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

Andreas Hepp 30 processes, by considering digital media and their infrastructures as the central instrument for “solving” societal problems, the pro- cess of deep mediatization is promoted in all its dynamics. Based on its institutionalist and social-constructivist traditions, previ- ous mediatization research has been interested above all in two types of actors when it has discussed such questions of “making”. These were, on the one hand, the different actors operating inme- dia environments themselves – media professionals, journalists – and on the other hand, people acting in different social domains (political institutions, religious institutions, educational institu- tions etcetera) who are confronted with the increasing influence of digital media and their infrastructures. But it is precisely the far-reaching character of the deep mediatization that makes a broader perspective on its “making” necessary. As digital media and their infrastructures have be- come a basis for economic practices and production practices in general, one argument at this point is to consider a new way of understanding the political economy of digital capitalism (MUR- DOCH, 2017). Another important point is to focus on the fact that new “intermediaries” have to be included in our considerations if we truly want to grasp the “making” of deep mediatization (HEPP, 2020, p. 30-40): Various collectives – social movements, think tanks, pioneer communities – are oriented towards “acting on media” and thus become a fundamental part of the “making” of deep mediatization. In essence, the phrase “acting on media” emphasizes the fact that “awide range of actors [...] take an active part in the moulding of media organizations, infrastructures and technologies that are part of the fabric of everyday life” (KAN- NENGIEßER; KUBITSCHKO, 2017, p. 1). It leans toward thinking about ‘media as practice’ more broadly than originally intended. In his original intervention on the issue of practice, Nick Couldry (2004, p. 117) was concerned with describing media practice “as the open set of practices relating to, or oriented around, me- dia.” His focus was mainly on understanding communication with media as a practice. The expression “acting on media” now travels alternative avenues, thus broadening its scope as media become so fundamental in today’s deeply mediatized societies – as institutions and as materialities – and as they increasingly come to represent an object of social struggle.