Political Communication in Times of A New Political Culture: October 2019

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/338108791
Political Communication in times of a New Political Culture
Article · October 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 6
3 authors:
Xabier Barandiaran Alfonso Unceta

University of Deusto Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
9 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Simón Peña-Fernández
Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
109 PUBLICATIONS 111 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Noticias, redes y usuarios en el sistema híbrido de medios View project
Social Innovation Community View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Simón Peña-Fernández on 22 December 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INNOVACIÓN TEÓRICA
Political Communication in times of a

New Political Culture
Comunicación Política en tiempos de Nueva Cultura
Política
Comunicação política em tempos de nova cultura política
Xabier Barandiarán
Professor (University of Deusto)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7557-9331
Spain
Alfonso Unceta
Full Professor (University of the Basque Country)
Director of Sinnergiak Social Innovation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2886-6204
Spain
Simón Peña
Professor (University of the Basque Country)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2080-3241
Spain
Reception date: 8 March 2019

Review date: 13 July 2019
Accepted date: 13 July 2019
Preprint date: 28 September 2019
To cite this article: Barandiarán, X., Unceta, A. and Peña, S. (2019). Political Communi-
cation in times of a New Political Culture, Icono 14, 18 (1), Preprint. doi: 10.7195/ri14.
v18i1.1382
DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

Xabier Barandiarán, Alfonso Unceta and Simón Peña
Abstract
The process of globalisation and its clear communicative, cultural and politi-
cal effects are greatly affecting two relatively new concepts in academic research,
specifically Political Communication and Political Culture. The relationship between
these concepts is increasingly interdependent as the tools and languages of Political
Communication strongly influence the formation of the New Political Culture, and
in turn, citizen activity through digital communication tools is conditioning the
generation of content and the creation of discourse which take shape in the form of
Political Communication.
We believe that to understand the reasons for this relationship it is necessary

to establish, firstly, the characteristics of the New Political Culture, and secondly,
the way in which the possibilities offered by technology transform the generation
and transmission of Political Communication. Possibly the newest aspect of this
relationship is that it has a two-way nature, altering the classical roles of the com-
munication process that clearly distinguishes transmitters and receivers. This new
aspect constitutes global evidence and is felt in a very similar way in all western
representative democracies.
This work endeavours to describe and analyse this emerging scenario which has
taken shape as another of the transformations which are occurring in advanced soci-
eties, and to identify some trends which, in all cases, are subject to the accelerated
change of our time.
Key Words
Political Culture; Disaffection; Participation; Political Communication; Digital Tech-

nologies; Communicative Languages
ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

Resumen
El proceso de globalización y sus manifiestos efectos comunicativos, culturales
y políticos están afectando crucialmente a dos conceptos relativamente jóvenes en
la investigación académica, en concreto, la Comunicación Política y la Cultura Po-
lítica. La relación entre estos conceptos es cada vez más interdependiente pues las
herramientas y los lenguajes de la Comunicación Política influyen decisivamente en
la conformación de la Nueva Cultura Política y, a su vez, la actividad de la ciuda-
danía a través de las herramientas comunicativas digitales está condicionando la
generación de contenidos y la creación de los discursos que toman cuerpo en forma
de Comunicación Política.
Creemos que para entender las razones de esta relación es necesario establecer,
por un lado, las características de la Nueva Cultura Política y, por la otra, la ma-
nera en que las posibilidades que ofrece la tecnología transforman la generación y
la transmisión de la Comunicación Política. Posiblemente lo más novedoso de esta
relación es que tiene carácter bidireccional, alterando los roles clásicos del proceso
comunicativo que distinguía nítidamente entre emisores y receptores. Novedad que
constituye una evidencia global y se deja sentir de manera muy similar en el con-
junto de las democracias representativas occidentales.
Este trabajo se esfuerza en describir y analizar este escenario emergente que ha

tomado cuerpo como otra de las transformaciones que están aconteciendo en las
sociedades avanzadas, y en identificar algunas tendencias que, en todo caso, están
sometidas al cambio vertiginoso propio de nuestro tiempo.
Palabras clave
Cultura Política; Desafección; Participación; Comunicación Política; Tecnologías Digi-

tales; Lenguajes Comunicativos

Resumo
O processo de globalização e os seus manifestos efeitos comunicativos, culturais
e políticos estão a afetar crucialmente dois conceitos relativamente jovens na in-
vestigação académica, em concreto, a Comunicação Política e a Cultura Política. A
relação entre estes conceitos é cada vez mais interdependente, pois as ferramentas
e as linguagens da Comunicação Política influenciam decisivamente na formação da
Nova Cultura Política e, por sua vez, a atividade da cidadania através das ferramen-
tas comunicativas digitais está a condicionar a geração de conteúdos e a criação dos
discursos que ganham forma como Comunicação Política.
Acreditamos que, para entender as razões desta relação, é necessário estabelecer,

