Platforms’ Possible Politics

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Sep 16, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/automaton.38843
Keywords:
testimony partition of the sensible social media social movements affective communities
Natalia Botonaki
Humanities Department: Philosophy, Language and Literature, Carlos III University of Madrid
Abstract

This article explores aspects of social media use through which possibilities for the creation of collectives and for political action emerge. It situates this exploration within the framework of what has been termed the aesthetic turn in political theory, i.e., the broader understanding of politics in aesthetic and sensory terms. Through a critical reading of texts that philosophically engage with the concepts of the public sphere and the aesthetic presence and appearance of the self in public space, as well as texts from the fields of photographic and film theory, the article attempts to explicate political actions that takes place on the platform of Instagram. The aim of this article is to participate in an ongoing dialogue which is taking place within the aforementioned academic fields, as well as within theories of collective action. It is concerned with modes of interaction, information sharing and collective action and formation that are endemic to platforms in particular, as well as to technological means of reproduction in general.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

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

 

Authors wishing to publish articles in this journal agree to the following terms:

      1. The Authors retain the Copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication while at the same time the copyright of the work is protected under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows third party licensees to use the work as they wish provided they acknowledge the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

        2. Authors may enter into separate additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published journal version of the work (for example, posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.

      3. Authors are allowed and encouraged to post their work online before and during the submission process (e.g. on their website) as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and more citations of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

 

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. 1997. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by Cumming, John. Verso.
Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The Human Condition. The University of Chicago Press.
Balkema, Annette W., and Henk Slager, eds. 2000. Screen-Based Art. Lier En Boog 15. Brill-Rodopi.
Barlow, John Perry. 1996. ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 8 February 1996. eff.org/es/cyberspace-independence.
Buck-Morss, Susan. 1996. «Αισθητική-Αναισθητική: Μια επανεξέταση του δοκιμίου του Walter Benjamin για το έργο τέχνης». Πλανόδιον 23: 348-384.
Butler, Judith. 2008. Ευάλωτη Ζωή. Εκδόσεις Νήσος.
Butler, Judith. 2015. Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly. Harvard University Press.
Calder Williams, Evan. 2017. Shard Cinema. Watkins Media.
Castells, Manuel. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fraser, Nancy. 1990. ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’. Social Text, no. 25/26: 56-80.
Fridman, Orli. 2022. Unwanted Memories: Memory Activism and Digital Practices after Conflict. Amsterdam University Press.
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, USA: Routledge.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in The Age of Empire. The Penguin Press.
Pettman, Dominic. 2016. Infinite Distraction. Polity Press.
Ranciere, Jacques. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Translated by Julie Rose. University of Minnesota Press.
Ranciere, Jacques. 2004. ‘Who Is the Subject of the Rights of Man?’ South Atlantic Quarterly 102 (2/3): 297-310.
Ranciere, Jacques. 2013. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. Bloomsbury.
Russel, Matheson, and Andrew Montin. 2015. ‘The Rationality of Political Disagreement: Ranciere’s Critique of Habermas’. Constellations 22 (4): 543-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12174.
Siles, Ignacio. 2022. Living With Algorithms: Agency and User Culture in Costa Rica. mit Press.
τ α ν ΝαλτΑΤΑ Λ ί Α Μπο ο ά κη 27
Silverman, Kaja. 2000. World Spectators. Stanford University Press.
Sjöholm, Cecilia. 2012. ‘Ontologizing the Public Realm-Arendt and the Political’. In Placing Art in The Public Realm, 126-53. Huddinge: Södertörns högskola.
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Polity Press.
Steyerl, Hito. 2017. Duty Free Art. London, New York: Verso.
Tavani, Elena. 2013. ‘Hannah Arendt-Aesthetics and Politics of Appearance’. Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics 5: 466-75.
Zuromskis, Catherine. 2022. ‘Evidence of Feeling: Race, Police Violence, and the Limits of Documentation’. In Ubiquity: Photography’s Multitudes, 159-78. Leuen University Press.