<h2>Résumé</h2> Dans mon article, je vise à analyser les principales plateformes en ligne d'aujourd'hui (par exemple, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon) à travers la lentille de l'École de Frankfort. Par conséquent, je mène une analyse théorique de leurs mécanismes via une Théorie Critique, tout en me concentrant sur les implications affectives et corporelles de ces plateformes pour la communication interpersonnelle. Des recherches croissantes montrent les conséquences des plateformes en ligne sur la communication interpersonnelle concernant la contagion émotionnelle et les effets psychosomatiques (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014 ; Lin & Utz, 2015). Les résultats de mes analyses permettront de comprendre de manière critique comment situer ces plateformes dans le contexte plus large de la société concernant leurs implications psychosomatiques. <h2>Abstract</h2> In my paper I aim to analyze today’s major online platforms (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Amazon) via the lens of the Frankfort School. Therefore, I conduct a theoretical analysis of their mechanisms via a Critical Theory, while focusing on the affective and corporal implications of these platforms for interpersonal communication. Growing research shows the consequences of online platforms on interpersonal communication concerning emotional contagion and psychosomatic effects (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014; Lin & Utz, 2015). The results of my analyzes shall provide a critical understanding of how to locate these platforms in the broader context of society regarding their psychosomatic implications.   <h2>Introduction</h2> Nowadays online platforms are omnipresent and structure private, professional and public life (Vorderer, 2015; Miège, 2020). However, their socioeconomic importance is a relatively recent phenomenon—emerging during the end of the last century. The authors of the Frankfort School have already indicated a framework that can be used for analyzing these platforms. Interestingly, they did so even before the concerned online platforms actually emerged. The aim of this article is to project their theoretical framework on today’s online platforms and to update it in a way so that it is suited for today’s economic context.   <h2>Research Questions</h2> The analysis shall be guided by the following research questions: <ol> <li>What are the implications of the Business Models and User Experience Design of today´s major online platforms for the psychosomatic dimension of interpersonal communication?</li> <li>How do they structure interpersonal relationships and societal mechanisms?</li> <li>What are emerging consequences and upcoming trends?</li> </ol>   <h2>Theoretical Framework</h2> As indicated, the analysis is guided by the lens of the Frankfort School. The Frankfort School does not represent a homogenous Critical Theory but a variety of approaches that differs according to each author (Adorno, 1975/1966; 2014/1951; Benjamin, 2015/1936; Horkheimer, 2011/1937; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2013/1947; 1974; Fromm, 1979; 2006/2005; Marcuse, 1965; 1991/1964; Habermas, 1973/1968; 1974). Existing approaches to update the Critical Theory according to the respective features of today’s western societies are conducted by Doerre, Lessenich & Rosa (2015), Han (2013a, 2013b), Rosa (2015; 2016; 2018), Honneth & Sutterlüty (2011), Honneth (2016/2007) or Fuchs (2020). My article shall leave aside the political implications and focus on their perspective as an anthropological lens that guides the analysis of socioeconomic players in the context of their respective society. Modern capitalist structures are marked by an exploitation of the affective sphere (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2011/1999; Illouz, 2006; Alloing & Pierre, 2017; Martin-Juchat, 2013; 2014; Martin-Juchat & Staii, 2016). Therefore, we witness a growing research interest in the affective implications of online platforms. Their Business Models and User Experience Design aim at mobilizing the affective dimension of interpersonal communication, either in an implicit or explicit manner. For example, the study of Kramer, Guillory & Hancock (2014) shows the importance of the Facebook Newsfeed algorithm for emotional contagion. These studies are not without ethical conflict.  In the study of idem. (2014), users where not informed about participating in the study (N = 689.003). Instead of conducting political judgement, the article shall focus on indicating emerging ambiguities and ambivalences of online platforms. See Martin-Juchat, Pierre & Dumas (2015) as an example for emerging ambiguities linked to online platforms and their User Experience Design. The economic and political situation of the first generation of the Frankfort School (essentially the years 1930-50), is not comparable to today’s economic situation of online platforms (See Albrecht et al. (1999) and Jay (2018/1973) for the historic context and evolution of the Frankfort School). While the economic context of the first generation of the Frankfort School was essentially marked by scarcity, today’s western economies are largely marked by abundance. Therefore, attention becomes a valuable good to online platforms. This aspect shall be taken into account via the lens of the so-called Attention Economy (Goldhaber, 1997; Davenport & Beck, 2001; Franck, 1998; 2005; Citton, 2014). Furthermore, the perspective of the Critical Theory shall be complemented via the anthropological lens of Embodiment (Martin-Juchat, 2002; Glenberg, 2010). This approach underlines the importance of the human body for higher mental processes—and consequently for an individuals´ attention. Concluding, the aim is not just to transfer a Critical Theory on today’s online platforms, but to develop a new approach, complemented via the Attention Economy and Embodiment.   <h2>Methodology & Structure</h2> The article is guided by a theoretical analysis of today’s online platforms. This analysis is led by the Frankfort School, complemented by the approaches of the Attention Economy, and Embodiment. The aim is to indicate a contemporary Critical Theory that is suited for the current socioeconomic context of today’s online platforms. The article will be structured according to the following cornerstones: <ol> <li>An introduction of the historic context of the Frankfort School.</li> <li>A presentation of what to understand under a Critical Theory according to the essential writings of the Frankfort School</li> <li>An analysis of the Business Models and User Experience Design of today´s online platforms and their implications for the psychosomatic dimension of interpersonal communication.</li> <li>The development of a Critical Theory for today's online platforms, complemented by the Attention Economy and Embodiment.</li> <li>An indication of emerging consequences and upcoming trends.</li> </ol>   <h2>Expected Results</h2> The results will present a critical understanding of today's online platforms regarding their psychosomatic implications for interpersonal communication. Furthermore, they represent an updated Critical Theory, complemented by the Attention Economy and Embodiment. Therefore, they help better understanding the societal role of today's online platforms.   <h2>Bibliography</h2> Adorno, T. (1975). Negative Dialektik [Negative dialectics]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (1st Ed. 1966). Adorno, T. (2014). Minima Moralia. Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben [Minima Moralia. Reflections from the damaged life]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (1st Ed. 1951). Albrecht, C., Behrmann, G., Bock, M., Homann, H., & Tenbruck, F. (1999). Die intellektuelle Gründung der Bundesrepublik: Eine Wirkungsgeschichte der Frankfurter Schule [The Intellectual Foundation of the Federal Republic: A History of the Impact of the Frankfurt School]. Frankfurt: Campus. Alloing, C., & Pierre, J. (2017). Le web affectif. Une économie numérique des émotions [The affective web. A digital economy of emotions]. Bru- Sur-Marne: INA. Benjamin, W. (2015). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit [The work of art in the age of its technical reproducibility ]. Berlin : Suhrkamp (1st Ed. 1936). Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, E. (2011). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme [The new spirit of capitalism]. Domont: Gallimard (1st Ed. 1999). Citton, Y. (2014, dir.). L'économie de l'attention. Nouvel horizon du capitalisme ? [The attention economy. The new horizon of capitalism?]. Paris: La Découverte. Davenport, T., & Beck, J. (2001). The Attention Economy. Harvard University Press. Doerre, K., Lessenich, S., & Rosa, H. (2015). Sociology, Capitalism, Critique. London: Verso (1st Ed.: Soziologie – Kapitalismus – Kritik: Eine Debatte). Suhrkamp. Translated by Jan-Peter Herrmann et Loren Balhorn.). Franck, G. (1998). Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit. Ein Entwurf. [Attention Economy. A design]. München: Hanser. Franck, G. (2005). Mentaler Kapitalismus [Mental Capitalism]. München: Hanser. Fromm, E. (1979). Haben oder Sein: Die seelischen Grundlagen einer neuen Gesellschaft [To Have or To Be: The Mental Foundations of a New Society]. München: DTV. Fromm, E. (2006). Die Pathologie der Normalität: Zur Wissenschaft vom Menschen [The Pathology of Normality: On the Science of the Human Being]. Berlin: Ullstein (1st Ed. 2005). Fuchs, C. (2020). Kommunikation und Kapitalismus. Eine kritische Theorie. [Communication and Capitalism. A critical theory.]