Martin-Barbero (2011, English)


 


From
Latin
America:

 Diversity,
Globalization
and
Convergence
 



 
 Jesús
Martín­Barbero
 Research
Associate

 Centro
de
Estudios
Sociales,
Universidad
Nacional
de
Colombia
 
 Translated
by
Charlotte
Fallon
 
 Abstract
 This
paper
will
consider
new
ways
in
which
digital
technologies
emerge
as
possible
narratives
of
 citizen
empowerment,
and
explores
the
notion
of
convergence
as
digital
connectivity
and
cultural
 interaction.

Before
appearing
in
the
field
of
technology,
the
idea
of
convergence
was
known
in
the
 cultural
 sphere
 through
 the
 idea
 of
 interculturality,
 which
 refers
 to
 the
 impossibility
 of
 cultural
 diversity
 understood
 from
 above.
 Interculturality
 is
 desired
 or
 regulated
 on
 the
 fringes
 of
 processes
 of
 communication
 between
 different
 cultures
 and
 interactions
 between
 local
 organizations,
 national
 institutions,
 global
 information
 flows
 and
 decision‐making
 processes.
 If
 communication
 proves
 to
 be
 asymmetric,
 it
 implies
 not
 only
 new
 forms
 of
 political
 and
 cultural
 hegemony,
but
also
new
forms
of
political
and
cultural
résistance
and
reinvention.

 
 Keywords:
cultural
studies,
citizen
empowerment,
globalization,
digital
technologies.
 
 
 Current
 thinking
 about
 the
 relationship
 between
 culture
 and
 technology
 reaches
 conclusions
that
are

for
 the
 most
 part
 hopeless,
 then
 stops.
 The
 culturally
 conservative
 say
 that
 cable
television
is
the
last

 gift
 in
 Pandora’s
 box
 and
 that
 satellite
 transmission
 will
 crown
 the
 tower
of
Babel.
At
the
same
time
a

new
 class
 of
 intellectuals,
 who
 run
 the
 centres
 where
 new
 cultural
and
information
technology
operates,
speak
confidently
of
their
‘product’.
Neither
of
these
 attitudes
represents
solid
ground.

 What
 we
 have
 is
 a
 terrible
 combination
 of
 technological
 determinism
and
cultural
pessimism.
So,
as
one
after
another
of
the
old
and
venerable
institutions
 are
taken
over
by
the
imperatives
of
a
harsher
capitalist
economy
it
is
unsurprising
that
the
only
 reaction
 is
 a
 perplexed
 and
 outraged
 pessimism.
 For
 there
 is
 nothing
 that
 the
 majority
 of
 those
 institutions
 wishes
 to
 gain
 or
 defend
 more
 than
 the
 past,
 and
 the
 alternative
 future
 would
 bring
 precisely
and
obviously
the
final
loss
of
their
privileges.
(Williams,
1997)
 
 Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
and
Culture
©
2011
(University
of
Westminster,
London),
 Vol.
8(1):
39‐64.
ISSN
1744‐6708
(Print);
1744‐6716
(Online)


Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 The
New
Sense
of
Diversity
in
Interculturality
 The
 permanent
 tributes
 to
 cultural
 diversity
 that
 we
 encounter
 today,
 not
 only
 on
 the
 part
 of
 governments
and
international
public
institutions
but
also
business
organizations
operating
in
the
 field
of
cultural
industries,
are
inversely
proportional
to
what
is
happening
at
the
level
of
policies
 that
protect
and
stimulate
that
diversity.
For
everything,
or
nearly
everything,
remains
at
levels
of
 decision‐making
to
which
local
players
do
not
even
have
access
and
real
mediators
of
globalization
 are
not
included.
Nowadays,
the
survival
of
diversity
is
being
played
out
in
a
new
global
cultural
 institutionalism
capable
of
calling
global
organizations
to
account
–
a
new
form
of
institutionalism
 that
will
only
arise
out
of
a
new
style
of
relationship
with
what
up
to
now
has
been,
supposedly,
the
 only
‘founding
relationship’,
that
is,
the
one
between
culture
and
state.
The
question
is
not
one
of
 substituting
the
state
but
rather
of
‘re‐establishing’
or
‘re‐institutionalizing’
it
in
terms
of
citizens’
 interaction
with
local
community
initiatives
and
calling
the
new
global
players
to
account.

 
 Thoughts
from
Latin
America
on
the
Relationship
between
Technology
and
Culture
 Between
 fundamentalist
 entrenchment
 and
 commercial
 homogenisation
 there
 is
 room
 for
 studying
and
debating
what
can
be
done
from
the
perspective
of
political
culture
in
order
to
 ensure
that
economic
alliances
do
not
serve
only
to
secure
the
free
circulation
of
capital
but
 also
 of
 culture.
 Latin
 American
 culture
 is
 not
 a
 destiny
 revealed
 by
 the
 earth
 or
 by
 blood.
 Rather,
 many
 times
 it
 has
 been
 a
 frustrated
 project.
 Today
 it
 is
 a
 relatively
 open
 and
 problematically
possible
task.
(García
Canclini,
2002)
 
 In
 the
 new
 Latin
 American
 context
 a
 strongly
 encouraging
 feature
 has
 come
 to
 the
 fore
 over
 the
 last
 few
 years,
 namely,
 the
 return
 of
 politics
 to
 centre
 stage
 after
 almost
 20
 years
 of
 suffering
 a
 distorted
situation
where
the
economy
–
disguised
as
science
pure
and
simple
–
acted
as
the
only
 and
 uncontested
 protagonist.
 The
 macro
 economy
 supplanted
 political
 economy
 and
 not
 only
 relegated
 politics
 to
 a
 subordinate
 position
 in
 the
 decision‐making
 process
 but
 also
 contributed
 greatly
in
Latin
American
countries
to
a
symbolic
hollowing
of
politics
insofar
as
politics
lost
the
 ability
to
bring
us
together
and
make
us
feel
as
one.
This
in
turn
has
a
demoralizing
effect
in
the
 form
of
a
growing
feeling
of
humiliation
and
sense
of
powerlessness,
both
at
an
individual
and
a
 collective
 level.
 The
 kidnapping
 of
 politics
 by
 the
 macro
 economy
 also
 contributed
 to
 the
 de‐ legitimization
 of
 the
 state,
 turning
 it
 into
 an
 intermediary
 carrying
 out
 the
 orders
 of
 the
 International
Monetary
Fund
(IMF),
World
Bank
and
World
Trade
Organization
(WTO)
in
relation





40


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 to
an
increasingly
unequal
and
exclusive
society,
with
growing
percentages
of
the
population
living
 below
 the
 poverty
 line
 and
 millions
 forced
 to
 emigrate
 to
 the
 US
 and
 Europe.
 For,
 upon
 setting
 itself
 up
 as
 the
 agent
 responsible
 for
 the
 organization
 of
 society
 as
 a
 whole,
 the
 market
 seeks
 to
 redefine
the
very
purpose
of
the
state,
and
does
so
by
means
of
a
reform
which
not
only
sets
goals
 of
 efficiency
 (which
 has
 its
 notably
 quantitative
 and
 short‐termist
 roots
 in
 the
 private
 business
 model)
 but
 also
 throws
 it
 off
 balance,
 not
 in
 the
 sense
 of
 causing
 a
 deepening
 of
 democracy
 but
 rather
in
the
sense
of
weakening
democracy
as
the
symbolic
bringer
about
of
national
cohesion.
It
 is
because
of
all
of
this
that
the
return
of
politics
breathes
fresh
life
into
the
atmosphere,
expanding
 the
 horizons
 not
 only
 of
 action
 but
 also
 of
 thought,
 which
 has
 also
 been
 stifled
 by
 the
 alliance
 between
 ‘pensamiento
 unico’
 (one‐track
 mindedness
 or
 single‐track
 thinking)
 and
 technological
 determinism.
Politics
returns
with
all
the
inertia
and
emptiness
that
it
entails,
but
also
with
efforts
 to
recharge
it
with
symbolic
depth
and
to
be
on
the
alert
for
new
angles
and
ways
of
thinking
about
 it
and
describing
it.

 
 Thinking
 about
 the
 relationship
 between
 technology
 and
 culture
 from
 a
 Latin
 American
 perspective
involves
standing
back,
as
Raymond
Williams
points
out,
from
the
ill­fated
combination
 of
 technological
 determinism
 and
 cultural
 pessimism,
 a
 tendency
 adopted
 by
 several
 European
 thinkers
of
the
stature
of
the
political
scientist
Giovanni
Sartori
or
the
literary
critic
and
cultural
 analyst
George
Steiner.
The
critical
thinking
of
the
Brazilian
geographer
Milton
Santos
who,
in
the
 last
of
his
books
published
in
his
lifetime
(Santos,
2004)
traces
his
defiant
vision
of
globalization
as
 both
perversity
and
possibility,
a
giddy
paradox
that
threatens
to
paralyse
both
the
thought
and
the
 action
 capable
 of
 transforming
 its
 course,
 rises
 up
 to
 counter
 that
 tendency.
 On
 the
 one
 hand,
 globalization
 invents
 the
 enslaving
 process
 of
 the
 market,
 a
 process
 which,
 at
 the
 same
 time
 as
 homogenizing
 the
 planet
 emphasizes
 differences
 at
 a
 local
 level
 and
 causes
 increasing
 disunity.
 Hence
 the
 systemic
 perversity
 that
 brings
 with
 it
 and
 brings
 about
 an
 increase
 in
 poverty
 and
 inequality,
in
the
now
chronic
unemployment,
in
diseases
such
as
AIDS
which
become
devastating
 epidemics
in
the
continents
that
are
not
the
poorest
but
the
most
ravaged.
 
