Just so you can’t say I didn’t mention the clouds 109 sive premise that social processes mirror ecological processes, as Maxwell and Miller (2012) warn. Fortunately, Kannengiesser and McCurdy (2021) point out that this theoretical gap is being filled by a set of eco-critical perspectives within media studies. The authors suggest that researchers acknowledge planetary material and natural processes as a fundamental aspect of medi- atization processes, to understand how social, cultural, and media transformations are intertwined with planetary issues. They exemplify this with the impact of climate change on society and the impact of media environments, and their materialities, on the planet and its consequences (p. 920). There is, therefore, a vast field to be developed from a socio-technical-environmental perspective, where the material dimensions of mediatization and their social and cultural implications can be considered. Significant materialist-leaning perspectives generally address the material externalities, such as the integrated resources dedicated to media technologies; the necessary energy not only to the production of media devices, but also to processes of appropriation and visibility of the media, and the perspective of the media residues, like the electronic waste generated by the huge accumulation and disposability of devices and communicational infrastructures (Maxwell andMiller, 2012). These perspectives, in general, deal with the material exteriorities of equipment, devices and the industrial footprint of the technological media complex, which, in this case, are connected to ecological issues, such as harm reduction, electronic waste, and energy use (Maxwell and Miller, 2012). Gabrys (2015) suggests analyzing digital materialities and their infrastructures in a processual manner, rather than merely as an inherent property or residual substrate of media. Her proposal is to bridge the gap between what is mediated and its material realities, considering the socio-environmental impacts. This view of materiality as a process, not just as edi- fices, institutions, products, or technologies, aligns with Krotz’s (2007) conceptualization. It allows us to see the “environments” as “media-environments”, where material elements – both tech- nological and natural – have profound implications for the generation and circulation of meanings.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz