The fourth narrator, the mediatization and the narratives of violence

Abstract

The article observes narrative formats that we denominated as “narrative of violence”. These are socio-technical and discursive structures of symbolic character which theme relates to allegations of violence against women, children, social minorities or individual members of these social groups. The hypothesis is that the “narratives of violence” are discursive strategies mediatized whereby the system incorporates irritations of disruptive nature like in the discourses of violence. In doing so, they re-semanticizing the same, contributing to systemic stability and allowing the emergence of a fourth narrative extract from the categorization proposed by Genette (1988), in Literature theory, and Motta (2013), in Communication theory. The methodological approach is qualitative (DEMO, 2000); the sample analyzed is intentional by criterion (FRAGOSO; RECUERO; AMARAL, 2011).

Keywords
System; Narrative; Fourth narrator; Mediatiziation; Circulation

Resumo

O artigo observa formatos de narrativa que denominamos “narrativas da violência”. Tratam-se de estruturas sócio-técnico-discursivas de caráter simbólico cuja temática diz respeito a denúncias de violência praticadas contra mulheres, crianças, minorias sociais ou indivíduos integrantes destes extratos sociais. A hipótese é que as “narrativas da violência” são estratégias discursivas midiatizadas por meio das quais os sistemas incorporam irritações de natureza desagregadora, caso dos discursos de violência. Ao fazê-lo, ressemantizam as mesmas, contribuindo para a estabilidade sistêmica e permitindo a emergência de um quarto extrato narrativo a partir da categorização proposta por Genette (1988), na Literatura, e Motta (2013), na Comunicação. A abordagem metodológica é qualitativa (DEMO, 2000); a amostragem analisada, intencional por critério (FRAGOSO; RECUERO; AMARAL, 2011).

Palavras-chave
Sistema; Narrativa; Quarto narrador; Midiatização; Circulação

Resumen

El articulo observa formatos de narrativa que denominamos “narrativas de violencia”. Se tratan de estructuras socio-técnico-discursivas de carácter simbólico cuya temática se refiere a denuncias de violencia practicadas contra mujeres, niños, minorías sociales o individuos integrantes de estos extractos sociales. La hipótesis es que las “narrativas de violencia” son estrategias discursivas mediatizadas por medio de las cuales los sistemas incorporan irritaciones de naturaleza disgregadora, que es el caso de los discursos de violencia. Al hacerlo, resemantizanlas, contribuyendo para la estabilidad sistémica y permitiendo la emergencia de un cuarto extracto narrativo a partir de la categorización propuesta por Genette (1988), en la Literatura, y Motta (2013), en la Comunicación. El abordaje metodológico es cualitativo (DEMO, 2000); el muestreo analizado, intencional por criterio (FRAGOSO; RECUERO; AMARAL, 2011).

Palabras clave
Sistema; Narrativa; Cuarto Narrador; Mediatización; Circulación

Introduction

This article, an extracted part from an already established research¹, analyzes certain narrative formats whose themes refer to cases of violence against women, children, social minorities² or individuals that are part of these groups. The analysis will be based on examples posted on websites and social networks that use real situations or simulations in their reports to denounce events of this nature that occur or have occurred against members of these groups.

The methodological approach is built in five steps: firstly, by showing the concepts necessary to our perspective and its contextualization in the proposed dialogue. This is the case, for example, of irritation, violence and others. We will then propose a discussion about the environment in which the scenario is set, and then discuss the fourth narrator, understanding it as the hermeneutic key to the discussion we are proposing. The next moment we will illustrate our methods, based on a qualitative methodological approach (DEMO, 2000), followed by the necessary interpretive considerations.

Systemic Reaction

We assume that the appearance of what we are calling “narratives of violence” represents a kind of reaction to certain types of irritation from the environment in which systems are introduced – there is no system without an environment (LUHMANN, 2009) –, or other systems, which are potentially pernicious to the systemic stability necessary for its operation.

The analysis will focus mainly on the media system, understood in the dialogues from Bertalanffy (2013), Parsons (2005), Luhmann (2009) and Soster (2015), as a sociotechnical system composed by the set of organizations, agents, and devices (newspapers, magazines, radios, televisions, etc.) of a communicational nature, regardless of their nature (journalism, entertainment, politics etc.).

