Communication is undergoing a transformation. It is clear that, with the use of Information and Communication Technologies, ICT , we are moving from analogue to digital formats. Views, approaches and thoughts are also in constant evolution.
These changes are not foreign to public and political communication. Organizations are transmitting a large amount of information through virtual social networks, which allow the optimization of digital tools and the democratization of content at the service of citizens.
However, communication needs to be thought of in a divergent way, which allows for the construction of strategies that integrate and recognize citizens from their differences.
Therefore, the massification and proliferation of social networks (emphasis is placed on the digital world, since the concept of social networks has always been present in the evolutionary processes of species and their survival needs, as detailed by Martín Serrano (2007) in the book Theory of Communication. Communication, Life and Society ), as a tool for citizen interaction, has allowed the creation of new scenarios for dialogue, participation and citizen encounter.
In these places, people reflect, discuss, manage knowledge and call for mobilizations that seek a common good.
With virtuality, the concept of social network became popular . As Velasco (2008) says, “during our lives we form relationships with people who in turn relate to others whom we do not know. These links form our social network.”
That’s right, virtual meeting networks have become important scenarios for citizen participation, where people give their opinions, denounce, contribute, build or, out of necessity, want to be heard for the possible resolution of their conflicts or problems.
For Habermas (Boladeras, 2001), who links the dynamics of the symbolic world to communicative interaction, understood from public opinion, states that public space is the place where public opinion emerges , where there is inclusion, equality and openness of citizens.
Likewise, for the German philosopher, public opinion is closely related to power and political processes.
Now, thanks to the evolution of Web 3.0 , citizens have stopped being passive and have become active in processes that concern them. Castells (2012) and Piscitelli (2014) point to this dynamic as the promoter of the Arab Spring , a revolution and social changes that occurred in 2011 in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, North Africa.
The above is explained by Chavarría (2012), for whom “ social networks have been strengthened in large part by the crisis (…) another of the advantages of networks is their capacity to spread information and ideas immediately.”
For his part, Habermas confirms that “ public discussion is the only way to overcome social conflicts”, since in its spaces ideas and debates common to citizens arise for a collective good.
“ Its main function is to be able to host a truly heterogeneous discussion that is simultaneously accessible to all perspectives,” adds the author.
According to Tagua (2011), “new technologies are not only a set of tools but an environment – a space, a cyberspace – in which human interactions occur.”
The use of social media has strengthened social initiatives and the dissemination of trends in the participating and dialoguing individual.
In this same sense, Vaquerizo, Renedo and Valero (2009) agree that the social web « gives rise to the subject, user of its resources, to be able to reach this knowledge, the social network gives rise to a transformation (…) where the key is not the technology itself but the new modes of relationship between these new experiences and the ways of communicating , the connection between the new interactions and the potential of the social.»
This can be seen, as Tagua points out, that the social internet is a meeting place, where “interactions take place that combine and intertwine the activities of inquiry, communication, construction and expression.” The essence of the network is the social, the collaborative.
This definition allows us to understand, as García (2007) states, that the social web is essentially interactive, of collective learning, multidirectional and free in dissemination. Individuals build their own web and, as a consequence, knowledge.
Permanent construction of citizenship
The dynamics of the network can be exemplified by the closeness of family or work or study colleagues who, in turn, can be organized around common interests or tastes.
Velasco (2008) states that the value of social networks lies in the construction of trust , as it allows people to be contacted that would not be possible otherwise.
Velasco also points out that current forms “allow people to strengthen their social networks” because these reinforce collaborative learning because there is a permanent exchange of experiences.
García (2009), a Spanish journalist, states that learning on social networks is achieved only if there is motivation, critical thinking, understanding of messages and creation of content, moments that provide the possibility of interaction, co-creation and feedback.
