The way the mediation of interactions is affecting social action

It has been confirmed that activities and relationships that prior to the emergence of digital networks could only be performed face-to-face are now being transferred to virtual spaces.

The substitution of action for information is like a coin, -two inseparable sides opposed-. This simultaneously creates advantages and disadvantages:

Digitalisation may limit the participation in face-to-face interactions. It would be convenient to take into consideration that face-to-face relations serve specific purposes in the human development that are not virtualisable, although in some cases they might incorporate contacts through networks. Face-to-face interactions are required for the development of biological and cognitive competence (praxeological abilities regarding space orientation, among others); ontogenetic capacities (for instance, in the configuration of identities and social distance); or relational abilities (for instance, in courtship rituals of collective participation). The deficit of face-to-face interactions in these fields will have sociogenic effects as well as anthropogenic effects. Psychologies -genetic, evolutional, cognitive and differential- provide knowledge and criteria to prove this.

It is noteworthy that most of us are participating in the virtualisation of existence, -apparently in an enthusiastic way-. Please note that, bearing in mind that the population is used to exchange messages through WhatsApp, anywhere and anytime. This virtualosis characterises a globalised pandemic. It must be assumed that over time a better balance will be restored between doing things or telling the things that are done. And this will be so as long as operating with WhatsApp becomes an annoying habit. In any case, the extension of the virtualosis at a global scale has a predictable limit that will be reached when the digital divide is closed. This will happen when every person with the ability to use digital networks may use them for his/her interactions with any other person.

In general terms, the virtualization of a face-to-face activity saves time. However, since existential time is not elastic, the more time it is devoted to online activities, the less total time it is devoted to face-toface activities. This distribution of time may be measured in absolute or relative quantities to build up indicators of the virtualisation of activities. This process is already producing structural or functional modifications in societies, which are sociogenic transformations.⁷

The way the virtualisation of interactions is mediating in the configuration of social relations

The importance of social interactions may be differentiated on the basis of their functions, which are related to the proximity of the link existing among the agents of the communication (see Table 2).

These correspondences create a “system of social distances”.⁸ This is the way it works in the following example.

This configuration of social distances is reflected in the topics of interpersonal communication. This may be observed when the information that is exchanged is analysed. In theory, such correspondences may be altered in virtual interactions. For instance, intimate content is shared in communication with friends, and/or acquaintances or unknown people through digital networks. Or even when acquaintances deal with instrumental aspects that are usually shared with friends and relatives.

These verifications have already been initiated. The reference objects on the basis on which communication on the Internet takes place have been identified, according to the link existing among communication agents. The results, so far, determine that the system of social distances regulating face-to-face interactions are operating in virtual interactions (^{Velarde, Bernete & Casas-Mas, 2019}; ^{Velarde & Casas-Mas, 2018}). It would be necessary to periodically repeat these verifications for - maybe- several generations because the reproduction or the change of the configuration social distances have is a matter of importance for the human sciences. Such a relevance is due to the following: the differences among the functions that meet the interactions according to the link existing among the people, which is a behavioural pattern. This pattern regulates the organisation and functioning of human societies from the beginning of the anthropogenesis, and it has a reproductive value, since it contributes to the preservation of the group, its human, symbolic and material resources; as well as to collective and individual security (^{Martín Serrano, 2007b}).⁹

Anthropogenic patterns establish limits that cannot go beyond the structural and functional changes of societies (sociogenic changes). This limitation will only disappear in the case such sociogenic changes are reflected in human selection (^{Martín Serrano, 2007b}).¹⁰

The most consistent forecast from the point of view of anthropogenesis is the following, the system of social distances that establishes face-to-face communication will continue to regulate virtual communication, because any changes reported in this configuration of social relations require adaptive transformations in our species, which imply the passage of many generations in case this happens. Such a hypothesis will be verifiable in the future.

The way virtualisation is being mediated by organisations and institutions

Through their policies to transfer contacts and formalities with citizens to the virtual space, public and private institutions are taking ownership of greater proportions of our activities and our time. They are contributing to disproportionately limit the part of our existence happening in the physical world. But what is really interesting now about the virtualisation of the relations between the administration and its users are the social consequences that may be related to the fact that the administrations are accumulating information on the characteristics and activities of all citizens.

This concern has existed since the eighties of the last century, before the emergence of the “network of networks”, when it was impossible to suspect the benefits the digitalised system to be called the “Internet” would provide. But it was assumed that a system for the exchange of information would be implemented that would make it possible to unify, process and store information files. In addition, we could also predict that this advancement would be replicated -at a social organisational level- in an increasing integration of social sub-systems that operated with relative independence to date. Specifically, it was envisaged that this integration would affect cognitive, communicative, action and cultural sub-systems.¹¹

It was projected that the technological network would forge links between the cognitive, expressive, executive and assessing activities. They could all be integrated in a system of accumulation, production, processing and distribution of energy, information and codes. But this link did not imply that understanding would be the same as expression, nor that both could be identical to performance, nor all of them would be similar to knowledge preservation.¹² So “the new era” -as it was described then- would be the “time of connection” and not -as it was supposed to be- “the time of communication”. “It is extremely dangerous to confuse these practices, because the first does not necessarily guarantee the second” (^{Martín Serrano, 1985, p. 209}).

In a network system, this integration process of social sub-systems affects everything that can be computerised. But everything that can be computerised may be controlled. This is an observation that I believe could be interpreted as a postulate, if we are computerised, we are controlled. The dimension this process may reach is reflected in the following quote:

We may computerise anything that could be:

Expressed and/or executed and/or organised and/or stored

But everything that can be computerised may be coded. And everything that is coded may be controlled (^{Martín Serrano, 1985, p. 210}).

Controls have increased the influence capacity of mediators when they may intervene simultaneously in a set of social sub-systems while operating with the information.

The progressive integration of social sub-systems is one of the deepest socio-historical changes one can expect from virtualisation. The fact that everything that can be expressed, executed or organised may be coded or stored in memories is an extraordinary contribution to technologies. It also provides the opportunity to increase existential options and people’s autonomy. This paper subsequently describes the way these features may be used to advance towards the humanisation of societies.¹³ But this integration also enables the control of institutions over individuals and collectives -an undesired scenario, but likely to happen as it is explored below-.

In so far as sub-systems that operate with information from citizens link up, it is necessary to provide centralised follow-up of all public and private activities from which institutions collect information. As it is known, data protection laws limit the integration and the use of computerised data by public and private organisations, they limit, but they do not avoid. We are subject to “voluntary” and “imposed” controls over private information and our activities.¹⁴ In the face of choosing whether to favour security over privacy, criteria may vary depending on the circumstances.

The point is that this integration -although it is illegal- is already possible. And if something is possible, it may be put into practice, which is usually the case. This is because laws may be changed and may be violated. There are government agencies whose main function is precisely to control private information without controlling it.

There is a link between the virtualisation of citizens’ relations with the public or private organisations and Leviathan, which is the world of full integration where institutions fully control the existence to perpetuate themselves (^{Hobbes, 1651/2009}). This nightmare would come true if it were obligatory to provide information revealing the “Big Brother” the knowledge, the relations and the activities of collectives and people because the follow-up and the assessment of these data will determine the position and performance of each individual.

Politicians should be aware of the risk to which they expose humankind when they promote that the (technological) capacity to computerise becomes (political) coercion. Should a new Hitler reach power and decide to select and locate his/her particular candidate to “the final solution”, he/she will find no obstacle. It would be enough to connect the data banks referred to citizenship, police, treasury, health care systems and justice.

The way in which mediation is used to implement and develop the globalised social order in daily life

Ever since the emergence of the stage of global monopoly in which we are currently living, the crises have become fix in daily life without interruption. The current order is continuously reorganising the functioning of societies at all levels. This rhythm is incompatible with the time required to reorganise social institutions existing between families and educational systems. In addition, there is no sufficient time to stabilise the changes in values, which must correspond with such reorganisations. As a consequence, social values and organisations that have become stable transform into temporal life frameworks, which are conceived to be consistent and evolve in an asynchronous and dissonant manner (^{Martín Serrano, 2007a}). In such a dissonant scenario, social mediation is used to promote adjustments, and this is done -as stated- by linking communicative, executive and organisational actions.

Such imbalances are structural, but they affect existence and particular relationships because they require both deep and quick transformations of individual and collective subjects. Communicative mediation is a resource serving these transformations when they are used to help people adapt to living in the change. This happens when crises are described as an inevitable consequence of society adaptations to the constant technological advancements and they are valuated as the price one must pay for well-being and freedom.

In these narratives, it is taken for granted that there is no alternative to this state of institutionalised crisis, and it is suggested that people readjust themselves to adapt to living in a permanent status of crisis, without questioning the global system.

