Theme (english version)

Anthropocene, classification, and environment: perspectives
from mediatization
(Call for Papers for the 6th Seminar – 2024 – UFSM-USP)

The VI Seminar on Mediatization continues the founding proposal of the project:
interlocutions between north and south perspectives based on axes that allow not only
observations of phenomena that are on the social and academic agenda, but also comparison and
agonism between different perspectives on them.
In the five seminars held, the nearly three dozen conferences and around 600
communications presented in the Working Groups reveal a research lineage that is distributed
among perspectives that can be “mapped”: from the South, semio-anthropological,
philosophical – sociological and anthropological -, pragmatism and interactionism; from the
North, constructivists, institutionalists and socio-symbolic. This diversity also seeks to
understand cultural, economic, political, and technological matrices, often in interface with
mediation theories (Compós Book 2012) and cyberculture. Specifically, communicational
issues are transversal, sometimes accentuated (Braga, 2017; Ferrara, 2016).
In this VI Seminar, a special interface will be with the theories of mediation, which ECA
USP – where the conference tables and face-to-face debates will take place – is one of its
references in Brazil, Latin America, and the world. It converges with the premise that
transformations on the planet demarcate, in their environmental aspect, a direct correlation with
the sociocultural and geopolitical environments of all regions of the world. Furthermore,
thinking about the world from a Latin American, Brazilian, perspective becomes challenging,
given the hegemonic strains of theoretical-methodological formulations of non-hegemonic
contexts located in the Global South hemisphere, as is the case in Brazil.
Within this complexity, mediatization accentuates how socially available communicative
media are directed by institutions, structures, and actors, configuring new circuits and
interactions (Braga, 2012) in socially constructed environments (Gomes, 2017; Hepp; Couldry,
2017). Communicative media (which cannot be confused with technologies, even when
institutionalized) are thought as part of the mediatization process, reconfiguring themselves as
media (of society and nature) in different senses, not necessarily civil – Sodré, 2021).
Simultaneously, the analysis of technology is relevant when problematized – for instance, as
done in the V Seminar, held at UFSM, for understanding the functioning of algorithms, AI, and
platforms, in search of inferences that situate it not as a thing in itself, by social uses (Goran,
2018; Miege, 2018), but as part of a production and reception process (circulation – according
to epistemologies inaugurated by Verón, in updates with Fausto Neto, 2008; Carlon, 2020; and
Rosa, 2019 e Ferreira, 2018, 2020a, 2020b, 2022).
In the five previous editions, especially in the Working Groups, the bibliographic
production also registers the construction of interfaces between these different epistemological
and methodological approaches, specifying in the empirical objects under analysis, which
accentuates the productivity of the proposal in terms of collective elaboration of knowledge.
Self-reflexively, it was also of note that the epistemological and methodological interlocutions
in this lineage diversity are still being produced – close but still far from the objectified point of
intended “parity” in the use of epistemological and methodological operators between North
and South. The VI Seminar will innovate, in it is way of organizing Debate Panels and Working
Groups, mechanisms to strengthen approximations to this general objective of the Project.

A broad proposition
The debate around the concept of mediatization has allowed confirming it is contribution to
the understanding of contemporary social processes, even when in interface with other parallel
concepts brought from the field of communication or another language or social theories,
including the demand to a scientific production that considers the continuous review of its
theoretical and methodological foundations. This review points to the need for a scientific
production that – connected with a productive network – goes beyond the previous focuses of
research groups centered in hegemonic territories. In confrontation with the sociocultural
instability in mediatization, scientific production requires the comparison between global
environmental territories that must be understood in the constant production of their differences.
Considering the convergence of the points selected for this edition, it is important to point
out that the Seminar on Mediatization and Social Processes considers the instability of science,
which accompanying the contemporary technological and sociocultural evolution and requires
a production attentive to the epistemological parameters that, in a closer heuristic review rather
than applicative, requests updating of it is central concept, as well as the empirical verification
of it is dynamics.
*
The VI International Seminar on Mediatization will focus on three thematic axes to think
about in terms of communication from the perspective of mediatization: Anthropocene, Social
Classifications, and Environment. These three axes, guiding the call for papers, range from
approaches originating in anthropology to those related to the technological characterizations
that demarcate contemporary capitalist societies.
In the context of the broader reflections developed below, which we hope will stimulate
new perspectives and deeper reflections and ongoing research in the area, we also forward sets
of questions related to each of the three axes, such as heuristic scoring – sets that can be further
developed by correlated or complementary questions assumed by the participants when
submitting their texts to the event.
In the focus of this responsibility, it is necessary to consider that communication assumes
new dimensions, going far beyond the simple transmission of information. It is imperative to
observe the cultural vector that informs beyond the technological base of economic/market
ancestry, as it involves a dimension of social and communicative inclusion/exclusion.

“Anthropocene” Axis
After medieval theocentrism and modern/postmodern anthropocentrism, the multiple
transformations that are taking place in the contemporary era call into question not only the
human actions (debates about the Anthropocene) but also their characteristics and limits (nonanthropocentric debates), in other words, the connections with nature.
Until recently, we could think of the human as something stable in opposition to nature
(from which Sapiens differed thousands of years ago) and automated mediatization (not only
the recent algorithmic one but also the one that since the industrial revolution has generated
technical devices such as photography).
These limits are under discussion today due to advances in algorithmic automation, which
increasingly dominates language and the meaning production, and evolutionary theories in the
social sciences field which make it possible to overcome ideas about transcendence in social,
cultural, and philosophical life.
There is an epistemic revolution that shakes theories, norms, and social perceptions, just as
identity agendas have been doing for some years now.
These developments not only make definitions of the human and the social unstable but also
affect theories and research on mediatization – opening up questions of debate for these theories
and research on mediatization:
1. What hypothesis on human communication are stimulated by the Anthropocene
perspective, relating anthropological traditions and non-anthropocentric heuristics?
2. How does non-anthropocentrism affect perspectives and investigation on mediatization?
3. Which directions do characterize it? Is anthropocentrism transversal to contemporary
culture? Which diversities are skewed by specific cosmologies (west, east, north, and
south)?
4. Which areas of society are affected by non-anthropocentric thinking?
5. Is non-anthropocentrism able to establish a new polarization in social life?
6. Which mutual incidences does the Anthropocene perspective propose between nature,
social technologies, and human communication?
7. Which challenges do appear to the human species in its communicational construction
of the social reality, given the awareness of the strains between technology and nature?

“Classification” Axis
The human being is a classifying animal, wrote Claude Lévi-Struass in La Pensée
Sauvage (1962). In fact, classification is at the root of many human activities in social life,
producing distinctions, differences, etc. Nowadays, classification is conducted mainly in
algorithmic processes, through computational procedures, and controlled by large platform
companies. In the contemporary, dataficated society, classifications and ordering mechanisms
are fed by metrics produced by the social subject in motion in the digital space.
In Brazil, in particular, but in a way that is at the origin of the Western project, historically
and conjuncturally, the question of racism has also been investigated considering social
classifications. Here, the proposition that the medium coupled to a technical device can “become
an existential ambiance” (SODRÉ, 2002, p. 24), from the perspective of afro-media circuits
(CAMPOS, 2023), at the same time that circulation configures itself a black public sphere, that
is, the deterritorialization of the African diaspora. In this environment, the transference of
cultural and political forms and structures of feelings is observed, supported by political
discourses of resistance, citizenship, racial justice, and equality (GILROY, 2001). These circuits
also maintain permanent strain on the capitalist public sphere because “everywhere, subvert and
translate, negotiate and assimilate the global cultural assault on the weakest cultures” (p. 45).
Thus, the reflection on the classifications underlying algorithms and platforms must be
considered through circulation, which includes the reception and constitution of circuits –
making the understanding according to the concepts of mediatization more pertinent.
Such processes evoke a series of questions:
1. How do classification processes in the dataficated society relate to mediatization
processes?
2. Which are the forms of value that accompany classification? When is the classification
performed for the common good? To what extent is the common lacerated by
classifications?
3. How did the classification mechanisms and processes develop historically, and how can
these developments be related to the contemporary classifying praxis?
4. What is the role of humans and technologies, respectively, in the algorithmic bias?
6
5. Which are the biases in the algorithmic classification in various applications and
protocols?
