Fake News and Post-Truths? The “real” issue is how democracy is faring lately

👉 I am pleased to share some excerpts extracted from the scientific article: “Fake News and Post-Truths? The “real” issue is how democracy is faring lately”


Here’s the link: https://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=61331


FrancoAngeli Ed. #complexity #democracy #research #education #complexity #approach #ComplexSystems 

”In the end, despite our steadfast efforts to avoid treading in the footpaths of trend-issues, systematically fueled and fed by the media and social networks, we have practically been “forced” to speak about them, due to the repeated requests and stimuli we have received. Nevertheless, I will attempt to frame these issues within a more ample discourse, trying, as ever, to highlight correlations and levels of connection, and taking care not to fall into the error of using slogans or trivializing the topics. With regards to both the so-called “fake news” (or the so-called fact-checking) and the so-called “post-truths” (debunking) — (let it be clear that this is yet another age-old concept/theme passed off as original or “newly-coined”) — my opinion is that we are still reasoning along theoretical-practical lines whose framework is solely and unendingly limited to the logics of emergency and total control, (and in fact, with respect to information, what is under discussion includes censorship. . .) with the consequential exclusive involvement of the standard fields of knowledge and competences. It goes without saying that these are important strategic dimensions that must be dealt with in depth; however, constantly and consistently centering the analyses, process management, and the individuation of possible solutions (?) solely around the “instruments”, the media, their technological “nature” and the judicial and economic dimensions, means never taking into account, as would be needed, the social and cultural factors, the aspects regarding environment and ecosystems, the characteristics and dynamics typical of social nets – pre-existent to digital net(work)s, to the web and to the social networks themselves. Typical variables of social, relational and communicative complexity that should be integrated into a critical and systemic approach to such hypercomplexity. Variables, processes and dynamics that pertain, for example, to hetero-direction[1], to the search for “cultural approximation”, to sociality and to the (rampant, and by no means recent) conformism of belonging and of the reference groups.

The “real” problems are not the fake news and the post-truths, but the people, the citizens, their being easily conditioned, their hetero-direction and “predisposition” — socially and culturally “constructed” through education and socialization processes – to conformism and/or to “subjection taught through cultural habituation”, as Etienne de La Boétie would have put it.

The problem is, has been and continues to be the same: there is so much discussion, more and more frequent and insistent – and the issues raised, inherent to the digital revolution and the sharing society (1996), to information and the sharing/distribution of information and knowledge, in terms of emergency management, using more or less sophisticated and complex “instruments” and “applications” (algorithms, platforms etc.), other than through laws and deontological codes, guidelines, declarations – are designed to orient, guide and direct readers, listeners, TV spectators, internauts, citizens, but also the journalists and communicators themselves. With an approach that is halfway between technological determinism and legal positivism. Well, on the contrary of all that is being discussed, actuated and put into practice. . .(all indispensable but insufficient questions) – it would be necessary to start over, beginning exactly with the factors which are considered (in spite of the proclamations and slogans) less important and decisive: beginning with education and the teaching of analytical capacities to the Person, in his/her role, yes, of reader, listener, TV spectator, internet surfer, but above all in his/her role of “citizen” and not merely “consumer” (long-term logics and strategies). Many years have gone by since we first discussed this, but in the framework of a complex and radical rethinking of education and of educational processes, the most obvious urgency is that of reversing the dominating perspective that sees the recipients of (cognitive) information flows exclusively as pawns to be maneuvered, almost as though they were “marionettes” on strings, to move, accompany, co-instruct (naturally from the top town), to persuade, to manipulate (of course with the best intentions, for their own good!) towards “positive and correct information”. We are dealing with an extremely risky, indeed perilous, approach for many reasons, concerning, above all, certain essential rights and liberties, hence the quality of citizenship and of democracy. This kind of “approach”, with all the possible shades, tints and peculiarities related to the specific discipline referred to, continues to be applied top-down, whereas working on the training and the education of those entrusted with the task of communicating and informing takes much more commitment and effort. Whilst the kind of commitment that takes even more effort, and is much less visible (especially in the short-run, which is the only time and energy span conceivable from the viewpoint of politics and certain powers) is that of working on teaching and training the “thinking heads” of the people/recipients: teaching the formulation of doubt, uncertainty, responsibility, critical thinking, complexity, a new “culture of error”; that is, an education developed by practicing and spreading the “scientific method” and an analytical curiosity towards everything, an attitude that cannot help being other than investigative, poised towards the comparison with others, to the decoding of more or less complex symbols, to the search for “proof” in support of our own and others’ argumentation. An education that could at last empower people and citizens to understand how to both verify and falsify hypotheses, arguments and information of every genre, and to know how to measure themselves, in particular with those who do not have their same ideas or opinions, and who, perhaps, have been labeled/recognized as “diverse” –different from us. A kind of training and education that, evidently, would have a significant impact on the management of change and on the individuation of truly innovative solutions (?) as well.

While the dominating approach and attitude to these questions (and not only to these), including the consecutive phases of individuation and definition of actions and strategies (a theme which conjures up typically hegemonic narratives and certain types of story-telling), may have the best of intentions and objectives that can be shared without hesitation, they continue to be centered, other than specifically on instruments and technology, on a view of the Subject (of the individual and collective actors) as totally passive and easily manipulated (there are many criticalities in this sense). However, these rationales, instruments and objectives, often with a positive side, at times valid from the perspective of emergency management, — which, I would like once again to remind readers, should be educational and cultural — may have little or no effect on the more deeply-rooted dynamics that distinguish groups (inclusion vs. exclusion, identity vs. recognition, labeling, power, conflicts etc.). Hetero-direction, conformism, social needs and needs for belonging, respect and recognition (from others); but also the shaping of stereotypes, prejudices, and clichés are, in fact, the terrain where “fake news”, disinformation, narratives, post truth(s), as well as the most aggressive strategies of persuasion and marketing, sprout and thrive.

To put it another way, we keep on reasoning and working only by using short-term instruments and short-term solutions (and whenever possible, simplistic ones), continuing to treat the people and the subjectivities that must/will have to interact with these same problems and with the ecosystems of communication as somewhat secondary. What we should constantly be asking ourselves is this: who should we be focusing on? Where should we start so that we can correct structural errors, questions and problems that pertain, evidently, to the educational and cultural dimension? A strategic dimension—we stress – strategic for the very survival of modern democracies, an issue which is too often underestimated, or at any rate, not adequately considered.

The essential task which needs doing – and is not being done – is to work on/around the people and the relational/communicative spaces that they inhabit, keeping in mind that it is not, and cannot be, technology and the digital realm to guarantee citizenship and inclusion. Similarly, technology and all things digital cannot defend us against deceit, fraud, fakes, conformism, post-truths and so on. Our main lines of defense are and will always be education, teaching, training and constant updating and research.

What we are up against is a far from secondary aspect (we will come back to this later): there is, in the so-called knowledge society, in the so-called society of digital transformation, a widespread feeling, even in scientific sectors, tied to/based on a utopian illusion that sheer technology and technology alone will be able to solve any kind of problem – even in terms of protection and security; that our technologies will defend us from propaganda – even from the most sophisticated kinds – from advertising and from marketing strategies – even the most aggressive kinds – and more generally from falsehoods, from disinformation, be it haphazard or planned, from fake news, from fraud, and from every kind of risk or danger. Technology will always be useful, and even indispensable, but – I repeat – certain questions must also be solved by focusing mainly on other variables and concauses, enlarging our assortment of fields of knowledge and skills, calling them into play from a perspective that can be nothing short of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary.

I will never tire of repeating this: propaganda, manipulation, more or less hidden forms of persuasion, disinformation, fake news (and fact-checking itself), storytelling, post-truthing and so on, have always existed. The design, realization and systematic diffusion of these processes, dynamics and structures are as old as the hills – what has changed is the (global) ecosystem of information and communication and its related architecture(s), which undoubtedly render their dissemination much more viral and invasive, especially as regards speed.