 41
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 However,
globalization
also
represents
an
extraordinary
combination
of
possibilities,
changes
that
 are
now
possible
which
rely
upon
radically
new
facts,
of
which
two
in
particular
stand
out.
One
is
 the
enormous
and
dense
combination
of
peoples,
races,
cultures
and
tastes
which
occurs
on
every
 continent
today
–
albeit
with
great
differences
and
asymmetries
–
a
combination
that
is
possible
 only
 to
 the
 extent
 that
 other
 world
 visions
 emerge
 with
 great
 force
 and
 throw
 into
 crisis
 the
 hegemony
of
Western
rationalism.
The
other
lies
in
new
forms
of
technology
that
are
increasingly
 being
appropriated
by
groups
from
lowly
sectors,
making
socio­cultural
revenge
or
a
form
of
socio­ cultural
 return
 match
 possible
 for
 them,
 that
 is,
 the
 construction
 of
 a
 counter‐hegemony
 all
 over
 the
world.
 
 For
 Milton
 Santos
 (2004)
 that
 combination
 of
 possibilities
 exposes
 mankind
 for
 the
 first
 time
 in
 history
to
‘empirical
totality’
and
as
a
result
to
a
new
historical
narrative.
But
the
construction
of
 that
narrative
undergoes
a
‘political
mutation’,
into
a
new
kind
of
utopia
capable
of
assuming
the
 magnitude
of
the
following
challenges:
 
 •

the
existence
of
a
new
technical
system
on
a
global
scale
that
revolutionizes
the
use
of
time
 insofar
as
it
causes
convergence
and
simultaneity
in
the
whole
world;


•

the
 crossing
 of
 old
 technologies
 with
 new,
 taking
 us
 from
 a
 position
 where
 influence
 was
 specific
–
owing
to
the
effects
of
each
technology
in
isolation
as
has
been
the
case
up
to
now
 –
to
a
form
of
transversal
connection
and
influence
that
affects
every
country
in
its
entirety,
 directly
or
indirectly;


•

what
 the
 intervention
 of
 politics
 currently
 involves
 –
 for,
 although
 production
 may
 be
 fragmented
by
technology
as
never
before,
the
political
unity
that
articulates
the
phases
and
 commands
the
whole
by
means
of
a
powerful
unified
engine,
leaving
behind
the
variety
of
 motors
 and
 rhythms
with
 which
the
 old
imperialism
 functioned,
has
 never
been
 stronger.
 ‘Exponential
 competitiveness’
 between
 enterprises
 around
 the
 World
 ‘demanding
 more
 science,
 more
 technology
 and
 better
 organization
 every
 day’
 (Santos,
 2004:27‐28)
 is
 the
 new
type
of
engine
powering
globalization;





42


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 •

the
 peculiarity
 of
 the
 crisis
 that
 capitalism
 is
 facing
 lies,
 then,
 in
 the
 continuous
 clash
 between
 the
 factors
 of
 change,
 which
 now
 go
 beyond
 the
 old
 limits
 and
 measurability
 overspilling
territories,
countries
and
continents;


•

that
clash,
which
is
the
product
of
extremely
mobile
relationships
and
great
adaptability
on
 the
part
of
players
reintroduces
the
‘central
nature
of
outlying
areas’,
not
only
at
a
country
 level
but
also
at
the
level
of
society,
which
has
been
marginalized
by
the
economy
and
now
 resumes
 a
 central
 position
 as
 ‘the
 new
 base
 in
 the
 confirmation
 of
 the
 reign
 of
 politics’
 (Santos,
2004:125‐126).




 What
our
time
regards
as
a
peculiar
and
conditioning
feature
of
how
we
think
about
technology
is
 its
 slender
 relationship
 with
 a
 globalization
 which,
 in
 terms
 of
 the
 speed
 and
 brutality
 of
 the
 changes
 with
 which
 global
 unification
 is
 carried
 out,
 exposes
 some
 of
 the
 most
 perverse
 social
 aspects
of
the
changes
that
we
are
going
through.
Among
these,
the
one
with
the
greatest
reach
is
 the
growing
separation
of
state
and
society.
For,
as
a
result
of
being
shaped
and
kept
in
check
by
 the
rules
of
play
imposed
by
institutions
of
global
economic
unification
such
as
the
IMF,
the
WTO
 and
 the
 World
 Bank,
 the
 state
 finds
 it
 extremely
 difficult
 to
 respond
 to
 the
 needs,
 demands
 and
 dynamics
of
its
own
society.
 
 In
 Latin
 America,
 then,
 we
 face
 a
 structurally
 broken
 society,
 but
 at
 the
 same
 time
 a
 society
 in
 which
 its
 cultural
 communities
 (García
 Canclini,
 2002)
 –
 from
 indigenous
 communities,
 through
 some
of
its
small
and
medium‐sized
cultural
industries
to
the
urban
youth,
are
becoming
a
crucial
 setting
for
the
re‐creation
of
a
sense
of
the
collective,
the
reinvention
of
identity,
a
renewed
use
of
 heritage,
 a
productive
linkage
 between
what
 is
 local
 and
what
 is
global.
 Even
in
 the
 midst
 of
 the
 most
 brutal
 processes
 of
 economic
 recession,
 inequality
 and
 exclusion,
 Latin
 American
 societies
 are
living
the
global
transformations
that
combine
a
new
method
of
production
with
a
new
method
 of
communicating
which,
as
Castells
(1997;
see
also
Appadurai,
2001)
 states,
converts
culture,
the
 human
faculty
of
processing
symbols,
into
a
direct
productive
force.
So,
although
the
technological
 revolution
in
communication
aggravates
the
breach
in
terms
of
inequality
between
social
sectors,
 43
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 cultures
and
countries,
it
also
mobilizes
the
social
imagination
of
communities,
strengthening
their
 capacity
 for
 survival
 and
 association,
 protest
 and
 democratic
 participation,
 for
 defending
 their
 socio‐political
rights
and
activating
their
expressive
creativity.
 
 Interculturality
and
Cultural
Sustainability
 Before
appearing
in
the
field
of
technology
the
idea
of
convergence
had
made
itself
known
in
the
 cultural
 sphere
 through
 the
 idea
 of
 interculturality,
 which
 refers
 to
 the
 impossibility
 of
 cultural
 diversity
 understood
 from
 above,
 that
 is
 desired
 or
 regulated
 on
 the
 fringes
 of
 processes
 of
 exchange
between
different
cultures.
Today,
that
exchange
takes
place
in
a
space
beyond
the
area
 defined
 by
 national,
 geopolitical
 borders
 and
 its
 most
 profound
 form
 was
 described
 by
 Paul
 Ricoeur
 (2004)
 as
 the
 meeting
 point
 of
 irradiation
 between
 cultures,
 which
 are
 configured
 in
 networks.
In
order
to
understand
the
complexity
of
that
cultural
irradiation
Ricoeur
relies
on
the
 concept
of
translation.
For
interculturality
finds
in
translation
its
paradigm
both
in
historical
and
 formative
terms,
given
that
in
translation
there
is
the
clear
possibility
of
a
constitutive
mediation
 between
cultural
plurality
and
human
unity.
It
is
in
translating
from
language
to
language
that
we
 have
 learned
 the
 true
 possibilities
 and
 also
 the
 limits
 of
 any
 form
 of
 exchange
 between
 cultures.
 Translation
represents
a
departure
from
the
rejection
of
the
outside
world,
of
all
that
is
foreign
or
 different
that
is
a
feature
of
a
wide
variety
of
languages.
For
what
the
long
history
of
translation
 itself
 has
 shown
 is,
 first,
 the
 translatability
 of
 all
 languages
 (take,
 for
 example,
 the
 disconcerting
 case
of
Egyptian
hieroglyphs,
which
were
believed
to
be
untranslatable
for
centuries)
and,
second,
 the
emergence
of
cultural
hybridization
as
a
product
in
and
of
translation.
In
the
face
of
the
failure
 of
 a
 long‐held
 belief
 in
 the
 existence
 of
 a
 common
 parent
 language,
 which
 would
 spare
 us
 the
 arduous
 path
 of
 bringing
 cultures
 ‘face
 to
 face’
 with
 each
 other,
 history
 tells
 us
 to
 work
 simultaneously
with
conditions
of
what
is
translatable
and
what
is
indecipherable
in
each
culture,
 and
consequently
with
the
insurmountable
requirement
that
all
cultures
should
know
one
another
 and
recognize
themselves
as
such
within
the
possibilities
and
limits
of
their
exchange.
 
 What
enhances
the
productivity
of
this
concept
of
interculturality
is
its
intrinsic
relationship
with
 the
idea
of
narrative
identity
(see
Bhabha,
1990
see
also
Marinas,
1995),
that
is,
the
idea
that
every
 


44


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 identity
is
created
and
constituted
in
the
act
of
being
related,
in
the
process
of
being
told
to
others.
 This
is
what
the
precious
polysemy
of
the
Spanish
verb
contar
(meaning
to
recount
or
relate)
tells
 us.
For
‘contar’
means
to
tell
stories
but
also
to
be
taken
into
account
by
others
and
also
refers
to
a
 form
of
reckoning.
In
this
single
verb
we
find
two
constituent
relationships.
In
the
first
place,
the
 relationship
 between
 telling
 stories
 and
 counting
 in
 the
 opinion
 of
 others
 or
 being
 taken
 into
 account.
This
means
that
in
order
to
be
recognized
by
others
it
is
essentials
to
tell
our
story,
since
 the
narrative
is
not
only
expressive
but
makes
us
what
we
are,
both
individually
and
collectively.
 Especially
in
collective
terms,
the
possibility
of
being
recognized,
taken
into
account
and
counting
 in
 the
 decisions
 that
 affect
 us,
 depends
 upon
 the
 capacity
 of
 our
 stories
 to
 take
 account
 of
 the
 tension
between
what
we
are
and
what
we
want
to
be.
Second,
there
is
the
relationship
between
 telling
(narrating
and
being
taken
into
account)
and
reckoning,
which
has
a
double
meaning.
On
the
 one
 hand,
 this
 establishes
 the
 relationship
 between
 recognition
 and
 social
 participation,
 the
 capacity
for
participation
and
intervention
by
individuals
and
groups
in
everything
that
concerns
 them;
 on
 the
 other
 hand,
 it
 establishes
 the
 perverse
 relationship
 between
 telling
 a
 story
 and
 the
 market
 co‐opting
 the
 (commercial)
 value
 of
 the
 sense
 of
 translation
 of
 cultural
 translations
 and
 exchanged
narratives.
 

