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

André Lemos 88 cape, a priori , from structural (GIDDENS, 1999) or interactionist (GOFFMAN, 1975) analyzes. The key to understanding these four principles is in the concepts of radical empiricism (HUME, 2003; JAMES, 1912), mediation (LATOUR, 2005; CALLON, 2006; LAW, 1992), disposi- tif (FOUCAULT, 2000), synthetic situation (KNORR -CETINA, 2013), agency (DELEUZE, GUATTARI, 1995; DE LANDA, 2006), and agency realism (BARAD, 2007). To group these terms under a single denomination, I will adopt the term radical mediation , proposed by Richard Grusin based on W. James’s idea of radical empiricism. As the author explains: I argue that, although the media and media tech- nologies have operated and continue to operate epistemologically as modes of knowledge produc- tion, they also function technically, bodily, and ma- terially to generate and modulate individual and collective affects or structures of feeling in the agencement of humans and nonhumans (GRUSIN, 2015b, p. 125). The radical adjective allows us to speak of mediation involving humans and non-humans, putting, therefore, the hy- brid and materialistic dimension in its understanding. Every communication process results from this radical mediation, un- derstood here as associative, non-essentialist/pragmatic, mate- rial, and non-anthropocentric, moving us away from the thought of mediation as emerging only from intersubjective relations. The concept of radical mediation goes beyond the idea of media- tion as proposed by mediatization studies developed by Couldry (2008), Hjarvard (2014, 2015), among others. I have discussed, in another work (LEMOS, 2019, in press), the idea of ​mediation, indicating that, for pragmatic so- ciologies, it absorbs human and non-human actions, valuing the materiality of objects involved in socio-communication process- es. Calling this mediation radical now, we can say that it is the principle of communication processes: the rupture of isolation, semiotic exchanges in intertwining, “being-as-other” (LATOUR, 2012), including the objects in the equation. At that time, he stat- ed that we would need to move forward and think about com-