Chavez, Vargas Llosa and Rosales 20/10/2009 Chavez, Vargas Llosa and Intellectuals
Performing CEDICE Forum on Freedom and Democracy in Caracas, was conducive to bring another group of leftist Latin American intellectuals. This is undoubtedly show that our country is the epicenter of a very serious political debate about the prospective political change.
The nature of the meeting provided to delve on the issue of the relationship between political discourse, discourse of power and handling. When it comes to political discourse, we refer to forms of reproduction of political power, domination or abuse of power, understood the ability to modify the behavior of another. In that sense, the discourse of power is an expression of social relations expressed through various media (visual, written, espot propaganda, etc.) and tends to be manipulated, understood as a communicative and interactional practice through which the manipulator exerts control-or intends to do, about other people. The handling, power and abuse involving this. The question would be: what is the relationship between political discourse, discourse of power and handling with the visit of intellectuals to Venezuela? The answer is given by the context and the text for the production of speech acts of the actors involved: President Hugo Chávez, the intellectual Mario Vargas Llosa, Jorge Castañeda, Enrique Klause, Fernando Buen Abad, Luis Brito García and Roberto Hernández Montoya . This is a moment or socio-political situation where a group of actors agree on media coverage - print and audiovisual-through which emit concepts and categories that can achieve the conviction of another.
political discourse as a discourse of power - or counter-is essential to "convince" around a position, political project or perception of reality. The discourse of power is to exercise control over the minds of the recipients of this discourse is key for those actors who have access to the media. It is certainly the case for all the nominees. However, the positions of one and the others vary. While Chavez and Hernandez Brito Garcia Montoya defend a model of rupture with the logic of capitalist domination, Vargas Llosa, Castañeda and lean Klause by the late-capitalist liberal model. This means that opposing players try to use their access to the media to convince the general public.
We're talking about a power struggle in its clearest expression. And that struggle was carried out through the media. Chavez, Montoya and Brown used the national system of public, while Vargas Llosa and private media company (Globovisión, El Nacional, El Universal, among others). Such methods, made use of manipulation through the use of short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM). The MCP seeks immediate analysis that allow perception of the fact without deep interpretations. The MLP, on the contrary, seeks knowledge, attitudes and ideology. The MCP is a step to consolidate positions that remain in the MLP. To do this, use is made of handling, presenting strategies that include: one, emphasize the own positions, the speaker's moral superiority and their sources, and thus the inferiority of the other. This element is clear in the interview that El Nacional (Sunday 31/05/2009, N-8) Vargas Llosa makes when he says, "is a very prototypical - (Chavez) - Latin American and Third World ... and is a general problem for truly democratic culture to thrive. " That speech, Chavez presented as a historical decline in Latin American history and thereby minimizes its political value.
Two, focus on the new belief that the manipulator - Vargas Llosa, is intended to be accepted. In the case of that interview, it is submitted to Chavez and his model of democracy as a historical accident, as a model of the traditional left which is dangerous to coexistence: "There is a space in which the left and right confused if they are democratic and if they are liberal, so there are ways to fight extreme left represented by Chavez. " Three discredit sources or alternative beliefs, the Peruvian writer did when referring to Chavez's proposal debate said: "" He never seriously proposed to have an exchange has never accepted (...) discuss with anyone, has always been a monologue autistic "(BBC World). This was looking less serious not only to the positions of president, also his own political status as an advocate for a model of participatory democracy. Finally, the fourth strategy of manipulation is given by the appeal of ideologies, attitudes and emotions relevant to the recipients of the speech. Vargas Llosa uses a position where he and intellectuals who were accompanying him are the representation of dialogue - which is a core value of democracy, but the "other" - Chavez and company, are not prone to it: "We are for dialogue, what we stand for is dialogue, rationality, laying down their passion for politics" (BBC News 29/05/2009).
Media and media, close to the opposition to Chavez's visit finally took the group of intellectuals led by Vargas Llosa to raise an array of opinion noted several elements: 1) Chavez is a threat to Latin America, 2) the proposed model of democracy your government is profoundly contrary to the values \u200b\u200band cultural elements of Latin, 3) is a theoretical incapacity in the definition of socialism XXI century. That strategy, we insist, in the MLP seeks to impact the citizens, widening the discursive matrices are woven into the network of media - print and broadcast-aligned with liberal capitalism. It is therefore essential to remove the matrices used to build the manipulation of the media, seeking to justify and legitimize the action itself while it discredits that of "other." Such tampering is firmly allied with the academic, trying to be implicated in the so-called "episodic memory" that is associated with the historical identity. It aims to produce generalizations that do not seek to investigate the underlying conceptual in discursive statements of the opponent, by contrast, the primary objective is the lightness in the treatment of subjects whose ideological content is essential. A clear example is shown by another guest Plinio Mendoza Apuleius, when referring to the XXI Century Socialism establishing an association - inaccurate, between the model proposed by Chávez and the Real Socialism failed, employing the reference of "communism "" Socialism of the XXI century "advocated by the national government is not so, but" what is commonly known as communism, and that's the most unusual thing that you can offer to a country after the failure of this model in twentieth century "(BBC News 29/05/2009).
This partnership seeks to influence the "episodic memory" - or historical, so that the reader of the statements of Colombian journalist would immediately think that the model proposed by the president of Venezuela tends - unstoppable-the failure, as happened with the USSR. The manipulation is based on the use of the beliefs of the recipients to exercise mind control, which seeks to dominate the actions of the receivers based on those same beliefs manipulated. Therefore, the debate about the role of the media is not a trivial matter, however the real challenge of the Bolivarian process at the present time is to expose this manipulation, the effects on volunteering and participation around the model suggested in the Bolivarian project, can be fatal.
handling In this context, the generation and dissemination of print and broadcast media for political discourse in itself is a reinforcement of their own manipulation. This is why we see headlines like the El Universal (Sunday 31/05/2009) in the column that journalist Roberto Giusti entitled: Why Chavez crumpled to the debate with Mario Vargas Llosa. The overall strategy of manipulation is to present a situation so that this - out of line with reality, correspond to the interests and perceptions that are intended to be transmitted to the receivers. It looks raised - as manipulative, given that dominant - or at least those who had hegemonic control in the past to expand their control of power, generating information, education and other social practices that aim to influence the knowledge of receivers about reality, the worst part is that this process is carried out under open practices that are assumed to be fully legitimate under the guise of "freedom of expression." This will transgress social norms of ethics, balance and fairness, creating an illegitimate communication, to favor only one way of representing reality.
No doubt, review the content of Roberto Giusti chronicle, we see clearly endorsed the items noted. The journalist, using the principle of freedom - which is a fundamental part of the justification of the capitalist model "says that the cause of the failure to realize the debate among intellectuals was Chávez himself and not the resistance of the intellectuals of the right to discuss with their peers. Giusti states bluntly that "the root cause that led him (Chavez) to respond to a line out the characteristics of the autocrat, used to order and be obeyed, to talk and not listen and sentenced without the right to reply" (El Universal 31/05/2009 1-2). The handling is manifested through a distortion of reality, and it disengages the reality to fit the goal of dominating the perception of the receptors, suggesting that the debate was conducted by the "fear" of Chávez to discuss and listen to opposing ideas. They are insisting on ignoring those who did not show Alo Presidente space were the intellectuals headed by Vargas Llosa, and that situation is replaced by the representation of "cowardice and fear" the debate in conditions of freedom.
This completes the transformation of apparent reality. The fantasy reality replaces, all with the consent of the audiovisual media and printed perfectly articulated in the course of manipulation.
Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
