Consensual or conflicting encounters? Finnish politicians’ digital lives and platforms as spaces for agonistic pluralism

Abstract In recent years, both public and academic discourse have taken a pessimistic view of the relationship between social media and politics. It has been argued that platformed politics fosters ideological and affective polarization, resulting in deeper divisions within Western democracies. By analysing the experiences of 34 Finnish politicians through media diaries and interviews gathered and conducted in 2020, this article highlights the conflictual and affective nature of politicians’ digital work. Using emotional and affective labour as an analytical lens, it argues that platforms are, however, spaces for agonistic pluralism. Contrary to the prevailing scepticism, the analysis shines light on affectivity and underscores its revitalizing potential, as evidenced by politicians’ constant assessment of democratic ethics and their attempts to manage relationships with platforms and different audiences. Consequently, the article addresses the limitations of normative aspects of agonistic theory.