It is expected that each individual can change his/her life and “change him/herself” as many times as necessary.¹⁵ This mediation presents the structural imbalances that make people unhappy, as if they were originated and resolved by simply changing moods or behaviours. In this way, the conflicts that could confront citizens and institutions are transferred to the interpersonal relationships.¹⁶

The transformations in the forms of production create structural imbalances that are reflected in social stratification. They are at the origin of the depreciation of the economic value of youngsters, which lasts until the moment they find a stable job (^{Martín Serrano, 2005}). But this mainly affects elderly people, because the depreciation of their value is irreversible for them (^{Martín Serrano, 2003}). This also relates with the main criterion for women’s social valuation, which is now linked to labour activity (^{Martín Serrano, 2008}) and with population movements that massively displace those who are trying to escape from hunger and war.¹⁷ For all that, in Spain and other countries of the European Union, the management of margination and anomy created by the globalised monopoly capitalism is mostly transferred to the following interpersonal relationships:

Communicative institutions assume their mediating function in this collective adjustment. They generate and spread public information for private consumption. But private information is frequently made public by, for instance, reproducing contents in social networks. In most cases, such information leads to the same type of cognitive mediation. It interprets the structural imbalances as private conflicts. The system analysis proves that this could not be done in any other way. When present in networks, many people, who belong to the population as a whole, participate in a debate theme -as it happens in this case- redundancy and stereotypes are multiplied, and representations aligned with the “established order” prevail.¹⁸

At the same time, a productive sector devoted to adjustment has been developed. People pay and receive for free the help of specialised mediators (social assistants, for instance) in the face of defeats, anomies or conflicts. For example, those who, as children have failed in their studies, usually take drugs or divorce as adults.¹⁹

In this scenario, advertising continues to perform mediating functions. It illustrates how one must settle. In other words, it shows how to be and how to do, what to desire and what to have in each moment in line with the variety of values and ways of living.

Humanist approaches on the social uses of technologies

Humanisms are the anthropologies of Modern times. In the 18th century, the Enlightenment conferred upon them the status of political agenda. This reference is still pertinent for our topic and our time, because they try to clarify what are the social uses of education and public communication that humanise, and those that dehumanise.²⁰ They stated that the main role of written publications and schools was to make it possible the access to “clarifying” knowledge for everyone. They clarify the knowledge that releases from narrow-mindedness and submission, because they understood that both come from the ignorance in which people lived. The clarifying information is “illuminist” because it makes “human dignity” visible, a beautiful metaphor.

The application of the illuminist agenda by communicative and educational institutions would promote enlightenment and solidarity. Let us not forget about the meaning of the following terms during the Enlightenment, to “enlighten” means “developing the capacity to use one’s understanding” as Kant described (1784/1964),²¹ and “solidarity”, which means “including all humankind among “our people”, ^{Von Humboldt (1793/1993)}.²²

In fact, there are now technologies that simultaneously serve to operate with the information and to interact virtually. Such innovations already allow that:

And, above all, the integration between informative and communicative systems makes it possible to open collective memory and creativity to shared knowledge. They allow us to share the immense cultural heritage of our species, which contains the knowledge of each individual in addition to the knowledge of our ancestors (if recorded in any inherited source) (^{Martín Serrano, 2015}).

With these interactive features, the digital connection makes it possible to virtualise the intellectual co-production. There are already proposals in force to promote collaborative ways of using knowledge in networks named, for instance, “connective intelligence” or “collective intelligence”.

It is interesting to figure how would people who conceived “Enlightenment” understand it now that the world is becoming global. Perhaps, in this way, enlighten will mean sharing the knowledge that unites us, so the world can be shared one day. Once more, a utopia,²³ but maybe such progress towards solidarity will be the next stages we will cover in the long process of humanisation.

Instrumental approaches on the social uses of technology

Please remember these are the “progress” visions that propose that societies adapt their organisation and functioning to technological changes. Currently, “Post-humanisms lead this vision. The name itself clarifies that Humanisms are supposedly being surpassed by technologies; more specifically by cybernetic applications.

Post-humanisms provide theories and programmes to substitute the human being by other post-humans, who are designed and produced like robots. They take for granted that the use of technologies will require the use of implants controlling the functioning of body and mind in cybernised societies. And they recall that these devices are already being used. For example, microprocessors are implanted from which impulses are sent from the brain to bionic arms (^{Sandberg & Bostrom, 2006}). It is about connecting the biological and technological organs that intervene in information and communication so that they function as a system.²⁴

The modification of organisms and human minds to equip them with superhuman Robocop²⁵ skills will be the complement of genetic transformations. Genetics will choose and manufacture the most suitable specimens.

Post-humanisms believe the time has come to re-open human evolution to improve the physical and intellectual skills of our species. “Trans-humanist studies” advocate for the radical review of the differences between biology and technology, as well as between natural and artificial, including the concept of human nature.²⁶

In any case, the scenario of a future post-human is likely to happen, and according to critics -among which I include myself-, it is undesirable. This will eventually lead to the elimination of the difference between free will and programming. Inequalities will rise between humans and posthumans, which will serve as an excuse to put into practice programs originating in social Darwinism, such as euthanasia and the selection of the most capable.

Some believe that such scenario is unlikely, as it is difficult to image that humankind uses its knowledge to substitute itself for cyberanthropos. However, it would be prudent not to be overconfident. In order to analyse the likelihood of the symbiosis of humans and machines becoming true, we must take into consideration whether this integration would make new specimens more productive or controllable. We must be attentive to see if the ruling system maddens as much as to put its own reproduction before the reproduction of the human species.²⁷

Communicative theory and practices when the world virtualises

Man sciences are clearing up the anthropological horizon for communicative studies (^{Martín Serrano, 2009}), which is an extraordinary epistemological event. This occurred after understanding that communication is the link between sociogenesis and anthropogenesis. These processes were initiated with the existence of human species and will remain open to continue our path to the “unfinished and endless humanisation of society”.³¹

This open process towards humanisation is a valid scientific criterion to interpret the anthropological sense of globalisation. In order to contribute to the fact that globalisation has this perspective when the world virtualises, it is necessary to produce and disseminate teachings based on the humanising dimensions of communication. This perspective provides the knowledge that enables the knowledge and understanding of the so varied and essential links established by communication:

A horizon that would correspond to the one existing when Modern times took over from Middle Ages. Now as then, we have the opportunity and the need to reconstruct the knowledge to transform the practices, practices using virtualisation to show the different perspectives of the events. A diversity that makes it necessary and possible to link multiple encounters with others, sharing the knowledge that illustrates. The kind of complete and rational information that fosters independence of judgment and the critical use of information.

In order to transform the practices, the resource to virtualisation must be, at the same time, a way to facilitate face-to-face relations and direct participation in physical activities, which require the use and preservation of the environment in which we live.

Globalising the social production of communication in this anthropological perspective opposes to its instrumentalization at a universal scale, which is what happens when it is used to intimidate collectives, capitalising the conflicts or disasters created by the system itself. The communicative production that legitimise such policies eventually deglobalizes and contributes to the fragmentation and confrontation among societies.

Teaching sciences and communication should not be instrumentalised, denaturalised and dehumanised resources to legitimate the control of instrumentalising, denaturalising, and dehumanising institutions (^{Martín Serrano, 2015}). This is so in communication as it is in the rest of fields, as it is not intended to legitimise the control and make it more efficient, but rather to unveil it.

It behoves us all as researchers and professors to explain why this manipulating and irrational model has been established in public communication. And how it is undermined when population is not informed and mobilised on the basis of fear of freedom. And it is our duty to clarify that the representations offered by this model on how information and communication work in a globalised world are not valid because they sacralised technologies but ignore their socio-historical dimensions, because they hide that communicative technologies mediate and that communicative products are mediated.

Now that we know that humanisms are the moral dimension of humanisation, it is necessary to propose that it becomes a criterion for the training of communicators during their professional practice. Humanisation of communication has anthropological functions, which must be preserved to guarantee our survival as species (^{Martín Serrano, 2007b}).

Few generations have had the opportunities our generation has to work on such a creative intellectual task. We have our own objective, which may be studied both in Nature and in Societies. Communication must be taken into consideration when one is interested in humankind, its origin, its organisations and its works (^{Martín Serrano, 2013}).

Professors, researchers and theorists of communication are involved in the production and reproduction of representations on communication nature, its uses, functions and effects. We may contribute to enlightenment and solidarity. Therefore, I state we are humanisation professionals. We contribute to the development of the many capabilities aimed at improving societies that allows the management of shared information. In a nutshell, we have ahead a fascinating task, producing mediation and train mediators who do not renounce utopia (^{Martín Serrano, 2013}).

This function -scientific and ethical, theoretical and practical at the same time- confer dignity to our academic and scientific works. But, above all, this confirms the believes of those who are convinced -as it is my case- that the true knowledge will never contradict fair social practices.

Within this framework, theory provides epistemological and axiological references, which are needed to guarantee instrumental teachings are not degraded to the condition of degrading teachings. From rational support to social awareness. It makes explicit the reasons required to face blind and deaf irrationality, as well as ignorance, which may be strong enough to destroy everything.

Let us theorise to return in a scientifically renewed and confirmed manner a conviction that remains in current utopias, the conviction that humanity appears and lasts when individual freedom and collective solidarity are reconcilable. I believe, and therefore I state, that this has been the principle that has made our species the only human species to remain. And this is the principle that must be pursued to guarantee that the upcoming sociohistorical changes progress in the sense of humanisation.

I conclude with a wish. I hope in fifty years’ time, whoever is working in the position I perform to date may announce that science, teaching, and communication practice have contributed to make desirable transformations of the world possible.