por um lado, as características da Nova Cultura Política e, por outro, a maneira como
as possibilidades que oferece a tecnologia transformam a geração e a transmissão
da Comunicação Política. Possivelmente a novidade desta relação é ter caráter bidi-
recional, alterando os papéis clássicos do processo comunicativo que distinguia ni-
tidamente entre emissores e recetores. Novidade que consiste numa evidência global
e que se deixa sentir de maneira muito semelhante no conjunto das democracias
representativas ocidentais.
Este trabalho esforça-se por descrever e analisar este cenário emergente que ga-
nhou corpo como outra das transformações que estão a acontecer nas sociedades
avançadas, e em identificar algumas tendências que, em todo o caso, estão sujeitas
à mudança vertiginosa própria do nosso tempo.
Palavras chave
Cultura Política; Desafeição; Participação; Comunicação Política; Tecnologias Digi-

tais; Linguagens Comunicativas

1. Introduction
It has almost been forty years since the notion of political culture started to
be used with certain regularity in studies focused on understanding how citizens
establish their relationship with politics.
One of the precursors of the term, Lechner (1990; 1996), has analysed in several
papers the path that studies on political culture have followed during these years
and the different focal points of interest they have gradually tackled.
According to Lechner (1990), during a first phase, studies on political culture

focused on citizens’ attitudes, values and beliefs (Almond y Verba, 1989), to then,
in a second phase, analyse the impact attributed to the globalisation of culture
and communication in the configuration of the political culture (Castells, 2009).
The current phase, the third, is particularly complex as the convergence of

two phenomena can be observed. First of all, the profound crisis of representative
democratic systems (Castells, 2017), some of the causes of which we will analyse
later. Secondly, the generalised penetration of communicative messages by means
of available digital technological instruments, most particularly through the Inter-
net (Chaves-Montero, 2017). Of course we are referring to communicative messages
related to politics more or less explicitly.
Such that, today more than ever, political communication has gone on to play
a strategic role in citizens’ relationship with politics; i.e., in the formation of
political culture, in how citizens perceive, value and judge politics. This is a phe-
nomenon that affects all representative democracies in advanced societies and
which decisively contributes to the crisis of traditional political culture or the old
political culture (Jurado, 2015).
As was correctly pointed out by Gil Calvo (2018),
the crisis of today’s democracy is a political problem for which we need to find
out who the political culprits are; and we only have two types of agents who are

suspects: the political class and the media class. (…) On the one hand, hypoth-
esis A, proposed by the authors who interpret the problem as a “mediatisation”
of politics, where it is the “media” who occupy the independent variable as the
“culprits” of causing the crisis of democracy. And on the other, hypothesis B, by
those who attribute its cause to the “politicisation” of the media, in which case
the independent variable is the “political class”, which is ultimately responsible
for the electioneering degradation of democracy (p. 218-219).
In the following lines we do not seek to position ourselves on one side or the
other of the hypotheses proposed by Gil Calvo (2018). But we do want to contex-
tualise and explain the way in which the “new political culture” and “political
communication” are related, to try to understand the scope and consequences of
this relationship
To this end, in the First Part of this article we will deal with the meaning of the
“new political culture”, its causes, and some of its expressions and consequences;
while in the Second Part we will analyse how the new instruments and contents of
“political communication” affect the questioning of the classical scenario in which
the old political culture has existed.
First Part: The new political culture

2. Questioning traditional politics
The new political culture is the expression of the absence of social, cultural and
ideological categories of political problems traditionally formulated in terms of left
and right. This confirms the suspicions of different authors about the institutional
reality of post-industrial societies (Touraine, 1971; Bell, 1994).
The new political culture also has differentiated elements with respect to the
old structures of political action and representation of classical democratic sys-
tems. According to Clark and Inglehart (1998) among such differentiating ele-
ments we have the following:

• A high percentage of voters who do not currently identify with any political
party.
• The emergence of political leaders who break away from the classical pro-
grammes established by their own parties.
• The distancing of citizens with respect to the official matters of public life.
• The negative feelings of part of the population towards politics, translated

into signs of more or less exacerbated discontent (Ganuza and Font, 2018).
But what are the reasons for this evolution?
A first relevant reason has to do with the way in which citizens consume (Bau-
man, 2007) the political fact (audiovisual and digital production scenarios), which
most often just reproduces the debate between political actors, a debate centred
on grabbing headlines.
A second, equally relevant reason is related to citizens’ disenchantment with

politics, due to a large extent to the failure to fulfil the axioms on which trust in
representative democratic systems rests.
According to Simone (2016), the “axioms of democracy” are those that the
rights and freedoms of citizens in representative democracies are based on (jobs,
healthcare, education, equality, freedom of speech), the protection of which is the
responsibility of the political class.
The fact that the political discourses and practices that led to what is known
as the “old political culture” stabilised around such axioms is why it has enjoyed
a certain level of stability and acceptance for several decades. In fact, the degree
of legitimacy of this old political culture had seen few variations during recent
decades.

However, during a relatively short period of time, different causes have acceler-
ated the questioning of traditional ways of understanding and practising politics,
on the one hand, and of legitimising it, on the other. In order to understand this
change of direction, we will mention two large issues which, as we see it, largely
explain the crises of representative democracies caused by their questioning by
increasingly broad and extensive sectors of the population:
• The economic and therefore social impact of globalisation and its conse-
quences.
• The feeling that identity structures which are fairly consolidated in our
society have of being under threat.
The economic and social impact of globalisation
Globalisation has ushered in a new stage that takes over from the hegemony of
the industrial production system and which is characterised by an economy based
on services, innovation and knowledge. An economy guided by finance capitalism
and marked by “post-organisation” (Bell, 1994; Lash and Urry, 1998).
We are referring to an economy that is constantly influenced and affected by

the advances and technological supremacy which, among other effects, has led to
the “loss of the centrality and stability of work as a central element of social struc-
turing” (Subirats, 2010).
An economy that has created rising inequality and has significantly increased
the number of disadvantaged, marginalised and excluded people. An economy that
is strongly rejected by a wide range of population sectors.
How can we admire or respect a way of doing things that has invented an econ-
omy-fiction based on financial engineering, which has created sophisticated
bubbles of <economic ether> that have ruined so many millions of people while
a few amassed millions of dollars of personal profit? (Gutiérrez Conde, 2018, p.
341-342).

Globalisation creates problems that states have been incapable of solving,

among other reasons because the nature of such problems goes beyond territorial
borders. Thus, many citizens have internalised a growing sensation of uncertainty
and insecurity.
In turn, politicians in representative democracies have been shown to be inca-

pable of assuaging these uncertainties. In fact, in many cases they aggravate them
with apocalyptic language. In one or another scenario, from the perspective of
citizens, the feeling of defencelessness is quite widespread.
Threatened identities
On the one hand, identities give meaning to life and, on the other, operate as
refuges in the face of potential threats, whether they be imagined or real (Tajel,
1982). However, there is evidence that in complex societies the weakening of iden-
tities, or their fragmentation, is a regular phenomenon.
Today it is a fact that there is a very significant number of people and groups
around us who feel that their identity is under threat. To a large extent this is due
to different factors that could potentially erode these identities, be they political,
ethnic, linguistic, professional or of another nature.
Related to the above, attitudes and behaviours of withdrawal and rejection in

the face of imagined or real threats are on the rise. Good examples of this are the
radicalisation of nationalist sentiment, religious fundamentalism or the rise in
xenophobia.
Undoubtedly, the phenomenon of emigration is having a big impact on the

spread of these types of attitudes and behaviours. It is evident that emigration,
a threat for some, an opportunity for others, produces feelings of hostility and
rejection among numerically and socially significant groups of people.

In this respect, Mounk (2018) states that
from the moment when this massive arrival of immigrants started in societies
that defined themselves by a shared culture and ethnic origin, the tension
between theory and practice became increasingly explosive. Thus, we probably
should not be surprised that, in recent decades, support for a series of political
forces radically opposed to immigration has risen so fast (p. 171).
Evidently, these feelings and behaviours are more visible among the population
that coexists socially and spatially with the immigrant population, but they tend
to spread to wider sectors of society due to the effect of discourses and accounts
that they have found in the large variety of communication structures available in
ground that is fertile for their large-scale dissemination.
3. How to identify a new political culture?

The new political culture has differentiated elements with respect to the old
structures of political action and representation of classical democratic moderni-
sation processes (Clark and Inglehart, 1998).
We are assisting a widespread process of pluralisation and de-emphasis (in the

strong sense of the term) of the ways of experiencing our relationship with poli-
tics and political events. The pluralisation we refer to is based, in many cases, on
interests that are more cultural than political, created by communities structured
through networks and which, on many occasions, have little social visibility.
It could be said that this abandonment of the intense experience of the politi-
cal fact has become widespread and also has a sentimental component. As pointed
out by Innerarity (2018), “There are disillusioned people everywhere and for very
different, often contradictory reasons, on the right and left, those who are let down
by the people or those who feel betrayed by the elites” (p. 53).
Below we will provide a few indicators of this reality

The potential of social movements
Social movements (ecologists, pacifists, feminists, etc.) are gaining increasing

protagonism. By means of mechanisms of collective action, they seek to strength-
en democracy, decentralisation, respect for diversity and individual freedom.
In recent years, feminism is becoming particularly noteworthy. Feminism is the

voice of one of the new dimensions of social life that wishes to be heard in order
to have an acknowledged space in society. It installs itself in opposition to the
order established for women by the dominant cultural system, defending the right
to have a space of equality with respect to men, in which women have greater
autonomy, greater social power and prestige (Bullén, 2017, p. 58)
Nor should we forget the mobilisations carried out by many young people that
have crossed national borders and which have had a large impact in countries such
as Spain. They indicate a movement that may not just be circumstantial and which
may crystallise into a feeling/identity of a social group whose interests (access to
public resources, for example) collide with those of other social groups (for exam-
ple the demands of older, retired people).
Along these lines we should point out that a fairly widespread idea among many
young people is that time and again they have to overcome barriers that severely
impact their expectations and lives.
Young people face a wall that prevents them from building a future. The bricks
that make up this wall are precariousness, a lack of opportunities or the ab-
sence of possibilities to become independent and build a home. Added to this
are the ignorance, lack of interest (in the best of cases) or corruption (in the
worst) of our public servants when seeking solutions (Politikon, 2017, p.12).
Disillusionment among citizens with politics
Everyone is aware of the high percentage of voters who currently do not identi-
fy with any political party and of the increasingly evident behaviour of candidates

and political leaders who break with the classical programs established by their
own parties in an attempt to attract the interest of people who have withdrawn
from politics.
In the opinion of Simón (2018), “citizens turn their backs on political parties
because the world has changed and they are no longer as relevant, or because the
parties themselves, having been hollowed out of ideology, interest them less” (p.
71). A trend that Simón (2018) himself has called “the bankruptcy of the party
system” (p. 57).
The truth is that politics is perceived by many citizens as an activity beyond

their concern, which leads to a withdrawal from conventional political activity
(Mair, 2013). As pointed out by Innerarity (2018), “the current political landscape
is filled with a widespread disappointment that no longer refers to something spe-
cific but to a general situation” (p. 9).
One of the reasons behind this withdrawal is that the lives of political actors
are generally far removed from a large majority of citizens, with whom they have
sporadic contact. It is a powerful process of privatisation of politics.
“Those who believe they live at the forefront of politics, who are usually those
who think they are writing history, are hardly ever generous and do not usually
make the effort to explain the hidden driving force behind things” (Del Olmo,
2018, p. 9).
Thus, professional politicians have been socialised in a closed ecosystem; they

understand their function in a way that is excessively vertical and they internalise
the notion that media projection is one of the keys to success. Thus, they are more
concerned about their media impact (with or without content), something that
has to do with simple propaganda and not with solving citizens’ problems. The
political agenda is the best expression of the gap between politics (politicians)
and society (citizens).

The politics of emotions: populism
The relationship between politicians and citizens that we have just described
has created a significant vacuum that populism is taking advantage of to offer a
series of recipes that contain simple and rapid solutions for the problems of our
time. But as is pointed out by Mounk (2018),
the readiness of populist leaders to offer such simple solutions that have no
chance of working is very dangerous. When they achieve power, their policies
rather tend to exacerbate the very problems that caused the popular outrage
that put them in government in the first place (p. 44).
It is the politics of emotions that is being practised with notable success by

people and political parties.
Innerarity (2017) rightly refers to this emotional component with the term “ex-
asperated societies” (p. 53). Citizens who feel vulnerable, gripped by a convenient-
ly crafted fear of different types of threats, impatient about the lack of solutions
to the problems they perceive.
Emotions and feelings override rational thought.
“We have a collective landscape with the contagion and feedback of the chaotic
effects of an anxious precariat, compulsive consumers, societies in maximum
alert, hysterical markets, widespread threats and distrustful citizens” (Innerar-
ity, 2017, p. 60).
Logical thought is pitched against emotional situations. As is rightly pointed

out by Del Olmo (2018), “the limits of reason are far from being a new discovery,
and the importance of emotions has expanded post-modern politics from the bound-
aries of governments to those of the opposition” (p. 108).
But in fact, rationality and bureaucratisation draw old politics away from the
solutions that are demanded from it. Conventional politics is incapable of ade-

quately moving through that geography of emotions (Del Olmo, 2018), entirely
the opposite to the populist proposals.
The emotional component is a core reason behind the rise of populism. As

pointed out by Lassalle (2017),
“in order to understand the populist process we have to explore the emotional
structure of Western societies and the collapse of the Enlightenment. (…) It
is about demolishing –through the use of successive wrecking balls- the liberal
architecture and democracy that arose from the 18th century” (p.17-18).
The growth and expansion of the populist phenomenon is understood better

if we consider the technological factor, as social networks have become a regular,
and sometimes crucial, playing field for political action. Thus, as we are going to
argue in the Second Part of this article, as regards the expansion of this geography
of emotions, technology at the service of political communication plays a decisive
role, even transforming the concept itself of Political Communication.
Second Part: Political Communication

4. The sophistication of Political Communication
Political communication is a task focused on the creation of beliefs and opinions
on political matters. In this sense, the main recipients of political communication
are citizens and the main issuers of information are the politicians themselves.
However, what characterises the current stage of political communication is

that citizens are transformed into an active and critical agent that uses technol-
ogy as an element to make political decisions, as opposed to models where direct
participation was only so in appearance (Blumler and Kavanagh, 2000).
Continuing with Blumler and Kavanagh (2000), the first stage of political com-
munication -started after the end of World War II- had been characterised by the
subordination of a large part of the communication to stable and strong values and

political institutions, while during the second stage, an increasingly professional-

ised political communication had adapted its content to the television format in
order to seduce an electorate whose opinion could be variable.
On the other hand, during the third stage -characterised by an overabundance

of information- Blumler and Kavanagh (2000) identify five trends that have been
gradually consolidated:
• A greater need for professionalisation.
• Increased skills.
• The emergence of anti-elite populism.
• Centrifugal diversification.
• Changes in the ways people perceive politics.
This third stage we are referring to has essentially been influenced by the ap-
pearance of the so-called Web 2.0, which has brought the creation of a new public
sphere of citizen participation. For example, this has led to instant mobilisations
around specific political events that make demands or protest and which Rhein-
gold (2004) defines with the term “smart mobs”.
Likewise, during this stage, the use of new technologies has contributed to-
wards the development of the ideal of the Open Government model, understood as
a horizontal model of communication (Calderón, 2011) or, if one prefers, a con-
versation between institutions and citizens on political matters, which is a sign of
good health of democratic culture (Warner, Turner and Hawthorne, 2013).
However, several shadows are cast over the use of new technologies in political
communication. We will list some of them:

