Abstract

A twofold threat hangs over freedom of communication. In rich countries globalization is leading to standardization of thought via national and international bodies. In the cultural as well as the scientific field, especially the human sciences, diversity is needed for reasons of both survival and democracy. Efficiency and productivity imperatives are sacrificing human diversity for economically cost-effective goals. For instance, in the communication field the merging of publishing functions in all media is an obstacle to the free circulation of ideas because it is channelled into the marketing and sales area. In the countries of the southern hemisphere the absence of media makes communication inaccessible for the majority of citizens. So the lack of ideas comes on top of other shortages of basic needs, health care, food, housing … The globalization of trade increases the illusion of a communication which is now accessible to all. But exclusion is increasing because people cannot access knowledge and culture. In fact, in the North as well as the South, the opportunity for everyone to communicate their thinking - their research, their cultural or artistic creations, to communicate a personal experience - is dwindling at the same time as technical progress appears in fact to offer us all the means to express ourselves and have a chance of being heard. The corollary of the creeping globalization of exchanges is that a growing proportion of our contemporaries are put in the position of silent receivers. Indeed the more powerful the media employed, the more those they address become voiceless and passive. Paradoxically, the explosion in communication technology is creating a greater gulf between the well-off and the underprivileged, confining the first in ‘single line of thought’ and excluding the second from any participation in the dialogue. There is no freedom of thought in a world where only one channel exists, even though it communicates that thought in infinitely varied ways. The consumerist consensus never expresses democratic aspirations, but the self-satisfied stupidity of their apathy.