What Judgment Forgets: Affective Heteronomy and the Asymmetry of Answerability in Digital Capitalism

Abstract

Contemporary critiques of digital capitalism have examined behavioural data extraction, algorithmic governance, attention capture, and platform regulation, while debates about responsibility have generally focused further downstream on consent, moderation, and individual conduct. The relation between these two moments nevertheless remains under-conceptualised. Digital infrastructures increasingly help organise the pre-reflective conditions under which significance, urgency, and practical orientation emerge; yet conduct formed within these environments is subsequently attributed to users as though those formative conditions were neutral background. To conceptualise this relation, the article introduces affective heteronomy: the systematic organisation of affectively charged orientations from which conduct arises, whereby solicited responses are experienced, and later attributed, as the subject’s own. Anchored in Adorno’s account of freedom, unfreedom, and the bodily addendum, the argument proceeds through conceptual reconstruction and immanent critique, bringing that account into conversation with surveillance and data colonialism, societies of control, algorithmic governmentality, affect theory, platform governance, and neoliberal responsibilisation. The central problem is neither influence nor responsibility considered alone, but an asymmetry between formation and judgment: the same order that helps organise the conditions of conduct later disregards those conditions when demanding an account. The article concludes that critique cannot abolish the entanglement of freedom and unfreedom, but it can require practices of answerability to account for the infrastructures that help form the conduct they attribute.