The “narratives of violence” are established in this scenario through the processes of enunciation made from the circulation of information within the media system. The voice, or voices, from the fourth narrator personify themselves, as we shall see later, as they emerge from the operations performed by the devices³ that build the system from their structure and in their dialogue with the other devices.

In the perspective that we work in this article, irritation does not only occur from the circulation as it is synonymous, at a time, both of disturbance and of stimulus to the transformations of the own system:

[...] irritations are always referred (and oriented) to structures and, in the context of meaning events, they are focused on possible expectations, which already have a sense of evaluation expressed: only with this can we obtain information. From these possible expectations, a disturbance and an irritation arises and becomes alive in the system, and causes the autopoiesis of the operation of the system to react by identification or rejection: the moment a burnt smell appears, it is not known if the potatoes or something in the house is burning, but in any case there is always a limited interpretation of the perception of an unusual smell of burnt (LUHMANN, 2009, p.138-139 – Our translation).

We are talking about rape of women, child abuse, aggression against homosexuals, racial segregation, mistreatment and discrimination of all kinds, which by their disaggregating nature threaten systemic stability. Therefore, they provoke irritation; In doing so, they end up being absorbed through system operations, transforming and being transformed into this movement.

These transformations are the result of an intricate process of reduction of complexity of a self-referential nature that aims the maintenance of the system, after all. What emerges from these structural movements are the “narratives of violence”, which require to be explained. The concept of “narratives of violence” refers to socio-technical-discursive structures of a symbolic character whose subject refers to denunciations, institutional (related to an institution such as the State, for example) or not (an action promoted by an individual), to violence, and which are not only references of events occurred.

That is, a varied range of mediated discursive strategies (ways of saying, appealing images, torment etc.) is used to make complex offers of meaning, rather than simply reporting the problem as it was usually done in society (Newspaper pages explaining what happened, for example).

The “narratives of violence” are inserted in an expressive variety of discursive modalities through which the themes related to violence, among them there is symbolic violence, are expressed.

[...] subjective violence is only the most visible part of a triumvirate which also includes two objective types of violence. First, there is ‘symbolic’ violence embodied in language and its forms, in what Heidegger would call ‘our house of being’. [...] this violence is not at work only in the obvious – and largely studied – cases of provocations and relations of social domination that our habitual forms of discourse reproduce: there is an even more fundamental form of violence that belongs to language as such, to the imposition of a certain universe of meanings. Secondly, there is what I call ‘systemic’ violence, which are the often catastrophic consequences of the regular functioning of our economic and political systems (ZIZEK, 2014, p. 303 – Our translation).

We are presented with “narratives of violence”, for example, when an actor interprets, on a website or social network, the role of a victim of violence in a video, taking the victim’s place dramaturgically, reconfiguring places. “Every operation of production of meaning (and correlatively, every ‘effect of meaning’) is a complex function (a relation between relations), and therefore an operation that sets in play a number n of terms, n never being equal to two” (VERÓN, 1980, p.78 – Our translation). These meanings, once accessed, are potentially capable of minimizing the effects of discourses of hatred as they narratively “[...] instill meaning into human life” (MOTTA, 2013, p. 18 – Our translation).

If the system reacts to these irritations through the re-semantization of discourses of this nature, it is because violence is seminally disaggregating, as Arendt (1985) understands, and is therefore harmful to systemic stability, here thought in the molds of Luhmann (2009).

We agree with Coimbra and Amaral (2015) when they affirm, despite in another context, that symbolic violence contributes to the dissemination and intensification of what they call hate speech, and the resulting enhancement of social stigmas. But we think, in dialogue with Bourdieu (2015), that violence, despite its status as a symbolic system, may not be understood as an instance of power, even with all the similarities.

Arendt (1985) warns that power is usually confused with toughness, strength, authority, and violence. It is to state, suffering the risks of simplifications, that it may seem to be about the ability to act together and in favor of what is common to all. But in other aspects, toughness, refers to an object or to a person and belongs to its character. And strength, which is usually confused with violence, especially as a form of coercion, is rather an energy released by physical or social movements.

Authority, on the other hand, is the unquestioning awareness of those who you are asked to obey. In this case, neither coercion nor persuasion is necessary. Violence, finally, is, for Arendt (1985), a construct of instrumental character. In regards to power, toughness, strength and authority, it is a measure that spreads through suffering, rendering any form of balance unbalanced by this bias. “Using them as an indicative synonym are not only a statement about linguistic meanings, which would be serious enough, but it also results in certain blindness towards the realities to which they relate” (ARENDT, 1985, p.60 – Our translation).

We must consider two issues before we go on. The first question, in the words of Arendt (1985), is that the concepts of toughness, strength, authority and violence do not exist singularly, but in a relational way. Thus, it is not uncommon to find a notion of power associated with violence, for example, which usually hides traps. “Even though violence allegedly generates power, it is not as effective politically as the real power, which is achieved through freedom” (FRY, 2009, p.99 – Our translation).

The second question concerns the way in which we transpose the perspective of Arendt to a systemic and mediated view, in particular regarding the concepts of power and violence. If, on the one hand, Arendt (1985) says in her reflections that power is born of consensus in order to make processes viable – the government of a country democratically elected by majority vote, for example, and that violence is the opposite of this – a Coup d’État that seizures it, for example –, something similar can be thought in systemic terms, facing, as we point out, each perspectives.

In other words, the main objective of a system’s operations, by its nature, is to reduce its internal complexity as a way of making its operations viable (LUHMANN, 2009). Thus, its existence and its operational autonomy are guaranteed a) in relation to the environment in which it is inserted and b) to other systems (SOSTER, 2015). Autonomy rather as selfreferential closure than as environment independence: “[...] the environment may limit or extend the scope of operational possibilities of the system, but this does not negate the fact that operations are produced and connected only by and in the system” (BARALDI, CORSI, ESPOSITO, 1996, p.36-37 – Our translation).

More than isolation, therefore, identities are endorsed. Power, for the system, is a synonym of complexity reduction and resulting operational viability: “The function of power is the regulation of contingency” (LUHMANN, 2005, p.18 – Our translation).

Distinguished environments

It must be also considered in the analysis that the operations to which we are referring are established in the scope of circulation. That is, in the dialogue with Fausto Neto (2010), in a way in which the emergence of the meanings occurs before from a logic of movement, and its complexity, in a situational place, which reconfigures secularly instituted places:

From this perspective, the concept of circulation distances itself from the previous problematization that conceived it as ‘unfathomable zone’, ‘gap’ or ‘passage’. It functions as a ‘zone of indetermination’ as a device, or space that generates potentialities. It takes by itself from the grammars the sovereignty of intentions, as the discourses are contacted by the contagion of the force and dynamics of this new space. Source intentions lose momentum as they are given over to other dynamics that make production and reception no longer able to control them, as well as the effects they presume to establish about discourses. Linearity gives way to heterogeneity. (FAUSTO NETO, 2010, p.9-10 – Our translation)

It is to say that circulation, by leaving aside the status of place of passage to become a “space generating potentialities”, ends up acquiring identity, although with delimitations little defined by its “in movement” condition. We can understand these spaces as ambiences (GOMES, 2006), and situate them in a specific, mediatized process condition⁴. In this way (SOSTER, 2015), as suggested by Postman in 1968, a whole ecology of media, that is to say:

A culture of convergent nature, dialoguing with Jenkins (2008); Especially, mediated, a new ambience, which Sodré (2002) will call ‘fourth bios’, from the Aristotelian categorization⁵; Gomes (2006) of ‘a new way of being in the world’ and Silverstone (2012), from Isaiah Berlin, ‘a texture of experience’. Above all, now thinking of Hjarvard (2014), the change of a whole way of being of society as a result of the growth and influence of the media in this (SOSTER, 2015, p.163 – Our translation).

It is within this new “place-environment”, or “places-environments” that the transformations take place. We are referring to interactive reference processes (BRAGA, 2007), which recognize the centrality of the media as a vector of social interaction.

The expression, in part, is about the fact that we consider certain processes as principal, tendentiously prevailing. The other interactional processes (which are not considered ‘reference’) would have them as a parameter, would refer to them as validity criteria and central logic definers. An international ‘referral’ process, in a given scope, ‘sets the tone’ for subsumed processes – that work or start working according to their logic. Thus, within the logic of mediatization, the social processes of mediated interaction begin to include, to cover the others, that do not disappear, but adjust (BRAGA, p.2, 2007 – Our translation).

These are the interactive processes of reference that will allow the emergence of a new narrative substrate, which we are calling here as the fourth narrator.

Fourth narrator

Understanding the “narratives of violence” implies both facing epistemological obstacles and considering that they are narratives in the first place, and that they have a mediatized nature; therefore they are reverberations of the discursive operations that are established in the environment described above. Also considering, in the analysis, that we cannot think of “narratives” without observing, in the discussion, who narrates; the narrators and their voices.

Thus, in the context of narrative theory, we can think of narratives as stories that both structure our reality and establish on them the condition of truth (RICOEUR, 2010), having as a mark the time.

By dealing with such a defining category of human experience as time, narrative carries within itself much more than the ability to organize the events engendered by the relation of subjects to their realities. It guarantees, in this perspective, the very structuring of the senses necessary for the construction of the greater sense of existence and the attempt to recognize this measure of difficult conceptual delimitation. It is narrated, therefore, because one seeks the arrangement order in time that can offer certain epistemologies necessary to the facts and the very possibility of recognizing them as such (PICCININ, 2012, p.69 – Our translation).

As for narrative voices, they are related to:

[...] a process and the circumstances in which it unfolds; The process is that of narrative enunciation, that is, the act of narration from which the narrative discourse itself proceeds, and the diegetic representation that it carries out; The circumstances are those that involve this process, temporal, material, psychological, etc. which set the narrator in a variable way, projecting indirectly on the discourse enunciated and affecting more or less the narratary (REIS; LOPES, 1988, p.141 – Our translation).

Based on the original theory developed by Gerard Genette (1988) on Literature, and later in the Communication, by Luiz Gonzaga Motta (2013), and based on an established path (SOSTER, 2014, 2015 and 2015b), we argue that the voice, or the voices, responsible for the senses that emerge from the “narratives of violence” belong to what we are calling the “fourth narrator”. That is, to the narrator that establishes, rather, in a systemic-mediated process than in a situational place, as occurs with the first, second and third narrators⁶.

It is worth remembering that the first narrator, by Motta (2003), is the device, understood here as both the organization/institution and the support itself (the daily news, for example, in its aspects as “company” and “paper journal” that comes to our house every day). The second narrator is the reporter, that is, the agent who will give form to the reports, while the third is the sources used in the stories. Although there is a certain hierarchy – the first narrator has greater influence on the second and third narrators, for example –, the three instances interact relationally.

It is also important to point out that even if one cannot think of the fourth narrator without the previous narrative levels (first, second and third narrators), there is a substantial difference to be considered, and this is the epistemological obstacle we referred to earlier: the fourth narrator is personified in the dialogue between devices from specific conditions of circulation. That is, from irritations that have the ability to interfere in the procedurality of the system.

Following this idea, the “fourth narrator” is a product of circulation that is established in the environment formed from the dialogue between devices, not only in them or from them. And this is why when the offers of meaning are made by the fourth narrator, in the case of a campaign against violence, the thematization overlaps with identity issues internal to the device (the “brand”, “name”, “origin” etc.), although it does not happen without them.

Having said that, it is time to observe how the voice, or the voices, of the fourth narrator manifest from the analysis of examples of what we are classifying as “narratives of violence”.

Narratives of violence

The examples below were collected on the Internet from social networks or websites, based on the fact that they represent previously aggregating narratives than potentially dangerous to systemic stability. What personifies in them, identitarilly, the fourth narrator is the a) thematic alignment between them and their discursive strategies, as well as b) differences that these narratives represent, as a whole, in relation to the other forms of enunciation. Their identity is the result of a difference:

Identity is not only a quality of the object, it concerns the look of the one who observes: therefore it always speaks of the identity of something by someone and based on a specific distinction. Those identities are introduced to organize the differences through which sense operates. Identities are not primary data, but are defined only negatively regarding differences in relation to each other: they combine a series of distinctions in a form that can be recognized (BARALDI, CORSI, ESPOSITO, 1996, p.88-89 – Our translation).

Violence against women

This is what can be seen in the campaign denouncing violence against women promoted by the government of Ontario in Canada under the title #whowillyouhelp. The objective was to expose both the violence against women in that country and the omission in relation to it, suggesting that those who passively accept violence become complicit in it.

The videos from the #whowillyouhelp campaign were initially hosted on Youtube⁷ and later posted on social networks, being commented (Figures 1 and 2) by sites like “Hypeness – criatividade para todos”, which did it with the title “Campaign shows that you are also being an accomplice of sexual violence against women”⁸, and Catraca Livre, with the heading “‘Everyone is accomplices of violence against women’ affirms campaign⁹”

Figure 1
Complicity

Figure 2
Campaign

We notice here something in the environment (violence against women and the omission of people in relation to it) initially irritates the political system (the government of Canada), being absorbed by it and interfering in its dynamics of functioning. Violence, by its nature, has significant social costs and is potentially disruptive, thus representing a risk to the social fabric.

The system, through mediated sense offerings, re-semanticizes the event, transforming it into a “narrative of violence”. The movement also displaces those from observers to a condition of witnesses of the scene, giving another dimension to their roles as an audience and integrating them into the narrative as characters.

Once available on Youtube, the “video” device, through its discursive processes of enunciation, begins to dialogue with the other devices, in a movement of structural connections. This is what happens with the site Hypeness and Catraca Livre, as shown in Figure 1 and 2, which also establish processes of enunciation.

Racism in Lithuania

A second example concerns a campaign conducted by an advertising agency in Lithuania, Eastern Europe, to denounce the existence of racism in that country. Here we have once again an irritation – violence personified in racism – that both emerges and disaggregates society, with the difference that it directly affects a device of the media system. This occurs as the video is developed on the initiative of a Lithuanian¹⁰ site, which uses the problematic¹¹ to a) give visibility to its own actions and b) denounce the problem in that country.

Figure 3
Racism in Lithuania

In the video¹², broadcasted on Facebook, a scene is set up (the montage integrates the initial images) in which a black actor, playing the role of a man who has just arrived in Lithuania, waits his turn to be interviewed for a television commercial. As the other candidates arrive at the waiting room, he shows them, via the Facebook social network, accessed through a tablet, a video and asks them to translate the content, claiming that it has only been two weeks in the country and that he cannot speak the language properly. The reaction of the candidates to the commercial, who do not know that they are being characters of a simulation, suggests that the content of the message is racist and xenophobic, which is explicit only at the end of the video, when one of them reads for the black actor part of the content .

It is important to note that, once made available on the Internet via Youtube, the narrative begins to irritate media devices and to be absorbed by them, which repeat within them systemic operational logics (SOSTER, 2009) and begin to perform enunciation processes with content. This is what is observed, for example, when the owner of the site http://www.uhull.com.br/ translates the video into Portuguese and makes it available in his space. Or, even when pages like UOL¹³, Pragmatismo Político¹⁴ and Exame.com¹⁵ show similar operations.

By analyzing them individually, the original information suffers small variations, resulting from the operations performed internally by the device, which can be observed from the statement of the titles:

• UOL. How people react to racism when they have to translate an offensive message

• Pragmatismo Político. An experiment about racism in Lithuania to reflect on here in Brazil

• Exame.com. Would you translate a racist text for a black person?

We have identified the voice of the fourth narrator by means of the senses that emerge from the thematic-discursive alignment of these statements rather than the way they shape their narratives.

Domestic violence in Croatia

A third example, produced by the Croatian government, concerns a video created to denounce violence against women by their husbands. The narrative is composed of a series of images in which the face of a young woman gradually changes until she is disfigured by the aggressions she has suffered. The subtitle informs that she has taken photos of herself for a year, also suggesting that the end will leave those who watch “speechless”. The narrative irritated the media system initially through Youtube, circulating, from there, on sites like Dailymotion¹⁶, Geledés¹⁷, Familia.com.br¹⁸ and others.

Figure 4
“Selfies” of violence

The above information circulated on the internet and was posted on pages such as BBC Brasil¹⁹, Portal Vírgula²⁰, Tribunal de Justiça de Sergipe²¹, Revista RollingStone²² and others.

By means of self-referential images exposed in the form of a slide-show, the victim of the aggressions suffers a kind of space-time displacement and becomes a character of herself and of all the women affected by the same problem. This is possible by the sequential distribution of the images, and by the deterioration that her face suffers as the images are presented.

Interpretive Considerations

To think of the “narratives of violence” from what we have reflected so far requires that we consider the fourth narrator in a rather indicative than situational perspective in the analysis. In this sense, their presence operates as a sort of bioindicator of deeper layers of meaning.

Especially because of the fact that we are speaking of a mediated narrative form, that is, that exists because of a structure of society marked by the accelerated emergence of interactional reference processes, which reconfigures scenarios and requires specific grammars of recognition.

As we have seen in the examples, the emergence of the fourth narrator takes place procedurally from the moment an event – in our case, violence – irritates a system, regardless of its nature, interfering with its operational logic. This is the case, for example, when cases of domestic violence or racism are concerned in society to the point of drawing the attention of their rulers.

Our examples suggest that the way in which violence is incorporated by the system, and then returned to the environment and other systems, is due to the re-semantization of the event in question, based on mediated discursive logics.

In the cases analyzed, these movements can be identified when, for example, the governments of Canada and Croatia elaborate strategies through which discourses of violence are offered to society as “narratives of violence” from the perspective we are thinking. With this, they incorporate the irritations to their operational processualities, transforming violence into power, that is, into a mechanism of social agglutination.

The “narratives of violence” irritate the media system – through the provision of the videos on the Youtube platform – which absorbs the information and causes it to circulate among some of its devices (websites, social networks, blogs etc.)

If we remember that the device repeats in it the operational logic of the system in which it is inserted (SOSTER, 2009), we will then understand that processes of enunciation take place from these moments. This is stated, in the samples, when we indicate the sites that have made the events in question known.

It should also be said that the process of re-semantization to which we refer can be observed by marks left on the surface of the narratives analyzed. The transformation, through enacting of subjects into characters, as in the video on racism of Lithuania, is one of them.

Although the concept of enacting was originally thought to reflect on mediated journalism (FAUSTO NETO, 2011; SOSTER, 2015), it can also be used in the perspective we are proposing, as we also have here the generation of a new enunciative matrix, “[...] which first effect is the displacement of journalistic work from one techno-symbolic sphere of mediation to another, which we would call ‘enacting’ itself”. (FAUSTO NETO, 2011, p.4 – Our translation).

By transforming ordinary people into actors, and actors into ordinary people, the system offers links which purpose is to strengthen the bonds between the offerings of meaning and who accesses them, provoking, in this movement, reactions such as the sharing of information.

This is what is observed in the example, in Figure 1 - Complicity, which was not only shared with another site but also had its subtitles translated so that the empathy process would be faster. It contributes for this purpose the use, in the statements, of keywords preceded by hashtags, that is, graphic symbols that suggest the sharing of information via internet²³, in the case of #whowillyouhelp.

Another point to be considered in the interpretation concerns the way the dialogues are established with those who observe them. If, in the society of the media, grammars were hegemonically explanatory or interpretive, and therefore referential, in our examples the discursive architecture seems to require, in some cases, other forms of adherence of those who dialogue with it.

This can be seen in Figure 4 – “selfies” of violence, as we follow the evolution of the aggressions suffered by the protagonist in the narrative passively, almost complicit. This feeling is exacerbated in Figure 1. In both cases, those who observe are inserted in the narrative as protagonists of the aggressions, in a clear allusion to the moral meaning of the word omission.

The observer also inserts himself/herself into the narrative in Figure 3 – Racism in Lithuania, as he ends up taking the place of the camera for himself and dividing space in the narrative, thus, with the narrator himself. The statement is justified as, unlike the other characters, the observer is informed from the beginning of the video that it is a “frame” and that the people participating in the scene are actually being tested.

This reconfigures the ambience in which the systems are inserted through the creation of intermediate zones of circulation, therefore new ambiences, which can neither be thought a) in isolation from the wider zone (the sets of four narrators) b) nor to be considered syntheses of the same, as they exist and affect relationally.

Understanding what that means is the challenge that lies ahead.

• 01
  The article is part of thoughts developed since my PhD stage, at Unisinos in 2016.
• 02
  Social minorities are the set of “[...] individuals considered to be deserving of unequal and humiliating treatment simply because they are identified as belonging to them” (JOHNSSON 1997, p.149).
• 03
  The device concept will be understood in this article, both through Mouillaud (1997), that is, as the matrix through which forms and meanings take place, as from Ferreira (2014, p.7 – Our translation), which understands device as “concrete operative space (at the same time, epistemological and empirical) that allows references to the circulation and social processes linked to mediatization”.
• 4
  There is here an important substantive discussion. It concerns the fact that systems theory, thought by Niklas Luhmann, mainly, did not establish dialogues more closely with that of mediatization, which is mainly due to the fact that Luhmann’s work was interrupted by his death in November 1988 in Germany. The discussion about the proximity of the two theoretical models, which allows us to make such a consideration, has been faced since the postdoctoral internship of the author of this article, held in Unisinos (RS) in 2016.
• 05
  The first bios concerns the contemplative life; the second, the politic life; the third, the pleasurable life (SODRÉ, 2002, p. 25).
• 06
  There is a whole background discussion here to be considered equally, which we will not focus at this time due to space saving issues. It concerns, essentially, the passage of a model of analysis of the media society (first, second and third narrators, from Genette (1988) and Motta’s perspective (2013)) to a society in the process of mediatization (fourth narrator). Consider, therefore, the questions posed here in an indicative way, that is, as a kind of “bioindicators” of deeper levels of signification.
• 07
  This video illustrates the evaluated data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ZSZrGc-O8.
• 08
  Available on: http://www.hypeness.com.br/2015/03/campanha-mostra-porque-voce-esta-sendo-cumplice-da-violencia-sexual-contra-mulheres/ Last accessed: March 26th 2016
• 09
  Available on: https://queminova.catracalivre.com.br/tag/whowillyouhelp/ Last accessed: May 18^th 2016
• 10
  www.svetimageda.lt
• 11
  The video explains that it is an experience from the staff of the website itself performed with these purposes. This is the kind of manual designed so that people know how to behave in situations like these.
• 12
  Available on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdPioHyt8lw
• 13
  Available on: http://noticias.uol.com.br/internacional/ultimas-noticias/2015/03/20/como-pessoas-reagem-ao-racismo-quando-tem-que-traduzir-uma-mensagem-ofensiva.htm Last accessed: May 19th 2016
• 14
  Available on: http://www.pragmatismopolitico.com.br/2015/03/um-experimento-sobre-racismo-na-lituania-para-refletir-aqui-no-brasil.html Last accessed: May 19th 2016
• 15
  Available on: http://exame.abril.com.br/marketing/noticias/voce-traduziria-um-texto-racista-para-um-negro Last accessed: May 19th 2016
• 16
  Available on: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zsf2j_this-woman-took-a-photo-of-herself-everyday-during-a-year-the-endingyou-leave-you-speechless_people Last accessed May 19th 2016
• 17
  Available on: http://www.geledes.org.br/esta-mulher-fotografou-se-todos-os-dias-durante-um-ano-o-final-nos-deixa-sem-palavras/ Last accessed May 19th 2016
• 18
  Available on: https://familia.com.br/superacao/ela-fotografou-se-todos-os-dias-durante-um-ano-vivendo-sob-o-abuso-e-a-violenciadomestica Last accessed: May 19th 2016
• 19
  Available on: http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2015/11/151125_violencia_domestica_celebridades_rm Last accessed: Apr. 19th 2016
• 20
  Available on: http://virgula.uol.com.br/comportamento/quebre-o-silencio-artista-recria-fotos-de-celebridades-com-sinais-de-agressao/
• 21
  Available on: http://www.tjse.jus.br/portaldamulher/index.php/component/content/article/14-portal/202-a-vida-pode-ser-um-conto-de-fadas-se-voce-quebrar-o-silencio-nenhuma-mulher-esta-imune-a-violencia-domestica-campanha-de-artista-italiano-alexsandro-palombo. Last accessed: May 19th 2016
• 22
  Available on: http://rollingstone.uol.com.br/blog/com-imagens-de-celebridades-artista-italiano-cria-campanha-contra-violencia-domestica/
• 23
  https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag

Referências

• AMARAL, Adriana; COIMBRA, Michele. Expressões de ódio nos sites de redes sociais: o universo dos haters no caso #eunãomereçoserestuprada. Contemporânea. Revista de Comunicação e Cultura Universidade Federal da Bahia, v.13, n.01, p.294-310, mai/ago 2015.
• ARENDT, Hannah. Da violência Brasília: UnB, 1985.
• BARALDI, Cláudio; CORSI, Giancarlo; ESPOSITO, Elena (Org.). Glossário sobre la teoria social de Niklas Luhmann México: Anthropos, 1996. 24 Disponível em: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag. Acesso em: 19 maio 2016.
  » https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashta
• BERTALANFFY, Ludwig von. Teoria geral dos sistemas Petrópolis: Vozes, 2013.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre. O poder simbólico: história e sociedade. Lisboa: Edição 70, 2015.
• BRAGA, José Luiz. Mediatização como processo internacional de referência. In: MÉDOLA, Ana Sílvia; ARAÚJO, Denize Correa; BRUNO, Fernanda (Org.). Imagem, visibilidade e cultura midiática: livro da XV Compós. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2007.
• DEMO, Pedro. Metodologia do conhecimento científico São Paulo: Atlas, 2000.
• FAUSTO NETO, Antônio. Transformações nos discursos jornalísticos: a atorização do acontecimento. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISADORES EM JORNALISMO. Rio de Janeiro, 2011. Anais...
• ________. A circulação além das bordas. In: MEDIATIZACIÓN, SOCIEDADE Y SENTIDO: DIÁLOGOS ENTRE BRASIL Y ARGENTINA. Rosario, 2010. Anais...
• FERREIRA, Jairo. Midiatização em processo: investigação em dispositivos midiáticos. Projeto de Pesquisa: Edital PQ/2014. Programa de Pós-graduação em Comunicação (PPGCom) Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (Unisinos): São Leopoldo, 2014.
• FRAGOSO, Suely; RECUERO, Raquel; AMARAL, Adriana. Métodos de pesquisa na internet Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2011.
• FRY, Karin A. Compreender Hannah Arendt Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2009.
• GENETTE, Gerárd. Figuras III Barcelona: Lumen, 1988.
• GOMES, Pedro Gilberto. Filosofia e ética da comunicação na midiatização da sociedade São Leopoldo: Unisinos, 2006.
• HJARVARD, Stig. A midiatização da cultura e da sociedade São Leopoldo: Unisinos, 2014.
• JENKINS, Henry. Cultura da Convergência São Paulo: Aleph, 2008.
• JOHNSON, Allan G. Dicionário de Sociologia Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 1997.
• LOPES, Ana Cristina M.; REIS, Carlos (Orgs). Dicionário da teoria narrativa. São Paulo: Ática, 1988.
• LUHMANN, Niklas. Poder Barcelona: Paidós, 2005.
• ________. Introdução à teoria dos sistemas Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2009.
• MOTTA, Luiz Gonzaga. Análise crítica da narrativa Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2013.
• MOUILLAUD, Maurice; DAYRELL, Sergio (Org.). O jornal da forma ao sentido Brasília: Paralelo 15, 1997.
• PARSONS, Talcot. The social system England: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
• PICCININ, Fabiana. O (complexo) exercício de narrar e os formatos múltiplos: para pensar a narrativa no contemporâneo. In. AUTOR; PICCININ, Fabiana. Narrativas comunicacionais complexificadas Santa Cruz do Sul: Edunisc, 2012.
• RICOEUR, Paul. Tempo e narrativa Tomo 1. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2010.
• SILVERSTONE, Roger. Por que estudar a mídia? São Paulo: Loyola, 2012.
• SODRÉ, Muniz. Antropológica do espelho: uma teoria da comunicação linear e em rede. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2002.
• SOSTER, Demétrio de Azeredo. O sistema como quarto narrador do jornalismo. In: TEMER, Ana Carolina Rocha Pessôa; SANTOS, Marli dos (Org). Fronteiras híbridas do jornalismo Curitiba: Apris, 2015a.
• ________. O quarto narrador, a morte da editora e a midiatização das narrativas. In: 13º ENCONTRO NACIONAL DOS PESQUISADORES DE JORNALISMO. Campo Grande, 2015b. Anais...
• ________ Jornalismo e literatura: as complexificações narrativas jornalísticas de cunho biográfico. In: ________(Org.). Narrativas reconfiguradas 2: a forma. Santa Cruz do Sul: Edunisc, 2014.
• ________ O jornalismo em novos territórios conceituais: internet, midiatização e a reconfiguração dos sentidos midiáticos. São Leopoldo, 2009. Tese (Doutorado em Comunicação), Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, 2009.
• VERÓN, Eliseo. A produção de sentido São Paulo: Cultrix, 1980.
• ZIZEK, Slavoj. Violência São Paulo: Boitempo, 2014. Seção 303. Edição Kindle.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jan-Apr 2017

History

• Received
  21 June 2016
• Accepted
  10 Feb 2017