Virtual participation spaces are compared by Restrepo (1999) to a market square , since there is a great variety of products and services. Cyberspace is treated from the public perspective because:
The idea of the public is proper to what is common, what belongs to us all, what is of general interest. The public is what is visible, what is manifest, what is accessible. The public is what is collective, understood as common interest or utility. Nothing is closer, even, to the concept of communication if we understand it as the action of putting in common. And it is that, in this sense, the public and communication cross paths, just as the political, the public and communication also cross paths. In this order of ideas, both the public and communication and the political seek to realize the interaction between different actors: sharing scenes is common to them; furthermore, and without a doubt, it is necessary to affirm that all political communication is public by essence. (Botero, 2006)
This same panorama is described by Lozada (2011), but in the context of social networks. He calls cyberspace a “public space, recognizing it as the place of media and computer mediations and manipulations .” He also extols its global virtues: “ reliability, transparency, equality and freedom.”
For Habermas, public opinion is constructed, manipulated, deformed and social cohesion takes place in the public space. He is also concerned with the current state of the concept of citizenship, where he expresses that the difference between the public and the private has been diluted by the notion of privacy, capital and regulated and manipulative advertising, to the point of stating that “the social dynamics in which we live has traits of Refeudalization of society” (Boladeras, 2001).
According to Botero (2006) , “ the meaning of the public represents not only the order of the social, but also the configuration of the ideological for the general interest”. Likewise, for Lozano, “ democratic public spaces thus become spheres of meaning, forms of communication”.
Never before in the history of politics has it been possible to participate as we can today, never before in the history of our humanity have we had the possibility of finding out in real time about things that happen anywhere in the world and never before as today have we had the option of expressing ourselves individually or jointly about the events that concern or affect us the most. Today it can be done through the networks. (Urrea, 2012)
Citizens now participate actively, express themselves freely and, in turn, have founded new rules of participation.
The conditions are no longer the same: power no longer lies with the rulers, but with individuals and the possibility of collectively constructing policies.
“Paradigms have changed and transformations in political action have not been long in coming. Democracies can be more participatory and less representative…” (Urrea, 2012).
Thus, citizens use the tools at their disposal. Through texts, images, audios and videos, information is contextualised from different perspectives, favouring debates and personal discourse, generating knowledge, and enabling the free formation of opinions and common will, as proposed by Habermas in his Model of Deliberative Politics (Boladeras, 2001).
References
- Boladeras, M. (2001). La opinión pública en Habermas. Análisis, 51-70. Botero Montoya, L. H. (2006). Comunicación Pública, Comunicación Política y
- Democracia: un cruce de caminos. Revista Palabra-Clave, 7-18.
- Chavarría Cedillo, S. (2012). La promoción de la participación ciudadana a través de redes sociales. Pluralidad y Consenso. No 18. , 57-61.
- García Aretio, L. (2007). ¿Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0? Madrid: BENED.
- García Sanz, A. (2009). 94 Aplicaciones educativas 2.0. Recuperado el 8 de septiembre de 2013, de http://pedablogia.wordpress.com
- Lozada, M. (2011). Política en red y democracia virtual: la cuestión de lo público. Cultura y transformaciones sociales en tiempos de globalización 2, 133-146.
- Martín Serrano, M. (1982). Génesis de la Comunicación. En M. Martin Serrano, J. L. Piñuel, J. García, M. A. Arias, & A. Corazón (Ed.), Teoría de la Comunicación – Epistemología y Análisis de la Referencia (Vol. VIII, págs. 18-56). Madrid: A. Corazón.
- Restrepo Rivas, L. G. (1999). Las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones en la Empresa. Recuperado el 7 de septiembre de 2013, de http://www.luisguillermo.com
- Tagua, M. A. (2011). Alfabetización Informacional en el Contexto de la Web 2.0.
- Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.
- Urrea Cuéllar, J. (21 de 9 de 2012). Ciberciudadanos y ciberpolítica. Recuperado el 8 de septiembre de 2013, de El Tiempo.com: http://www.eltiempo.com/blogs/
- Vaquerizo, B., Renedo, E., & Valero, M. (2009). Aprendizaje colaborativo en grupo: Herramientas Web 2.0. España.
- Velasco, J. (8 de 2008). Redes Sociales. Recuperado el 7 de septiembre de 2012, de http://www.ciw.cl