Rethinking   Latin   American   Communicology   in   the   Age   of   Nomad   Culture :   Transnational   Consumption   and   Cultural   Hybridizations    

Using the theory of migratory networks and the legacy of the critical theory of the  developmentalist  models,  this  article  puts  forward  a  critical  approach  of  the  deficiencies  of  certain  cultural  consumption  analyses  in  Latin  America.  It  aims  to  develop  an  understanding  of  the  production  of  high  culture  and  distribution  and  reception  processes  in  the  transversal  logic  behind  the  constitution  of  migrating  multitudes and their appropriation of the media content of global society. This work  analyses the Latin American mass media and migrations with the aim of considering  current intercultural and transcultural communication from the critical perspective  of  cultural  consumption  and  reception  in  the  Latin  American  field  of  communicology.    Keywords: critical studies in Latin America, Latin American communicology, Latin  American diaspora and the media, political economy studies in Latin America      The  rapid,  transversal  changes  in  the  ‘techno‐informational’  production  and  reproduction  devices  of  modern  societies  are  shaping  a  new  cultural  ecosystem  whose  configuration and organizational  logic  is both unstable and hazardous. The  uncertainty provoked by this situation is understandable at a moment of transition  for  capitalist  society,  affecting  to  the  same  extent  cultural  codes,  forms  of  spatio‐ temporal representation, habits and practices of interaction and public knowledge,  and  regulation  and  control  models  revolving  around  telematic  networks  and  infrastructures.  The  transformations  of  the  public  domain  and  dominant  socio‐ Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 8(1)      103  cultural forms of our ‘semiosphere’ can certainly be classified as revolutionary. They  alter  the roots of  the relationship between capital, work and knowledge; and, as a  result,  restructure  the  links between  the social  system and  the media.  In  this new  framework,  which  could  be  called  ‘Cognitive  Capitalism’,  the  study  of  cultural  policies  is  a  strategic  task;  and  the  political  economy  of  knowledge  a  strategic  problem of social development.1    In  Latin  America,  articulating  the  critical‐reflexive  capacity  of  communication  research,  and  transcending  the  contradictions  and  obstacles  of  the  dominant  mediation  model,  and  the  obstacles  it  presents,  is  a  challenge  that  should  be  prioritized.  It  is  necessary  to  start  by  reviewing  the  basis  of  the  theory  and  emancipatory praxis in the region, with the aim of looking at and giving meaning to  the  voiding  of  public  rationality,  the  decentralization  and  competitiveness  of  cultural  industries,  and  the  progressive  commercialization  of  knowledge.  To  this  end, the idea is to reconstruct the legacy and communicative memory of the critical‐ theoretical tradition of Latin America.    In the academic development of autonomous Latin American thinking, it is possible  to  identify  three  main  maturation  stages  –  or  phases  of  scientific  research  and  production – in the analysis of the information system:    1.  The  advent  of  the  Latin  American  communication  programme.  In  the  framework of  the  theory of dependence and the New World  Information and                                                           1 The transformation of the new context of globalization is summarized in the  passage of executive action (coercive) to indicative action (communicative) as an  evolutionary process of rehabilitation of social action that accounts for changes in  organization and behavior models and the construction of a new subject in the  current logic of social reproduction. It is the red thread of history and Western  civilization that takes us from Spengler to Huntington, from the instrumental reason  of capitalism to the subordination of science to tactics in the process of  reorganization of international geopolitics and accommodation of social relations in  the era of the social fabric that Negri and Hardt, (2004) and in Latin America  Giuseppe Cocco (2006), called the Age of Empire and global biopolitics.  Retis & Sierra Caballero, Rethinking...    104  Communication  Order  (NWICO),  political  economy  was  understood  as  a  reference  matrix  of  critical  thinking  on  the  mediations  of  Anglo‐American  imperialism.   This discourse  ended up by being dominated by  the Keynesian  and  developmentalist  approach  stemming  from  the  influence  of  ECLAC  (Economic  Commission  for  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean),  with  authors  such as Oswaldo Sunkel, Celso Furtado and Aníbal Pinto  (Sierra et al., 2005).  The Marxist  legacy  in  the  so‐called  ‘Third World  shift’  of  the Latin American  school nevertheless gave a new  lease of  life  to  innovative  literature  covering  the  role  of  indigenism,  the  peasantry  and  unbalanced  central–peripheral  relations, not only in the world economy but also within dependent economies.  In  this  framework,  authors  such  as  Luis  Ramiro Beltrán  (2006  [1967];  2006  [1974];  2006  [1993])  expressed  substantial  criticism  of  the  information  paradigm,  proposing  sustainable  and  democratic  communication  and  development  models,  as  opposed  to  the  model  of  diffusion  of  innovations.  Furthermore,  within  the  framework  of  the  debate  on  NWICO,  the  Políticas  Nacionales de Comunicación  (PNC – National Communication Policies), which  would  pave  the  way  for  a  theoretical  formulation  of  new  proposals  and  matrices of conceptualization in the field of communication and culture, were  defined for the first time.  2. The conservative reaction. In the 1980s, after the publication of the McBride  Report, the recession and reorganization of capitalism ended up by cornering  democratizing  discourses  and  policy‐making  amid  the  din  of  the  active  liberalizing  campaigns  of  the  conservative  revolution.  Not  only  did  the  proposals of NWICO and  the PNC  fall  on deaf  ears  in UNESCO, but also, on a  global level, the markets experienced an intense process of concentration and  liberalization  that,  in  the  theoretical  domain,  led  to  the  defeat  of  the  critical  theory  tradition  and  any  reformist  attempt  by  the  academic  community  and  regional  public  policies.  In  this  framework,  the  imperialist  discourse  and  cultural  dependence  were  cast  into  oblivion  by  virtue  of  a  functional  theoretical praxis. A  symptom of  this  shift  in  the  communication agenda and  epistemology was  the prevalence of  the cultural and subjectivist approach  to  Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 8(1)      105  communication  research,  with  a  strong  emphasis  on  the  audience  and  the  processes of cultural consumption, which did little or nothing to question the  dominant structure of information (Sierra, 2002).  3.  The  emergence  of  the  communication  memory.  After  nearly  a  decade  of  neoliberal policies, in the 1990s – above all in the second half of the decade – the historical memory and critical thinking were recovered, and consequently  the  strategic  problems  of  NWICO  were  again  subject  to  public  debate.  Encouraged  by movements  such  as  the World  Social  Forum  in  Porto  Alegre,  researchers – mainly from Brazil, Argentina and Spain – affirmed the need for a  new  international  political  agenda  as  regards  communication  and  culture.  In  this  context,  there  appeared  initiatives  like  the  Unión  Latina  de  Economía  Política de la Información, la Comunicación y la Cultura (ULEPICC – Latin Union  of the Political Economy of Communication and Culture) which, together with  the  advent  of  traditional  organizations  such  as  the  Organización  Católica  Latinoamericana  y  Caribeña de Comunicación  (OCLACC – Latin American  and  Caribbean Catholic Organization of Communication) and the World Association  of  Christian  Communication  (WACC),  made  an  attempt  to  coordinate  the  determined  will  to  advance  in  a  new  political  direction  (Sierra  et  al.,  2005;  Quirós and Sierra, 2001).     In this new context, an area of debate and social criticism is currently emerging that  centres  on  the  undebated  –  but  not  incontrovertible  –  hypothesis  of  the  civilizing  project  of  neoliberalism.  A  revision  of  the  agenda  and  analytic  power  of  Latin  American  thinking  in  communication  has  been  restated  –  not  by  chance  –  in  the  debate comparing cultural studies and political economy of communication. There  are three basic challenges facing the articulation of critical theory:    1. The materialist theory of communication should nowadays try to recuperate  the issues raised over media ownership. Likewise, an effort should be made to  define  democratic  communication  policies,  striving  to  create  a  fairer  international  context  as  far  as  the  distribution  of  resources  and  information  Retis & Sierra Caballero, Rethinking...    106  flows  are  concerned.  The  task  of  nationally  and  internationally  updating  the  diagnoses of media ownership cannot be delayed, even more so when  taking  into  account  that  the  concentration  and  inequalities  way  outstrip  the  most  pessimistic forecasts of the 1970s.  2.  So  as  to  understand  their  logic,  it  is  not  only  essential  to  perform  a  macroeconomic study of the media, their participation in the process of capital  accumulation and state participation, but also to analyse the particular  forms  of  production,  the  characteristics  of  cultural  merchandise,  and  capital  appreciation  in each sector,  thus restructuring value chains and rationales of  production, distribution and consumption in the Information Society.  3.  The  political  economy  of  communication  should  consider  an  intervention  programme  that  re‐forges  the  links  between  the  academic  community  and  social  practices  and  organizations.  The  idea  is  to  end  the  isolation  of  critical  theory  from  the popular movements of  the 1970s, which  led  to demands  for  information  democracy  being  transformed  into  political  alibis  by  the  governments  in power and  into rhetorical subterfuges  for more  in‐depth and  radical liberalization of the monopolistic structure of the mass media.    