Piattaforme online e polarizzazione politica. Alcuni spunti dalla teoria spinoziana degli affetti

CONTRIBUTI / 7 / Marianna Capasso /


Online Platforms and Political Polarization. Some insights from the Spinozian theory of the Affects

Online platforms have radically changed how information is spread, and have often been considered as a space for targeted and extremely polarised contents. The goal of this paper is demonstrating how Spinoza’s political philosophy can contribute to a critical reflection on the social and political dimensions of online platforms. In the first section, I discuss the existing literature and the relevant research gaps on online platforms and political polarization. Then, I investigate Spinoza’s theory of affects to further advance the understanding and assessment of online affective polarization. Finally, I conclude by exploring how Spinoza’s political philosophy may provide not only a deeper awareness of complex tech-mediated phenomena like affective polarization, but also some criteria and practices for regulating the digital sphere.



  • Ahler, D. J., Sood G. 2018. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences, «J. Politics», 80, 3, pp. 964–81.
  • Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W. e al. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization, «Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences», 115, 37, pp. 9216–9221.
  • Barberá, P. 2020. Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization, In N. Persily e J. A. Tucker (a cura di), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 34-55.
  • Barnidge, M. 2017. Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face- to-face and anonymous online settings, «Political Communication», 34, 2, pp. 302–321.
  • Bernholz, L., Landemore, H., Reich, R. 2021. Digital Technology and Democratic Theory, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  • Bonenfant, M., St-Martin, L. Iseut, L. 2020. Crémier, Affected Data: Understanding Knowledge Production in Algorithmic Events, «Global Media Journal, Canadian ed. Ottawa», 11, 2, 12, pp. 66-78.
  • Bove, L. 1986. La stratégie du conatus: Affirmation and résistance chez Spinoza, Paris, Vrin.
  • Capasso, M. 2022. Manipulation as Digital Invasion: a neo-republican approach, in F. Jongepier, M. Klenk (a cura di), The Philosophy of Online Manipulation, New York, Routledge, pp. 180-198.
  • COM (2021) 206 final, Proposta di Regolamento del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio che stabilisce regole armonizzate sull’Intelligenza Artificiale (Legge sull’Intelligenza Artificiale) e modifica alcuni atti legislativi dell’Unione, Bruxelles, 21.4.2021.
  • COM (2020) 825 final, Proposta di Regolamento del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio relativo a un mercato unico dei servizi digitali (legge sui servizi digitali) e che modifica la direttiva 2000/31/CE, Bruxelles, 15.12.2020.
  • COM (2016) 288 Final, Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento Europeo, al Consiglio, al Comitato Economico e Sociale Europeo e al Comitato delle Regioni. Le piattaforme online e il mercato unico digitale Opportunità e sfide per l’Europa, Bruxelles, 25.5.2016.
  • Cristofolini, P. 2009. La scienza intuitiva in Spinoza, Pisa, ETS.
  • De Gregorio, G. 2022. Digital Constitutionalism in Europe: Reframing Rights and Powers in the Algorithmic Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • De Gregorio, G. 2021. The rise of digital constitutionalism in the European Union, «International Journal of Constitutional Law», 19, 1, pp. 41–70. De Lucia Dahlbeck, M. 2018. Spinoza, Ecology and International Law: Radical Naturalism in the Face of the Anthropocene, London, Routledge.
  • Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo F. e al. 2016. The spreading of misinformation online, «Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences», 113, 3, pp. 554–559.
  • Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y. e al. 2021. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. «Nat Hum Behav», 5, pp. 28–38.
  • Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., McLain, A. 2018. No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions, «Am. J. Political Science», 62, 1, pp. 99–112.
  • Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., Alani, H. 2019. Exploring Misogyny across the Manosphere in Reddit, In WebSci ‘19 Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, New York, Association for Computing Machinery, pp.87-96.
  • Fossa, F., Schiaffonati, V., Tamburrini G. (a cura di). 2021. Automi e Persone. Introduzione all’Etica dell’Intelligenza Artificiale e della Robotica, Roma, Carocci Editore.
  • Garrett, R. 2009. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate, «Journal of Communication», 59, 4, pp. 676–699 Gounari, P. 2022. From Twitter to Capitol Hill: Far-Right Authoritarian Populist Discourses, Social Media and Critical Pedagogy, Leiden/Boston, Brill. Heatherly, K. A., Lu, Y., Lee, J. K. 2017. Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites, «New Media and Society», 19, 8, pp. 1271–1289
  • Huddy, L., Mason, L., Aarøe, L. 2015. Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity, Am Polit Sci Rev. »109, pp. 1–17.
  • Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y. Levendusky, M. 2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States, «Annual Review of Political Science», 22, 1, pp. 129–146.
  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., Lelkes, Y. 2012. Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization, «Public Opinion Quarterly», 76, 3, pp. 405– 431.
  • Kalpokas, I. 2021. Towards an affective philosophy of the digital: Posthumanism, hybrid agglomeproporzionens and Spinoza, «Philosophy & Social Criticism», 47, 6, pp. 702-722.
  • Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., Enjolras, B. 2017. Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates, «European Journal of Communication», 32, 3, pp. 257-273.
  • Langhi, R. 2019. Un’introduzione critica sugli affect studies, «Enthymema», 24, pp. 171-188.
  • Levy, G., Razin, R. 2020. Social Media and Political Polarisation, «LSE Public Policy Review», 1, 1, 5, pp. 1–7.
  • Lord, B. 2018. Ratio as the basis of Spinoza’s concept of equality, in B. Lord (a cura di), Spinoza’s Philosophy of Ratio, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, pp.61-73.
  • Lord, B. 2017. Spinoza on natural inequality and the fiction of moral equality, in S. Ducheyne (a cura di), Reassessing the Radical Enlightenment, London, Routledge, pp. 127-142.
  • Lord, B. 2017. Disagreement in the Political Philosophy of Spinoza and Rancière, «Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society», 117, 1, pp. 61-80.
  • Lord, B. 2014. Spinoza, Equality, Hierarchy, «History of Philosophy Quarterly», 31, 1, pp. 59-77.
  • Lord, B. 2010. Spinoza Ethics, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
  • Maher, P. J., Igou, E. R., van Tilburg, W. 2018. Brexit, Trump, and the Polarizing Effect of Disillusionment, «Social Psychological and Personality Science», 9, 2, pp. 205-213.
  • Mason, L. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  • Massumi, B. 1995. The Autonomy of Affect, «Cultural Critique», 31, pp. 83-109. Matheron, A. 1968. Individu et communauté chez Spinoza, Paris, de Minuit.
  • Messing, S., Westwood, S. J. 2014. Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online, «Communication Research», 41, 8, pp. 1042–1063.
  • Mouffe, C. 2005. On the Political. London, Routledge.
  • Muller, K., Schwarz, C. 2017. Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime, «Journal of The European Economic Association», 19, 4, pp. 2131-2167.
  • Nagle, A. 2017. Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right, Winchester, Zero Books.
  • Negri, A. 1981. L’anomalia selvaggia. Saggio su potere e potenza in Baruch Spinoza, Milano, Feltrinelli.
  • Nordbrandt, M. 2021. Affective polarization in the digital age: Testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties, «New Media & Society».
  • Padovani, C., Santaniello, M. 2018. Digital Constitutionalism: Fundamental Rights and Power Limitation in the Internet Eco-System, «International Communication Gazette», 80, 4, pp. 295-301.
  • Pariser, E. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you, London, Penguin Press.
  • Pasquale, F. 2015. The Black Box Society, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Pasquino, G. 2008. Democrazie perfettibili, «il Mulino, Rivista trimestrale di cultura e di politica», 3, pp. 499-505.
  • Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, In: Crothers, L., Lockhart, C. (a cura di), Culture and Politics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 223-234.
