Mario Carlón 284 phenomena as processes, our thesis is that the emergence of hy- permediatization generates new discrepancies in circulation, of different sc les and quality. If this is the case, we can try to answer some questions. First question: if hypermediatization is a set of (meta)processes (what else can it be?), isn’t hypermediatizated circulation its main process (not the only one, but not a minor one and certainly specific to our contemporaneity)? Yes. Second question: can the meta-processes of hypermediatization generate another society, a contemporary one? Again, yes. Because what they trigger is, according to Verón, an “acceleration of historical time.” What are the manifestations of this transformation? One of them is permanent construction thanks to the process of hypermediatiza- tion of new collectives without the intermediation of traditional media and institutions. That said, we can also state that the hypermedia sys- tem enables on a large scale and in a transversal way (that is, in different “worlds” or social fields) new forms of circulation of meaning, hypermedia (leaving behind the reception turn to give rise to the circulation turn, which implies another dimension). These new forms of circulation of meaning trigger a communi- cation explosion in different directions (bottom-up, top-down, horizontal) in a 24/7 temporality, activated by agents/enuncia- tors of different statuses (not only institutional, but also individ- ual humans, collectives, fakes, and non-humans, such as robot influencers and bots, etc.) with the ability to build collectives. Through these processes, human and non-human agents/enun- ciators change their relationship with others, with those who are above and those who are below, with those who are near and with those who are far away: they transform, consecrate, implode, get work, fall in love, become famous, etc. Nevertheless, they also change their relationship with themselves because the circulation of meaning is not only vertical: top-down or bottomup. It is also from “inside” to “outside” (processes of the type that Paula Sibilia [2008] calls “extimidad” which consist of an exhibi- tion of one’s intimacy) and from “outside” to “inside” (because those discourses are canceled or consecrated at every moment by the discourses of others [Carlón, 2018]). Unlike traditional analyses on the production of meaning, which produced a fos-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz