On hypermediatization as a process and hypermediatized societies as an outcome 271 tized society different? Should hypermediatization be considered a process or a meta-process, according to the distinction made by Friedrich Krotz? Can hypermediatization define a his- torical moment? Can it generate a specific type of society? In this text, we will try to establish some clarifications on the terms “hypermediatization” and “hypermediatized soci- ety,” about which we have been writing for some years because “Hypermediatization” appears as a topic in the title of the docu- ment that convened the Lecture. The operation seems timely at a time when these notions seem to be concentrating the attention of many researchers.”3 In the first part, we will address mediatization mainly from the difference between process and outcome that, according to our interpretation, can be read in the texts of Eliseo Verón and the distinction between “process” and “meta-process” proposed by Friedrich Krotz (2022; 2017). We will also refer to the work of Göran Bolin (2020), who has suggested a model of analysis of generations based on the study of mediatization as a process. In the second part, we will continue with the task of answering the distinction that can be established between pro- cess and outcome, and we will concentrate on the specificities presented by the notions of hypermediatization and hyperme- diatized society. From the framework of the founding current of studies on mediatization established by Eliseo Verón, which, 3 In the text “Presentation. Mediatization, the long journey of a concept” of the Mediatizaciones volume of the deSignis Journal No. 37 of the Latin American Fed- eration of Semiotics, edited by Guillermo Olivera and Andreas Hepp (with the collaboration of Lucrecia Escudero Chauvel, Susan Benz, and Heiko Kirschner) states that the current situation is: “Deep mediatization in Nordic theory, hypermediatization in Latin America” (Escudero Chauvel and Olivera, 2022: 9). In this regard, I would like to express that as the same issue includes the article “A modo de Glosario” (Carlón, 2022) in which the terms “Hypermediatized Society,” “Hypermediatized Transformations,” and “Hypermediatized Circulation” are defined, among others, I feel included in that academic space besides being challenged. However, at the same time, I wish to clarify that I do not know the true scope of the words expressed in the “Presentation” and that perhaps there are also other developments of these concepts that I do not know and that are alluded to. What I do know and appreciate are some explicituses which have conducted different operations in texts published in Brazil, Spain, Uruguay, and Argentina that show that these concepts have not gone unnoticed (among them, I quickly highlight Fraticelli (2022); Márquez (2022); Aidar (2022, 2020); Amen (2022); Manso (2017), De Mattei (2022; 2021); Rosso, (2023); Rovner, (2020; 2021; Borelli, Ruedell and Kroth, 2022).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz