An Informational Approach to Politics

  • Massimo Durante
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 18)


The information revolution engendered by the evolution of ICTs has a strong impact on our conception of politics, since it affects two fundamental notions on which politics has been constructed throughout modernity: regulation (notably, the relation between the rulers and the ruled) and space (notably, the idea of a territory controlled by a sovereign power). Politics is no longer merely understood, in descriptive terms, as a form of control over a territory and, in normative terms, as the art of making collective decisions. In the information age, politics is beginning to be understood as the efficient and effective management and control of the information life cycle, which almost always exceeds the spatial constraints of nation state territories. The main concern of politics is thus no longer that of the dichotomy or dialectics between the rulers and the ruled, as is typical with traditional notions of government. It is rather that of the dichotomy or dialectics between what is governable and what is ungovernable, characteristic of current notions of governance, understood as a measure of the degree of complexity of our information societies.


  1. Antonelli, C. 2005. “Prefazione” a M. Antonelli, C. 2005. “Introduzione” to M. Taylor, Il momento della complessità.Taylor, Il momento della complessità. L’emergenza di una cultura a rete. transl. by it.di Benedetta Antonelli D'Oulx, Codice Editore, Torino, pp.B. Antonelli D’Oulx, Codice Editore, Torinoix-xx.Google Scholar
  2. Barberis, M. 2013. La fine dello Stato e altri racconti. Filosofia Politica 2: 317–329.Google Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2011. The Penguin and the Leviathan: The Triumph of Cooperation Over Self-Interest. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Comensoli, Antonini L. 2013. Gauchet lettore di Kantorowicz. Apporti alla teoria del disincanto, Filosofia Politica 2: 271–294.Google Scholar
  8. Durante, M. 2007. Il futuro del web: etica, diritto, decentramento. Dalla sussidiarietà digitale all’economia dell’informazione in rete, Giappichelli, Torino.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2010. The Value of Information as Ontological Pluralism. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23 (1): 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2012. E-democracy as the Frame of Networked Public Discourse. Information, Consensus and Complexity, In ed. P. Mindus, A. Greppi, and M. Cuono. Legitimacy 2.0. E-Democracy and Public Opinion in the Digital Age, Paper Series – 25th IVR World Congress: Law, Science and Technology, Frankfurt am Main, Goethe University Press, 1–28.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2013. Informazione e regolazione. Internet come problema democratico. Teoria politica 3: 39–65.Google Scholar
  12. Esposito. 2013. Politica e metafisica. Filosofia Politica 3: 465–478.Google Scholar
  13. Floridi, L. 2010a. Information. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2010b. The Philosophy of Information as a Conceptual Framework. In Demir, H. (ed.). Luciano Floridi’s Philosophy of Technology: Critical Reflections. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2010c. Information Ethics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, ed. L. Floridi, 77–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2013. Information Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2014a. The Fourth Revolution. On the Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Our Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. (ed.). 2014b. The Onlife Manifesto. Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. 2010. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  20. Galli, C. 2010. Genealogia della politica. Carl Schmitt e la crisi del pensiero politico moderno, il Mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, J. 2013. Putting Legal Philosophy at Its Place. Rivista di filosofia del diritto 2: 253–266.Google Scholar
  22. Gauchet, M. 1999. The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion [1985], foreword by C. Taylor, Trans. O. Burge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levinas, E. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority [1961]. Trans. A. Lingis. Pittsburgh: Dusquene University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Loraux, N. 1997. La cité divisée. Oubli The dans la mémoire d’Athenes. Paris: Payot & Rivages.Google Scholar
  25. Morozov, E. 2011. The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate The World. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  27. Schmitt, C. Der Gegensatz von Parlamentarismus und moderner Massendemokratie (1926), in Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar-Genf-Versailles, 1923–1939, Hamburg, Dunker & Humblot, 1940; trad.Schmitt C. (1940), Der Gegensatz von Parlamentarismus und moderner Massen demokratie (1926), in Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar-Genf-Versailles, 1923–1939. Hamburg: Dunker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2007. Theory of the Partisan. Trans. G.-L. Ulmen. New York: Telos Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Durante
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations