Mediatization, polarization, and intolerance (between environments, media, and circulation)

Collectives, circulation of social discourses, and citizen mobilization: the case of #RosarioSangra 119 occurs, as well as how media platforms (FERNÁNDEZ, 2018a) participate in the configuration and circulation of the public- political in hypermediatized societies (CARLÓN, 2019), such as ours. The choice to study a single case supposed, by the way, “a research design oriented to the analysis of the relationships between many properties concentrated in a single unit [seek- ing] […] an intense analysis of its meanings to understand it in its specificity rather than look for generalizations” (ARCH - ENTI, 2018, p. 291-292). More precisely, it was a case study of an instrumental nature, to recover one of the several typolo- gies with which the investigative strategy is usually classified, insofar as the case is accomplished, as has been said, “the role of mediation for the understanding of a phenomenon that tran- scends it” (ARCHENTI, 2018, p. 296). To study this complex social phenomenon, we decided to articulate the tasks of the analysis of social discourses pro- vided by the Veronian socio-semiotic (VERÓN, 1987) on several textual packages, with qualitative data collection 6 techniques that conveyed the approach to the perspectives of certain lead- ing actors, as well as the use of computational methods that made it possible to obtain, systematize, visualize and manage a large amount of data and metadata from Facebook and Twitter platforms. All this is based on the fact that as Archenti (2018) explains, in studies concentrated on a single case and “given that the objective is to address a complex phenomenon holistically, the researcher approaches the case through different methods of research or methodological triangulation” (p. 293). In what follows in this writing, we begin by describing the case in question, and, then, give way to some of the infer- ences that emerge from the mentioned research. ular or habitual characteristics in the development of something’” (RAIMONDO; REVIGLIO, 2017, p. 3). 6 An allusion is made here to in-depth interviews carried out on an ad hoc ba- sis to retrieve the testimonies of the actors who convened the first march. The analysis of the discourses, thus, recovered allowed the outlining of family pro- files, as central figures of the collective action studied, to understand the dif - ferent modes of participation during and after the mobilizations. The findings produced from the interviews are unpublished at the time of publication of this article and have been summarized in Reviglio and Castro Rojas (in press).