Over  the  last  decade,  consumption  and  reception  studies  performed  in  Latin  America have experienced a process of convergence and rethinking, centring  their  efforts  on  the  role  of  cultural  policies  (García  Canclini,  1990;  2004)  or  on  the  interest in defining research agendas in terms of the political economy of knowledge  (Martín‐Barbero and Rincón, 2009; Reguillo, 2009). At the same time, the aim is to  make advances in validation protocols, internal organization and joint work projects  that  contribute  to  the  development  of  education  and  research  in  the  field  of  communication. To this end, it is necessary to start by appraising the main features  of our  common culture  in  the  face of  scientific‐technical  and  cultural  changes and  innovations in Latin America:    1. The  rich and complex diversity of popular  culture. The  fairs, music,  aromas,  colours  and  cultural  memory  of  the  peoples  of  Latin  America  and  the  Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 8(1)      107  Caribbean  have  traditionally  distinguished  themselves  for  their  considerable  creative  strength  and power. Narrative  and  anecdotes,  landscapes  and  social  spaces  tell  the  story  of  creative  and  diverse  societies  of  a  complex  cultural  configuration,  woven  into  social  networks  based  on  the  art  of  conversation.  The  current  challenge  would  be  to  make  an  attempt  at  appraising  and  reconstructing these popular forms of communication and culture.  2.  The  culture  of  mestization.  Richness  and  contributions,  both  physical  and  symbolic,  make  for  strong  cultures  and  identities  due  to  their  openness,  original  because  of  their willingness  to  build  bridges  of  communication with  other  civilizations.  The  history  of  Latin  America  is,  generally  speaking,  the  confluence  and  crossing  of  Pre‐Columbian  and  migrant  cultures,  the  production of multiple mediations and creative hybridizations. The difference  thus  constitutes  a  social  capital  and  obligatory  yardstick  in  the  creation  of  a  constituent  power  and  the  possibilities  of  regional  development,  on  articulating  new  ways  of  altering  and  organizing  symbolic  capital  that,  nowadays, also acquires a special relevance among our communities.  3. Carnival  culture.  Festivals  are not  only  a model  of  cultural  representation;  from  the point  of  view of  the  imaginary  they  also  constitute  the  basis  of  the  political  system  and  socialization  that  has  influenced  the  layout  of  cities,  university curricula, at a moment when festivals have begun to be codified and  subject  to  regulation. This  logic of enunciation of Latin American subjectivity  has  also  permeated  discourses  and  media  representations  of  the  communication system.  4.  Scenographic  culture.  Generally  speaking,  Latin  American  culture  is  also  a  show culture, one that is destined to shine and to be displayed and seen. This  feature  is  characteristic of  the pre‐modern  culture of  growth,  such as  that of  the  ancient  cities  of  the  Middle  East,  whose  irregular  layout,  nowadays,  paradoxically acquires a full vitality on connecting with a Neo‐Baroque culture  and imaginary characteristic of the full screen age.  5. Participation. The proliferation of community media constitutes an emblem  and  mark  of  distinction  of  the  history  of  regional  communication,  which,  Retis & Sierra Caballero, Rethinking...    108  because of  its  importance,  has prevailed  as  a  reference  even  in  the  scientific  domain. The tradition of participative communication, from the popular adult  education of Paulo Freire  (1970; 2009)  to  the  community  telecentres of Luis  Ramiro Beltrán (2006 [1967]; 2006 [1974]; 2006 [1993]) and the collectives of  popular  educommunicators,  such  as  the  association  Calandria  (Alfaro,  2005;  2006),  relates an experience and open vision of  social  communication  that  is  an obligatory  reference point  for policies geared  to  cooperation and defining  the Latin American regional space. Participative democracy, or the defence of  participation  as  a  communication  culture,  is  a  strategic  challenge,  since  it  directly  involves  the problem of acknowledging  the citizens of weak national  states  with  a  concentrated  and  classist  public  domain  dominated  by  racial  discrimination: large swathes of the population vindicate the right to be heard  due  to  the  lack  of  channels  of  access  and  visibility  in  the  institutional  information domain.    Culturalism, Capitalism and Mediations in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism  Homi  Bhabha  publicly  addressed  the  issue  central  to  debate  on  post‐structuralist  thinking committed to social change:  Is  the  language of  theory  just another power  stratagem of the culturally privileged Western elite aimed at producing an efficient  discourse  of  domination  of  the  ‘Other’  through  a  perverse  logic  of  power/knowledge?  Or,  as  we  believe,  can  and  should  critical  theory  revise  its  conditions  of  scientific  discourse  production  so  as  to  create  a  new  project  of  historical articulation aware of its constituent power and the negative effects of the  dialectic of enlightenment (Bhabha, 2001, 2)? This reflection points to a number of  possible answers to the question occupying the main ideas of social theory, without  there  being,  for  the  moment,  the  historical  certainty  to  which  the  astuteness  of  reason aspires. We  face a doubt  that  is difficult  to  resolve at a  time,  like our own,  marked  by  confusion,  shifting  frontiers,  reduction  of  differences,  mobility  and  nomadism. 

culturalformsofour'semiosphere'cancertainlybeclassifiedasrevolutionary.They alter the roots of the relationship between capital, work and knowledge; and, as a result, restructure the links between the social system and the media. In this new framework, which could be called 'Cognitive Capitalism', the study of cultural policies is a strategic task; and the political economy of knowledge a strategic In this framework, authors such as Luis Ramiro Beltrán ( [1967[1974[1993) expressed substantial criticism of the information paradigm, proposing sustainable and democratic communication and development models, as opposed to the model of diffusion of innovations.
Furthermore, within the framework of the debate on NWICO, the Políticas Nacionales de Comunicación (PNC -National Communication Policies), which would pave the way for a theoretical formulation of new proposals and matricesofconceptualizationinthefieldofcommunicationandculture,were definedforthefirsttime.

2.Theconservativereaction.Inthe1980s,afterthepublicationoftheMcBride
Report,therecessionandreorganizationofcapitalismendedupbycornering democratizing discourses and policy-making amid the din of the active liberalizing campaigns of the conservative revolution. Not only did the proposals of NWICO and the PNC fall on deaf ears in UNESCO, but also, on a globallevel,themarketsexperiencedanintenseprocessofconcentrationand liberalization that, in the theoretical domain, led to the defeat of the critical theory tradition and any reformist attempt by the academic community and regional public policies. In this framework, the imperialist discourse and cultural dependence were cast into oblivion by virtue of a functional theoretical praxis. A symptom of this shift in the communication agenda and epistemology was the prevalence of the cultural and subjectivist approach to communication research, with a strong emphasis on the audience and the processesofculturalconsumption,whichdidlittleornothingtoquestionthe dominantstructureofinformation (Sierra,2002 international context as far as the distribution of resources and information flows are concerned. The task of nationally and internationally updating the diagnoses of media ownership cannot be delayed, even more so when taking into account that the concentration and inequalities way outstrip the most pessimisticforecastsofthe1970s.
2. So as to understand their logic, it is not only essential to perform a macroeconomicstudyofthemedia,theirparticipationintheprocessofcapital accumulationandstateparticipation,butalsotoanalysetheparticularforms of production, the characteristics of cultural merchandise, and capital appreciation in each sector, thus restructuring value chains and rationales of production,distributionandconsumptionintheInformationSociety.

The political economy of communication should consider an intervention
programme that re-forges the links between the academic community and social practices and organizations. The idea is to end the isolation of critical theory from the popular movements of the 1970s, which led to demands for information democracy being transformed into political alibis by the governmentsinpowerandintorhetoricalsubterfugesformorein-depthand radicalliberalizationofthemonopolisticstructureofthemassmedia.
Over the last decade, consumption and reception studies performed in Latin America have experienced a process of convergence and rethinking, centring their efforts on the role of cultural policies (García Canclini, 1990;  4. Scenographic culture. Generally speaking, Latin American culture is also a showculture,onethatisdestinedtoshineandtobedisplayedandseen.This feature is characteristic of the pre-modern culture of growth, such as that of the ancient cities of the Middle East, whose irregular layout, nowadays, paradoxicallyacquiresafullvitalityonconnectingwithaNeo-Baroqueculture andimaginarycharacteristicofthefullscreenage.

5.Participation.Theproliferationofcommunitymediaconstitutesanemblem
and mark of distinction of the history of regional communication, which, because of its importance, has prevailed as a reference even in the scientific domain.Thetraditionofparticipativecommunication,fromthepopularadult education of Paulo Freire (1970; to the community telecentres of Luis RamiroBeltrán(2006RamiroBeltrán( [1967[1974[1993)andthecollectivesof popular educommunicators, such as the association Calandria (Alfaro, 2005;, relates an experience and open vision of social communication that is an obligatory reference point for policies geared to cooperation and defining theLatinAmericanregionalspace.Participativedemocracy,orthedefenceof participation as a communication culture, is a strategic challenge, since it directly involves the problem of acknowledging the citizens of weak national states with a concentrated and classist public domain dominated by racial discrimination:largeswathesofthepopulationvindicatetherighttobeheard due to the lack of channels of access and visibility in the institutional informationdomain.

Culturalism,CapitalismandMediationsintheAgeofCognitiveCapitalism
Homi Bhabha publicly addressed the issue central to debate on post-structuralist thinking committed to social change: Is the language of theory just another power stratagemoftheculturallyprivilegedWesterneliteaimedatproducinganefficient discourse of domination of the 'Other' through a perverse logic of power/knowledge? Or, as we believe, can and should critical theory revise its conditions of scientific discourse production so as to create a new project of historicalarticulationawareofitsconstituentpowerandthenegativeeffectsofthe dialecticofenlightenment (Bhabha,2001,2)?Thisreflectionpointstoanumberof possibleanswerstothequestionoccupyingthemainideasofsocialtheory,without there being, for the moment, the historical certainty to which the astuteness of reason aspires. We face a doubt that is difficult to resolve at a time, like our own, marked by confusion, shifting frontiers, reduction of differences, mobility and nomadism.
The complex society in which we live is exposed to the uncertainty of permanent alterationandneedstoassumethefrontierculturebecause: the fact of the natural and social world is constantly questioned by our knowledge/action, and the relationship with that which we inherit from the pastisalsoprofoundlymodified.Traditionistransmittedthroughthecultural mediation of the mass media; it is continually interpreted using selective criteriaandfilteredbyindividualsandgroups. (Melucci,2001,34) Thislogicofmobilityandrapidchangeleadstoafalsesenseofsocialtransparency, at a time when it is more necessary to reduce the opacity of social relations in accordance with reflexive and autopoietic forms of sociability that transcend the limits of theoretical common sense proliferating in the interstices of change imaginedbytheKnowledgeSociety.
The problem with sociological imagination moderated by cultural communication studiesresidesinthefactthatitendsupbyconvertingcommunicationintoaplace for looking at and deconstructing everything, without seeing or understanding anything. Of course, it is impossible to think about reality without mediation, but thispresupposesthattheoryshouldberegardedasanexerciseoftranslation,asan exerciseofradicalantagonism,inthesenseindicatedbyBhabha(2001).Theideais to negate, as a certain communicology theory does, the simple identification between object and political objective and representation, verifying social heterogeneitybymeansofanactivecommitmenttothetranslationofdiscoursesin the domain of critical theory; a commitment which is especially important for subordinateminoritiesandcultures.
The re-articulation, or translation, of elements in contending plural systems is a challenge that should be prioritized in thinking that is open to change. In our opinion, a challenge of the emerging power of Latin communicology has to do directly with this political function of theory as a revealing measurement of historicaltension,thecrossingsandhybridizationsbetweenantagonisticpoles,asa mobilizingstrategyoftheconfusionofdiscourses,whichtriestomakeusawareof theideologicalstrugglesandconceptionsthatareimplicitinthisdiversifiedcultural framework:theknowledgeproductionpoliticsofpopularculture(Martín- Barbero, 1987b).
TheinterpretiveparadigmofculturalstudiesinLatinAmericahasopeneduplines of research on the media universe and mass culture, verifying the heterogeneous natureofsocialcommunicationandthecontradictionsofexistingprocesses,suchas globalization, with the aim of renovating the most reductionist theoretical approaches to the complex relationships between communication and culture, on thebasisofamultidisciplinary,reflexiveandcriticalframework (Abril,1997;Ortiz, 2006).AccordingtoMartín-Barbero,threeshiftshavetakenplaceinthisevolution processfromtheperspectiveofinformationasanobjectofresearchtoapluraland complexideaofthefield: 1.Thefirstshiftmarksthestepfromatransparentconceptionofthemessages transmittedbythemassmediatoamoreprofoundreflectionontheopacityof discourses, breaking with the concept of ideology supported by the aproblematicform/contentrelationship.
2. The second shift takes place from the folklorized popular to the massive thickness of the urban, which paves the way for research on the reconsideration of the socio-cultural experience of the object-subjects of knowledge,soastoconsiderthepopularasthecoreofmassmediaprocesses.
3.And,lastly,theshiftfromcommunicationasamediaproblemtocultureasa production space of identities, redefining the field of knowledge in our discipline from the epistemological rupture with the popular, not so much as anobject,butratheras'aplaceinwhichtorethinkprocesses;thatplacefrom which the conflicts articulating culture emerge' (Martín-Barbero, 1987a: 14).
Thisinvolvestheconceptualrenewalofthefieldofcommunication,seeingin this a constituent modality of cultural dynamics with which to consider the meaning of communication practices with respect to the media, social movements and history: from the media to mediations (Martín-Barbero, 1987b).
Research in many different fields [has] thus been perforating the old unidirectional scheme of communication, diffusive, authoritarian, persuasive, educational,manipulatorofemptymindsormass-man,totakeastepforward towards a vindication of the receiver which is also that of the capacity of commonmantostructurethemeaningofexistence. (Ford,1989,80) The qualitative perspective proposed by this cultural perception of the communicationphenomenoncallsforagreaterunderstandingoftheinterpretation of media consumption and the cultural relationship between the media and the social system as an ideological process, as a space of meaning of class differences and dynamics. Nowadays, however, the eclecticism and positivity of results dominate in the process of this comprehensive search. The only aspect of this paradigm,whichlendsconsistencytothedifferenttheoreticalaccumulationsofthis approachisitsoppositiontoanydeterminism,somuchsothatthetacitacceptance of extreme relativism is the only norm common to particular experiences of symbolicconsumptionbydifferentaudiencegroups.
Freed from the yoke imposed by reductionist concepts in the interpretation of fundamental terms such as that of ideology -whose orientation was at first dominatedbytheAlthusserianapproach,sinceinthe1970sthefledglingschoolof culturalstudiesburstinonthesceneofsocialsciences-mediaculturestudieshave undergoneasignificanttheoreticalchangeinthemostpragmaticandconservative senseoftheword.Theoreticalandpoliticalintegrityhavebeenlostintherhetorical gameofpostmoderndiscourse.
Inthepostmoderncultureoftranslation(theductile),thesimulated(therealityof reality) and the aleatory, there is a need for comprehensive criticism of its legitimizing link that, from praxis, transforms such a logic depending on the community requirements of social dialogue. It is as well to take into account the need for an epistemological reflection that overcomes the theoretical-practical excisionhistoricizingcommunicationfromtheperspectiveofsocialpraxis;thatisto say,linkingthemomentofcommunicationanalysiswiththeneedforsocialchange.
In this process, the studies themselves that share a culturological approach have beenthosemainlyresponsibleforthelackofinterventionandregulatorystrategies inLatinAmericanmediapolicies.
Whatwasonceradicalcriticismofthemediaseemstohavebeensilencedor deflectedtoagreatextent.Severaloftheprominentrepresentativesofcultural theorynowdonotsetanyexamplefortheregulatorypoliciesofthemedia.On the contrary, they are undermining them. The result seems to be, on the one hand, a project for a regulatory policy of the media that is increasingly more trite and inefficient and, on the other, a study project and criticism of the (mainly popular) culture of self-compassion, both remote and uncommitted. (McQuail,1998,105) Radical constructivism, the populist vision and extreme contextualism are at the root of such an approach, which has permanently separated the traditional programme of regulatory policy from the cultural strategy of the media. The In the words of Ferrer (1992), critical communication and culture theory has stoppedbeingaclassstruggletobecomeastruggleofphrases.Theintroductionof cultural studies, as explained above, occurred in an historical period marked by a swing to the right and extreme conservatism both in Europe and in USA, and by profound transformations in the structure of regional information as a result of threeinterrelatedprocesses: Therestructuringofculturalproductionandexchangeonaglobalscale,inpart associated with radical developments in the means of production with new technologies of information and communication; the restructuring of the relationsofculturalproduction,involvinginparticularasocialandeconomic repositioning of intellectuals, the specialists of symbolic representation; the restructuring of the relationship between political and cultural power, involving a potential redefinition of the role, and potential powers, of both stateandcitizen. (Garnham,1998,122) In this setting, the complex articulation of the economic, political and cultural spheres, with which subordinate groups try to define their cultural self-  (Pellegrino,2004;Sassen, 2001).Overthelasttwodecades,thedemographicandsocio-politicalphysiognomy of different North American, European and Asiatic cities has become 'Latin Americanized' (Orozco, 2006;Passel, 2009;Pellegrino, 2004;Retis, 2006b;Rodríguez, 2000). 2 Studies on second-and third-generation immigrants show that 'Latin America grows abroad', concentrating its transnationality in transfrontier circuitsthatcirculateviatheopenchannelsofinternationalcapitalflows,butinthe opposite direction and with 'bottom-up' globalization strategies (Levitt, 2009;Portesetal.2009;Sassen,2003;SmithandGuarnizo,2006).
London from different Spanish cities has increased; these movements coexist with severalreturnflows,aboveallofBolivianswhohaverecentlyemigratedtoEurope (Retis,2010a). The need for information on issues touching on migratory regulation in cities and the opening up of advertising and market niches, promote, nevertheless, the creation of media geared to recent migrants. And in such a way that we find ourselvesinanunprecedentedsituationasregardstheproductionofethnicmedia.
Acomparisonanalysisshowsthat,inthelastfiveyears,themediaproductionboom has become a process in moderate decline. However, everything points to the fact that ethnic media have resisted the economic crisis and the transition to new technologies, which probably has more to do with the strength of the advertising marketthantheneedforinformationandcommunicationamongdiasporas (Retis, 2010b). is the length of the migratory experience, more than the generation gap, that conditions consumption practices of media produced in countries of origin (Retis, 2010a;2010b). In contrast, with respect to the consumption of new technologies, the implications of the socio-economic context are most significant, for workingclass immigrants have less access to computers. This condition does not seem to affect the use of mobile phones to such a great extent, above all in the case of the youngergeneration (FoxandLivingston,2007;Retis2010a).
In the analysis of these communication practices, it is essential to remember that Latin America has always had a hybrid structure, in which contributions from the Mediterranean countries of Europe, its indigenous American roots and the African migrations have converged. On interacting with the English-speaking world, these fusionsbroadened: This is shown by the large presence of Latin American migrants and cultural products in USA, and the grafting of Anglicisms onto the journalistic and electroniclanguages.Likewise,LatinAmericancultureremodelsitselfthrough its dialogue with European cultures and even Asiatic ones. In addition to considering the dissemination of Latin American culture beyond its frontiers towardsUSAandtheLatincountriesofEurope-whichisveryinterestingas far as the widening of markets is concerned -it is necessary to take into accountthehistoricalconditionsofunequaldevelopment,incontrastwiththe Euro-Americansocio-culturalspace. (GarcíaCanclini,2002,69) Inthesearchforunderstandingthesenewalterities,itisnecessarytoincorporate reflectionsthathavebeenmadeinLatinAmericainthefieldsofpoliticaleconomy, anthropologyorsociologyofculture.IncorporatingtheLatinAmericanperspective is a pending task for studies on diasporas and the media in USA and Europe. The InUSA,itistheworkofresearchersofLatinAmericanextractionthathasgivenrise to a critical posture on Latin Americans and the media. The work of Gutiérrez (Wilson et al., 2003), which has focused on the analysis of the 'class media' -as opposedto'massmedia'-withrespecttothemassmedia,hasrevealedthelimited accessofminorities.UriarteandBenavideshaveanalysedthedisconnectionofthe newsrooms with regard to the cultural diversity of society (Uriarte et al., 2003). Subervi (2008) focuses on political participation, while Dávila (2001) puts the accent on the advertising market. Valdivia (2010)

TheResearchAgenda
Research on communicology in Latin America must take into account at least six basicpoints,inthewayofanagendaorscientificchallengesintheregion,soasto boostitsantagonisticpotentialforrenovatingthecriticaltraditioncharacterizingit. 3 Someoftheseprojectsareavailableon:www.giim.wordpress.com 4 Inthissense,theacademicdiscoursehasfallenbehindthecommercialand politicaldiscourse,which,sincethe1990s,hasfavouredchannelsofexchangeand dialoguebetweentheEuropeanUnionandLatinAmerica.Sixmeetingshavebeen heldbetweentheEUandLatinAmerica.Thecommercialchannelhasbeenthemost fruitful,although,atthelastmeetingheldinMadrid,theneedforestablishinglines ofcooperationandsupportforthehumanrightsofLatinAmericanimmigrantsin Europewasbroached(see:http://ue2010.biz/en/cumbre_uealc/historia/index.html)accessedMay7,2011. The irreverent and opportune vision suggested by Bauman encourages us, in addition, to think that the consistent knowledge of mediation ought to be undertakenfromalterity,fromthefringes,since: it is belonging to a field -the unbalanced position -which allows us to decipher the truth and denounce the illusions and errors by which we were made to believe (the adversaries make us believe) that we are in an ordered andpacificworld. (Foucault,1992,61) Thenewcontextofcomplexlydiversifiedrelations,imbricatedatalocalandglobal level,thusrevivesandshiftstheframesofhumanobservationandappraisal,which requires thinking to have a nomadic and uncentred approach. This of course involvesmoderatingethnocentrismanddevelopingdialogicformsofreflexivity.In short, as Rodrigo Alsina recommends, this implies reinforcing an ethnic position basedonandrootedintheresponsibilityofourconstructionsoftheworldandthe actions accompanying them. 'It is not therefore possible to seek protection in the inescapability of an objective, universal, ahistorical, innate, and immutable reality' (RodrigoAlsina,1999,63). all we can project towards the future is already inside the system of current socialrelations,intheexchanges,thecapacityofrepresentation,decisionand imagination that these relations make possible. The past also becomes a general narrative and the memory is constructed increasingly more inside contemporarymediasystems.Theconservationitselfofthepast,bothmaterial and symbolic, depends increasingly less on casual factors and increasingly moreonsocialchoicesanddecisions. (2001,31) The genealogy of political economy of intercultural communication reveals the importanceofthememorystruggle,thevindicationofhistoricalforcesthatfacilitate cultural coexistence in which university education plays, if one might say so, a decisive strategic role in the future of cognitive society. In the current capitalist model of information regulation, the university is a strategic space of social definitionofthepowerandcontrolrelationsofindividualandcollectiveidentities, which, generally speaking, tend to transform tradition, cultural memory and intelligence into a fetishized image of dominance relations. Nevertheless, unlike in otherhistoricalperiods,nowadaysthetransmissionofthevisionof'Self'and'Other' takes place in an unprecedented process of decontextualization, commoditization and spoliation of the collective memory by sophisticated external systems of electronic storage and reproduction (García Gutiérrez, 2004. This fact requires us, as specific intellectuals or committed lecturers, to perform a continuous task of reconstruction; all things considered, a task of decomposition, reconstruction, criticism and inversion of the common sense of the socio-cultural references depositedasculturemesinthedigitalandcollectivememoryofLatinAmerica. (5)Communicationpedagogyshould,therefore,bepractisedasareconstructionof commonsenseto: liberate culture from its dominant image, denouncing the asymmetry that its reflects and, on the basis of recovering the possibilities oppressed in its process of asymmetric configuration, showing that in all cultures (at least at theleveloftheirdominantimageorstabilizedorder)itdoesnotonlygenerate the 'Self', but also the exculturation of possibilities that could be just as characteristic. (Fornet-Betancourt,2003:23) In the case at hand, as a cultural region, this means paying attention to other occluded modernities, other wasted experiences, other denied meanings and discourses.  (Sierra,2002).

AccordingtoNegriandHardt:
The general outlines of today's imperial constitution can be conceived in the formofarhizomaticanduniversalcommunicationnetworkinwhichrelations are established to and from all its points or nodes. Such a network seems paradoxicallytobeatoncecompletelyopenandcompletelyclosedtostruggle and intervention. On the one hand, the network formally allows all possible subjectsinthewebofrelationstobepresentsimultaneously,butontheother hand,thenetworkitselfisarealandpropernon-place.Thestruggleoverthe constitutionwillhavetobeplayedoutonthisambiguousandshiftingterrain. (2004,155) This accounts for the configuration of an uncentred, non-hierarchic, rhizomatic network that offers the complete deterritorialization and horizontalization of the social space as an alternative to development; all the more when the new information and communication technologies currently allow for constructive cultural autonomy, extracting human action for traditional determinations of time andsocial space.This permits the materializationof a generativelogic of research activity that depends on its commitment to a democratic, participative and selfmanaged communication model, based on a culture of dialogic development, culturally dynamic and inspired by the language of links. The challenge facing the university and research activity is, in this sense, to favour forms of media intervention and appropriation for the social expression and development of cultural minorities and migrants, creating, for example, telecentres and dispersed experiences of organizing information, solidarity and exchange networks that link the migrant population to broader collectives of communication and popular education.
In this respect, we understand that the struggle for hegemony depends on the production of symbolic alternatives, antagonistic projects of differentiation and oppositionthat,tobesecure,competeandareincontactwiththedominantformsof identification.
It is this side-by-side nature, this partial presence, or metonymy of antagonism,anditseffectivesignifications,thatgivemeaning(quiteliterally) to a politics of struggle as the struggle of identifications and the war of positions.Itisthereforeproblematictothinkofitassublatedintoanimage ofthecollectivewill.Hegemonyrequiresiterationandalteritytobeeffective, to be productive of politicized populations: the (non-homogeneous) symbolic-socialblocneedstorepresentitselfinasolidarycollectivewill-a modern image of the future -if those populations are to produce a progressivegovernment. (Bhabha,2001,10) And, to this end, Latin American communicology research, communication researchersandlecturersmustactradically:asanauthenticinterculturalmediator.
Paradoxically,theproblemresides,however,inhowthinkingandcriticaltheorycan articulate-inthisageofscientificcolonization-adiscourseandconsideran'Other' that re-links and updates the untimely power of theory as an emancipating praxis and that, in our case, contributes to a diagnosis and radical transformation of the