 Like
interculturality,
the
concept
of
cultural
sustainability
(VV.
AA.,
2005)
is
also
a
concept
under
 construction.
Having
its
origin
in
ecological
thinking,
the
concept
of
sustainability
entered
the
field
 of
culture
as
a
consequence
of
a
new
perception
surrounding
the
depth
of
the
relationship
between
 cultural
differences
and
social
inequality,
and
consequently
between
culture
and
development.
In
 that
 context,
 cultural
 sustainability
 aims
 at
 spelling
 out
 explicitly,
 both
 in
 terms
 of
 thought
 and
 action,
the
following.
First,
the
long­term
nature
of
culture
insofar
as
this
represents
a
permanent
 contradiction
 with
 the
 increasingly
 short‐term
 nature
 of
 the
 market
 and
 also
 insofar
 as
 the
 workings
of
cultural
life
have
things
in
common
with
other
social,
community‐level
processes,
with
 all
 that
 that
 entails
 in
 terms
 of
 foresight,
 planning
 and
 accompaniment.
 Second,
 it
 aims
 to
 take
 account
 of
 the
 possibilities
 for
 social
 development
 that
 cultural
 creativity
 generates
 in
 its
 independent,
community
spheres
and
in
the
different
areas
of
industrial
culture.


45
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 
 Cultural
 sustainability
 moves
 on
 three
basic
 vectors.
The
 first
is
 the
 awareness
that
a
community
 has
its
own
cultural
capital.
An
awareness
that
until
recently
was
repressed,
or
at
best
avoided,
by
 instrumental,
 diffusionist
 cultural
 policies
 which
 saw
 culture
 as
 something
 totally
 external
 to
 community
 life,
 something
 to
 which
 communities
 had
 to
 be
 given
 access
 and
 not
 something
 that
 those
 same
 communities
 themselves
 inherit,
 renew,
 reproduce
 and
 recreate
 and
 which,
 accordingly,
is
something
that
belongs
to
them
and
which
maintains
ties
of
belonging
out
of
which
 both
 social
 and
 cultural
 identities
 are
 woven.
 In
 more
 general
 terms
 this
 vector
 represents
 a
 massive
turning
point,
one
which
makes
‘civilian
society’
and
not
the
state
the
subject
and
the
main
 player
 in
 terms
 of
 socio‐cultural
 development,
 a
 turning
 point
 that
 forms
 part
 of
 the
 strategic
 displacement
which
puts
public
matters
in
the
place,
politically,
where
state
matters
were
until
not
 very
long
ago.
But
there
is
one
significant
difference,
insofar
as
the
state
was
always
considered
to
 be
 one
 whereas
 the
 public
 is
 clearly
 plural
 or,
 taking
 it
 a
 step
 further
 as
 Hannah
 Arendt
 did,
 heterogeneous.
 
 The
second
vector
is
the
capacity
of
the
community
to
take
decisions
that
enable
its
cultural
capital
 to
be
preserved
and
renewed.
What
this
means,
in
other
words,
is
that
the
level
of
sustainability
of
a
 culture
is
proportional
to
its
level
of
autonomy.
We
are
talking,
then,
about
a
step
that
re‐situates
 culture
as
something
in
which
citizens
participate
politically
and,
in
turn,
repositions
them
within
 the
formulation
of
cultural
policies.
It
is
a
well
studied
and
established
fact
that,
unless
citizens
are
 involved
in
classifying
their
expectations
and
demands,
and
empowered
as
players
in
the
decision‐ making
processes,
there
will
be
no
culture
that
survives
the
proposed
exploitation
by
the
market
of
 all
cultural
difference.
 
 Finally,
 the
 third
 vector
 is
 the
 capacity
 to
 open
 up
 culture
 itself
 to
 exchange
 and
 interaction
 with
 other
 cultures
 in
 the
 country
 and
 the
 world.
 What
 comes
 into
 play
 here
 is
 the
 twin
 movement
 of
 separation
and
reintegration
that
local
cultures
experience,
moved
by
the
flows
and
dynamics
of
 economic
 and
 techno‐cultural
 globalization.
 What
 should
 be
 highlighted
 in
 this
 context
 is
 the
 


46


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 critically
 important
 fact
 that
 that
 exchange,
 which
 is
 necessarily
 asymmetrical
 in
 terms
 of
 the
 movement
 generated
 by
 the
 globalizing
 hegemony
 of
 today’s
 market,
 finds
 in
 communities
 not
 a
 defensive
 response
 in
 the
 nature
 of
 withdrawal
 (which,
 although
 justified,
 would
 be
 nigh
 on
 suicidal)
but
rather
a
projective
response,
capable
of
arguing
the
sense
of
changes
without
which
 not
even
a
minimum
level
of
sustainability
is
possible.
 
 Within
 Latin
 American
 communities
 current
 communication
 processes
 are
 perceived
 as
 both
 a
 form
of
threat
to
the
survival
of
their
cultures
and
at
the
same
time
as
a
possible
means
of
breaking
 with
 exclusion,
 an
 experience
 of
 interaction
 that
 carries
 risks
 but
 also
 opens
 up
 new
 possibilities
 for
the
future
(see
Alfaro
et
al.,
1998;
Quintero
Rivera,
1998;
Sanchez
Botero,
1998).
This
in
turn
is
 leading
 to
 a
 situation
 where
 the
 dynamics
 of
 the
 traditional
 communities
 themselves
 are
 overstepping
 the
 boundaries
 of
 comprehension
 elaborated
 by
 folklorists
 and
 many
 anthropologists.
In
those
communities,
there
is
less
nostalgic
complacency
about
traditions
and
a
 greater
awareness
of
the
indispensable
and
symbolic
reworking
that
the
construction
of
their
own
 future
demands.
 
 Digital
Convergence
in
Cultural
Communication
 Virtual
 exchanges
 shape
 new
 cultural
 features
 to
 the
 extent
 that
 those
 exchanges
 densify
 and
 expand
 towards
 a
 growing
 range
 of
 spheres
 of
 people’s
 lives.
 In
 this
 respect
 people
 speak
 increasingly
 of
 ‘virtual
 cultures’
 in
 order
 to
 refer
 to
 changes
 in
 communicative
 practice
 as
 a
 result
 of
 interactive,
 distance
 media,
 which
 alter
 subjects’
 sensibilities,
 their
 ways
 of
 understanding
 the
 world,
 relationships
 with
 others
 and
 means
 of
 classifying
 and
 understanding
their
surroundings.
Virtual
cultures
are
a
way
of
mediating
between
culture
 and
technology,
they
represent
systems
of
symbolic
exchange
by
means
of
which
collective
 meanings
and
ways
of
representing
reality
are
formed.
(Hopenhayn,
2001)

 
 The
intellectual,
yet
hegemonic
view
of
the
relationship
between
communication
and
culture
is
still
 one
that
separates
the
high
plane
of
culture
from
and
sets
it
up
in
opposition
to
the
mundane
and
 commercial
 space
 of
 communication.
 A
 form
 of
 purism,
 made
 worse
 by
 the
 trivialization
 of
 communication
and
the
wicked
commercialization
of
communication
media
on
a
massive
scale,
is
 turning
culture
into
a
bare,
symbolic
region,
as
if
that
sphere
had
not
always
been
crisscrossed
by
 47
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 the
 heavy
 darkness
 of
 the
 social
 exchange
 that
 links
 creation
 to
 production
 and
 to
 exercise
 of
 power.
Perhaps
the
best
example
of
the
unavoidable
hybridization
of
culture
and
communication
is
 found
nowadays
in
the
relationship
between
music
and
sensitivities
among
young
people
(García
 Canclini,
2002).
Part
of
the
most
lucrative
and
biased
form
of
media
business,
music
forms
part
of
 young
 people’s
 most
 expressive
 experience
 of
 appropriation,
 cultural
 creativity
 and,
 at
 the
 same
 time,
social
empowerment.
 
 However,
communication
media
are
still
regarded
with
suspicion
not
only
among
the
elite
but
also
 in
 the
 management
 of
 cultural
 institutions,
 as
 a
 consequence
 of
 a
 cultural
 complex‐reflex
 that
 is
 based
 more
 on
 nostalgia
 than
 history.
 This,
 in
 turn,
 is
 preventing
 the
 heterogeneity
 of
 symbolic
 production
 (Lahire,
 2004;
 Maigret
 and
 Macé,
 2005),
 as
 represented
 by
 culture
 today,
 from
 being
 taken
on
board
fully
in
a
way
that
facilitates
a
response
to
new
cultural
demands
and
enables
the
 logic
of
the
cultural
industry
to
be
faced
without
fatalism.
This
in
turn
involves
assuming
that
the
 intervention
 of
 politics
 in
 communication
 and
 culture
 brings
 into
 play
 something
 that
 does
 not
 have
 to
 do
 simply
 with
 the
 management
 of
 certain
 institutions
 or
 services,
 the
 distribution
 of
 certain
goods
or
the
regulation
of
certain
frequencies
but
rather
with
producing
a
sense
of
society
 and
its
means
of
recognition
among
citizens.
There
are
some
outdated
concepts
of
communication
 out
there,
which
continue
to
fail
to
recognize
the
communicative
competence
of
citizens
(see
Alfaro
 et
 al.,
 2005;
 Winocourt,
 2002).
 So,
 communication
 in
 culture
 ceases
 to
 take
 the
 form
 of
 intermediary
between
creators
and
consumers
and
takes
on
the
task
of
dissolving
that
social
and
 symbolic
barrier,
decentralizing
and
de­territorializing
the
very
possibilities
presented
by
cultural
 production
and
its
devices.
 
