The professor of Sociology of Communication at the Universidad Austral Juan Pablo Cannata, from the Department of Media Relations at the School of Postgraduate Studies in Communication (EPC) in Buenos Aires, has warned about the existence of "a new scale of values in the debate" on social networks in which people give their opinions "a lot" and with "quite hostile" language.
"These new rules are part of an emerging and evolving agenda, so it's not so easy to form an opinion, even for educated people," Cannata revealed in an interview with Europa Press. "Then two things happen: either the issue becomes invisible because, due to a lack of understanding, it's addressed poorly, or it simply joins a wave of expanding values."
Cannata is currently in Spain as a guest of the University of Navarra, participating in a series of conferences on public discourse, sensitive agendas, controversies, non-hostile communication, threats and opportunities, and the cultural environment of communication. He has also given several lectures at educational institutions in Madrid on the values of contemporary society and communication.
In this regard, the expert pointed out that there are a kind of "instruction manual" on what is the "appropriate way to talk" when dealing with "sensitive issues".
According to the Argentinian, the problem lies in the fact that if someone makes "a mistake on a sensitive issue, they immediately receive a kind of public reprimand and a definitive sanction." In his opinion, this is the case of the events that occurred in 2011 with the appointment of Guillermo Zapata, a councilor from Ahora Madrid, as Secretary of Culture, when some of his tweets about the Jewish Holocaust or ETA victim Irene Villa were discovered.
"Those comments transgressed the rules of conversation on the topic of the Holocaust and jeopardized his entire reputation, and he had to resign from his position because it was considered that he did not have the necessary dignity to hold it, and this is something that currently occurs frequently," he noted.
In the Argentine's opinion, public discussion is a "dynamic" that people "get used to living in" because there are also some "very skillful" political leaders who have a "very powerful" command of that dynamic.
However, the problem, in his opinion, lies in the "difficulty" of these debates because public opinion "is dispersed" and means that "no concrete demands for social coherence are reached" that could be "useful" to the leaders, so "governments are not helped to make concrete decisions."
“We believe we are living through many value debates on issues that are on the table, but these are complex agendas with their own vocabulary,” he asserted. “It’s easy to have an opinion on a topic, but it’s no longer easy to maintain a conversation that doesn’t affect the sensibilities that are so diverse and so easily offended,” the Argentinian added.
"SOFT TOPICS"
"We study how debates are formed and changed; for example, currently there is a problematization of sugar as the new tobacco, a greater concern for animal welfare, environmental care, women's rights, or care for people with disabilities," the professor explained.
These "soft" issues, however, according to Cannata, are things that affect people "deeply" and become a "demand from the public." "For example, parents are starting to demand vegetarian menus in schools, and companies are changing their approach to how they offer their services," he pointed out.
All these issues, the Argentinian asserts, demonstrate the "need for further study and in-depth analysis" of these topics and how to "manage the dynamics" in order to have "a better democratic debate."
*Article published on May 12, 2018 in Diario Siglo XXI. Image credit: https://unsplash.com/
