Conference Program

In contemporary pedagogical debate, democracy can no longer be conceived solely as an institutional form or as a set of normative devices; rather, it must be understood as a daily cultural practice, as a relational experience that takes shape within the concrete contexts of social life. In the perspective of John Dewey, democracy was already conceived as a “mode of associated living,” while in Jürgen Habermas it assumed the features of a public sphere grounded in communicative action and in the possibility of shared rational deliberation. Today, however, this theoretical horizon is undergoing a profound transformation: the progressive integration between the analogical and the digital dimensions radically reshapes the spaces, times, and modalities of democratic experience.

Drawing on Luciano Floridi’s view, according to which the distinction between online and offline now appears conceptually outdated, this contribution proposes interpreting contemporary citizenship as an “onlife” experience embedded within the infosphere; that is, not a parallel or secondary space with respect to social reality, but a structural dimension within which identities, relationships, and forms of participation are redefined. Citizenship thus assumes an informational configuration and is exercised through data, platforms, algorithms, dynamics of visibility, and processes of technological mediation that affect the construction of consensus and the organization of dissent.

In light of this transformation, the teaching of Civic Education (Law 92/2019 and the Ministerial Guidelines) must be reconsidered beyond a predominantly content-based approach. The risk of an overly traditional perspective is that it fails to grasp the actual processes through which public opinion is formed and participation is exercised today. Phenomena such as disinformation, digital polarization, and algorithmic profiling cannot be regarded as marginal to the education of citizens; on the contrary, they represent sensitive arenas in which the quality of democracy is at stake.

Three main lines of development are therefore proposed. First, the promotion of critical competences capable of questioning sources, understanding dynamics of manipulation, and being aware of mechanisms of algorithmic amplification. Second, a careful analysis of new forms of digital participation, balancing the expansion of the public sphere with the risks of superficial or merely performative engagement. Third, the need for algorithmic awareness enabling individuals to understand how technological architectures shape civic experience.

From this perspective, the school emerges not merely as a place for instruction about digital citizenship, but as a laboratory in which democracy is effectively inhabited and practiced, including within the hybrid environments that characterize contemporary society. Educating for citizenship today therefore means educating individuals to inhabit the infosphere responsibly, so that democracy does not shrink to a set of formal procedures, but becomes a concrete experience of conscious participation and shared community responsibility.