The visual representation of the “indignados”. A visual analysis about the characterization of the participants of the 15-M movement.

The aim of this work is to show the type of media coverage done by the newspapers La Razón, El País and Público about the 15-M social movement during the time that the camping at Sol took place. Specifically, in terms of how the characterization of the “indignados” (outraged) got made. Based on our previous descriptive observations, we approached a visual analysis of the photographs published on the paper editions of those mainstream media from May 15-June 12 of the 2011. we started from a total sample of 379 items, developing:1) A content analysis of La Razón, El País, and Público; the most frequents words of each media, articles classifications from the reviews found on them (expositive, positive-evaluation, negative-evaluation).2) An analysis of the 408 images obtained from the total sample, which establishes a clear evolution of the “indignados” profile and how differently each media took the movement as such. That’s, when they stop naming them “indignados”, and recognize its nature as social movement by calling it: “Movimiento 15-M"...

La objeción de la ignorancia pública

Las teorías deliberativas de la democracia han pasado de cuestionar en su totalidad los sistemas democráticos representativos y sus procedimientos de toma de decisiones a buscar su posibilidad de realización acomodándose a las instituciones liberales. Sin embargo, la deliberación democrática sigue suscitando oposición entre varios autores por varias razones, una de las cuales, especialmente conspicua, es la llamada objeción de la ignorancia pública, que afirma que el público por su ignorancia de los asuntos políticos está incapacitado para cumplir las exigentes requisitos que toda deliberación política presupone y por la que esta, a gran escala, deviene indeseable, cuando no imposible.

Narrative Deliberation? On Storytelling as a Necessary Component of Public Deliberation

This paper deals with the place of narrative, that is, storytelling, in public deliberation. A distinction is made between weak and strong conceptions of narrative. According to the weak one, storytelling is but one rhetorical device among others with which social actors produce and convey meaning. In contrast, the strong conception holds that narrative is necessary to communicate, and argue, about topics such as the human experience of time, collective identities and the moral and ethical validity of values. The upshot of this idea is that storytelling should be a necessary component of any ideal of public deliberation. Contrary to recent work by deliberative theorists, who tend to adopt the weak conception of narrative, the author argues for embracing the strong one. The main contention of this article is that stories not only have a legitimate place in deliberation, but are even necessary to formulate certain arguments in the fi rst place; for instance, arguments drawing on historical experience. This claim, namely that narrative is constitutive of certain arguments, in the sense that, without it, said reasons cannot be articulated, is illustrated by deliberative theory’s own narrative underpinnings. Finally, certain possible objections against the strong conception of narrative are dispelled.