When the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at. . .

Nevertheless, we should be careful not to complicate matters: as said before, the “real” problems, in my view, are not so much fake news and post-truths, (which must be exposed and contradicted, first of all by asking ourselves a rather banal question; whether we are looking at the causes or the effects of these complex dynamics (not that I go along with such a linear outlook, I merely wish to simplify the issue). In other words, whether they actually constitute the “pathology” of a system — and here I am not referring only to IT systems – or whether they are instead symptoms of other, much more critical situations that for many reasons are not being exposed. Furthermore, beyond the strategic centrality of teaching, training, education and research that has often been called for in these years, we must take another issue into account, the question of politics and democratic regimes, which have not been capable for quite some time of defining and carrying out the counter-measures that would truly be necessary to weed out these worrisome deviations at every level, deviations that are economic in the first place, linked to power systems and to the so-called “digital cannibals” that hold the reins of the new ecosystem and are, in reality, governing it. However, politics –as we wrote years ago – has for some time been the “handmaiden of the economic power system and of the global technocracy”, and no longer appears to be capable of carrying out its fundamental role of “mediation” and negotiation in the case of conflict and of the exploitation of conflict, which are now designating the new inequalities and the new asymmetries, both on local and global levels.

What we are facing is a very tangible risk with a high degree of probability – which is correlated to another series of risks (opportunities); namely, that if we do not immediately attempt to correct this approach/viewpoint and these generalized (and in some cases, international) default settings, we will most likely have, in the not-so-distant future, less fake news and disinformation in circulation (a result which would be positive but not sufficient!) but, as the data on (not only functional) analphabetism and educational poverty illustrate, we will continue to be challenged by – and to have to cope with – a civil society and with a public opinion made up of hetero-directed individuals, who will be hyperconnected and perhaps even super-informed, but substantially isolated and easily manipulated. The famous sociologist Franco Ferrarotti, long before the term came into vogue, used to speak of “frenetic, well-informed idiots”! And it is by no means a coincidence that years ago, I was speaking about a new Hyperconnected Mass Society (2005, 2014) and of the risk of reaching a sort of “citizenship without citizens”.

Thus it will come as no surprise to find ourselves having to cope with an ever more hyperconnected and interconnected system that, for example, might aim towards eliminating certain kinds of information deemed “non-aligned”, “inadequate”, not in harmony with certain guidelines and dictates, not conforming to a certain “correct” vision.

The impression we get is that we will forever continue –– in a sort of eternal return to the self-identical – to fend off these critical problems by falling back on the age-old logics of emergency, enriched by narratives through the well-oiled techniques of contraposition – that everyone only professes to want to leave behind, (those who view “the digital” from apocalyptic and fundamentalist viewpoints alike, from techno-skeptics to techno-zealots) – and likewise by recurring to the typical but intolerable polarization of every debate, which irremediably leads to seeing everything through the lens of ideologies, of one-sidedness, of political partisanship. Deviations and trajectories that hinder any and all attempts at in-depth analyses, reinforcing opinions, clichés, stereotypes and worldviews which have already become far too well-consolidated. All of which, I hope against hope, will not come about this time as well.


[1] The concept of hetero-direction was coined by David Riesman in 1950, who defined it as an “active attitude” in search of behavioral conformism, through an exceptional sensitivity to the actions and the desires of others; this attitude regards social actors and subjectivities, who then show themselves to be incapable of autonomous judgment or decisions.


About the fundamental issue of Education, you can see:

For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society, in, European Journal of Future Research, Springer, 2017 – DOI: 10.1007/s40309-017-0126-4




AA.VV.(1985), La sfida della complessità, Bocchi G. e Ceruti M. (a cura di), Bruno Mondadori, Milano 2007.

Adorno T.W., Horkheimer M. (1947), Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente, trad.it., Dialettica dell’Illuminismo, Einaudi, Torino 1966.

Arendt h. (1958), The Human Condition, trad.it., Vita activa. La condizione umana, Bompiani, Milano 1964.

Ashby W.R., An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London 1956.

Bailey K.D. (1982), Methods of Social Research, The Free Press, New York, trad.it., Metodi della ricerca sociale, Il Mulino, Bologna 1985.

Balibar É., Cittadinanza, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 2012.

Barabási, A. L. (2002), Linked. How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, trad. it., Link. La scienza delle reti, Torino, Einaudi, 2004.

Bateson G. (1972), Steps to an ecology of mind, trad.it., Verso un’ecologia della mente, Adelphi, Milano 1976.

Bellamy R., Citizenship. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.

Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, trad. it., La ricchezza della Rete. La produzione sociale trasforma il mercato e aumenta le libertà, Milano, Università Bocconi Editore, 2007.

Bertalanffy von L. (1968), General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, trad.it., Teoria generale dei sistemi, Isedi, Milano 1975.

Bobbio N. (1984), Il futuro della democrazia, Einaudi, Torino 1995.

Boccia Artieri G., Stati di connessione. Pubblici, cittadini e consumatori nella (Social) Network Society, FrancoAngeli, Milano 2012.

Braidotti R.(2013), The Posthuman, trad.it., Il postumano. La vita oltre l’individuo, oltre la specie, oltre la morte, DeriveApprodi, Roma 2014.

Byung-Chul, H. (2012), Transparenzgesellschaft, trad. it., La società della trasparenza, Roma, nottetempo, 2014.

Byung-Chul, H. (2013), Im Schwarm. Ansichten des Digitalen, trad. it., Nello sciame. Visioni del digitale, Roma, nottetempo, 2015.

Canfora L., La democrazia. Storia di un’ideologia, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2004.

Capra F. (1975), The Tao of Physics, trad.it., Il Tao della fisica, Adelphi, Milano 1982.

Capra F. (1996), The Web of Life, trad.it., La rete della vita. Una nuova visione della natura e della scienza, Rizzoli, Milano 2001.

Castells M. (2012), Networks of Outrage and Hope, trad. it., Reti di indignazione e speranza. Movimenti sociali nell’era di Internet, Milano, Università Bocconi Editore, 2012.

Castells, M. (1996), The Information Age, Economy, Society and Culture. The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, trad. it., La nascita della società in Rete, Milano, Università Bocconi Editore, 2002, (vol. I).

Castells, M. (1997), The Power of Identity, Oxford, Blackwell, (vol. II).

Castells, M. (1998), End of Millenium, Blackwell, Blackwell, (vol. III).

Castells, M. (2001), The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society, trad. it., Galassia Internet, Milano, Feltrinelli, 2002.

Castells, M. (2009), Communication Power, trad. it., Comunicazione e potere, Milano, EGEA-Università Bocconi Editore, 2009.

Ceruti M., Evoluzione senza fondamenti, Laterza, Roma-Bari 1995.

Ceruti M., Il vincolo e la possibilità, Feltrinelli, Milano 1986.

Coleman J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, trad.it., Fondamenti di teoria sociale, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005.

Dahl R. A.(1998), On Democracy, trad.it., Sulla democrazia, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2000.

De Biase L., Homo pluralis.Esseri umani nell’era tecnologica, Codice Ed., Torino 2015.

de La Boétie É. (1549-1576), Discorso della servitù volontaria, Feltrinelli, Milano2014.

De Toni A., De Zan G., Il dilemma della complessità, Marsilio, Roma 2015.

Dewey J. (1916), Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, trad.it., Democrazia e educazione. Un’introduzione alla filosofia dell’educazione, La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1992.

Dewey J. (1925), Experience and Nature, trad.it., Il pragmatismo, UTET, Torino 1970.

Dewey J. (1934), Art as Experience, trad.it., Arte come esperienza e altri scritti, La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1995.

Diamond J. (2005), Collapse.How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, trad.it., Collasso. Come le società scelgono di morire o vivere, Einaudi, Torino 2005.

Diamond J.(1997), Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies, trad.it., Armi, acciaio e malattie. Breve storia del mondo negli ultimi tredicimila anni, Einaudi, Torino 1998 (cfr.ed.2006)

Dominici P. (1996), Per un’etica dei new-media. Elementi per una discussione critica, Firenze Libri Ed., Firenze 1998.

Dominici P., Communication and Social Production of Knowledge. A new contract for the Society of Individuals, in «Comunicazioni Sociali», n°1/2015, Vita & Pensiero, Milano 2015.

Dominici P., Dentro la società interconnessa. Prospettive etiche per un nuovo ecosistema della comunicazione, FrancoAngeli, Milano 2014.

Dominici P., Il nuovo ecosistema della comunicazione e le sfide della responsabilità/ipercomplessità, in «DESK. Rivista Trimestrale di cultura dell’Informazione», n° 4/2015, UCSI, Università “Suor Orsola Benincasa” Napoli, Roma 2015.

Dominici P., L’anello debole e le reti “fuori” dalla Rete: ripensare la cittadinanza nella Società Interconnessa, in AA.VV., La Rete e il fattore C. Cultura, complessità, collaborazione, Stati Generali dell’Innovazione, Roma 2016.

Dominici P., L’utopia Post-Umanista e la ricerca di un Nuovo Umanesimo per la Società Ipercomplessa, in «Comunicazioni Sociali», n°3/2016, Vita & Pensiero, Milano 2016.

Dominici P., La filosofia come “dispositivo” di risposta alla società asimmetrica e ipercomplessa, in AA.VV., Il diritto alla filosofia. Quale filosofia nel terzo millennio?, Diogene Multimedia, Bologna 2016.

Dominici P., La modernità complessa tra istanze di emancipazione e derive dell’individualismo, in «Studi di Sociologia», n°3/2014, Vita & Pensiero, Milano 2014.

Dominici P., La società dell’irresponsabilità, FrancoAngeli, Milano 2010.

Dominici P., Sfera pubblica e società della conoscenza, in AA.VV. (a cura di), Oltre l’individualismo. Comunicazione, nuovi diritti e capitale sociale, Franco Angeli, Milano 2008.

Dominici P.(2005), La comunicazione nella società ipercomplessa. Condividere la conoscenza per governare il mutamento, FrancoAngeli, Milano 2011 (nuova ed.).

Dominici P., Oltre la libertà …di “essere sudditi”, in F.Varanini (a cura di), Corpi, menti, macchine per pensare, Casa della Cultura, Anno 2, numero 4, Milano 2017

Dominici P. The Hypercomplex Society and the Development of a New Global Public Sphere: Elements for a Critical Analysis, in, RAZÓN Y PALABRA, Vol. 21, No.2_97, Abril-junio 2017, pp.380-405;

Dominici P., The hypertechnological civilization and the urgency of a systemic approach to complexity. A New Humanism for the Hypercomplex Society” in, AA.VV., Governing Turbolence. Risk and Opportunities in the Complexity Age, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge 2017.

Dominici P., For an Inclusive Innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological, in, European Journal of Future Research, Springer, 2017 – DOI: 10.1007/s40309-017-0126-4

Donati, P. (2011), Sociologia della riflessività. Come si entra nel dopo-moderno, Bologna, il Mulino.

Douglas M. (1985), Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences, Routledge, New York, trad.it., Come percepiamo il pericolo. Antropologia del rischio, Feltrinelli, Milano 1991.

Eletti V., Complessità, cambiamento, comunicazioni. Dai social network al web 3.0, Guaraldi, Rimini 2012.

Emery F.E. (a cura di), Systems Thinking, trad.it., La teoria dei sistemi. Presupposti, caratteristiche e sviluppi del pensiero sistemico, FrancoAngeli, Milano 2001.

Federici, M. C., Picchio, M. (2010), La dimensione incrociata dell’individuo e della società, Roma, Aracne.

Ferrara, A. (1998), Reflective Authenticity, Rethinking the Project of Modernity, trad. it., Autenticità riflessiva. Il progetto della modernità dopo la svolta linguistica, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1999.

Ferrarotti F., La perfezione del nulla. Promesse e problemi della rivoluzione digitale, Laterza, Roma-Bari 1997.

Floridi, L. (2010), Information. A Very Short Introduction, trad. it., La rivoluzione dell’informatione, Torino, Codice Edizioni, 2012.

Foucault M.(1975), Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison, trad.it. Sorvegliare e punire. Nascita della prigione, Einaudi, Torino, 1976.

Foucault, M. (1988), Technologies of the Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault, trad. it., Tecnologie del Sé. Un seminario con Michel Foucault, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri, 1992.

Gallino L., L’incerta alleanza. Modelli di relazioni tra scienze umane e scienze naturali, Einaudi, Torino 1992.

Habermas J. (1981), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Bd.I Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Bd.II Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, trad.it. Teoria dell’agire comunicativo, Vol.I Razionalità nell’azione e razionalizzazione sociale, Vol.II Critica della ragione funzionalistica, Il Mulino, Bologna 1986.

Habermas J. (2013), Im Sog der Technokratie. Kleine Politische Schriften XII, trad.it., Nella spirale tecnocratica. Un’arringa per la solidarietà europea, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2014.

Habermas, J. (1962), Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit, trad. it. Storia e critica dell’opinione pubblica, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1971.

Himanen P. (2001), The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age, trad.it., L’etica hacker e lo spirito dell’età dell’informazione, Feltrinelli, Milano 2001.

Ippolita, Open non è free. Comunità digitali tra etica hacker e mercato globale, Eleuthera, Milano 2005.

Jonas H. (1979), Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, trad.it., Il principio responsabilità. Un’etica per la civiltà tecnologica, Einaudi, Torino 1990.

Kelly K. (2010), What Technology Wants, trad.it., Quello che vuole la tecnologia, Codice Edizioni, Torino 2011.

Lévy P. (1994), L’Intelligence collective: pour une anthropologie du cyberspace, trad.it., L’intelligenza collettiva. Per un’antropologia del cyberspazio, Feltrinelli, Milano 1996.

Lévy P. (1997), Cyberculture. Rapport au Conseil de l’Europe, trad.it., Cybercultura. Gli usi sociali delle nuove tecnologie, Feltrinelli, Milano 1999.

Lévy P., Les Technologies de l’intelligence, trad.it., Le tecnologie dell’intelligenza, Synergon, Bologna 1992.

Longo G., Il simbionte. Prove di umanità futura, Mimesis, Milano 2014.

Lovink G., Social Media Abyss, trad.it., L’abisso dei social media. Nuove reti oltre l’economia dei like, Università Bocconi Editore, Milano 2016.

Luhmann N. (1984), Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1984, trad.it. Sistemi sociali. Fondamenti di una teoria generale, Il Mulino, Bologna 1990.

Luhmann, N. (1968), Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität, trad. it., La fiducia, Bologna, il Mulino, 2002.

Luhmann, N. (1992), Beobachtungen der Moderne, trad. it., Osservazioni sul moderno, Roma, Armando, 1995.

Luhmann, N., The Autopoiesis of social Systems, in Niklas Luhmann, Essays on Self-Reference, New York, Colombia University Press, 1990.

Lyon, D. (2001), Surveillance Society. Monitoring Everyday Life, trad. it., La società sorvegliata. Tecnologie di controllo della vita quotidiana, Milano, Feltrinelli, 2002.

Marshall T.H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002

Maturana H., Varela F. (1972), Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living, Reidel trad.it., Autopoiesi e cognizione. La realizzazione del vivente, Venezia, Marsilio, 1985.

McLuhan M. (1964), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, trad.it., Gli strumenti del comunicare, Il Saggiatore, Milano 1987

McLuhan M.- Powers B.R. (1989), The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century, trad.it. Il Villaggio Globale: XXI secolo, SugarCo, Varese 1992.

McQuail, D. (1983), Mass Communication Theory. An introduction, trad. it. Le comunicazioni di massa, Bologna, il Mulino, 1986.

Morin E. (1973), Le paradigme perdu: la nature humaine, trad.it., Il paradigma perduto. Che cos’è la natura umana?, Feltrinelli, Milano 1974.

Morin E. (1977), La Méthode I. La Nature de la Nature, trad. it. Il metodo 1. La natura della natura, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2001.

Morin E. (1980), La Méthode II. La Vie de la Vie, trad. it., Il metodo 2. La vita della vita, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2004.

Morin E. (1984), Sociologie, trad.it., Sociologia della sociologia, Edizioni Lavoro, Roma 1985.

Morin E. (1986), La Méthode III. La Connaissance de la Connaissance, trad. it., Il Metodo 3. La conoscenza della conoscenza, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2007.

Morin E. (1990), Introduction à la pensèe complexe, trad.it., Introduzione al pensiero complesso, Sperling & Kupfer, Milano 1993.

Morin E. (1991), La Méthode IV. Les idées. Leur habitat, leur vie, leurs moeurs, leur organisation, trad. it., Il Metodo 4. Le idee: habitat, vita, organizzazione, usi e costumi, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2008.

Morin E. (1994), Mes Démons, trad.it., I miei demoni, Meltemi, Roma.

Morin E. (1999a), Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur, trad.it., I sette saperi necessari all’educazione del futuro, Raffaello Cortina, Milano 2001.

Morin E. (2001), La Méthode V. L’Humanité de l’Humanité. Tome 1: L’identité humaine, trad. it., Il Metodo 5. L’identità umana, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2002.

Morin E. (2004), La Méthode VI. Éthique, trad.it., Il metodo. Etica, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano 2005.

Morin E. (2015), Penser global. L’homme et son univers, trad., 7 lezioni sul Pensiero globale, Raffaello Cortina Ed., Milano 2016.

Morin E., Ceruti M., La nostra europa, Raffaello Cortina ed., Milano 2013.

Morin E., Ciurana É.-R., Motta D.R. (2003), Éduquer pour l’ère planétaire.La pensée complexe comme Méthode d’apprentissage dans l’erreur et l’incertitude humaines, trad.it., Educare per l’era planetaria. Il pensiero complesso come metodo d’apprendimento, Armando, Roma 2004.

Morin E.(1999b), La TÊte bien faite, trad.it., La testa ben fatta, Raffaello Cortina ed., Milano 2000.

Morozov, E. (2011), The Net Delusion. The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, trad. it., L’ingenuità della rete.Il lato oscuro della libertà di internet, Torino, Codice Edizioni, Torino.

Mumford L. (1934), Technics and Civilization, trad.it., Tecnica e cultura, Il Saggiatore, Milano 1961.

Mumford L. (1967),The Myth of Machine, trad.it., Il mito della macchina, Il Saggiatore, Milano 1969.

Noelle Neumann E. (1984), The Spiral of Silence. Public Opinion-Our Social Skin, trad. it., La spirale del silenzio, Roma, Meltemi, 2002.

Norris P., Democratic Deficits: Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011.

Nussbaum M.C. (2010), Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Parsons T. (1951), The Social System, trad.it., Il sistema sociale, (intr. di L.Gallino), Comunità, Milano 1965.

Pentland, A. (2014), Social Physics; trad. it. Fisica sociale. Come si propagano le buone idee, Milano, Università Bocconi Editore, 2015.

Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community, trad. it., Capitale sociale e individualismo. Crisi e rinascita della cultura civica in America, Bologna, il Mulino, 2004.

Rainie, L., Wellman, B. (2012), Networked: The New Social Operating System, trad. it., Networked. Il nuovo sistema operativo sociale, Milano, Guerini, 2012.

Rawls J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, trad.it. Una teoria della giustizia, Feltrinelli, Milano 1982.

Rheingold, H. (1993), The Virtual Community, trad. it., Comunità virtuali, Milano, Sperling & Kupfer, 1994.

Rheingold, H. (2002), Smart Mobs, trad. it., Smart mobs. Tecnologie senza fili, la rivoluzione sociale prossima ventura, Milano, Raffaello Cortina Ed., 2003.

Robins, K., Webster, F. (1999), Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life, trad. it., Tecnocultura. Dalla società dell’informazione alla vita virtuale, Milano, Guerini & Associati, 2003.

Rodotà S., Tecnopolitica. La democrazia e le nuove tecnologie della comunicazione, Laterza, Roma-Bari 1997.

Rodotà, S. (2014), Il mondo nella rete. Quali i diritti, quali i vincoli, Roma-Bari, Laterza.

Sassen, S. (1998), Globalization and its Discontents, trad. it., Globalizzati e scontenti. Il destino delle minoranze nel nuovo ordine mondiale, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 2002.

Seife, C. (2014), Virtual Unreality. Just Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It’s true?, trad. it. Le menzogne del web. Internet e il lato sbagliato dell’informazione, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri, 2015.

Sen, A. (1992), Inequality Reexamined, trad. it., La diseguaglianza. Un riesame critico, Bologna, il Mulino, 1994.

Taleb N.N. (2012), Antifragile, trad.it., Antifragile. Prosperare nel disordine, il Saggiatore, Milano 2013.

Todorov, T. (1995), La vie commune. Essai d’anthropologie générale, trad. it., La vita comune.L’uomo è un essere sociale, Milano, Pratiche Ed., 1998.

Tomlinson J. (1999), Globalization and Culture, trad. it. Sentirsi a casa nel mondo. La cultura come bene globale, Milano, Feltrinelli, 2001.

Touraine A. (2004), Un nouveau paradigme. Pour comprendre le monde aujourd’hui, trad. it., La globalizzazione e la fine del sociale. Per comprendere il mondo contemporaneo, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 2008.

Turkle S. (2015), Reclaiming Conversations. The Power of Talk in a Digital Age, trad. it., La conversazione necessaria. La forza del dialogo nell’era digitale, Torino, Einaudi, Torino 2016.

Veca S., Cittadinanza. Riflessioni filosofiche sull’idea di emancipazione, Feltrinelli, Milano1990;

Watzlawick P., Helmick Beavin J., Jackson D.D. (1967), Pragmatic of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, trad.it., Pragmatica della comunicazione umana. Studio dei modelli interattivi, delle patologie e dei paradossi, Astrolabio, Roma 1971.

Wiener N. (1950), The Human Use of Human Beings, trad.it., Introduzione alla cibernetica. L’uso umano degli esseri umani, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1966.

Zuckerman E. (2013), Rewire.Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection, trad. it., Rewire. Cosmopoliti digitali nell’era della globalità, Milano, EGEA, 2014.


Contents extracted from a peer reviewed scientific journal* ( DOI:10.3280/SISS2017-003014 )

email: piero.dominici@unipg.it


N.B. Feel free to share and reutilize this published material, provided that you have the courtesy to always quote authors and sources, even when mentioning conceptual categories and related functional definitions. Let us share knowledge and information, but let us attempt to interrupt the vicious and non-virtuous cycle of the “cut and paste” routine, perpetrated by those whose know-how consists merely of “using” the work of others.

Citations should be made, in the first place, on the principle of honesty, and secondly, because our work (our intellectual production) is always the result of the work of many other people who, like OURSELVES, study and carry out research, helping us to be creative and original, providing us with orientation for our working hypotheses.

I still say that the rewards of sharing are well worth the bitterness for the dishonest behavior on the part of many. My contributions are the concepts, the studies and the topics of research that I have been conducting for twenty years: the principle of sharing carries many risks, but coherence means practicing what you believe in. Read and enjoy!



Picture: René Magritte