6. How do the media users perceive the metric environment in the digital space, and which
possible strategies and tactics are developed to manage the classification bias?
7. Which responsibility must be attributed to platform managers and owners to combat the
negative classification bias?
8. Which regulations and policies do encompass the classification systems, and which
regulamentations and policies must surround them?

“Environment” Axis
The Anthropocene is the geological epoch in which we live, a term coined in a famous
article (CRUTZER; STOEMER, 2000) published at the beginning of the new millennium. It is
a marker that humanity has become an over-determining force concerning nature. Thus, nature
as we understood it – a space hostile to human action – disappeared precisely because it is
subject to culture, economy, and politics. But there is a kind of paradox here since it is from the
realization of the potentially catastrophic environmental crisis, the threat to our ways of life or
even our physical survival as a species, that we reflexively assume the hypertrophy of human
action under the name Anthropocene.
Environmentalist discourses, diffracted into three main currents and their subvariants
(PRATES, 2020), are the symptom manifestations that emerge from the uneasiness generated
by this crisis and seek to endow it retroactively with meanings. These are currents, namely: deep
environmentalism (whose nodal points it shares with mythical-religious discourse); radical
environmentalism (in sharing with political discourse, based on emancipatory and revolutionary
traditions); reformist environmentalism (which in turn establishes interdiscursive relations with
the liberal-capitalist discourse). The latter became an hegemonic expression, nourishing from
the power of semiotic production and reproduction machines of capitalism. It is the so-called
“sustainable development,” involving the action of companies and civil society agents to face
social problems and reduce environmental destruction.
In the neo-liberal perspective, as they express the tastes of the public, cultural products and
contents become increasingly sensitive to “green issues” (Boykoff, 2011) in their multiple
pieces of evidence, such as the production of content that criticizes the harmful effects of
corporations and military activities on the planet. |Some films about monster mutations caused
by a non-environmentally friendly humanity policy can be taken as an example, here (Debus,
2022). In fact, we can see how public “sensitivity” encourages media platforms to classify and
organize any digital content based on environmental impact: we all become very aware of
information about CO2 emissions when we take Uber or buy a ticket by train.
When we are making our choice of “green” content, we do not realize that such
“environmentalization” of contemporary media is not only (or even is not) an ecological
philosophy of media companies but essentially the commercial strategy oriented towards
audience maximization (and maximization of advertising revenue or paywall). As we can see,
the contemporary entertainment industries, which promote an ecologically correct “green”
agenda, are, at the same time, one of the reasons for the contemporaneous anthropocentric
exploration of nature. This axis calls for works that, in this mediatized environment of
capitalism, can build interpellations for the construction, disregard, or motivated criticism of
such sustainability discourses, preferably with concrete studies in networks and social worlds.
During this event, we propose to approach this dialectical nature of contemporary media
and entertainment industries, addressing the following questions:
1. What industrial strategies do the modern media use to exploit the “green” agenda?
2. How do the statements of these discourses place themselves to locate the scope of
polemical stances that struggle for the environmental meanings?
3. How do hegemonic and alternative media actuate in those discourse circulation? How
do they approach the alterity of statements that criticize capitalism? What do they
propose? How does the circulation of polemical issues take place on social media? How
do digital media and platforms contribute to fostering irresponsible eco-populism? How
do the media promote sustainable, green, and ecologically-right ideologies? How can an
ecological social media or sharing platform really exist?
4. How does the facing of life potencies with biopolitics and necropolitics in this context
of disputes happen?
5. What kind of actually sustainable media model could be considered as an alternative to
the current capitalist system?
6. How can countries from the Global South oppose the current global division of the
digital work that leads them to ecologically-dirty practices?