 Corroborating
 that
 overlap
 between
 culture
 and
 communication,
 two
 processes
 emerge
 that
 are
 radically
transforming
the
place
of
culture
in
Latin
American
societies,
the
revitalization
of
identity
 and
 technical
 revolution.
 Globalization
 processes
 are
 reviving
 questions
 of
 cultural
 identity,
 whether
 ethnic,
 racial,
 local
 or
 regional,
 to
 the
 point
 of
 turning
 cultural
 identity
 into
 the
 leading
 aspect
of
many
of
the
most
violent
and
complex
international
conflicts
of
recent
years,
yet
at
the
 same
 time
 aspects
 of
 cultural
 identity,
 including
 gender
 and
 age,
 are
 reshaping
 the
 force
 and
 


48


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 meaning
of
social
ties
and
the
possibilities
of
coexistence
at
a
national
and
local
level.
Moreover,
as
 far
 as
 the
 process
 of
 inclusion/exclusion
 on
 a
 global
 scale
 is
 concerned,
 globalization
 is
 turning
 culture
into
the
strategic
space
for
compression
of
tensions
that
rip
apart
and
reconstitute
the
act
 of
 ‘being
 together’,
 and
 into
 the
 place
 where
 political,
 economic,
 religious,
 ethnic,
 aesthetic
 and
 sexual
crises
all
come
together.
From
this
stems
the
fact
that
it
is
in
the
cultural
diversity
of
stories
 and
 territories,
 experiences
 and
 memories
 that
 one
 not
 only
 resists
 but
 also
 negotiates
 and
 interacts
with,
and
will
end
up
transforming,
globalization.
For
what
makes
identity
a
fighting
force
 is
 inseparable
 from
 the
 demand
 for
 recognition
 and
 meaning.
 And
 neither
 the
 one
 thing
 nor
 the
 other
is
capable
of
being
formulated
in
purely
economic
or
political
terms,
for
both
form
part
of
the
 very
heart
of
culture
in
terms
of
belonging
and
sharing.
This
is
why,
today,
identity
constitutes
the
 force
that
is
most
capable
of
creating
contradictions
in
the
hegemony
of
instrumental
reason.
 
 On
the
other
hand,
we
are
going
through
a
technological
revolution
whose
distinguishing
feature
 lies
 not
 so
 much
 in
 introducing
 to
 Latin
 American
 societies
 an
 unaccustomed
 quantity
 of
 new
 machines
but
rather
in
shaping
a
new
environment
or
communicative
ecosystem.
It
is
in
creating
 this
third
environment
(see
Echeverría,
1999;
Fischer,
2001;
Levi,
1998),
which
overlaps
with
the
 natural
and
urban/social
environments,
that
digital
technology
is
shaping
our
ways
of
inhabiting
 the
world
and
the
very
forms
of
social
tie.
 
 When
Technology
Becomes
Structural

 What
 technological
 convergence
 makes
 us
 think
 of
 is,
 first,
 the
 emergence
 of
 a
 communicative
 reason
whose
devices
(fragmentation
which
displaces
and
disorientates,
flow
that
globalizes
and
 compresses,
connection
that
dematerializes
and
produces
hybrids)
bring
about
the
future
market
 for
 the
 whole
 of
 society.
 In
 the
 face
 of
 the
 consensus
 with
 which
 Habermas
 (1989)
 identifies
 communicative
 reason,
 free
 of
 political
 contradictions
 that
 technological
 and
 commercial
 media
 bring,
what
we
need
to
decipher
is
the
communicational
hegemony
of
the
market
bringing
about
a
 new
model
of
society
in
which
communication/information
ends
up
being
the
most
effective
driver


49
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 in
 terms
 of
 excluding
 or
 including
 cultures,
 whether
 ethnic,
 national
 or
 local,
 into/from
 market
 space/time.

 
 But
 globalization
 is
 not
 simply
 a
 manifestation
 of
 the
 economy
 and
 the
 market
 but
 rather
 a
 movement
 which,
 by
 making
 communication
 and
 information
 the
 key
 to
 a
 new
 model
 of
 society,
 pushes
all
societies
towards
an
intensification
of
contacts
and
conflicts,
exposing
all
cultures
to
one
 another
as
never
before
(Appadurai,
2001).
Today,
even
the
nomadic
communities
of
the
Amazon,
 who
 flee
 violently
 from
 contact
 with
 others,
 frequently
 encounter
 those
 modern
 nomads
 who
 sponsor
‘ecological
tourism’,
that
form
of
anti‐tourism
that
leaves
its
own
world
precisely
in
order
 to
 go
 and
 meet
 others,
 in
 search
 of
 the
 experiences
 of
 others!
 The
 anthropological
 shaping
 achieved
by
the
relationship
between
culture
and
communication,
is
accentuated
when
some
of
the
 most
 decisive
 cultural
 transformations
 arise
 as
 a
 result
 of
 changes
 that
 the
 technological
 framework
 of
 communication
 is
 going
 through,
 affecting
 perceptions
 that
 cultural
 communities
 have
of
themselves
and
their
ways
of
constructing
identities.
 
 The
 current
 reshaping
 of
 indigenous,
 local
 and
 national
 cultures
 is
 above
 all
 a
 response
 to
 the
 strengthening
 of
 communication
 and
 interaction
 between
 those
 communities
 and
 other
 cultures
 in
 the
 country
 and
 the
 world.
 From
 within
 local
 communities
 current
 communication
 processes
 are
 increasingly
perceived
as
an
opportunity
for
interaction
with
the
rest
of
the
nation
and
the
world.
 And
while
there
is
still
a
fight
for
land,
that
fight
today
forms
part
of
a
struggle
for
the
state,
that
is,
 the
struggle
to
count
when
the
country
is
built.

 
 The
 very
 place
 that
 culture
 occupies
 in
 society
 changes
 when
 communication
 technology
 media
 cease
to
be
purely
instrumental,
deepen
and
become
structural.
Today,
technology
refers
not
only
 (and
 not
 so
 much)
 to
 the
 newness
 of
 devices
 but
 also
 (rather)
 to
 new
 modes
 of
 perception
 and
 language,
 to
 new
 sensitivities
 and
 writings.
 Increasing
 the
 sense
 of
 separation
 produced
 by
 modernity,
 technology
 dislocates
 knowledge,
 modifying
 both
 cognitive
 and
 institutional
 rules
 of
 conditions
of
knowledge
and
figures
of
reason
(Chartron,
1994),
which
in
turn
leads
to
a
significant
 


50


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 blurring
 of
 the
 boundaries
 between
 reason
 and
 imagination,
 knowledge
 and
 information,
 nature
 and
artifice,
art
and
science,
expert
knowledge
and
profane
experience.
So,
at
the
same
time
as
we
 face
 a
 growing
 wave
 of
 technological
 fatalism
 coupled
 with
 the
 most
 radical
 political
 pessimism,
 we
find
ourselves
facing
technological
change
that
has
come
to
shape
a
community
ecosystem.
An
 ecosystem
in
which
audiovisual
experience
thrown
into
confusion
by
the
digital
revolution
points
 towards
 the
 shaping
 of
 a
 cultural
 visibility
 which
 is
 today
 the
 strategic
 setting
 for
 a
 decisive
 political
battle
against
the
old
and
exclusive
power
of
the
letter
which,
for
over
a
century
and
a
half,
 has
failed
to
recognize
the
difference
and
the
richness
of
the
oral
and
visual
elements
of
culture,
 those
 same
 elements
 that
 now
 link
 their
 memories
 to
 virtual
 imaginings
 in
 order
 to
 give
 new
 meaning
and
new
form
to
cultural
traditions.
 
 From
 Convergence
 as
 Communicative
 Transparency
 to
 Convergence
 as
 Connectivity
 and
 Cultural
 Interaction
 Digital
convergence
is
the
new
name
for
a
process
and
a
model
which,
when
it
first
appeared
in
the
 late
 1980s,
 was
 known
 as
 ‘communicative
 transparency’.
 It
 was
 a
 fully
 integrated
 model
 (in
 the
 sense
 that
 Umberto
 Eco
 has
 given
 to
 that
 word)
 given
 that
 what
 was
 really
 proposed
 was
 the
 ideology
 that
 ‘everything
 is
 communication’.
 This,
 translated
 into
 information
 terms,
 came
 to
 legitimize
 the
 logic
 behind
 deregulation
 of
 the
 markets
 in
 a
 quite
 shameless
 fashion.
 So,
 the
 political
 importance
 of
 that
 first
 form
 of
 technological
 convergence
 is
 no
 more
 and
 no
 less
 than
 technical
 justification
 for
 economic
 concentration.
 In
 the
 redesign
 of
 Latin
 American
 states
 by
 neoliberal
 policies,
 the
 decentralization
 encouraged
 by
 new
 forms
 of
 technology
 has
 served
 as
 ideological
 cover
 for
 the
 most
 shameless
 concentration
 of
 media
 in
 oligopolies
 that
 would
 have
 been
 unthinkable
 a
 few
 years
 ago.
 From
 the
 purchase
 of
 Time‐Warner
 by
 AOL
 in
 the
 US
 and
 the
 merger
 between
 Vivendi‐Seagram‐Canal+
 in
 Europe,
 hyper
 connectivity
 (TV‐internet‐mobile
 phones)
 involves
 the
 same
 level
 of
 intensification
 in
 terms
 of
 economic
 concentration
 as
 digitalization
without
boundaries
involves
in
the
technical
field.
 
 But
this
whole
process
of
convergence/concentration
of
media
power
cannot
cause
us
to
block
out
 or
 devalue
 its
 other
 aspect,
 namely,
 the
 strategic
 impact
 of
 technological
 change
 that
 has
 51
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 strengthened
 and
 deepened
 the
 new
 communicative
 ecosystem.
 Thrown
 into
 confusion
 by
 the
 digital
revolution,
the
cultural
and
audiovisual
experience
points
towards
the
establishment
of
new
 kinds
 of
 community
 (whether
 artistic,
 scientific
 or
 cultural)
 and
 a
 new
 public
 sphere.
 Both
 are
 linked
to
the
emergence
of
a
cultural
visibility
which
is
the
scene
of
a
decisive
political
battle.
That
 battle
 is
 going
 through
 a
 displacement
 (in
 Spanish,
 des­localización)
 of
 knowledge,
 upsetting
 old,
 yet
 still
 overbearing
 hierarchies
 (Mignolo,
 2001),
 disseminating
 the
 spaces
 where
 knowledge
 is
 produced
 and
 the
 circuits
 along
 which
 it
 travels,
 and
 making
 it
 possible
 for
 individuals
 and
 communities
to
introduce
their
everyday
oral,
sound
and
visual
cultures
into
new
languages
and
 new
writings.
In
Latin
America
never
was
the
palimpsest
of
multiple
cultural
memory
of
the
people
 more
 likely
 to
 take
 possession
 of
 the
 hypertext
 in
 which
 reading
 and
 writing,
 art
 and
 science,
 aesthetic
passion
and
political
action
interweave
and
interact.
 
 Technological
 convergence
 means,
 then,
 the
 emergence
 of
 a
 new
 cognitive
 economy
 governed
 by
 displacement
of
the
status
of
the
number
which,
from
being
a
symbol
of
dominion
over
nature
is
 becoming
 the
 universal
 mediator
 of
 knowledge
 and
 technical/aesthetic
 operation,
 which
 in
 turn
 comes
to
signify
the
primacy
of
sensory‐symbolism
over
sensory‐engine.
For
digitalization
makes
 possible
 a
 new
 form
 of
 interaction
 between
 the
 abstract
 and
 the
 sensible
 (i.e.
 what
 is
 capable
 of
 being
sensed
or
perceived),
completely
redefining
the
boundaries
between
diversity
of
knowledge
 and
means
of
acting.
 
 A
 critical
 view
 provides
 us
 with
 a
 sound
 warning
 of
 the
 risks
 involved
 in
 current
 technological
 development
in
its
complicity
with
market
logic
and
processes
that
aggravate
social
exclusion.
And
 it
is
precisely
because
of
this
that
our
inclusion
in
new
global
technology
cannot
be
thought
of
as
a
 socially
inevitable
automatism
of
change
but
rather
as
a
process
that
is
heavily
weighed
down
with
 ambiguities
 and
 contradictions,
 a
 process
 of
 advances
 and
 setbacks,
 a
 complex
 set
 of
 filters
 and
 membranes
(Manzini,
1991)
that
regulate
selectively
the
multiplicity
of
interactions
between
old
 and
new
ways
of
inhabiting
the
world.
In
fact,
technological
pressure
is
itself
provoking
a
need
to
 find
 and
 develop
 other
 rationales,
 other
 paces
 of
 life
 and
 relationships
 with
 objects
 and
 people,
 relationships
 in
 which
 physical
 and
 sensory
 depth
 become
 of
 fundamental
 value
 once
 again.
 The
 search
for
alternative
medicines
or
attempts
to
reconnect
with
our
own
bodies
and
those
of
others
 speak
of
this,
reinstating
contact
and
immediacy
in
communication.
 


52


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 





The
speed
with
which
mobile
telephones
and
internet
access
have
spread
to
the
poorest
strata
of
 Latin
 American
 countries
 marks
 an
 unexpected
 process
 of
 connecting
 the
 majority
 to
 the
 digital
 network,
who
in
this
way
come
to
inhabit
the
new
communicational
space
where
they
can
connect
 places
 to
 which
 people
 have
 emigrated
 with
 places
 in
 their
 own
 country,
 exchanging
 music
 and
 photos
with
their
relatives
and
friends
on
the
other
side
of
the
Atlantic
and
the
world.
 
 One
 particular
 and
 pioneering
 experience
 of
 cultural
 convergence
 that
 is
 achieved
 through
 digitalization,
 which
 is
 still
 not
 being
 given
 all
 the
 attention
 it
 deserves
 from
 an
 academic
 perspective,
is
that
of
teenagers
and
young
people.
For
them,
the
computer
is
no
longer
a
machine
 but
 rather
 a
 cognitive
 and
 creative
 form
 of
 technology
 (Barganza
 and
 Cruz,
 2001;
 Dede,
 2000;
 Scolari,
 2004).
 Of
 course
 teachers
 have
 every
 right
 to
 wonder
 what
 happens
 to
 the
 body
 when
 someone
spends
so
many
hours
in
front
of
a
screen,
but
the
real
problem
is
not
what
the
computer
 does
to
the
body
but
rather
how
new
methods
of
inhabiting
the
body
and
new
knowledge
about
 the
body,
that
is
to
say,
techno‐biology
and
genetics,
affect
the
body,
both
in
terms
of
possibilities
 and
perversions.
 
 This
 is
 the
 question
 that
 Donna
 J.
 Haraway
 (1991)
 had
 the
 audacity
 to
 ask
 herself
 when
 she
 thought
 not
 about
 the
 possibilities
 for
 transforming
 the
 body
 cosmetically
 but
 rather
 about
 the
 possibilities
of
the
cyborg
body,
that
hybrid
that
terrifies
all
the
adults
of
my
generation
because
it
 is
the
alloy
that
presents
the
greatest
challenge
to
the
rationalist
story
that
we
have
told
ourselves
 in
the
West.
For
while
the
whole
history
of
the
evolution
of
mankind
is
a
story
full
of
hybrids,
of
 transfusions
of
nature
and
artifice,
and
vice
versa,
the
rationalism
that
developed
from
old
idealism
 has
 purported
 to
 keep
 episteme
 and
 techne,
 knowledge
 and
 technique,
 in
 separate
 worlds,
 endowing
 the
 former
 with
 all
 the
 positivity
 of
 invention
 and
 reducing
 technique
 to
 a
 mere
 instrument
 or
 tool.
 This
 has
 fundamentally
 affected
 our
 ability
 to
 think
 of
 the
 constitutive
 relationships
that
have
always
existed
between
science
and
technology
but
that
have
never
made
 53
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 themselves
apparent
until
now.
Hence
the
existence
of
techno­science
challenges
us
to
think
not
of
 the
‘world
of
technology’
in
the
singular
but
rather,
as
Heidegger
(1997)
noted,
the
technology
of
 the
 world,
 that
 is,
 technology
 as
 a
 constituent
 dimension
 of
 humanity.
 Efforts
 to
 think
 of
 technological
convergence
as
an
environment
and
a
communicative
ecosystem,
as
strategic
in
social
 terms
today
as
the
natural
ecosystem,
are
aimed
at
meeting
this
challenge.

 
 Digital
convergence
introduces
into
cultural
politics
a
far‐reaching
renewal
of
the
communication
 model,
 for
 we
 have
 moved
 from
 the
 one‐way,
 linear
 and
 authoritarian
 information
 transmission
 model
 to
 the
 network
 model,
 that
 is,
 to
 a
 model
 of
connectivity
 and
 interaction
 which
 transforms
 mechanical
 forms
 of
 communication
 at
 a
 distance
 into
 an
 interface
 of
 proximity.
 This
 is
 a
 new
 model
which
finds
its
form
in
a
policy
that
favours
synergy
between
many
small
projects
over
the
 complicated
structure
of
large,
heavy
equipment
both
in
terms
of
technology
and
operation.
 
 Towards
Public
Policies
of
Cultural
Convergence
 At
the
moment,
cultural
diversity
is
going
through
a
very
strange
situation.
On
the
one
hand,
digital
 convergence
 represents
 two
 crucial
 opportunities.
 First,
 the
 opportunity
 presented
 by
 digitalization,
 making
 it
 possible
 to
 put
 data,
 texts,
 sounds,
 images
 and
 videos
 into
 a
 common
 language,
 dismantling
 the
 rationalist,
 dualist
 hegemony
 that,
 until
 now,
 set
 what
 was
 capable
 of
 being
 understood
 against
 what
 was
 capable
 of
 being
 sensed
 or
 felt
 through
 emotion,
 set
 reason
 against
imagination,
science
against
art,
culture
against
technology
and
books
against
audiovisual
 media.
 Second,
 the
 formation
 of
 a
 new
 public
 space
 shaped
 by
 social
 movement,
 cultural
 communities
and
community
media.
Both
opportunities
are
made
up
of
an
enormous
and
diverse
 plurality
of
players
who
converge
on
an
emancipating
commitment
or
pledge
and
a
political
culture
 in
 which
 resistance
 forges
 both
 initiatives
 and
 alternatives.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 a
 growing
 awareness
of
the
value
of
difference,
of
diversity
and
heterogeneity
in
the
field
of
civilization
and
in
 ethnic,
 local
 and
 gender
 culture,
 is
 confronting
 a
 powerful
 movement
 to
 standardize
 the
 social
 imaginary
 in
 terms
 of
 ways
 of
 dressing,
 musical
 taste,
 bodily
 forms
 and
 expectations
 of
 social
 success,
in
narratives
involving
a
wider
audience
such
as
the
cinema,
television
and
videogames.





54


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 The
 market
 has
 resolved
 that
 tension
 by
 converting
 cultural
 difference
 into
 a
 stratagem
 for
 re­ territorialization
 and
 personalization
 of
 social
 differentiation
 practices.
 As
 David
 Harvey
 wisely
 observes,
 the
 mechanism
 works
 by
 means
 of
 ‘the
 paradox
 that
 the
 less
 decisive
 that
 spatial
 barriers
become,
the
more
sensitive
capital
becomes
towards
differences
in
place
and
the
greater
 the
incentive
for
places
to
make
an
effort
to
distinguish
themselves
as
a
means
of
attracting
capital’
 (1989:
297).
A
paradox
that
in
the
individual
sphere
translates
into
placing
the
effort
to
distinguish
 oneself
at
the
centre
of
individuals’
battle
to
climb
out
of
the
social
anonymity
to
which
the
system
 itself
condemns
them.
 
 The
possibility
of
public
policies
that
purport
to
take
on
the
complexity
of
these
processes
involves
 the
 establishment
 of
 regulatory
 frameworks
 which
 have
 a
 global
 and
 a
 local
 reach,
 being
 the
 two
 strategic
 spaces
 in
 which
 not
 only
 the
 economy
 but
 also
 technology
 and
 culture
 move
 today.
 Regulatory
 frameworks
 that
 will
 only
 come
 out
 of
 a
 negotiation
 between
 public,
 private
 and
 independent
 players,
 from
 national,
 international
 and
 local
 spheres.
 For,
 as
 evidenced
 by
 the
 Global
Forums
at
Davos
and
Porto
Alegre,
and
especially
the
preparatory
meetings
for
the
World
 Summit
 on
 the
 Information
 Society
 (WSIS),
 those
 players
 now
 have
 bodies,
 organizations
 and
 associations
capable
of
representing
the
different
interests
in
play.
This
means
that
the
presence
of
 Information
 and
 Communication
 Technology
 (ICT)
 is
 having
 an
 effect
 around
 the
 world
 that
 can
 only
be
comprehended,
or
predicted
politically,
through
an
integral
or
all­embracing
vision
that
is
 capable
 of
 placing
 the
 impact
 and
 the
 potential
 of
 that
 technology
 in
 the
 context
 of
 processes
 of
 socio‐economic
development
and
practices
involving
democratic
participation.
 
 The
 above
 contrasts
 with
 the
 absence
 of
 the
 public
 sector
 in
 the
 carrying
 out
 of
 technological
 change,
an
absence
marked
by
the
leap
from
legalistic
and
stubborn
policies
during
the
1970s
and
 1980s
to
the
purest
and
simplest
deregulation
which
in
the
1990s
left
the
market
free
to
mark
the
 logic
and
dynamics
of
ICT
transformation.
One
particular
obstacle
lay
in
the
fact
that,
at
the
same
 time
as
deregulation
occurred
in
the
field
of
telecommunications
and
large‐scale
media,
the
state
 stepped
up
massively
the
regulation
of
small‐scale
media,
such
as
radio
and
local
TV
broadcasters,
 55
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 multiplying
 the
 number
 of
 legal
 ties
 on
 their
 ability
 to
 function
 and
 expand.
 For
 this
 reason,
 in
 addition
 to
 the
 enormous
 gap
 between
 countries
 in
 North
 and
 South
 America,
 we
 find
 the
 most
 brutal
 indices
 of
 inequality
 in
 the
 largest
 and
 economically
 strongest
 countries
 in
 terms
 of
 opportunities
 for
 connecting
 to
 networks.
 According
 to
 the
 Economic
 Commission
 for
 Latin
 America
 and
 the
 Caribbean
 (ECLAC):
 ‘in
 2003
 the
 highest
 income
 group
 in
 Brazil
 reached
 a
 connectivity
 rate
 of
 82%
 while
 the
 national
 rate
 was
 just
 12%’
 (CEPAL/ECLAC,
 2003).
 For
 the
 ‘digital
 divide’
 is
 really
 a
 social
 divide,
 that
 is,
 it
 does
 not
 relate
 simply
 to
 the
 effect
 of
 digital
 technology
but
rather
to
the
organization
of
society
in
such
a
way
that
the
majority
is
prevented
 from
accessing
and
making
use
of
ICT
not
only
physically
but
also
economically
and
mentally.
 
 On
the
other
hand,
we
also
come
across
certain
situations
in
Latin
America
that
provide
a
setting
 for
 strategic,
 public
 policy
 intervention,
 situations
 that
 are
 particularly
 appropriate
 for
 putting
 digital
convergence
at
the
service
of
exchange
and
empowerment
of
cultural
diversity.

 
 The
 most
 revealing
 scenario
 is
 the
 strategic
 potential
 already
 represented
 by
 digital
 networks
 which
weave
socio­cultural
integration
in
the
Latin
American
space
 mobilizing
scientific
research,
 artistic
 experimentation
 and
 community
 radio
 and
 TV
 media.
 From
 small
 rural
 towns
 to
 large
 urban
 neighbourhoods,
 popular
 sectors,
 whether
 through
 young
 people
 or
 in
 certain
 indigenous
 communities,
 we
 face
 an
 intensive
 community
 appropriation
 of
 radio
 and
 TV
 to
 put
 local
 communities
 in
 touch
 with
 one
 another
 and
 with
 others
 in
 the
 world,
 with
 the
 objective
 of
 reworking
the
collective
fabric
of
memory
and
counter‐information,
mobilizing
the
imagination
to
 participate
in
the
construction
of
what
is
public.
 
 A
second
scenario
is
that
offered
by
networks
woven
by
those
who
have
emigrated,
from
networks
 formed
 by
 Ecuadorian
 emigrants
 in
 Spain
 who
 communicate
 in
 Quechua,
 to
 Mexicans
 in
 the
 US
 surfing
the
net
in
their
own
inimitable
‘Chicana’
style
or
the
net‐art
of
visual
arts
and
music,
which
 young
people
circulate
not
only
among
their
own
compatriots
but
also
among
all
migrating
Latins





56


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 or
South
Americans,
and
by
means
of
which
digital
convergence
becomes
a
constituent
part
of
the
 Latin
American
cultural
space
that
is
under
construction.
 
 A
third
scenario,
albeit
one
that
has
arrived
late
in
the
day
and
that
is
still
somewhat
precarious,
is
 that
of
public
schools
which
are
starting
to
converge
with
digital
technology
and
using
it
to
radically
 reshape
methods
of
producing
and
circulating
knowledge
just
as
it
is
reshaping
the
maps
we
use
in
 our
 professional
 and
 working
 lives.
 The
 most
 far‐reaching
 changes
 brought
 about
 by
 the
 information
 society
 are
 concerned
 with
 the
 new
 mental
 skills
 required
 for
 new
 roles
 or
 offices,
 new
 ways
 of
 learning,
 whether
 formal
 or
 informal,
 and
 new
 forms
 of
 relationship
 between
 work
 and
play
or
between
our
domestic
space
and
the
workplace.
 
 Finally,
 a
 fourth
 scenario
 constitutes
 the
 growing
 awareness
 that
 rights
 to
 information
 and
 knowledge
are
an
integral
part
of
human
rights.
We
refer
to
the
right
of
citizens
and
social
groups
 to
 have
 access
 to
 information
 not
 only
 as
 receivers
 but
 also
 as
 producers;
 and
 also
 the
 right
 to
 participate
of
and
in
knowledge.
For,
on
the
one
hand,
the
hyper­valuation
of
information
is
causing
 a
severe
devaluation
 of
 traditional
 knowledge
 that
is
not
capable
 of
 being
computerized,
 such
 as
 peasant
survival
strategies,
the
life
experiences
of
immigrants,
the
cultural
memory
of
the
elderly
 and
so
forth.
This
means
that
ultimately,
in
Latin
American
countries,
‘information
society’
comes
 to
 mean
 the
 expansion
 of
 a
 society
 of
 ignorance,
 that
 is,
 a
 failure
 to
 recognize
 the
 plurality
 of
 knowledge
 and
 cultural
 competences
 which,
 whether
 shared
 by
 the
 popular
 majority
 or
 indigenous
or
regional
minorities,
are
not
being
incorporated
as
such
into
maps
of
society
nor
even
 their
education
systems.
 
 Alongside
 that
 set
 of
scenarios
 in
 which
public
 policy
can
play
a
part,
 we
 wish
to
 end
by
putting
 forward
a
map
for
strategic
action
(for
the
complete
text
of
these
proposals,
see
Martín‐Barbero,
 2005)
to
be
set
in
motion
so
that
the
digital
revolution
serves
as
a
revolution
that
makes
possible
 the
recognition
of
true
value,
of
the
richness
that
cultural
diversity
involves.
 57
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 
 Map
for
Strategic
Action
 Virtual
Literacy
 Just
as
we
find
technical
infrastructure
at
the
point
of
getting
information
into
society,
in
order
to
 make
 use
 of
 the
 benefits
 of
 ICT
 Latin
 American
 countries
 are
 going
 to
 have
 to
 acquire
 a
 new
 cultural
 base
 which
 provides
 the
 majority
 with
 proper
 access
 to
 the
 various
 uses
 of
 ICT
 and
 its
 creative
production.
Making
that
cultural
base
available
to
Latin
American
societies
as
a
whole
will
 involve
 a
 project
 that
 is
 just
 as
 demanding,
 and
 involves
 just
 as
 much,
 if
 not
 more,
 effort
 as
 the
 provision
of
physical
infrastructure.
We
call
that
project
virtual
literacy,
and
we
understand
it
to
be
 made
 up
 of
 a
 set
 of
 mental
 skills,
 operational
 habits
 and
 interactive
 spirit
 without
 which
 the
 presence
of
technology
among
the
majority
of
the
population
would
go
to
waste
or
be
twisted
by
 the
use
to
which
it
is
put
by
a
minority
for
their
own
benefit.
Just
as,
at
another
point
in
its
history,
 the
 whole
 of
 Latin
 America
 set
 itself
 the
 basic
 social
 project
 of
 achieving
 adult
 literacy,
 a
 project
 designed
by
Paulo
Freire,
so
now
Latin
American
societies
find
themselves
in
need
of
a
new
project
 of
virtual
literacy
not
for
a
particular
group
but
rather
for
the
population
as
a
whole,
from
children
 to
 the
 elderly,
 from
 urban
 communities
 to
 rural
 and
 indigenous
 communities,
 including
 workers
 and
the
unemployed,
the
displaced
and
the
disabled.
 
 This
 concerns
 a
 form
 of
 literacy
 whose
 principal
 peculiarity
 lies
 in
 being
 interactive,
 that
 is,
 learning
 takes
 place
 through
 the
 very
 process
 of
 using
 technology.
 A
 use
 that
 can
 and,
 in
 certain
 cases,
 must
 be
 orientated,
 but
 which
 cannot
 be
 supplied
 by
 mere
 conventional
 knowledge
 or
 wisdom.
 There
 is
 undoubtedly
 a
 convergence
 to
 be
 established
 between
 literacy
 and
 virtual
 literacy,
so
that
the
former
is
integrated
into
the
latter
as
a
dynamic
factor
in
the
process,
but
in
the
 knowledge
 that
 virtual
 culture
 reorders
 the
 symbolic
 media
 on
 which
 formal
 culture
 relies
 by
 repositioning
several
of
the
time‐space
boundaries
that
the
latter
involves.
Surfing
is
also
reading
 but
not
from
left
to
right
or
top
to
bottom
and
not
by
following
the
order
of
pages
but
rather
by
 crossing
or
passing
through
texts,
images
and
sounds
that
are
interconnected
by
extremely
diverse
 methods
 of
 articulation,
 simulation,
 shaping
 or
 play.
 These
 are
 means
 of
 virtual
 articulation
 that





58


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 form
an
indispensable
part
of
the
knowledge
that
is
increasingly
required
nowadays
by
the
worlds
 of
work
and
culture.

 
 The
infrastructure
of
public
libraries
must
become
a
strategic
space,
a
point
of
basic
access
for
the
 masses
both
to
networks
and
to
virtual
literacy.
Convergence
between
traditional
services
and
new
 services,
 which
 introduce
 virtual
 networks,
 must
 be
 accepted
 as
 an
 educational
 and
 social
 challenge
 given
 that
 convergence
 plays
 out
 the
 strategic
 relationship
 between
 information,
 creative
interaction
and
social
participation.
 
 Research
into
Means
of
Appropriating
Technology
 Along
 with
 the
 new
 literacy,
 the
 inclusion
 of
 Latin
 American
 countries
 in
 the
 challenges
 and
 possibilities
of
digital
technology
involves
a
shared
research
project
surrounding
the
ways
in
which
 local
cultures,
whether
towns,
ethnic
groups
or
regions
are
making
use
of
or
appropriating
virtual
 culture,
that
is,
the
means
of
interaction
with
information
networks
which
communities
select
and
 develop,
 the
 transformations
 that
 their
 usage
 introduces
 into
 community
 life
 and
 the
 new
 resources,
 both
 technical
 and
 human,
 that
 are
 required
 in
 order
 to
 render
 those
 interactions
 socially
 creative
 and
 productive.
 It
 is
 precisely
 because
 new
 ICT
 results
 in
 the
 cutting
 loose
 of
 territorial
culture
and
its
inclusion
in
the
rhythms
and
virtualities
of
cyberspace
that
our
system
of
 education
and
culture
needs
to
monitor
closely
and
continually
the
ways
in
which
various
territorial
 cultures
 process
 changes,
 and
 to
 take
 account
 of
 differences
 in
 age
 and
 gender
 and
 distinguish
 between
small
and
large
cities
and
rural,
industrial
and
underdeveloped
areas
for
that
purpose.
 
 Digitalizing
our
Heritage

 Today,
 putting
 our
 heritage
 onto
 a
 digital
 network
 offers
 a
 strategic
 possibility
 both
 in
 terms
 of
 conservation
and
in
democratization
of
its
uses.
The
former
needs
no
further
argument
given
the
 fragility
of
many
documents
and
other
cultural
items
and
the
fragmentary
and
precarious
nature
of
 a
 number
 of
 utensils.
 Digital
 conservation
 not
 only
 makes
 it
 possible
 to
 protect
 items
 but
 also


59
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 facilitates
their
study
and
permanent
activation,
by
putting
them
in
touch
with
others,
whether
in
 chronological,
thematic,
general
or
specialized
terms.

 
 Likewise,
digitalization
makes
it
possible
to
achieve
local
and
global
visibility
of
our
heritage,
and
 especially
the
sharing
of
diverse
national
and
local
Latin
American
heritage.
On
the
one
hand,
it
is
a
 case/question
 of
 democratizing,
 that
 is
 of
 bringing
 the
 cultural
 heritage
 of
 Latin
 American
 countries
 to
 their
 own
 citizens
 for
 their
 knowledge
 and
 enjoyment,
 and
 for
 the
 preservation
 of
 ‘real’
 historical
 memory
 that
 is
 not
 official
 or
 homogeneous
 but
 plural,
 and
 enabling
 its
 appropriation
 by
 even
 the
 remotest
 of
 generations
 and
 populations.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 it
 is
 a
 question
of
a
new
way
for
our
cultures
to
exist
in
the
world,
showing
the
richness
of
history
and
the
 creativity
of
the
present,
debunking
clichés
and
exotic
stereotypes
and
attracting
tourism.
And
this
 is
 possible
 in
 the
 multiple
 ways
 in
 which
 hypertext
 today
 permits,
 that
 is,
 in
 fixed
 and
 moving
 images,
in
soundtracks
and
music,
codices
and
texts.
Or
through
databases,
images,
oral
narratives,
 music,
songs,
thematic
backdrops
or
virtual
exhibitions.
 
 Expanding
Creativity
to
the
Net
 Digital
networks
are
not
only
a
place
for
conservation
and
sharing
of
cultural
and
artistic
items
but
 also
a
space
for
experimentation
and
aesthetic
creation.
Hypertextual
experimentation
makes
new
 art
forms
possible
by
means
of
forms
of
architecture
of
languages
that
until
now
were
not
possible.
 On
the
other
hand,
interactive
connectivity
challenges
the
exceptional
nature
of
‘works’
and
blurs
 the
 uniqueness
 of
 the
 artist,
 displacing
 the
 axes
 of
 the
 aesthetic
 towards
 interactions
 and
 events,
 that
is,
towards
a
type
of
‘work’
that
is
permanently
open
to
the
collaboration
of
creative
surfers.
A
 metaphor
for
new
ways
of
socializing,
creation
on
the
web
permits
aesthetic
performativities
that
 virtual
 media
 open
 up
 not
 just
 for
 the
 field
 of
 art
 in
 particular
 but
 also
 for
 social
 and
 political
 participation,
which
activates
various
forms
of
sensing
and
socializing
which
before
now
have
been
 taken
to
be
incapable
of
acting
and
creating
and
interacting
with
contemporary
technology.
 
 Free
Access
to
All
Human
Creation





60


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 One
of
the
most
profitable
ways
of
stripping
the
majority
of
items
that
form
part
of
human
culture
 is
the
deceitful
protection
of
intellectual
property,
a
spurious
and
mystifying
way
of
classifying
the
 rights
 of
 the
 author,
 which
 involves
 reducing
 the
 intellectual
 to
 what
 can
 be
 appropriated
 commercially,
a
right
that
is
definitively
co‐opted
by
the
idea
of
patent
and
its
pseudo
commercial
 jurisprudence.
 We
 need
 to
 bring
 out
 into
 the
 open
 the
 way
 in
 which
 and
 the
 extent
 to
 which
 scientific
 knowledge
 and
 aesthetic
 experimentation
 are
 subjugated
 by
 the
 dismantling
 of
 the
 multiple
 forms
 of
 regulation
 that
 prevented
 the
 spread
 and
 invasion
 of
 property
 to
 fields
 of
 knowledge,
 practices
 and
 services
 previously
 considered
 public
 and
 which
 the
 internet
 today
 transforms
into
common
property.
 

 This
is
how
the
convergence
of
cultural
networks
(Finquelevich,
2000;
Molina,
2001;
VV.AA.
2002)
 operates,
the
newest
and
possibly
one
of
the
most
fertile
forms
of
cultural
convergence
currently
in
 existence.
 It
 is
 spurred
 on,
 on
 a
 daily
 basis,
 by
 artists
 and
 administrators,
 trainers,
 municipal
 institutions
 and
 local
 communities.
 An
 enormous
 gain
 stems
 from
 the
 fact
 that
 one
 of
 the
 tasks
 assumed
by
many
of
the
new
players
is
that
of
overseers,
intent
upon
supervising
the
projects
and
 decisions
that
they
take
part
in,
money
matters
and
the
type
of
exchange
that
is
promoted.
Cultural
 networks
 have
 become
 the
 new
 public
 space
 of
 intermediation
 between
 different
 players
 in
 the
 same
 country;
 between
 players
 in
 the
 same
 sphere
 –
 for
 example
 of
 politics,
 management
 or
 training
–
in
different
countries;
or
mobilizing
cross‐disciplinary
factors
from
the
field
of
politics
 that
enrich
academic
work
or
from
the
field
of
artistic
creation
that
enrich
the
field
of
politics.
We
 face
 the
 historic
 possibility,
 not
 only
 in
 terms
 of
 technology
 but
 also
 in
 social
 terms,
 of
 fundamentally
 renewing
 the
 political
 framework
 of
 interculturality,
 weaving
 networks
 that
 increasingly
 connect
 the
 world
 of
 artists
 and
 cultural
 workers
 with
 the
 world
 of
 territorial
 institutions
 and
 social
 organizations.
 And
 we
 are
 going
 to
 need
 that
 framework
 for
 only
 by
 bolstering
 and
 empowering
 the
 network
 of
 social
 and
 institutional
 players
 in
 our
 cultures
 to
 the
 maximum
extent
possible,
and
creating
the
most
far‐reaching
alliances
possible
all
over
the
world,
 will
we
be
able
to
confront
the
offensive
of
political
apathy
and
cultural
manipulation
that
has
been
 set
in
train
by
the
globalization
of
fear
and
the
new
security
industries.