• The fear of criticism and the desire to control political communication by

the issuers (Macnamara, Safinofsky and Beattie, 2012).
• Low participation in many of the new channels created, particularly on

social networks, which means that the problems of mobilising the disen-
chanted electorate do not seem to have been solved (Warner, Turner and
Hawthorne, 2013).
• The suspicion that a growing exposure to these types of communication

mechanisms does not guarantee a higher participation of citizens in politics
(Tuviera-Puigbó, 2009).
• The difficulty of much of the political class to harness the language of dig-
ital communication mechanisms, and the persistence of the language used
in audiovisual media such as television (Del Rey, 2012).
• The rejection of many politicians of the new communication channels, ei-

ther because of a generation gap or because of scepticism about the benefits
of using these technological devices (Ureña, 2011).
In short, although social networks make it easier to have direct contact, give
participants visibility, encourage debate or even alert about possible conflicts, the
political class makes a rather token use of them and only in some cases are active
and permanent political communication strategies designed using these mecha-
nisms (Túnez and Sixto, 2011).
Within the framework of this ambivalent contribution of the new digital sys-
tems to political communication, Ainsworth, Hardy and Harley (2005) highlight
the three positions that can be observed in relation to the benefits and limits of
the use of these technologies in political communication:
• Those who value the democratic potential of using the Internet, mainly be-
cause it facilitates the participation of a wide variety of sectors, including
sectors traditionally excluded from political dialogue.

• Those who highlight the discrimination brought about by its use, derived
from situations of gender, class or race.
• Those who make the potential and benefits of the Internet depend on the
behaviour of users, in particular in terms of community and social respon-
sibility.
5. The risks of Political Communication today

We have already established that the use of digital technology is transforming
the way in which information is produced, distributed and received (Boczkowski
and Anderson, 2017). This transformation is also influencing the political behav-
iour of citizens, but what is not yet clear is whether it contributes towards higher
participation (Prior, 2007). That is, the higher number of news articles and com-
munications in circulation and the possibilities of mainstream entertainment do
not necessarily lead to increased critical participation.
The above has a lot to do with the fact that, paradoxically, this multiplica-
tion of channels and information content can increase the risk of disinformation
among citizens. This is mainly due to two reasons:
• A larger volume of information does not necessarily lead to a more well-in-

formed population (Kampen and Snijkers, 2003).
• The higher number of users and actors present in digital channels has been
accompanied by a series of interested practices that are not governed by
informative criteria such as veracity.
There are many examples of what has become known as “fake news”, particular-
ly the evidence of what happened during the campaign after which Donald Trump
was elected president (Alcot and Gentzkow, 2017; Guess, Nihan and Reifler, 2018)
or the Brexit referendum (Bastos and Mercea, 2017).

According to the Digital News Report (2018), the manipulation of journalistic

information to serve certain political or economic interests is the main source of
concern for users (77%). These same users consider that the news media and jour-
nalists are the ones who should safeguard the veracity of news articles (84%), also
attributing a large portion of the responsibility to technology companies (79%)
and governments (72%) (Amoedo, Vara and Negredo, 2018).
Along with the risk of disinformation or inaccurate information, the third stage
of political communication must also face the risk of the lack of pluralism, either
due to the “control” over social networks exerted by certain groups of users who
share ideas and visions of reality (Sunstein, 2017) or because of the difficulty for
some groups to access these digital platforms adequately (Bakshy, Messing and
Adamic, 2015).
Hermes (2006) concludes that the use of new technologies focused on political
communication is not achieving large-scale communication between large groups
of people but that it tends to create closed, small communities.
6. Digital technologies and horizontal dialogue

A different and complementary perspective to that presented in the above sec-
tion highlights the contribution of digital technologies to the fostering of hori-
zontal dialogue. Del Olmo (2018) rightly points out this paradox:
On the one hand, the Internet multiplies the possibilities of confusion and
requires much more skills for citizens to distinguish between real and fake con-
tent. (…) On the other, the reorganisation of public conversation, the altera-
tion of the communication format, destroys the order of power. Power requires
that communication only flow in one direction, from the top down. And today,
with the appearance of social networks and the crisis of representation, we are
no longer mere passive recipients and consumers of information. (p. 175-181).

As a result, during a period in which increasing distrust among citizens with

respect to politics is a fact, the possibilities offered by technology to expand
political communication and increase citizen participation is one of the aspects
that analysts and researchers are most interested in (Kampen and Snijkers, 2003;
Rheingold, 2004).
What is relevant about this potential capacity is that a political culture that can
be built by means of digital media cannot be understood exclusively in technolog-
ical terms; i.e., it is not just about access to information through new channels; it
is about something much more profound.
What we are suggesting is that the potential capacity of digital media applied
to political communication is a cultural phenomenon to the extent that audiences
and users play a more dynamic role. That is, audiences and users feel capable of,
and motivated to, create and publish content (Lewis, 2012).
What we wish to highlight is this ability of digital media to open up two-way

dialogues, based on the dynamic activity of citizens, which can increase partici-
pation and even play an accelerating role in the transformation of representative
democracies (Papacharissi, 2010). It is true that all this must take place in a sce-
nario where political communication is currently, more than ever, a clear exponent
of immediacy that is almost always coloured by emotion. Immediacy and emotion
are also key words in the logic of contemporary communication.
However, although the media have traditionally been the mediators between
the leaders and the public and have been the epicentre of public debate (Monzón,
1996), they have currently lost the exclusivity and capacity to monopolise this
debate.
This has allowed new actors, such as political parties themselves and institu-
tions, to open up new spaces where they demand a presence of their own, though
the success of what Tuñez and Sixto (2011) call a “commitment 2.0” does not
only depend on their attitudes, but also on the uses that citizens make of these
opportunities.

Existing studies show a greater correspondence between the use of digital tech-
nologies and participation in public matters, particularly among young people
(Arriagada and Schuster, 2011), which offers the possibility of promoting new civic
practices that defy the traditional concept of participative democracy (Scherman,
Arriagada and Valenzuela, 2012, p. 184).
In other words, although it seems that the use of social networks has a smaller
impact than that of traditional media on the predisposition to vote -for which it
rather acts as a reinforcement-, it can be stated that its more positive effects come
from the multidirectional interactions that promote political participation beyond
the simple exercise of voting (Navia and Ulriksen, 2017, p. 83).
Conclusions
This article does not seek to go beyond the limits established. Thus, we have
provided a series of reflections, evidence and trends that offer ample proof that
the current processes of change and social and technological transformation are
transforming the mechanisms that shape political culture and the formats and
contents of political communication.
A different matter is whether we are in a position to add to the above an em-

pirical addendum where we can contrast some of the intuitions that this paper
suggests. What we can say is that we are immersed in a solid process of contrasting
and verification through a virtual community that we have been monitoring for
several months. But we cannot yet put forward reliable results.
What we can say is that any empirical study that attempts to understand the
consequences of the new forms of political communication within the scenario
opened by the new political culture must propose a segmentation of the popula-
tion that is different to and more complex than those that have been used tradi-
tionally.

We understand that the appropriate approach to understand the effects of con-

temporary forms of political communication in the type of relationship that citi-
zens establish with politics must rely on a specific application of classical theories
on attitudes, with a particular focus on the relationship between beliefs, emotions
and behaviours
We believe that only in light of a segmentation that takes into consideration

these three factors can we achieve a more accurate understanding of the influence
that the new forms of political communication are having on the positions of cit-
izens regarding political events.
Meanwhile, what we are in a position to reaffirm is the intense relationship and

interaction between political communication and political culture, two increasing-
ly linked concepts. On the basis of this certainty we would like to finally highlight,
as a summary, the three most visible signs of this link, and with it the keys that
help to pinpoint and understand it.
►The complex relationship between communication and politics
The evolution and expansion of digital technologies and therefore of the media
at the service of political communication, are creating a complex and influential
scenario for the shaping of political culture. Conventional media from before the
expansion of digital technologies that spread information in a unidirectional and
vertical way, coexist with and are complementary to new informative alternatives
and communication languages. That is, these channels and languages are signifi-
cantly influencing the <cognitive dimension> of political culture, at a time when,
in addition, virtual content can have even more credibility than reality itself.
►Communication and politics need each other
The necessary relationship between communication and politics is comprehend-

ed by understanding the behaviours and attitudes of three different agents:

• Political actors use and abuse the analogue and digital media universe to
spread their messages and channel their political and electoral marketing
strategies, “in this continual campaign we currently live in” (Gil Calvo, 2018,
p. 199).
• The communication media have the ability to give the messages sent out
by politics visibility, or not; to support them or criticise them. Therefore,
the media have an active role in the forming of public opinion and in the
development of the political process (Eilders, 2000), i.e., in the shaping of
political culture.
• Citizens as a whole, be it in their more passive (spectators) or active (actors)

roles, find in this media universe their main informative sustenance on po-
litical matters. Citizens require the media to follow public matters, collect
information on topics and opinions, inform themselves, form opinions and
participate in the political process (Eilders, 2000).
►Communication and politics: new roles for citizens
Taking advantage of the possibilities that technological innovation offers for

horizontal dialogue, we are witnessing a certain degree of social mobilisation rep-
resented in “digital activism” (Morozov, 2017).
This digital activism has opened up new scenarios of participation in the public
sphere, where the immediacy of information (truthful or fictitious), the facilities
for interaction and the collective speed to publish opinions, have revealed the fra-
gility of the traditional political panorama, giving way to a new political culture
that is now structured on the foundations of low trust in institutions and political
apathy.
Within this context, the new communication channels and languages are being
considered as one of the main culprits of the negative attitudes of citizens towards
the political system (Jorge and Miró, 2011).