  • Reiljan, A. 2020. Fear and loathing across party lines (also) in Europe: affective polarisation in European party systems, «European Journal of Political Research», 59, 2, pp. 376–396.
  • Ribeiro, H., Blackburn, M., Bradlyn, J., De Cristofaro, B., Stringhini, E., Long,
  • G., Greenberg, S., Zannettou, S. 2021. The Evolution of the Manosphere across the Web, «Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and social media», 15, 1, pp. 196-207.
  • Rost, K., Stahel, L., Frey, B. S. 2016. Digital Social Norm Enforcement: Online Firestorms in Social Media, «PLoS ONE», 11, 6.
  • Sætra, H. S. 2021. AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System, «Sustainability», 13, 4, 1738.
  • Settle, J. E. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Smuha, N. 2021. Beyond the individual: governing AI’s societal harm. «Internet Policy Review», 10, 3, pp. 1-32.
  • Sharon, T. 2016. The Googlization of health research: From disruptive innovation to disruptive ethics, «Personalized Medicine», 13, 6, pp. 563-574.
  • Shmargad, Y., Coe, K., Kenski, K., Rains, S. A. 2021. Social Norms and the Dynamics of Online Incivility, «Social Science Computer Review», 40, 3, pp. 717-735.
  • Spinoza, B. 1972 (I ed. 1925). Tractatus politicus, in C. Gebhardt, (a cura di), Opera. Im Auftrage der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, C. Winter Universität, Heidelberg, 4 voll.; Spinoza, B. 2011. Trattato politico, trad. it. di P. Cristofolini, Pisa, ETS.
  • Spinoza, B. 1972 (I ed. 1925). Tractatus theologico-politicus, in C. Gebhardt, (a cura di), Opera. Im Auftrage der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, C. Winter Universität, Heidelberg, vol. III; Spinoza, B. 2010. Trattato teologico-politico, trad. it di A. Dini, Milano, Bompiani.
  • Spinoza, B. 1972 (I ed. 1925). Ethica. Ordine Geometrico demonstrata, in C. Gebhardt (a cura di), Opera. Im Auftrage der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, C. Winter Universität, Heidelberg, vol. II; Spinoza, B. 2010. Etica: dimostrata con metodo geometrico, trad. it. di P. Cristofolini, Pisa, ETS.
  • Spinoza, B. 1974. Epistolario, a c. di A. Droetto, Torino, Einaudi.
  • Steinberg, S. 2018. Spinoza’s Political Psychology: The Taming of Fortune and Fear, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Sunstein, C. R., 2018. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Sunstein, C. R. 2001. Republic.com, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R. 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, New Haven, Yale University Press.
  • Törnberg, P., Andersson, C., Lindgren, K., Banisch S. 2021. Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society. «PLoS ONE», 16, 10.
  • van de Poel, I. 2020. Embedding Values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems. «Minds & Machines», 30, pp. 385–409.
  • Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., vom Brocke, J. 2016. Digital Nudging, «Bus Inf Syst Eng», 58, 6, pp. 433-436.
Lo Sguardo è un progetto full open access. Puoi scaricare gratuitamente tutto il nostro archivio, ma saremmo lieti di ricevere un piccolo contributo tramite PayPal.
Sostieni Lo Sguardo
Support Lo Sguardo
Lo Sguardo is a full open access project. You can download all the articles for free, but we will be glad to receive a little support through PayPal.
Lo Sguardo è un progetto full open access. Puoi scaricare gratuitamente tutto il nostro archivio, ma saremmo lieti di ricevere un piccolo contributo tramite PayPal.
Sostieni Lo Sguardo
Support Lo Sguardo
Lo Sguardo is a full open access project. You can download all the articles for free, but we will be glad to receive a little support through PayPal.
Iscriviti alla nostra newsletter
Lasciaci il tuo indirizzo email per rimanere aggiornato sulle nostre novità.