61
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 
 I
 cannot
 bring
 this
 reflection
 to
 a
 close
 without
 linking
 it
 to
 the
 ‘reasons
 for
 my
 hope’
 (of
 which
 Borges
spoke
in
an
early
book
entitled
El
tamaño
de
mi
esperanza’
(which
in
English
means
‘The
 Measure
 of
 My
 Hope’),
 which
 are
 the
 link
 between
 research
 and
 the
 political
 action
 described
 herein.
 I
 refer
 to
 the
 ‘second
 chance’
 (García
 Marquez)
 which,
 for
 those
 who
 have
 lived
 through
 100
 years
 of
 solitude,
 can
 involve
 convergence
 between
 their
 oral
 cultural
 traditions
 and
 new
 forms
of
visual
and
cyber
writing,
if
literal
cultures
will
permit
their
authoritarian
didacticism
to
be
 transformed
 into
 performative
 social
 mediation.
 For
 the
 subordination
 of
 oral
 tradition,
 sounds
 and
visual
experiences
of
the
majority
to
the
exclusive
order
of
educated
literacy
is
currently
being
 eroded
in
a
way
that
was
unforeseen
and
that
stems,
on
the
one
hand,
from
the
displacement
(in
 Spanish,
des­localización)
and
spreading
of
‘traditionally
modern’
channels/circuits
of
knowledge
 and,
on
the
other,
from
the
new
ways
of
producing
and
circulating
languages
and
new
writings
that
 arise
out
of
electronic
technology,
especially
on
the
internet.
Thus
we
stand
before
a
new
cultural
 and
political
stage
which
may
prove
strategic,
first,
in
transforming
an
educational
system
that
is
 exclusive
not
only
in
quantitative
but
above
all
in
qualitative
terms,
and
profoundly
anachronistic
 in
 the
 relationship
 that
 it
 bears
 to
 the
 changes
 that
 everyday
 cultures
 are
 going
 through,
 and,
 second,
 in
 ensuring
 that
 the
 democratization
 of
 our
 societies
 reaches
 the
 cultural
 world
 of
 the
 majority,
 making
 it
 possible
 for
 people
 to
 appropriate
 new
 knowledge,
 languages
 and
 writings
 from
their
own
cultures.
 
 References
 Alfaro,
R.M.
et
al.
(1998)
Redes
solidarias,
culturas
y
multimedialidad,
Quito:
OcicAL/UCLAP.
 Alfaro,
 R.M.
 (ed.)
 (2005)
 Comunicación
 y
 política
 en
 una
 democracia
 ética,
 Lima:
 Veeduria
 


Ciudadana.


Appadurai,
 A.
 (2001)
 La
 modernidad
 desbordada
 –
 dimensiones
 culturales
 de
 la
 globalización,
 


Buenos
Aires:
Trilce/FCE.


Barganza,
J.A.
and
Cruz,
M.T.
(2001)
Critica
das
logacoes
na
Era
da
Técnica,
Porto:
Tropismos.
 Bhabha,
H.K.
(ed.)
(1990)
Nation
and
Narration,
London:
Routledge.
 Castells,
M.
(1997)
La
era
de
la
información,
vol.
1,
Madrid:
Alianza.
 


62


Westminster
Papers
in
Communication
&
Culture
8(1)
 CEPAL/ECLAC
(2003)
Los
caminos
hacia
una
sociedad
de
la
información
en
América
Latina
y
el
 


Caribe,
available
at:


http://www.cepal.cl/publicaciones/DesarrolloProductivo/1/LCG2195Rev1P/lcg2195e2.pdf
 Chartron,
G.
(ed.)
(1994)
Pour
une
nouvelle
économie
du
savoir,
Rennes:
Presses
Universitaires
de
 


Rennes.


Dede,
C.
(ed.)
(2000)
Aprendiendo
con
tecnología,
Barcelona,
Paidos.
 Echeverría,
J.
(1999)
Los
señores
del
aire,
Telépolis
y
el
tercer
entorno,
Barcelona:
Destino.
 Finquelevich,
 S.
 (ed.)
 ¡Ciudadanos
 a
 la
 red!
 Los
 vículos
 sociales
 en
 el
 ciberespacio,
 Buenos
 Aires,
 


Ciccus/La
Crujía.


Fischer,
H.
(2001)
Le
Chock
numérique:
à
l’aube
d’
une
nouvelle
civilisation,
Montreal:
BLV.
 García
Canclini,
N.
(ed.)
(2002a)
Iberoamerica
2002,
Mexico:
OEI/Santillana
 García
Canclini,
N.
(2002b)
Latinoamericanos
buscando
lugar
en
este
siglo,
Buenos
Aires:
Paidos.
 Habermas,
J.
(1989)
Teoría
de
la
acción
comunicativa,
Madrid:
I.B.
Tauris.
 Haraway,
D.J.
(1991)
‘Manifiesto
para
cyborgs:
ciencia,
tecnología
y
feminismo
socialista
a
finales
 


del
siglo
XX’,
in
Ciencia,
cyborgs
y
mujeres:
la
reinvención
de
la
naturaleza,
Madrid:
Cátedra.


Harvey,
 D.
 (1989)
 ‘The
 experience
 of
 space
 and
 time’,
 in
 The
 Condition
 of
 Postmodernity,
 


Cambridge:
Basil
Blackwell.


Heidegger,
 M.
 (1997)
 Filosofia,
 ciencia
 y
 técnica,
 trans.
 F.
 Soler
 and
 J.
 Acevedo,
 Santiago
 de
 Chile:
 


Editorial
Universitaria.


Hopenhayn,
 M.
 (2001)
 No
 apocalypse,
 no
 integration:
 modernism
 and
 postmodernism
 in
 Latin
 


America,
trans.
Cynthia
Margarita
Tompkins
and
Elizabeth
Rosa
Horan,
Durham,
NC:
Duke





University
Press.


Lahire,
 B.
 (2004)
 La
 Culture
 des
 individus:
 dissonances
 culturelles
 et
 distinction
 de
 soi,
 Paris:
 La
 


Découverte.


Levi,
P.
(1998)
A
inteligência
coletiva,
São
Paulo:
Loyola
 Maigret,
E.
and
Macé,
E.
(2005)
Penser
les
mediacultures:
Nouvelles
practique
et
nouvelles
approches
 


de
la
representation
du
monde,
Paris:
Armand
Collin.


63
 





Martin­Barbero,
From
Latin
America…
 Manzini,
 E.
 (1991)
 Artefacts:
 vers
 une
 nouvelle
 écologie
 de
 l’environnement
 artificiel,
 Paris:
 C.G.
 


Pompidou.


Marinas,
 J.M.
 (1995)
 ‘La
 identidad
 contada’,
 in
 Destinos
 del
 relato
 al
 fin
 del
 milenio,
 Valencia:
 


Archivos
de
la
Filmoteca,
pp.
66–73.



Marinas,
J.M.
(2004)
La
razón
biográfica:
etica
y
política
de
la
identidad,
Madrid:
Biblioteca
Nueva.
 Martín‐Barbero,
 J.,
 Bello,
 M.N.,
 Pacarí,
 N.,
 Sunkel,
 G.,
 Valenzuela
 J.M.,
 
 (2005)
 ‘Cultura
 y
 nuevas
 


mediaciones
tecnológicas’,
in
VV.AA
América
Latina:
otras
visiones
desde
la
cultura,
Bogotá:





CAB,
pp.
13–38.


Mignolo,
W.
(ed.)
Capitalismo
y
geopolítica
del
conocimiento,
Buenos
Aires:
Ediciones
del
Signo.
 Molina,
J.L.
(2002)
El
análisis
de
redes
sociales:
una
introducción,
Barcelona:
Bellaterra.

 Quintero
Rivera,
A.G.
(1998)
Salsa,
sabor
y
control,
Mexico:
Siglo
XXI.

 Ricoeur,
P.
(2004)
‘Cultures:
du
deuil
a
la
traduction’,
communication
prononcée
aux
Entretiens
du
 


XXI
siecle,
UNESCO,20004,
publié
par
Le
Monde,
25/05/2004,
Paris


Sanchez
Botero,
E.
(1998)
Justicia
y
pueblos
indígenas
de
Colombia,
Bogotá:
Univ.
Nacional/Unijus.
 Santos,
 M.
 (2004)
 Por
 otra
 globalización:
 del
 pensamiento
 único
 a
 la
 concienciencia
 universal,
 


Bogotá:
CAB.


Scolari,
 C.
 (2004)
 Hacer
 clic:
 hacia
 una
 sociosemiotica
 de
 las
 interacciones
 digitales,
 Barcelona:
 


Gedisa.



Verdezoto
Ortiz,
M.E.,
(ed
(2002)
Redes,
gestión
y
ciudadanía,
Quito:
OCLAC‐ABYAYALA.
 Delgado,
 E.,
 Jimenez,
 L.,
 Martín‐Barbero,
 J.,
 Ortíz,
 R.,
 (2005)
 Cultura
 y
 sustentabilidad
 en
 


Iberoamérica,
Madrid:
OEI/Interarts.


Williams,
 R.
 (1997)
 La
 política
 del
 modernismo:
 contra
 los
 nuevos
 conformistas,
 Buenos
 Aires:
 


Editorial
Manantial.


Winocourt,
R.
(2002)
Ciudadanos
mediáticos,
Barcelona:
Gedisa.
 
 This
article
was
originally
the
keynote
paper
presented
at
the
"International
Seminar
on
 Cultural
Diversity",
organised
by
Ministry
of
culture,
Brasilia,
Brazil,
27­29
June,
2007.
It
 was
published
in
Spanish
on
the
website
Alambre,
Comunicación
y
Cultura
(03/2009). 





64