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORK IN MEDIATISATION AND SOCIAL PROCESSES
JAIRO GETULIO FERREIRA – UFSM – COORDENAÇÃO GERAL
JOSE LUIZ BRAGA – UFG – COORDENAÇÃO COMITÊ CIENTÍFICO
ADA CRISTINA MACHADO SILVEIRA – UFSM – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
VIVIANE BORELLI – UFSM – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
ALINE ROES DALMOLIN – UFSM – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
FLAVI FERREIRA LISBOA FILHO – UFSM – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
ENEUS TRINDADE BARRETO FILHO – USP – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
ANA PAULA DA ROSA – UNISINOS – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
ISABEL LOFGREN – SÖDERTÖRNS HÖGSKOLA – SUÉCIA – COMISSÃO DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
ANTONIO FAUSTO NETO – UNISINOS
BENOIT LAFONT – UNIVERSITÉ GRENOBLE ALPES – GRESEC
BERNARD MIEGE – UNIVERSITÉ GRENOBLE ASPES – GRESEC – FRANÇA
DEIVISON MOACIR CEZAR DE CAMPOS – PUC-RS
DEMETRIO DE AZEREDO SOSTER – UFS
DINIS FERREIRA CORTES – MIDIATICOM – EDITOR GERAL
GORAN BOLIN – ESTRANGEIRO SÖDERTÖRNS – SUÉCIA
HEIKE GRAF – SÖDERTÖRNS HÖGSKOLA – SUÉCIA
ILYA KYRIA -NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVESITY – RUSSIA
IRENE GINDIN UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE ROSÁRIO – ARGENTINA
JOÃO DAMÁSIO – UFU
JOSE LUIZ AIDAR PRADO – PUC-SP
LORREINE BEATRICE PETTERS – UNIVERSITÉ GRENOBLE ALPES – GRESEC – FRANÇA
LUCRECIA D ALESIO FERRARA – PUC-SP
LUIS MAURO SÁ MARTINO – UFMG
LUIZ ANTONIO SIGNATES FREITAS – UFG
MARIO CARLON – UBA – ARGENTINA
MIHAELA ALEXANDRA TUDOR – UNIVERSITÉ PAUL VALÉRY
NATALIA RAIMONDO ANSELMINO – UNR – ARGENTINA
PATRICIA SALDANHA – UFF
PAULA DE SOUZA PAES – UFPB
PEDRO GILBERTO GOMES – UNISINOS
RICARDO ZIMMERMANN FIEGENBAUM – UFPEL
STEFAN BRATOSIN – UNIVERSITÉ PAUL VALÉRY MONTPELLIER 3 – FRANÇA
TIAGO QUIROGA – UNB

REFERENCES
ANSELMINO, Raimondo Natalia. Colectivos, circulación de discursos sociales y movilización
ciudadana: el caso #RosarioSangra. In: FERREIRA, Jairo; FAUSTO NETO, Antonio;
GOMES, Pedro Gilberto; BRAGA, J. L.; ROSA, A. P. (Org.). Midiatização, polarização
e intolerância: entre ambientes, meios e circulações. santa Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2020,
v. 1, p. 123-147.
BOLIN, Göran. Análise Geracional e mudança social midiatizada. In: FERREIRA, Jairo; ROSA, Ana
Paula; BRAGA, José Luiz; FAUSTO NETO, Antônio; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto. (Org.). Entre
o que se diz e o que se pensa: onde está a midiatização? Santa Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2018., v.
1, 67-81.
BOLTANSKI, L.;, CHIAPELLO, E. (2018). The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso, 2018.
BORELLI, V., & Kroth, M. E. Circulação e construção de circuitos: a dinâmica do rádio. ECompós, 2020.
BOYKOFF, M.. Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
BRAGA, J. L. Dispositivos Interacionais. In: BRAGA, J. L.;, RABELO, L.;, MACHADO, M.;,
ZUCOLO, R.;, BENEVIDES, P.;, XAVIER, M. P.;, CALAZANS, R.;, CASALI, C.;, MELO,
P. R.;, MEDEIROS, A. L.;, KLEIN, E.;, and PARES, A. D. Matrizes interacionais: a
comunicação constrói a sociedade [online]. Campina Grande: EDUEPB, 2017., pp. 16-41.
(Paradigmas da Comunicação) collection. ISBN: 978-85-7879-572-6.
CAMPOS, Deivison M. C. Entre tradição e contramodernidade: proposta de um modelo para
investigação do atravessamento da circulação midiática e da circularidade afro na diáspora. In:.
MACHADO, Juremir M. da. Silva eEt .al. Redes de Pesquisa: Comunicação em perspectiva.
Porto Alegre:, Sulina,: 2023.
