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

Tiago Quiroga 52 production of knowledge inevitably marked by the entry of time as an absolute agent of change (KOSELLECK, 2006). From the point of view of the humanities, the event would not be small; on the contrary, the advent of a passing time would allow the emer- gence of the principle of self-determination (RENAUT, 2001), based essentially on the recognition of the difference produced by immanence in time. It is the epistemological role exercised by the present time, especially in the field of human sciences. From its dissemination, there is the emergence of knowledge whose otherness would come from the practical idea of f​ reedom as a power of choice - that is, autonomy as what “demands in me the definition of a part of the common, irreducible humanity to the affirmation of my singularity [...] and to which my singularity must submit” (ibid., p. 18). From this advent, we moved to epis- temological practices marked not only by the record of a past that would continue to exercise its resonances, or even by the alterities of a coming to be that, uncertain or unknown, would necessarily be in the condition of what it was not yet (GIL, 2003), but, above all, the practical constitution of knowledge based on the ideal of the present time as a difference. However, much of the dialectical strain between knowl- edge production and social form (OUELLET; MARTIN, 2018) was guided by the protagonism of the present time. Thinking in terms of Habermas (2015), it would be among the gains of the so-called cultural modernization and would have guided a signifi - cant part of the human sciences in their various forms of criticism - empirical, normative, and aesthetic - to the process of commodi- fication and bureaucratization of money and power which, indif- ferent to the problem of communicative understanding, would produce the rarefaction of bonds of solidarity. For the author, such a protagonism would profane traditions and respond, “for cul- tural changes, for changes in motivation and attitudes, for shifts in valuation and identity patterns, attributed to an outbreak of cultural innovations in the world of life” (p. 84). In summary, the present time would be an emancipatory event, responsible for the advances of modern democracy, as well as the political idea of ​an expanded public sphere, acquisitions of the most important, in- herited from cultural modernization, largely due to the intertwin- ing of intellectual activity to a type of transformative social action.