Is democratic dialogue possible in fragmented societies? Public communication and democracy in Latin America

MARÍA SOLEDAD SEGURA

Pallgrave Macmillan

978-987-707-047-7

The book examines alternatives proposed and implemented by governments, civil society organizations and companies in Latin America to democratize public communication and overcome current problems, such as the regression in freedom of speech and information rights, the advance of anti-scientific discourse, the dissemination of alternative facts and fake news, harassing, discriminatory and hate speech, anti-human rights and anti-democracy discourses, the breakdown of the normative consensus on the model of truth, and the contempt for political correctness. The book also examines efforts to build a new normative consensus on the objective truth about the facts; the personal sincerity on emotions and thoughts; and the regulatory and social rectitude.The central question this study address is: How do these initiatives contribute to promoting democratic dialogue ? and, by doing so, a more democratic society -, and which are their limits? On which grounds is possible to set the hope of a kinder, more democratic, humane and egalitarian world?These questions are answered by reviewing the experiences of fact-checking organizations; investigative and data journalism as well as hybrid experiences between journalism and academy; public policies of communication; corporate and professional self-regulation; responsible political communication; critical user pedagogy; public and participatory institutions of democratic dialogue, peace, truth and human rights; and social movements. These cases are selected because they show potential and different ways of positive change.The analysis focuses in the comparison of interpretative frameworks used ? especially, the way in which they characterize the issues they address -, strategies implemented, actors that produce them, opportunities and restrictions in which they produce them, results and impacts, potentialities and limitations that these different options have to overcome the public communication problems.Latin America is an exceptionally strong place to study the problems, causes and alternative solutions of democratic communication because it has similar challenges to other parts of the world, and some of the current political leaders from right and left wing that promote disinformation, attack scientists and journalists, and disregard women, LGBTTQI and colored people ? e.g. Jair Bolsonaro in Brasil or Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua -. Latin America also has a particular history of ancient and recent genocides, civil wars and dictatorships that shape current social and political polarization; it is the more economically and socially unequal and, therefore, fragmented region of the globe (Burchardt, 2012); and, despite its civil society efforts (Segura & Waisbord, 2016), it still has the most concentrated media systems of the world (Becerra & Mastrini, 2017). Moreover, some countries have strong human rights movements that include, for example, Historias Desobedientes. Familiares de Genocidas por la Memoria, la Verdad y la Justicia in Argentina, one of the few of its type in the world; truth, memory and justice comisions such as the Colombian Comisión de la Verdad, the Guatemalan Comisión de Paz, or the ancient Argentinean Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas (CONADEP); feminists movements that has influence others in the globe such as Ni Una Menos in Argentina; and prestigious investigative and data journalism as well as fact-checking organizations, among other initiatives that contribute to democratize public communication.Besides, this book continues my longstanding interest in public communication and democracy the region (see, for example, Segura & Waisbord, 2016; Segura, 2018; Prato & Segura, 2018; Segura, 2019; Segura & Waisbord, 2019; Segura & Bizberge, 2020).This study draws theoretical and normative approaches about democratic communication from communication, sociological and political studies. This perspective help both to analyze and as a theory of change. The study brings together several academic literatures: media policy, journalism, social movements, participatory communication, deliberative politics, human rights, and social change. This integration is necessary to produce a comprehensive and nuanced approach to the study of public communication problems and alternative initiatives of solution and overcoming.The analysis is based on two sources: in-depth interviews conducted by the author with key participants of the experiences and proposals studied (NGOs, political parties, media workers? unions, social movements, cooperatives, scholars, community media) in several countries and content and semantic analysis of documents and academic writings.The book make an original approach because the contribution to the democratization of the public debate from the theoretical and normative perspective proposed here that consider ? as it is explained below - three different but complementary and articulated groups of proposals and experiences as part of the same challenge, was not yet sufficiently analyzed. The problems of current public communication are known and widely studied; and, as the below mentioned, there are some ? not many - papers that address the ways to overcome these issues, even if not all of them study these alternatives as responses to the identified matters; but I do not know any one that analyses the issues and their answers in an integral way as it is proposed here.The threatsIn addition to the old problems of public communication in Latin America, such as media systems concentration, limited access to public information, attacks to press workers, etc., today there are the massive, networked and instantaneous dissemination of fake news, alternative facts, disinformation (Tumber & Waisbord, soon; Barata, 2019) and hate speech (Lesaca, 2019); harassment through social networks (Amnesty, 2018); and polarization (Aruguete & Calvo, 2020). Besides, knowledge-producing institutions - such as science and journalism grounded on the collection and the analysis of objective and verifiable facts - are confronted by and coexists with anti-scientific discourses, alternative facts, and false or misleading news (Waisbord, 2018a). Also, reactionary discourses have continued to attack human rights in general and particularly subaltern people (lower classes, women, sexual dissidents, victims of genocides such as dictatorships, civil wars, etc.) (Segura, 2015; Waisbord, 2018b). Moreover, they have targeted political correctness as false, deceptive and hypocritical (Waisbord, 2019b). These issues are articulated. For example, alternative facts about history and fake news about the current events are usually linked to anti-scientific and anti-human rights discourses as well as to stigmatization and discrimination of vulnerable social groups.I argue that the challenges to democratic communication in Latin America are multi-faceted, and that these issues are part of a general problem. Based on Habermas (1994) theory about validity claims and normative grounds of public dialogue, they can be grouped in three types of threats to democratic communication: threats that challenge the notion of truth grounded on empirical demonstration and logical argumentation which underpin science and journalism (Waisbord, 2018a); challenges against the normative consensus on human rights and democracy; and the reactionary critique of speeches that recognize rights and criticize forms of stigmatizing ? the so-called political correctness -. It is a moment of crisis in democratic communication with no clear solutions.Collective agreement on the procedures to define the truth or on the human rights respect as ground of democratic communication is stable and durable, but it is not unchangeable. The dominant paradigm in a certain historical period and in a specific society is result of political and social struggles, and it is always challenged by alternative discourses (Angenot, 1989; Foucacult, 1992; Williams, 2000; Mozejko y Costa, 2007). Nonetheless, this situation does not necessary imply a crisis. The paradigm crisis, as the present one, occur when it is not clear which is the dominant option, and there is a tie (Gramsci, 1971), when "the old gods grow old and die, but others have not yet been born" (Durkheim, 1912).This constitutes a problem for democracy insofar as it radicalization is based on the expansion of equality and social justice, so that national and popular aspirations coincide with the affirmation of human rights, the division of powers, and political pluralism (Mouffe, 2011). From this perspective, democracy is an unfinished, inclusive, continuous and reflexive process, which demands that democratic communication enables the real participation of all social sectors for their demands and aspirations be heard and taken into account (Fraser, 2006). (Segura, 2020a) Thus, strong and free public debate is necessary to control power, articulate and express demands, claim rights, and propose policies reforms (Mata, 2002), for public presentation of different social sectors (Rancière, 1996), and for democratizing subjectivities (Tiburi, 2018).What are the chances of these deliberately misleading or false speeches, hate and discriminatory discourses being accepted based on? Why are these counter-values so widespread in our societies? Which are the levels of violence and inequality that make these discourses attractive? The rupture of the normative consensus on the definition of objective truth, personal sincerity and social rectitude is linked to extreme social, economical and cultural segregation (Waisbord, 2018a). An increasingly segregated society does not facilitate democratic, constructive and good quality debate. Therefore, these problems are particularly acute in societies, such as Latin American ones, characterized by deep historical and structural social and economic inequality (Burchardt, 2012); unemployment, dependent national economies, week welfare policies (Muñoz Diez, 1999); significant authoritarianism both in governments and society (Araujo, 2016); ?delegative democracies? (O?Donnell, 1997); and longstanding political polarization that have led to genocidal policies and human rights violations.These problems deepened in the region since 2015 with the new wave of right wing governments and the growing public presence of cultural conservative movements (Segura, 2015; Waisbord, 2018), and even more with the COVID-19 pandemic and the isolation measures implemented in almost all the countries in 2020 (Segura, 2020c; Segura & Bizberge, 2020).The alternativesVarious social actors have developed practices not only to provide different kinds of solutions to the above-mentioned problems but also to find different ways of telling fact-based truths; debate the acceptability of derogatory expressions; and extend the respect and recognition of stigmatized, invisible and subaltern people. These alternative ways of overcoming the identified matters can also be grouped in three sets which limits ? as well as those of the problems they address - are not strict nor fixed because there are relations among them. Examples include the following:Regarding the challenges to social consensus on the definition of truth: To limit misinformation, harassment and hate speech, states reform communication policies to regulate Internet intermediaries (Obervacom & others, 2019; Bizberge, 2020). Some NGOs, media journalists associations and research institutions do fact checking and data verification of public speech to unveil fake news and disinformation (Chequeado, 2004). Professional journalists make alliances of collaboration to do investigative journalism and data journalism (Amado & Tarullo, 2019) to strengthen their fact and logical bases, while others develop new forms of narrative journalism to tell stories also well documented but narrated with a more literary, subjective, close and touching style (Herrscher, 2016). Some media corporations and social network platforms self-regulate (Waisbord, 2019a). Some organizations foster critical training of social network users (Waisbord, 2019a). To promote a more popular and public approach to science to confront ant-scientific speech, academics work out on public science practices (Waisbord, 2019c), and make alliances with journalists collaborate to do more and better scientific dissemination (Melgar, Chiecher, Paoloni & other, 2019; Tumber & Waisbord, 2017); moreover, there are hybrid experiences between journalist and academic research and discourse. Most of these experiences focuses in rational responses to the challenges to objective truth grounded in facts and argumentation, but some of them explore new ways to tell it.Regarding the challenges to pro-human rights and democracy speeches: States make public policies and regulations to protect democratic debate; and, along with civil society organizations, promote public institutions of democratic dialogue, truth, peace and human rights (Díaz Pérez & Molina Valencia, 2017; Tumber & Waisbord, 2017) to foster democratic dialogue after genocides, civil wars or dictatorships. Besides, I state that social movements ? like feminists movements, human rights organizations and others - are actors that contribute to build a new normative consensus on the truth, sincerity and rectitude, because they produce and disseminate alternative concepts, values and meanings (Escobar, Alvarez & Dagnino, 2001); contribute to changing entrenched habits; influence the ways of relationship (Margulis, Urresti, Lewin & others, 2014; Botelho, 2001); perform other possible forms of community and can help to build alternative ways of living together (Mercadal, Coppari & Maccioni, 2018). They would collaborate to overcome "the narcissism of small differences" from which, according to Freud (1921) would come "the hostility that in all human relationships fight against fraternal feelings" (Aleman, 2019). Most of these strategies emphasize both rational and emotional aspects of communication and politics, oriented to built the historical truth and collective memory, and common and new democratic values and practices.Regarding the challenges to political correctness: There are social movements initiatives to expand respectful ways of expression about diverse social sectors and to avoid hate speech and harassment of racist, sexist, homophobic and discriminatory discourses in general. The alternative concepts, values and meanings that feminist and LGTTBQI movement, trade unionism, movements against racism, and others produce and disseminate interpret different issues of social life, and destabilize the predominant cultural meanings of machismo, misogyny, homophobia, heteronormativity, racism, classism. These actions foster building new consensus re-defining the limits about what is acceptable and what is not in public speech about several groups - such as women or racialized people - recognition, categorization and characterization. Moreover, diverse public actors make calls to the responsibility of political, religious, social and media leaders in the use of communication strategies. Besides, some of the above mentioned strategies also search impact to debate new ways of political correctness: states communication policies reforms to regulate Internet intermediaries; several media corporations and social network platforms self-regulations; and critical training of social network users. All these demands and proposals raise concerns about both rational and emotional dimensions of public speech and its reception.My argument is as follows: These three groups of proposals and experiences contribute in different but complementary and articulated ways to the goals of democratizing public communication, promoting democratic reasons and emotions, and building democratic people and societies. These efforts are attempts not to restore the old social consensus on truth about the facts, on human rights and democracy respect, and on political correctness, but to build a new and stronger one. Thus, these interventions contribute to democratize and strengthen public debate expanding discourses of respect, inclusiveness, rationalities, solidarity and empathy. The challenges they face are huge, but they show virtuous ways to overcome them.Communication is crucial in this political and social conflict. Communication contributes to influencing ways of perceiving reality and ways of relating to others. In this way, it becomes essential for the change (and also for the preservation) of the social order. Symbolic disputes are the political struggles per excellence and are inseparable from material struggles for domination (Bourdieu, 2000) because the struggle is to impose a certain vision on the desirable social order and build common sense (Gramsci, 1971) in central public spheres as well as in alternatives ones (Fraser, 2006).As long as it builds and transmits values and emotions, communication can contribute (or not) to build a more democratic society. To achieve it, communicative reason (Habermas, 1994) is necessary but it is not enough. It is through empathy that we can put ourselves in the shoes of others, identify with the weakest instead of stigmatizing them, develop compassion and respect instead of the aggression and fear that inevitably arise from vulnerability, and defend the common interest. It is not only with the debates of abstract and rational ideas that equality and freedom will prevail, but also with the formation of citizens through ?democratic emotions? (Nussbaum, 2011). (Segura & Prato, 2019).These initiatives to overcome public communication problems in extreme segregated and polarized societies revisited critical and tragic historical experiences in different regions of the world such as post-Nazism (Berlin, 2013; Arendt, 1963), post-communist totalitarianism or post-dictatorships.ResultsThe most complex part of the study is to identify impacts. Since not only the initiatives analyzed are different but they also appear in specific conditions, there are many variables that impact on their results. That is why the study includes cases from different countries and with different characteristics. In fact, similar experiences have different effects in different contexts. For that reason, it is necessary to investigate how, when, and why they succeeded or failed in each particular case (Segura & Waisbord, 2016). The actions analyzed are one of the conditions that may foster or restrict the possibilities of carrying out practices of democratic communication. However, they do not define them. That is why it is possible to establish strong correlations that allow to argue the probability of the incidence of a particular strategy on a certain result. Still, it is not possible to determine that such strategy was the main cause of that consequence. It is also possible to recover the perceptions and evaluations of their impact made by actors targeted by such actions. (Segura, Linares, Espada & others, 2019) This approach also allow to identify virtuous examples.What conclusions should be drawn? The alternative initiatives analyzed from the theoretical and normative approach proposed, show the following limitations and potentials:State and corporate regulations: The punitive responses by states as well as by media and platforms to deliberative misleading, false, hate and harassment speech should be limited because of their political, strategical and practical consequences. Regarding politics, freedom of expression is at the heart of democracy and is essential for the protection, expansion and defense of other rights, social, economic, political, cultural. Strategically, the prohibition or limitation may be counterproductive, because what is intended to combat is highlighted, it is enhanced and in some way the self-victimization of the hater is promoted because the perpetrators usually combine very well aggressiveness with susceptibility, and punishment has a boomerang effect: makes that violence and lies speech that were intended to silence circulate even more. Finally, in a pragmatic point of view, limiting would not be of much use, insofar as these speeches circulate very quickly on social networks and achieve high ratings in traditional media, which shows that they are expressing something that is important for a part of the audience. A part of society is adhering to anti-science, anti-human rights and hate speech, so these discourses partly promote and partly reinforce what already exists. In the state civil or criminal response and also in commercial restrictions, the principle of non-censorship should be non-negotiable. In summary, these punitive responses show enormous limitations, because hate speech is a social problem that drags the public debate towards the most elementary and rudimentary social levels. (Segura, 2020b)Self-regulation of corporations: This option finds a strong limit in the private and commercial interests of corporations, which do not usually coincide with the public interest or with a myriad of citizen interests, nor do they have as their main objective to guarantee human rights and the right to communicate. Furthermore, most of these corporations are transnational, so they have serious limitations when considering the cultural and social particularities of each regional and national population. Therefore, it is very risky to allow the advancement of private regulations without states and civil society participation in a multi-stake holders approach.Self-regulation of political, media, religious and other social leaders: this alternative finds serious restrictions on power abuses of these actors and on its interests of increasing their adhrence (rating, followers, affiliations, etc.).Answers with more and accurate information (fact-check, investigative and data journalism, etc.): Responding on social networks or traditional media to these speeches with strictly rational counter-discourses, with information based on facts and logical argumentation, can have the adverse effect of enhancing the penetration of those speeches. Furthermore, given the nature of adherence to hatred and discrimination, which is essentially emotional, they are difficult to combat rationally. This type of intervention does reinforce the adherence and arguments of those who are already convinced, and have incidence in highly informed elites such as politicians, academics and journalists in some way and specific conditions. (Segura, 2020b)Critical training of social network users: As alphabetization in reception of mass media in other historical periods taught, this strategy can be a good ally to improve the individual action of users and audiences, but it has no impact if it is not accompanied by structural and macro-level reforms of public communication.Strengthening of public debate: From the right to communicate approach, bad public speech should be fought with more and better public speech. The quality of public confrontation of ideas is promoted with growing participation of other voices and topics and when these new options are respected, legitimized, disseminated; the quality of the confrontation must be promoted. Education in the broad sense - not only formal education but informal educational instances promoted by social organizations, and also awareness campaigns from states or non-governmental organizations - contributes to this process. In this sense, participatory public institutions of communication and human rights and social movements also play a relevant role in promoting democratic reason and emotions of respect, solidarity and empathy. (Segura, 2020b)Thus, all the measures analyzed and develop by states, corporations and civil society organizations - even when they have limitations and face serious restrictions - contribute in an non-intended articulated way to democratize communication and, in doing so, societies and subjectivities. Among them, the social movements and participatory institutions of human rights, peace and truth are the more complex and the ones that have more potential not only to offer solutions to the current problems, but also to propose new social consensus. Their construction of political power with broad and ambitious alliances (Etchemendy, 2008) helps them to promote the recreation of the normative parameters to strengthen public debate.The innovative strategies to strengthen public debate implies adversarial dialogue that assume that social harmony is not easy to reach in a complex and massive society, and accept confrontation and power relations in public debate, but recognizes and respects the opponent and do not consider him/her an enemy (Mouffe, 2011). They also place the emphasis not only on data and logical argumentation of abstract ideas, but also on the construction of values, the practical experience and the mobilization of democratic emotions.Besides, if the conditions for acceptability of false, misleading, discriminatory and harassing speeches are high levels of violence and social inequality, one of the main ways to deal with them is to solve inequities and injustices and promote social integration in various areas. If the problems of public dialogue are based on structural inequalities and extreme economic, social and cultural segregation, policies to reduce these inequalities are necessary. (Segura, 2020b) Nonetheless, public debate is essential to install new public matters in social and political consideration, and to extent the limits of justice and rights definition. Therefore, it is required to solve structural matters, too. To change, material conditions, subjects actions and the relation between both of these dimensions should be considered (Costa, 1997).Which theoretical lessons should be drawn? At the theoretical level, the book discusses the centrality of power relations and agonistic disputes; the relation between reason and emotions to build strong democracies; the difficult balance between relativism and universalism; the relevance of the historical review; the difference between hope and optimism (Eagleton, 2015); the relevance, not only of structural and material conditions of life, but also of symbolic dispute and political organization. This book aim to contribute to a theory of the communication necessary in current democracies in extreme segregated and polarized societies.By addressing these questions, the book makes central contributions that should be of interest to scholars and activists interested in communication, social problems, policy and democracy.ACEPTADO CON REVISIONES, EN PREPARACIÓN. ISBN REAL, PENDIENTE