CARLON, Mario. Individuos, colectivos y polarización en la inestable situación generada por la
mediatización y circulación contemporánea del sentido. In: FERREIRA, Jairo; FAUSTO NETO,
Antonio (Org.) ; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto (Org.) ; BRAGA, J. L. (Org.) ; ROSA, A. P. (Org.) .
Midiatização, polarização e intolerância (entre ambientes, meios e circulações). 1. ed. Santa
Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2020. pP. 249-274.
COULDRY, N.; e HEPP, A. The mMediatied construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017.
CRUTZEN, P.; STOEMER, E. F. The Anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter, n. 41, p. 17-18, 2000.
DALMOLIN, Aline e ROSA, Francys Albrecht. Midiatização das Sociedades Pós-Industriais:
os Efeitos Transformadores da Cultura da Mídia1 Comun. & Inf., Goiânia, GO, v. 24,
p. 1-15, 2021
DEBUS, A. Kong, Godzilla and the Living Earth: Gaian Environmentalism in Daikaiju Cinema.,
Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2022.
FAUSTO NETO, A.Fragmentos de uma «analítica» da midiatização. MATRIZes, 1(2), 89-105 (2008)
FERRARA, L. Entre meios. O lugar da midiatização. In: FERREIRA, Jairo; FAUSTO NETO,
Antonio; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto; BRAGA, J. L.; ROSA, A. P. (Org.). Midiatização,
polarização e intolerância: entre ambientes, meios e circulações. santa Maria: FACOSUFSM, 2020, v. 1, p. 275-295.
FERREIRA, Jairo; Rosa, Ana Paula (Org.) ; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto (Org.) ; FAUSTO NETO, Antonio
(Org.) ; BRAGA, J. L. (Org.) . Mediatized Sapiens – Communicational Knowledge in the
Constitution of the Species. 1. ed. SANTA MARIA: UFSM, 2022. v. 1. 318p .
FERREIRA, Jairo; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto (Org.) ; FAUSTO NETO, Antonio (Org.) ; BRAGA, J. L.
(Org.) ; Rosa, Ana Paula (Org.) . Networks, society, and polis: epistemological approaches on
mediatization. 1. ed. SANTA MARIA: FACOS-UFSM, 2020. v. 1. 302p .
FERREIRA, Jairo; FAUSTO NETO, Antonio (Org.) ; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto (Org.) ; BRAGA, J. L.
(Org.) ; ROSA, A. P. (Org.) . MEDIATIZATION, POLARIZATION AND INTOLERANCE
(BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTS, MEANS AND CIRCULATIONS). 1. ed. SANTA MARIA:
FACOS-UFSM, 2020. v. 1. 340p .
FERREIRA, Jairo; BRAGA, J. L. (Org.) ; FAUSTO NETO, Antonio (Org.) ; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto
(Org.) ; Rosa, Ana Paula (Org.) . BETWEEN WHAT WE SAY AND WHAT WE THINK:
WHERE IS MEDIATIZATION?. 1. ed. SANTA MARIA: FACOS, 2019. v. 1. 388p .
FRIGO, Diosana, ROMERO, Luan, Borelli, Viviane. #EleNão e eleições brasileiras de 2018: a
circulação de sentidos em grupos de mulheres no Facebook. Chasqui. Revista
Latinoamericana de Comunicación N.º 148, diciembre 2021 – marzo 2022 (Sección
Monográfico, pp. 89-106)
FRIGO, Diosana;, ROMERO, Luan;, BORELLI, Viviane. #EleNão e eleições brasileiras de 2018: a
circulação de sentidos em grupos de mulheres no Facebook. Chasqui:. Revista Latinoamericana
de Comunicación, n. N.º 148, p. 89-106, dic.iembre 2021 -– mar.zo 2022 (Sección Monográfico,
pp. 89-106).
FUCHS, C. Social media :. A critical introduction. 2.nd edition. London: Sage, 2017.
GARNHAM, N. (1990). Capitalism and communication: global culture and the economics of
information., London: Sage, 1990.
GILROY, Paul. O Atlântico Negro:. Modernidade e dupla consciência. São Paulo: Ed. 34. 2001.
GOMES, P. G.. Dos Meios à Midiatização. Um conceito em evolução – From Midia to midiatization.
An evolving concept. 1. ed. São Leopoldo: Editora Unisinos, 2017. v. 1. 184p
HALL, Stuart. Da diáspora:. Identidades e mediações culturais. Belo Horizonte: Ed. UFMG, 2003.
KIRIYA, Ilya. A dimensão industrial da midiatização: investigação do ponto de vista das indústrias
culturais. In: FERREIRA, J.; GOMES, P. G.; FAUSTO NETO, A; BRAGA, J. L.; ROSA, A. P.
(Org.). Redes, sociedade e polis: recortes epistemológicos na midiatização. Ssanta Maria:
FACOS-UFSM, 2020., v. 1, p. 83-93.
KIRIYA, Ilya. A dimensão industrial da midiatização: investigação do ponto de vista das
indústrias culturais. In: FERREIRA, J; GOMES, P. G.; FAUSTO NETO, A; BRAGA,
J.L.; ROSA, A.P. (Org.). Redes, sociedade e polis: recortes epistemológicos na
midiatização. santa Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2020, v. 1, p. 83-93.
LEMOS, André. Contemporaneidad, cibercultura y dataficación de la vida social. ¡Para un
modo de existencia de la comunicación! In: Indagación sobre lo contemporáneo en/desde
América Latina, I., 2021, Buenos Aires. Seminário.
MARTÍN-BARBERO,. Jesús. Dos meios às mMediações:. cComunicação, Ccultura e hegemonia. Rio
de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2001.
MIÈGE, Bernard. Para uma atualização da abordagem da mediatização das ações
infocomunicacionais. In: FERREIRA, Jairo; ROSA, Ana Paula; BRAGA, José Luiz;
FAUSTO NETO, Antônio; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto. (Org.). Entre o que se diz e o que
se pensa: onde está a midiatização? Santa Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2018, v. 1, p. 39-62.
MOROZOV, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, New
York: Public Affairs, 2013.
PEREZ, Clotilde. E.; & TRINDADE, Eneus. Mediações; p Perspectivas pPlurais. Barueri: Eestação
das Cores e Letras, .2020.
PRADO, J. L. A.; PRATES, V. Sintoma e fantasia no capitalismo comunicacional. São Paulo: Estação
das Letras e Cores, 2017.
PRATES, V. Um mapa da ideologia no Antropoceno. São Paulo: Estação das Letras e Cores, 2020.
QUIROGA, Tiago. Midiatização e virtualidade nas ciências humanas: uma encruzilhada
anunciada. In: FERREIRA, Jairo; FAUSTO NETO, Antonio; GOMES, Pedro Gilberto;
BRAGA, J. L.; ROSA, A. P. (Org.). Midiatização, polarização e intolerância: entre
ambientes, meios e circulações. Santa Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2020, v. 1, p. 53-76.
ROSA, A. P. Imagens que pairam: A fantasmagoria das imagens em circulação. Revista FAMECOS, 26(2), 2019.
SILVEIRA, A. C. M. Vigiar os vigilantes: analítica da midiatização e da noticiabilidade (Ferreira & ali,
2020). In: FERREIRA, J.; GOMES, P. G.; FAUSTO NETO, A; BRAGA, J. L.; ROSA, A. P.
(Org.). Midiatização, polarização e intolerância (entre ambientes, meios e circulações). Santa
Maria: FACOS-UFSM, 2020., v. 1, p. 167-186.
.SMYTHE, D. Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism., Canadian Jjournal of Ppolitical and
Ssocial Ttheory, v. 1, n. (3), 1997.
SODRÉ, Muniz. A sociedade incivil: mídia, liberalismo e finanças. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2021.
TRINDADE, E; FERNANDES, M. L; LACERDA, J. (Org.s). Entre cComunicação e mediações: visões
teóricas e empíricas.1 ed. São Paulo e Campina Grande: ECA/USP e EDUEPB, 2019., v. 1.
VERÓN, Eliseo “El living y sus dobles. Arquitecturas de la pantalla chica”. Buenos Aires: Norma. (2001
[1984]).
VERÓN, Eliseo. La semiosis social, 2. Ideas, momentos, interpretantes . Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Planeta, 2013.