As a result, by redefining and expanding the channels of political communication,

the roles of issuer and recipient have been reconfigured. There are an increasing
number of active recipients who become issuers of information and political opinion.
References
Ainsworth, S., Hardy, C. and Harley, B. (2005). Online consultation: e-democracy and
e-resistance in the case of the development gateway. Management Communication
Quarterly, 19(1), 120-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318905276562
Allcott, H. and Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016
election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2), 211-36. https://doi.
org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and
democracy in five nations. London: Sage Publications.
Amoedo, A., Vara, A. and Negredo, S. (2018). DigitalNewsReport.es 2018. Navarra:
Universidad de Navarra.
Arriagada, A. and Schuster, M. (2011). Consumo de medios y participación ciudadana de
los jóvenes chilenos. Cuadernos. Info, (22), 52-64. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.22.87
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. and Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse
news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
Bastos, M. T. and Mercea, D. (2017). The Brexit botnet and user-generated
hyperpartisan news. Social Science Computer Review, 37(1), 38–54. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0894439317734157
Bauman, Z. (2007). Vida de consumo. México, D.F.: Fondo de cultura económica.
Bell, D. (1994). El advenimiento de la Sociedad post-industrial. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Blumler, J. G. and Kavanagh, D. (2000). The third age of political communication:
Influences and features. Political communication, 16(3), 209-230. https://doi.
org/10.1080/105846099198596
Boczkowski, P. J. and Anderson, C. W. (2017). Remaking the news: Essays on the
future of journalism scholarship in the digital age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bullen, Margaret. (2017). La antropología feminista: Aportaciones conceptuales
para una epistemología participativa. En J. Martinez (Ed.) Participar desde los
feminismos: Ausencias, expulsiones y resistencias (pp. 29-63). Barcelona: Icaria.

Calderón, C. (2011). ¿Qué es el gobierno abierto? Revista Evoca, (4), 5-9.

Casero-Ripollés, A. and Yeste, E. (2014). La comunicación política hoy: entre
nuevos medios y viejas lógicas. Trípodos. Facultat de Comunicació i Relacions
Internacionals Blanquerna, (34).
Castells, M. (2009). Comunicación y poder. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Castells, M. (2017). Ruptura. La crisis de la democracia liberal. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Chaves-Montero, A. (Ed). (2017). Comunicación Política y Redes Sociales. Sevilla:
Egregius Ediciones.
Clark, N. and Inglehart, R. (1998). The New Political Culture: Changing Dynamics
of Support for the Welfare State and other Policies in Postindustrial Societies.
En, T. Clark y V. Hoffman-Martinot, (eds), The new political culture (pp. 9-72).
Boulder: Westview Press.
Del Olmo, J. (2018). La política por otros medios. Madrid: La Catarata.
Del Rey Morató, J. (2008). Comunicación política, Internet y campañas electorales:
de la teledemocracia a la ciberdemocracia. Madrid: Tecnos.
Eilders, C. (2000). Media as political actors? Issue focusing and selective emphasis
in the German quality press. German Politics, 9(3), 181-206. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09644000008404613
Ganuza, E. and Font, J. (2018). ¿Por qué la gente odia la política?: Cómo nos
gustaría que se tomaran las decisiones políticas. Madrid: La Catarata.
Gil Calvo, E. (2018). Comunicación política. Madrid: La Catarata.
Guess, A., Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation:
Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential
campaign. European Research Council, 9. Recuperado de http://www.ask-
force.org/web/Fundamentalists/Guess-Selective-Exposure-to-Misinformation-
Evidence-Presidential-Campaign-2018.pdf
Gutiérrez Conde, J. (2018). Atrapados por el futuro. Madrid: Pirámide.
Hermes, J. (2006). Citizenship in the Age of the Internet. European Journal of
Communication, 21(3), 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323106066634
Innerarity, D. (2017). Política para perplejos. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg.
Jorge, J. E. and Miró, E. M. (2011). Medios de comunicación, democracia y cultura política.
Question, 1. Recuperado de http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/34423
Jurado, F. (2015). Nueva gramática Política: de la revolución en las comunicaciones
al cambio de paradigma. Barcelona: Icaria.

Kampen, J. K. and Snijkers, K. (2003). E-democracy: A critical evaluation of the

ultimate e-dream. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 491-496.
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1998). Economía de signos y espacios: sobre el capitalismo de
la posorganización. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
Lassalle, J. M. (2017). Contra el populismo. Cartografía de un populismo postmoderno.
Barcelona: Editorial Debate.
Lechner, N. (1990). Los patios interiores de la democracia: subjetividad y política.
México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lechner, N. (1996). ¿Por qué la política ya no es lo que fue? Leviatán: Revista de
hechos e ideas, (63), 63-74.
Lewis, S. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation:
Journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6),
836-866. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.674150
Macnamara, J., Sakinofsky, P. and Beattie, J. (2012). E-electoral engagement: How
governments use social media to engage voters. Australian Journal of Political
Science, 47(4), 623-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2012.731491
Mair, P. (2013). Gobernando el vacío. La banalización de la democracia occidental.
Madrid.: Alianza Editorial.
Monzón, C. (1996). Opinión pública, comunicación y política. Madrid: Tecnos.
Morozov, E. (2017). El impacto del activismo digital en la política de la Post Guerra
Fria en La Era de la Perplejidad. Repensar el Mundo que conocíamos. Madrid:
BBVA. Recuperado de https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/articulos/el-impacto-
del-activismo-digital-en-la-politica-de-la-post-guerra-fria/
Mounk, Y. (2018). El pueblo contra la democracia. Barcelona: Paidós.
Navia, P. and Ulriksen, C. (2017). Tuiteo, luego voto. El efecto del consumo de medios
de comunicación y uso de redes sociales en la participación electoral en Chile en
2009 y 2013. Cuadernos, Info, (40), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.40.1049
Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A Prívate Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Politikon. (2017). El muro Invisible. Barcelona: Editorial Debate.
Prior, M. (2007). Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in
Political Involvement and Polarizes Election. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rheingold, H. (2004). Multitudes inteligentes: La próxima revolución social.
Barcelona: Gedisa.

