The paradox of pluralism: A key to interpreting the online public sphere in the time of ‘encastellation’

• Giacomini, Gabriele ^[1]
  1. [1] Università di Udine

     Università di Udine

     Udine, Italia

     
• Localización: Catalan journal of communication & cultural studies, ISSN 1757-1898, Vol. 13, Nº. 1, 2021, págs. 141-148
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1386/cjcs_00043_7
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This viewpoint makes a theoretical effort to label the organization of the virtual sphere under new concepts: ‘encastellation’ and the ‘paradox of pluralism’. The former is a metaphorical synthesis of already-known concepts (selective exposure, polarization, homophily, echo chambers and filter bubbles). In the second case, we emphasize the existence of a ‘paradox of online pluralism’: the internet has increased the possibility for everyone to make their voice heard (in quantitative terms), but at the same time it appears to also be increasing the distance between voices, putting in jeopardy the achievement of the aims of the pluralist political system (in qualitative terms). In conclusion, we express doubts about the feasibility of the deliberative vision of democracy in the current virtual sphere.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Ausserhofer, J. and Maireder, A. (2013), ‘National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere’, Information,...
  • Barabási, A. and Pósfai, M. (2016), Network Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Barnidge, M. (2017), ‘Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings’, Political Communication,...
  • Bashy, E., Messing, S. and Adamic, L. (2015), ‘Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook’, Science, 348:6239, pp. 1130–32.
  • Benedikt, M. (ed.) (1991), Cyberspace: First Steps, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Bohman, J. (1999), ‘Citizenship and norms of publicity: wide public reason in cosmopolitan societies’, Political Theory, 27:2, pp. 176−202.
  • Bohman, J. (2003), ‘Reflexive public deliberation: Democracy and the limits of pluralism’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 29:1, pp. 85–105.
  • Castells, M. (1996), Tre Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwell. Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer,...
  • Flammini, A. (2011), ‘Political polarization on Twitter’, Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media,...
  • Dahl, R. (ed.) (1966), Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, E. and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016), ‘The spreading of...
  • Dubois, E. and Blank, G. (2018), ‘The echo chamber is overstated’, Information, Communication & Society, 21:5, pp. 729–45.
  • Dylko, I., Dolgov, I. and Hoffman, W. (2017), ‘The dark side of technology: An experimental investigation of the influence of customizability...
  • Flaxman, S., Goel, S. and Rao, J. (2016), ‘Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 80:1, pp....
  • Giacomini, G. (2016), ‘The imperfect dialogic democracy’, RIFP, 8:3, pp. 23–21.
  • Guicciardini, F. (2015), Storia d’Italia, Torino: Aragno.
  • Habermas, J. (1961), Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
  • Habermas, J. (1992), Faktizität und Geltung, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
  • Habermas, J. (1994), ‘Three normative models of democracy’, Constellations, 1:1, pp. 1–10.
  • Himelboim, I., McCreery, S. and Smith, M. (2013), ‘Birds of a feather tweet together’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18:2, pp....
  • Klayman, J. (1995), ‘Varieties of confirmation bias’, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, pp. 385–418.
  • Kolinsky, E. (ed.) (2016), Opposition in Western Europe, New York: Routledge.
  • Machiavelli, N. (2008), Il Principe, Milano: BUR.
  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. (2001), ‘Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, 27:1,...
  • Nickerson, R. (1998), ‘Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises’, Review of General Psychology, 2:2, pp. 175–220.
  • Parisier, E. (2011), The Filter Bubble, London: Penguin.
  • Press, G. (2013), ‘A very short history of big data’, Forbes, 9 May, https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2013/05/09/a-very-short-history-of-bigdata/#72a241d965a1....
  • Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Sartori, G. (1976), Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sartori, G. (2000), Pluralismo, multiculturalismo e estranei, Milano: Rizzoli.
  • Schultz, J. (2019), ‘How much data is created on the internet each day?’, Micro Focus, 8 June, https://blog.microfocus.com/how-much-data-is-createdon-the-internet-each-day/....
  • Spohr, D. (2017), ‘Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media’, Business Information Review,...
  • Stroud, N. (2010), ‘Polarization and partisan selective exposure’, Journal of Communication, 60:3, pp. 556–76.
  • Stroud, N. (2017), ‘Selective exposure theories’, in K. Kenski and K. Jamieson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, Oxford:...
  • Sunstein, C. (2017), #Republic, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Valeriani, A. and Vaccari, C. (2016), ‘Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy,...
  • Von Beyme, K. (1985), Political Parties in Western Democracies, Aldershot: Gower.
  • Yardi, S. and boyd, d. (2010), ‘Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter’, Bulletin of Science, Technology...