190, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13510347.2025.2553826.

[8] M. Aslan and G. Yilmaz, “Diffusion of digital authoritarianism? Censorship, surveillance and beyond in Türkiye,” Third World Quarterly, vol. 45, pp. 1663–1681, 2024, doi: 10.1080/01436597.2024.2363895.

[9] K. Mohapatra, “Digital authoritarianism in India: Surveillance, control, and resistance,” International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 2025, doi: 10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i03.48656.

[10] N. A. Ganaie, T. A. Mir, M. D. Jaysingh, and D. M. Rath, “Algorithmic governance and surveillance federalism: Transforming the digital state in India and ASEAN,” Frontiers in Political Science, 2026, doi: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1757636.

[11] B. Kazansky and S. Milan, ““Bodies not templates”: Contesting dominant algorithmic imaginaries,” New Media & Society, vol. 23, pp. 363–381, 2021, doi: 10.1177/1461444820929316.

[12] Z. Luo and M. Li, “Participatory censorship: How online fandom community facilitates authoritarian rule,” New Media & Society, vol. 26, pp. 4236–4254, 2022, doi: 10.1177/14614448221113923.

[13] M. Lim, “Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia,” Critical Asian Studies, vol. 49, pp. 411–427, 2017, doi: 10.1080/14672715.2017.1341188.

[14] B. B. Pratamawaty, “Social media activism and digital authoritarian drift in flawed democracies: The case of Indonesia,” Dialogues on Digital Society, vol. 1, pp. 469–473, 2025, doi: 10.1177/29768640251383985.

[15] Refai, “Narratives of resistance: Political allegory in post-reform Indonesian novels,” Indonesian Journal of Politics and Literary Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2026.

[16] K. N. Widyatnyana, “Literary memory and political violence: Trauma narratives in Indonesian historical fiction,” Indonesian Journal of Politics and Literary Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33–44, 2026.

[17] G. Kadamehang, “Language of dissent: A discourse analysis of protest poetry in contemporary Indonesia,” Indonesian Journal of Politics and Literary Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2026.

[18] P. Jamilah, “Constructing the nation: Literary representations of Indonesian nationalism in Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s works,” Indonesian Journal of Politics and Literary Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 21–32, 2026.

[19] L. Garbe and S. F. Maerz, “The rise of authoritarian informationalism: Escalating surveillance, manipulation, and control,” Democratization, vol. 33, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13510347.2025.2579105.

[20] M. Ruckenstein and J. Granroth, “Algorithms, advertising and the intimacy of surveillance,” Journal of Cultural Economy, vol. 13, pp. 12–24, 2019, doi: 10.1080/17530350.2019.1574866.

[21] B. Yabanci, “Surveil, datafy, publicize: Digital authoritarianism and migration governance in Turkey,” Democratization, vol. 32, pp. 1016–1041, 2024, doi: 10.1080/13510347.2024.2433091.

[22] K. Olwig, “The end and ends of flight: Temporariness, uncertainty and meaning in refugee life,” Ethnos, vol. 88, pp. 52–68, 2021, doi: 10.1080/00141844.2020.1867606.

[23] I. Wilhelm and A. Bartel, “Impacts of political and social contexts on refugees’ experiences: A comparison between Southeast Asian refugees arriving in France in the 70s and recent refugee migration,” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, vol. 8, pp. 449–469, 2021, doi: 10.1080/23254823.2021.1954045.

[24] B. Green and A. Pécoud, “Talking about migration in times of crisis: A textual analysis of narratives by IOM and UNHCR on migrants and refugees,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 69, pp. 707–731, 2023, doi: 10.1177/00027642231182899.

[25] S. Choudhury, “Boats in a storm: Law, migration, and decolonization in South and Southeast Asia, 1942–1962 by Kalyani Ramnath [book review],” Statelessness & Citizenship Review, 2024, doi: 10.35715/scr6001.1111.

Downloads

Published

30-06-2026

How to Cite

M. Ansori. (2026). Writing under algorithmic rule: digital authoritarianism, surveillance, and counterpublic imagination in contemporary Indonesian fiction. Indonesian Journal of Politics and Literary Studies, 1(2), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.67490/ijpl.v1i2.924