. München: UVK Verlag. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Cognitive Science, 1, 586-596. Goldhaber, M. (1997). The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2. Consulted on First Monday: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/519/440 Habermas, J. (1973). Erkenntnis und Interesse [Knowledge and interest]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (1st Ed. 1968). Habermas, J. (1974). Technik und Wissenschaft als "Ideologie" [Technology and science as "ideology]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Han, B. (2013a). Transparenzgesellschaft [Transparency Society]. Berlin: Matthes-Seitz. Han, B. (2013b). Im Schwarm: Ansichten des Digitalen [In the Swarm: Views of the Digital]. Berlin: Matthes-Seitz. Honneth, A. & Sutterlüty, F. (2011). Normative Paradoxien der Gegenwart – eine Forschungsperspektive [Normative paradoxes of the present - a research perspective]. WestEnd. Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. Vol. 8 (1). p. 67-85. Honneth, A. (2016). Pathologien der Vernunft. Geschichte und Gegenwart der Kritischen Theorie [Pathologies of Reason. The History and Present of Critical Theory]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (1st Ed. 2007). Horkheimer, M. (2011). Traditionelle und kritische Theorie [Traditional and critical theory]. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer (1st Ed. 1937). Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (2013). Dialektik der Aufklärung [Dialectics of Enlightenment]. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer (1st Ed. 1947). Illouz, E. (2006). Les sentiments du capitalisme [The sentiments of capitalism]. Paris: Seuil. Jay. M. (2018). Dialektische Phantasie. Die Geschichte der Frankfurter Schule und des Instituts für Sozialforschung. 1923-1950 [Dialectical Imagination. The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research. 1923-1950]. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer (1st Ed. 1973). Kramer, A., Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS, 111(24), 8788-8790. Lin, R., & Utz, S. (2015). The emotional responses of browsing Facebook : Happiness, envy, and the role of tie strength. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 29-38. Marcuse, H. (1965). Kultur und Gesellschaft II [Culture and Society II]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Marcuse, H. (1991). One-Dimensional Man. Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (2nd Ed.). Boston: Beacon Press (1st Ed. 1964). Martin-Juchat, F. (2002). Anthropologie du corps communicant. Mediation et information [Anthropology of the communicating body. Mediation and information], L’Harmattan, 12. Martin-Juchat, F. (2013). Capitalisme affectif : enjeux et pratiques dans les organisations [Affective capitalism: issues and practices in organisations]. In Parrini-Alemanno, Communications, organisationnelles, Management et numérique (p. 6). Paris: L'Harmattan. Martin-Juchat, F. (2014). La dynamique de la marchandisation de la communication affective [The dynamics of the commodification of emotional communication]. Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, 5. Martin-Juchat, F., & Staii, A. (2016). L'industrialisation des émotions. Vers une radicalisation de la modernité ? [The industrialization of emotions. Towards a radicalisation of modernity?]. Paris: L'Harmattan. Martin-Juchat, F., Pierre, J., & Dumas, A. (2015). Distraction and Boredom: Students Faced to Digital Economy. Studies in Media and Communication, 3(1), 134-143. Miège, B. (2020). La numérisation en cours de la société. Points de repères et enjeux [The ongoing digitalisation of society. Benchmarks and challenges]. Grenoble: PUG. Rosa, H. (2015). Capitalism as a Spiral of Dynamisation: Sociology as Social Critique. In K. Dörre, S. Lessenich, & H. Rosa, Sociology, Capitalism, Critique (pp. 67-97). London: Suhrkamp. Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz. Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehungen [Resonance. A Sociology of World Relations ]. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Rosa, H. (2018). Unverfügbarkeit [Unavailability ]. Wien: Residenz. Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 359–363. Vorderer, p. (2015). Der mediatisierte Lebenswandel: Permanently online, permanently connected [The mediatised way of life: Permanently online, permanently connected]. Springer Fachmedien, 60, 259-276.