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

Mario Carlón 244 that this technological convergence does not imply homogenization, but quite the opposite: it will pro- duce a growing diversity of modes of use. Growing convergence in production, growing divergence in reception: the distinction between production and recognition is now more necessary than ever (VERÓN, 2009, p. 300-301). In this development, the “central element of the ongo- ing evolution is that the programming of consumption passes from production to reception : in the audiovisual sector of mediatization, it is a radically new phenomenon” (ibid., p. 301). This process has exploded in our contemporaneity and is one of its defining fea - tures. Since then, the successful audiovisual “ new media ”, that is, platforms like Netflix can be an unprecedented articulation of el - ements characteristic of the 20th century (cinematographic lan- guage; subscription-based business model, such as graphic media and cable; home consumption such as television, video-recorder, and cable TV) and other novelties (digital interface, personalized recommendation by algorithms, promotion narratives of the in- stitution and the “ transmedia ” series), but the important thing is that they became what they are because they started from the new logic, based on the programming of consumption , which, in a certain sense, is the abandonment of the media from its claim to program social life and the triumph of divergence. In short: it is difficult to deny the thesis that the com - bination of greater complexity in mediatization and circula- tion generates, in our contemporaneity, broad divergence and fragmentation. But the theme of this Symposium forces us to face this scenario from another angle, that of polarization. The question that we ask ourselves, from our point of view, is ap- proximately the following: how can it be that in an era in which there is even broad divergence, one of the most characteristic phenomena is, nation by nation, polarization, that is, agglutina- tions in two great poles of social collectives of massive reach? So, aren’t Verón’s theses correct? And is our analysis of contempora- neity inspired by him wrong? Is that what is happening?