On hypermediatization as a process and hypermediatized societies as an outcome 273 society in the “process of mediatization,” but because when he speaks of the passage from one society to another, he explicitly uses that notion: “the media society, in the acceleration of that process (the emphasis is ours) that we have called ‘revolution of communication technologies’ changes, however without know- ing it, nature: it becomes little by little a mediatized society” (Verón, 1984, p. 14). What was at the center of his attention in those years? What was the mediatization process to which he referred to and that most interested him? What Verón focused on in his analyses was the mediatization of the “three orders of functioning of the meaning,” distinguished by Charles Sanders Peirce, by mass media (p. 17): the order of the symbol, the icon, and the index (and he also emphasized that, historically, this appropriation by mediatization occurred, for him, in reverse order to that of the ontogenesis of the subject).4 4 Verón says, “It should be noted, however, that the mediatization of these three levels of functioning has occurred in reverse order to that of ontogenesis: if the subject is constituted from the structuring of his significant body in contact to reach the symbolic order of language, passing through figuration, the media have appropriated first of writing, after that of the order of figuration through photography and cinema, to finally lead to the mediatization of contact, partially with radio, fully with television. I affirm that the great historical adventure of cinema has been, due to its appropriation of fictional diegesis, that of taking charge of the universe of representation, that is, of the iconic order of figuration, while television (in terms of its specificity as opposed to cinema) has become the means of contact” (Verón, [1984], p. 19). Perhaps it is not redundant to clarify that, for my part, I have proposed in Después del fin. Una perspectiva no antropocéntrica sobre la post-tv, el post-cine y YouTube (Carlón, 2016), a report with points of similarity and differences with Veron’s report. It consists of three main stages: a) anthropocentric (based on the mediatization of the symbolic order and iconicity, not yet machinistic and in which the discourses have no life; b) a non-anthropocentric based on the automatic inclusion of indexicality in all the mechanisms and languages of the industrial revolution, which causes signs of existence that have life (that is, contain nature); and c) an anthropocentric “turn” when organic agents/enuncia- tors (individuals, collectives) emerge as administrators of their own “means of communication” (Carlón, 2012). Seven years later, my current view is that this turn lasts and is fundamental to understanding our contemporaneity. But, at the same time, the automatic machinistic dimension has deepened as a result of the generalization of A.I. (not only by large corporations), amplifying even more developments that have always existed, involving the relationships between lan- guages, perceptual mechanisms of the natural order, and machinistic phenom- ena, unleashing, on a new scale, another non-anthropocentric “turn.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz