Media, Culture and The Public: Some Theological-Ethical Reflections: What Communication Do We Need in a Global Media Culture?
By Rev. Ineke de Feijter, Ph.D.
[Dr. de Feijter is an Independent Researcher, Lecturer, Author and Policy Advisor on Communication and Religion, Former Coordinator and Assistant Professor of the Program on Media and Communication at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of Amsterdam VU University, and Former Director of the Communication Department of the Ecumenical Broadcaster of the Churches in the Netherlands (IKON).]
Abstract
Contemporary societies are complex. Media and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) play a central and organizing role. Processes of mediatization impact nearly every area of society and life whether it is politics, economy, financial trade, education, journalism, communication, or religion. This includes glocal (global-local) - increasingly mediated - social interactions, cultural differences, and plural identities. Media define social reality, the expression of shared identity and the provision of a shared cultural environment. Moreover, trends in these processes show an increase of digitization and convergence, deregulation, liberalization and privatization and concentration, globalization, and commercialization, leading to a global information and communication imbalance (digital gap).
Due to new information and communication technologies (ICT’s), patterns of information and communication flows - including underlying power relationships - are shifting. They change from center-periphery forms of communication (like allocution), towards consultation and conversation, and towards registration. Never before in history have we experienced such an overload of information. But are we better informed? Will the digital era allow for genuine participation and (new) communities? What about access, communication rights, privacy, public space, regulation and policy, the position of public broadcasting, and diversity in news and its providers (including research journalism)? What about views on, and from, the audience, their media use and input? What about ethical issues with respect to content, structures in the digital age, democracy? Do we have a future scenario to act upon? And what forms of communication do we actually need in a globalized world?
In this respect communication capabilities become increasingly important. At the same time they are profoundly challenged. In the contemporary communication environment, especially in the media, polemical debate is a predominant format, at the cost of other modalities of communication. It is argued that forms of ‘relational’ communication, based on communitarian, cross cultural and global media ethics, are of crucial importance. Competencies in dialogue, as the art of thinking together (De Feijter, 2007) therefore are pivotal.
This text will consider: 1) the different modalities of communication; 2) the concept of dialogue (mistakenly often restricted to interreligious /intercultural conversations) both as an ontological feature as well as a relational process; 3) dialogue as a point of departure for communication in general and religious communication in particular; 4) the contribution Christian communities and Christian theology might be able to make to foster dialogue as an empowering service to societies and people worldwide, by turning themselves into shelter/breeding places of dialogue. This implies changes that go beyond their communication as such, including changes of identity (ecclesiology) and theological paradigm shifts (popular theology). Both on account of communication context and culture, of media studies (especially audience research) as well as on biblical theological grounds, it is proposed Christian communities and theology should strive to deal with this challenge.
The Different Modalities of Communication
Kenneth E. Boulding (1910-1993) has become widely known as an economist. However, one might as well say he was as much a social scientist and philosopher, interested as he was in the social system. He looked upon man not merely as a rational being, maximizing utilities - the common economic view - but pointed to the necessity to study human behavior in its totality; this includes his use of rational, instinctual, and mystical knowledge. Boulding was an active Quaker and pacifist, - contributing much to peace research and development. His belief played an important role in the development of his concept of ‘integrative’ systems, in which people are interdependent and of which love is the driving motive.
In his recent volume Media and Conflict, Escalating Evil (2011), Hamelink builds on Boulding’s Three Faces of Power (1989), deducing three faces of communication: destructive, productive, and integrative. “In a similar way, one could think of the different faces of communication and distinguish the destructive-mindless and escalatory face versus the integrative-mindful and de-escalatory face of human communication. It is interesting to note here, Boulding argued that historically, productive and integrative power are more decisive than destructive power (1990, pp. 226-227), which leads us to ask whether the same may be true for communication” (2011: 71).
Hamelink advocates the future of communication needs a shift from the "hard" face of destructive-mindless and violent communication to the "soft" face of integrative-mindful and relational communication. The prevailing destructive face of communication in his opinion poses serious risk to humankind’s future. Humans are entitled to a social and international order, which promotes and protects such an integrative and relational face of communication, as claimed by the Right to Communicate.
Mindless forms of communication, according to Hamelink, include: absolutist speech, violent speech, aggressive speech, deficit, polemical, instrumental and synchronic speech. To mindful communication belong reflexive modalities, non-violent modalities, assertive speech, swap (which means replace or exchange), dialogic, relational, and diachronic speech. Hamelink describes the different modalities as follows (I draw from his consecutive descriptions 20011:71-77).
Absolutist and Reflexive
Absolutist speech is a communications mode characterized by certainty, subjectivity, dogmatism, own truth, and intolerance towards opposition. There is no room for inter-subjectivity, hesitation, or uncertainty, nor for asking questions. Examples are often to be found in political speech and are especially appealing in uncertain times. “I Know”, “There can be no doubt” “It is” etc. are statements often used in absolutist speech. E.g. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, known for his anti-Islamic views, states: “The Koran is a fascist book and should be banned” or “The prophet Mohammed is a pedophile”. When criticized, absolute speakers often overpower criticism by rhetorical violence. For example: in a debate on integration in parliament Wilders called the then Dutch minister of integration Mrs. Vogelaar “raving mad”. Absolute speech and rhetorical violence, in the worst-case scenario, can turn into physical violence.
With respect to media, especially the internet is a place where absolute speech spreads very fast in the form of sites with hate-speech, racism, or nationalist and extremist expressions. Whereas absolutist speech is incapable of uncertainty, reflexive speech exists. One can admit he or she was wrong, or take statements back. There is room for mistakes. Instead of “I know”, reflexive speakers often say: “I feel”, or “I believe”. In times of conflict this mode of speaking makes de-escalation possible.
Violent and Non-violent
The most significant feature of violent speech is that it depicts others by using cut-and-dried labels, which often entail a moral judgment. ‘Africans are lazy’, ‘Muslim culture is backward’, ‘immigrants are after our jobs’, some countries form ‘the axis of evil’, and ‘terrorist’ nowadays is a label that appears to suit many. Categories and labels are easy to repeat and in doing so, people are categorized in a way that hinders a complete perception of them. Can a Hell’s Angel also be a loving father or a cynical mocking writer a Christian believer? Or can a Christian believer be a good scientist? Or does it matter that an immigrant, now labelled profiteer, has worked in a country for forty years, paying taxes? The effects of violent speech on the people spoken of are hardly questioned. Nor are they asked for their needs. In violent speech the whole person simply is not taken into account. He is ‘a Muslim’ or ‘a Christian dog’ and not also a volunteer parent who tries to improve his neighborhood, or takes care of homeless people, or enables ill children to play. The only thing that matters is that he or she simply has to comply with demands, which are expressed under penalty of sanctions. When people of a Dutch Moroccan descent in the Netherlands became members of parliament, their double nationality became a much debated issue. According to some nationalist politicians, having a double nationality. by definition. means one is not loyal to the Netherlands. So, either people with a double nationality had to abandon their ‘foreign’ nationality, or they had to resign e.g. as State Secretary. The fact that it is not even possible under e.g. Moroccan or Argentine law (Maxima, the wife of the Dutch crown prince is of Argentine descent), to do so, did not play a role in the nationalist’s arguments. Comply with the demands. And that was final.
Nonviolent speech on the other hand is empathic. This word stems from the Greek word ἐμπάθεια, empatheia, which means the ability to empathize with someone, being able to put oneself in someone else’s position. This calls for a non-judgmental attitude. Carl Rogers, the famous psychologist, defined empathy as understanding someone else’s life from the other’s perspective. Martin Buber, Jewish philosopher, viewed it as inclusion of the other so one could experience the other side (Hamelink 2011:73, building on Cissna & Andersson, 1998). There are no demands involved. Uncertainties, concerns and feelings can come forward as genuine questions.
Aggressive and Assertive
Aggressive speech is what the word says: aggression is its main feature. It is about one’s own views, interests, solutions, etc., expressed in intimidating (verbal and nonverbal) ways. There simply is no space for others; neither are they allowed choices. They are simply excluded. Assertive speech means people use their communicative space to clearly present their views, opinions, preferences etc. while respecting another person’s rights to do the same. This means they share and balance communicative space, acknowledging each party’s reality and allow for choices while being open to change. Assertive speakers therefore take a shared responsibility for possible solutions to disputes. In other words, they truly engage with others. That is the difference with polite speech, focused on what the other may find or wants to hear. Instead, an assertive speaker makes clear what he/she thinks.
Deficit and Swap
Deficit speech assumes other people have deficits, like a lack of knowledge, understanding or capability. With arguments like: ‘you need to know/understand/realize…’; others are not regarded as equals, a person in his or her own right, but as deficient beings, in need of correction. It is a form of persuasive communication. The same arguments are used over and over again, intimidating and forceful, and, if necessary, completed with threats of sanctions. Swap speech is based upon the opposite assumption. All have deficits as well as contributions to make. In their contributions they barter, like tradesmen. In this way they recognize that communication is a process in which all parties are co-learners.
Polemic and Dialogic
Political debates are often polemic. Polemic speech is said to help discover truth. However, a clash of opinions does not contribute to that goal. Moreover, it is not without risk. Hamelink describes polemical speech as a combat, a form of war in which words are used as weapons, a manifestation of violence. Verbal violence, as we all know from children who are bullied and pestered, can cause traumatic damage, and may lead to physical violence.
“It is –for example – not without danger to describe enemies as fascists or terrorists. Deploying words as arms starts a spiral that easily ends using arms as words. Media tend to give disproportional dimensions to polemical debates. (…) there is a tendency to not listen, to use pseudo-arguments, sophisms, and references to uncontrollable sources. The debate is a sequence of monologues, a battle of one-liners that reduce realities to simplisms. In most media around the world the debate is a popular format whereas the opportunities for genuine dialogue tend to be minimal” (Hamelink 2011: 74/75). I think we need to ask ourselves whether using polemical debates, often for the sake of increasing voter or viewing rates or readership, serves societies. Explosive tensions feature globally and are not restricted to countries we may associate with conflict.
Dialogic speech (I will consider the concept of dialogue more profoundly in the following part) asks for active listening, internal dialogue, questioning your own assumptions and opinions, suspension of judgments, and acknowledging one does not have or own the truth. It asks for empathy and reflexivity, accepting the otherness of the other, and recognizing the value of the process of dialogue itself without any short term or certain outcome.
Instrumental and Relational
Instrumental speech, as the term already indicates, is a mode in which the speaker uses communication in an instrumental way. That is to say: as an instrument to serve his/her personal (or group) interest or to achieve his/her goal. According to Hamelink in many daily interactions people ‘instrumentalize’ each other. They do not talk with another person but to another person. They use the other as a means. The significance of another person is not to take part in a common process of learning through listening. Beforehand, the speaker has a clear definition in mind about his or her own identity and the identity of the other. These definitions are not questioned or reflected upon. By using the other as an instrument, the speaker imposes this definition of identity upon others, to pursue one’s own aim. Another person is significant so far as he or she can be used for that goal. People are not spoken with, but to. Below I will consider the communication of religious communities. It is remarkable that an instrumental vision towards media and communication still prevails in church communication policies and practices (De Feijter, 2007).
Relational speech refers to a mode of communication in which a speaker wants to relate to other persons. He/she does not speak to but with another. There is a genuine interest to try to understand the other. Not as a target, or an instrument, or an object to control, but as a unique individual with a face. Therefore, the stories, views and experiences of another person, matter. Identity is not fixed, but to be found in these stories, views, and experiences. This also means communicative space is not the possession of one party but is shared and owned by all contributors. That guarantees each of them can feel free to put forward his/her thoughts and be oneself.
Synchronic and Diachronic
The art of synchronized swimming is about exactly performing the same figures at exactly the same time. In synchronic speech a similar thing happens, in a double way. In synchronizing speech, speakers synchronize others first with what they feel is the others’ identity. Whether this identity is created by the other person or by the speaker, does not matter. Important is that this ‘identity’ is seen as the other’s essence. Essences cannot change over time, so, once created, identities are fixed concepts to synchronic speakers. Their speech therefore is essentialist. Second, they want to synchronize other people’s thinking to become similar to their own thinking. They are not interested to learn to understand another person, since they already ‘know’ what this person thinks, feels, wants etc. “I know what you are thinking” is an example of synchronic speech given by Hamelink (2011:77).
Diachronic speech does exactly the opposite. Its point of departure is not fixed concepts (synchron), but assumes human interactions take place in processes which develop (dia means through and chronic time: through time). Building on the remark by the Greek philosopher student Cratylus (around 500 BC) that one can never step twice into the same river, because the next time the water is different, Hamelink states one never talks twice to the same person. People grow and change, so every encounter is unique.
In the abstract I have argued that modalities of ‘relational’ communication and competencies in dialogue (as the art of thinking together) are of crucial importance. The concept of dialogue, especially when it is related to religion, is often restricted to interreligious or intercultural communication. However important that may be, that restriction, in my opinion, is a mistake. Dialogue, as such, is a much broader concept, both as an ontological feature as well as a relational process. In other words: identity and modes of communication are connected closely. I would like to invite you therefore to take a closer look at the concept of dialogue.
The Concept of Dialogue
As stated above dialogue starts with an internal questioning of one’s own assumptions, opinions and judgments. That may seem easy, but, in reality, it is very difficult to do. Not only because we adhere to our assumptions and feel they are personal, but because there is an element involved that goes beyond personal preferences that is hard to recognize. It might be fairly ‘easy’ to recognize e.g. political or ethical or religious preferences. It takes a considerable effort however to recognize the layer below these preferences, the level of what has become ‘natural’ to us. That is the level of the basic assumptions. Every human departs from such basic assumptions, ‘mental maps’ which have become so ‘natural’, that we are hardly aware of having them at all. We all have assumptions: how things should be, what behavior is required, what we expect from others, or, even worse, how others ‘are’. Bringing these assumptions to the fore and critically considering them fully in an internal dialogue is a difficult endeavor. Nevertheless, it is a necessary step on the road to dialogue. Every person has different assumptions, depending, amongst others, on culture. This makes intercultural dialogue an even greater challenge. But even within one and the same culture or group, assumptions vary. With respect to belief e.g. people who worship in the same mosque, synagogue or church every week, singing the same hymns, praying the same prayers, or listening to the same preach, can hear or experience quite different things.
Once we are aware of our mental maps, we need to be prepared to withhold our judgments. Suspension of judgments is another difficult step. Mindfulness is all about ‘being aware without judging’. It takes time and a lot of effort, as well as courage. We are strongly attached to the way we see things and to what we feel is true, and people in general do not like to abandon themselves to uncertainty. However, if we do skip this internal critical dialogue, we are not capable of active, careful, and thoughtful listening. In this phase of the communication process, it is important to acknowledge we do not ‘own’ the truth, we are in search of it. To enter into someone else’s position and listen actively, implies listening in a non-defensive way. That is, however, not the way of listening we are used to. We listen passively. That does not mean there is no action going on. On the contrary, while listening we hear what we hear within our mental frame, judge the arguments against our basic assumptions and get ready to rebut. Passive listening in this respect means defensive listening.
Instead, genuine active listeners listen with empathy and reflexivity. They try to understand the “otherness of the other” (Levinas). Being listened to in this way is an empowering experience. One can order thoughts, go through one’s arguments and discover other choices and possibilities. Listening this way is an enriching experience due to the opportunity to learn new perspectives on reality. Active listening then is a reciprocal empowering activity. In this process people mutually benefit.
However, listening remains a demanding process, especially in the contemporary visual culture and a mass media focus on talk. It is interesting to wonder what the new social media in this respect could offer to dialogue, and whether the internet, blogs, Facebook, or Twitter e.g. in reality contribute. I cannot escape the impression that the majority of the content exists of endless series of one-way monologues, in which the polemical debate surpasses by far any other form that truly can be called dialogical communication. Whether social media will contribute to learning to listening remains to be seen as well. Listening and dialogue intrinsically need silence and rest, whereas social media on the contrary are fast and go on and on and on.
But even when people are willing to take the time and to listen and are ready to critically reflect on their assumptions and suspend their opinions, there still may be other obstacles in the process of dialogue. Dialogue asks for patience; to hold out and accept that the process is open, without knowing the outcome or expecting a short-term result. That is hard in the contemporary competitive climate in which goals and targets are set and have to be achieved in the short run, as is the case in modern societies. Moreover, globalization confronts people in unprecedented ways with the otherness of other cultures, people, religions, habits etc. Media often portray this otherness by focusing on conflicts or peculiarity or curiosity. This not only happens with respect to other cultures. An example is the so called ‘shock doc’ - more of a show than a documentary - in which e.g. people suffering from obesities are shown in a way similar to ‘other’ people in the fairground attractions of old days. Driven by competition for rating figures and advertisements, media, in this way, neither are particularly helpful in dealing with otherness, nor with helping people to learn to dialogue. “Much of their content is babbling (endless talking without saying anything), advertising blurbs, sound bites or polemical debate” (Hamelink, 2011:76).
In common speech, the concept of dialogue often leads to many misunderstandings. I mention but a few: 1. Dialogue would mean endless relativity; 2. Dialogue will lead to weakening one’s own identity; 3. Dialogue is contrary to disseminating one’s own views, belief, or convictions; 4. The goal of dialogue is consensus.
I don’t agree with those criticisms. I do think a main prerequisite for dialogue is mutual trust and, of course, willingness. This is difficult enough in itself. But what these misunderstandings do teach us, is that we need to search for a grounding theory of the concept. For this I draw on the work of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878-1965). In my opinion his theory is very important with respect to communication in general. He makes clear that dialogic communication is as much an ontological feature as well as a relational process. By this he stresses the interpersonal nature of human existence. Both this ontology and relationship are connected in communication, or more precisely dia-logos, which he opposes to monologue.
Probably the densest summary of his dialogical concept is in one of the first sentences of his famous book Ich und Du, (1924), I and Thou in the English translation. He writes: “Primary words do not signify things, but they intimate relations”. Buber worked upon the premise of existence as encounter. He explained this philosophy using two word-pairs, or in his terms ‘primary words’: 1) Ich-Du, I/Thou or you, and 2) Ich-Es, I-It, to categorize the modes of consciousness, interaction, and being through which an individual engages with other individuals, inanimate objects, and all reality in general.
As Buber argues in I and Thou, a person is at all times engaged with the world in one of these modes. There is no I-in-itself. I must refer to either thou or to it. These are the two poles of humanity. Everybody lives in this twofold I. In this respect Buber distinguishes between “person” and “individual”. In the world of I/Thou one becomes a person, aware of his true being. In the world of I/it Buber speaks of individual, differentiating oneself from others, and thus from his true being. To become I fully human, one needs thou. Only in relationship to the Thou (both in capital and not) one becomes the I of the I-thou or I-you. Between the I and Thou is the space of the Spirit. The thou or you meets me through grace. Here we already can find insights that later will be developed further by Emanuel Levinas, who describes the face of the Other as an ‘unparalleled spiritual event of both transcendence and sociableness’.
Community, says Buber, can only become through living mutual I-you relationships, or real subject - subject relationships. This is the mode of dialogue, the I-you. The I-it, Buber states, is the realm of monologue, making another into an object, to be persuaded, or reached by my message. Buber was concerned about the augmentation of the world of the I-it and the decrease of the ability to be in relationship with the other. “How self-confident is that wisdom which perceives a closed compartment in things, reserved for the initiate and manipulated only with the key. Zero secrecy, without the secret! Zero accumulation of information! It, always It!” (Buber I and Thou, 1937:5). An interesting question for all of us when we talk about media, communication, and responsibilities in a global media culture, is what this accumulation of information, the world of it, nowadays means. And how media (both mass and social) do, or do not, contribute to it.
For now, let us turn back to the concept of dialogue and its misunderstandings of endless relativity, weakening one’s own identity, being contrary to disseminating one’s own views, belief or convictions and being aimed at consensus.
Related to the theory of Buber none of these misunderstandings holds. Dialogue, being both ontological and relational, is of utmost importance for oneself and the other and the world. Dialoguing is communication on a level in which parties involved become persons in the true meaning of the word, related humans. They do not weaken their identity; they find it in the dialogue. Dialogue is not about dissemination, which is the world of the I-it, turning the other into an object. Dialogue is not about endless relativity but about relation. And it has no objective of consensus or whatsoever. Its outcome is open. It must be open, for the sake of persons involved to become the I of the I/Thou as well as for the in-between, the Spirit. Interestingly, Buber mentions Jesus, next to Socrates and Goethe, as an example of this unconditional relationship.
Summarizing dialogical communication cannot be absolutist, violent, aggressive, polemical, instrumental, or synchronic; neither does it qualify others as deficit. It is also not a privilege of spiritual or intellectual people. It is inherent to our existence, to become persons, humanity. In that sense we all depend on it. As genuine dialogue itself depends on being reflexive, non-violent, assertive, swap, relational and diachronic.
It outranks by far a view of dialogue as restricted to interreligious or intercultural conversations. In common speech however, especially when we talk about communication related to religion, this is often the case.
I would like to suggest this perspective of dialogue referred to above as an adequate point of departure and key concept with respect to communication in general and religious communication, in particular. I have reached this conclusion based upon my book, The Art of Dialogue, Religion, Communication and Global Media Culture. In this book I have thoroughly examined contemporary global media culture including its change in patterns of information traffic, the economic and social cultural role of media, and the trends going on (as described briefly in the abstract above). I also have studied the developments in communication research, especially in the last two decades with its shifting orientation from sender- and effect studies, to audience research. I have used both insights on media culture and audience research to examine communication policies published by churches from different denominations in different Western European countries and their global overarching institutions like the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation, the Vatican, and the World Association for Christian Communication; this helps to identify the problems in religious communication. They include: an outdated outlook on media, communication context and culture (instrumentalist); an outdated outlook on the audience and audience research concepts (passive); communication models and their theological presuppositions; ecclesiological identity, and, finally, the lack of relating theory to praxis.
The reason I feel dialogue is the most apt modality of communication in general and religious communication in special, is based on four arguments:
1. Media technological and media culture grounds.
Due to new information and communication technologies, we witness a shift in patterns of information and communication flows from center periphery forms towards consultation, conversation, and registration (Bordewijk and Van Kaam (1982). This shift also concerns underlying power relationships, which any model of communication always includes. Trends like globalization, digitization, convergence, liberalization, commercialization, etc. deeply impact and change communication. Moreover, there is the overload of information, -while others are deprived of it, the digital gap -, and there are many ethical issues with respect to content, structures, public space, access, and the lack of a future scenario to act upon, apart from technological and market driven arguments.
2. Communication scientific changes.
Media and communication studies have shown new insights in their focus on audience research of which they have identified different stages. The once taken for granted views of the role of the audience as passive receivers of messages, has profoundly changed. It is questionable whether we still can speak of the audience. Lines between sender and receiver have blurred. Moreover, people are far more active and used to interactive forms of communication instead of linear models. Communication appears to be a far more complicated and complex process, than assumed by churches.
3. Ethical/theological grounds
As discussed in the views of Buber on communication as both an ontological issue as well as a relational process.
4. The communicational environment.
Our global world faces many explosive conflicts. Hamelink (2011: x) mentions three on-going areas of conflict in particular: the distribution and scarcity of resources, ethnicity and religion, and the risks of urban life. Media, in his opinion, are in danger of escalating these conflicts, when focused on controversies and polemic debate as the predominant format. They can, however, bridge gaps as well. Hamelink states it is important to understand the spiral of escalation in either direction. In this respect, communication capabilities become increasingly important. Competencies in dialogue, as the art of thinking and living together therefore are pivotal.
Summarizing: based on my findings in the analysis of the media context and media culture (the shift towards consultation and conversation and registration, interactivity as the form people are used to, the media looked upon not as instruments but as cultural transformers, communication not as linear, and audience not as passive, and the insights by Buber on communication as an ontological feature and a process), I arrive at the concept of dialogue. For the sake of a communication society, instead of the so-called information society. To me this also means that not any model of communication is apt for religious/Christian communication. Instrumentalism, targeting, not respecting other’s communication rights are not in the realm of dialogue.
What can theology and Christian communities contribute to a communication society based on dialogue?
Maybe the question should be: can they? A helpful contribution will only be possible if they are willing to start with a critical self-reflection on their own communication policies and praxis. As stated above I identified extensively the main problems with respect to those policies and practices. The most troubling ones include: an instrumental view of media; a linear view of communication (strongly attached to the media culture of writing and print); a communication praxis often top-down and apologetic; no adequate outlook on contemporary communication context and media culture, overlooking its religious dimensions like icons, myths (Make me beautiful), rituals (Idols), rallies (mourning celebrities, fandom) etc. used by people in issues of identity, meaning making, ultimate concerns etc. Church authority in this respect has devaluated. It is a huge challenge for churches and religious institutions to come to terms with contemporary media context. This challenge goes far beyond their own public communication, including e.g. changes in identity and theology (to include popular theology, lived religion).
Based on the concept of dialogue, being the key concept of communication, I’d like to end with three possible important contributions by religious communities:
Make sure people can exercise communication rights and dialogue within their own community. This includes a strong effort to build dialogical communication structures and help people attain a dialogical attitude and dialogical capabilities which are, by definition, aimed at self-empowerment.
In doing so, religious communities could set an example and become an experiential breeding place to help build viable opportunities for communication for all. This includes a strong commitment against the erosion of the public space, public broadcasting, and a plural vital press. Public space is a vital prerequisite for dialogical communication. Churches therefore should strive for it. Not only because of their own communication goals however, but because public space and communication for all are about communities and humanity.
Finally, theology and religious communities could contribute to the development of a communitarian cross-cultural ethical framework with respect to communication and media and make a strong effort of media culture - and mindful education programs which are completely lacking in our educational systems.
After all, commitment to the whole of creation and to the sustainability of a common future for humanity belongs to the essence of Christianity.