Internet, Democracy, Public sphere, Passions, Pluralistic agonism,
Abstract
This article seeks to perform two theoretical movements: locate the shortcomings of critics who refuse to think of the internet as a public sphere, and suggest a philosophical and sociological framework in which those shortcomings can be overcome. Against authors that gives privilege to consensus and rationality as key elements on thinking about public spheres, it will be argued that the internet potential as a political tool can be better understood and analyzed by a theoretical framework informed by Clifford Geertz’s ontological anti-essencialism, Gabriel Tarde’s neomonadological pan-relationism, Richard Rorty’s antifoundationalism and Chantal Mouffes’s ideas of “radical democracy” and “agonistic pluralism”. The aim is to the restate the importance of awarding conceptual positivity to passions when it comes to political affairs, and to affirm the need of making proper room to their expression in public spheres.