Scherman, A., Arriagada, A. and Valenzuela, S. (2012) ¿Hacia una nueva ciudadanía
multifuncional? Uso de medios digitales, redes sociales online y participación
política. Revista Latinoamericana de Opinión Pública, 2, 159-185.
Simón, P. (2018). El príncipe moderno. Democracia, política y poder. Barcelona:
Editorial Debate.
Simone, R. (2016). El Hada Democrática. Por qué la Democracia Fracasa. Madrid:
Taurus.
Subirats, J. (2010). Si la respuesta es gobernanza, ¿cuál es la pregunta? Factores de
cambio en la política y en las políticas. EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía,
74(02), 16-35. Recuperado de https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/artpub/2010/108181/
ekonomiaz_a2010n74p16.pdf
Sunstein, C. (2017). Republic. Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tajel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Touraine, A. (1971). La Sociedad Post-Industrial. Barcelona: Ariel.
Turiera-Puigbò, T. (2009). Què està canviant l’ús d’internet en la manera de fer i
comunicar l’acció política?. Quaderns del CAC, (33), 13-19.
Túñez, M. and Sixto, J. (2011). Redes sociales, política y Compromiso 2.0: La
comunicación de los diputados españoles en Facebook. Revista Latina de
comunicación social, (66), 210-234. Recuperado de http://www.revistalatinacs.
org/11/art/930_Santiago/09_Tunez.html
Ureña, D. (2011). Decálogo para un candidato 2.0. Cuadernos de comunicación
evoca, 4(29-33).
Warner, B. R., McGowen, S. T. and Hawthorne, J. (2012). Limbaugh’s social media
nightmare: Facebook and Twitter as spaces for political action. Journal of Radio
& Audio Media, 19(2), 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2012.722479
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.
View publication stats

Political Communication in Times of A New Political Culture: October 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Communication in Times of A New Political Culture: October 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Communication in Times of A New Political Culture: October 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Political Communication in times of a New Political Culture

Article · October 2019

Xabier Barandiaran Alfonso Unceta

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Noticias, redes y usuarios en el sistema híbrido de medios View project

Social Innovation Community View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Political Communication in times of a

Reception date: 8 March 2019

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

We believe that to understand the reasons for this relationship it is necessary

Political Culture; Disaffection; Participation; Political Communication; Digital Tech-

ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

Este trabajo se esfuerza en describir y analizar este escenario emergente que ha

Cultura Política; Desafección; Participación; Comunicación Política; Tecnologías Digi-

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

Acreditamos que, para entender as razões desta relação, é necessário estabelecer,

Cultura Política; Desafeição; Participação; Comunicação Política; Tecnologias Digi-

ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

According to Lechner (1990), during a first phase, studies on political culture

The current phase, the third, is particularly complex as the convergence of

As was correctly pointed out by Gil Calvo (2018),

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

First Part: The new political culture

ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

• The negative feelings of part of the population towards politics, translated

But what are the reasons for this evolution?

A second, equally relevant reason is related to citizens’ disenchantment with

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

The economic and social impact of globalisation

We are referring to an economy that is constantly influenced and affected by

ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

Globalisation creates problems that states have been incapable of solving,

In turn, politicians in representative democracies have been shown to be inca-

Related to the above, attitudes and behaviours of withdrawal and rejection in

Undoubtedly, the phenomenon of emigration is having a big impact on the

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

In this respect, Mounk (2018) states that

3. How to identify a new political culture?

We are assisting a widespread process of pluralisation and de-emphasis (in the

Below we will provide a few indicators of this reality

ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

The potential of social movements

Social movements (ecologists, pacifists, feminists, etc.) are gaining increasing

In recent years, feminism is becoming particularly noteworthy. Feminism is the

Disillusionment among citizens with politics

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

The truth is that politics is perceived by many citizens as an activity beyond

Thus, professional politicians have been socialised in a closed ecosystem; they

ICONO14 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382

The politics of emotions: populism

It is the politics of emotions that is being practised with notable success by

Emotions and feelings override rational thought.

Logical thought is pitched against emotional situations. As is rightly pointed

DOI: ri14.v18i1.1382 | ISSN: 1697-8293 | Enero - junio 2020 Volumen 18 Nº 1 | ICONO14

The emotional component is a core reason behind the rise of populism. As

The growth and expansion of the populist phenomenon is understood better

Second Part: Political Communication