




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches


106

Palabras clave: Ciudadanías Comunicativas, Derechos 
Humanos, Ciudadania, Democracia, Esfera Pública, 
Régimen Comunicativo.
Descriptores : Derechos humanos, comunicación 
social, comunicación en política, comunicación y 
cultura, ciudadanía − aspectos sociales, cambio social.
Recibido: Julio 5 de 2011 
Aceptado: Septiembre 6 de 2011 

Communicative Citizenship,
Preliminary Approaches

In order to understand the relationship between 
communication, citizenship and rights it is necessary 
to analyse three fields separately: the political com-
munication field, the social communication field and 
the cultural communication field. This research has 
developed a concept of communicative citizenship, a 
model and methodological tools to create a compre-
hensive and integrative approach to the relationship 
between communication, citizenship and rights, and 
overcome this gap. The project includes the analysis 
of socio communicative regimes in an armed conflict 
context (Colombia), a multicultural context focusing 
on migrants’ political action (United Kingdom), and 
a society where Governmental control affects com-
municative and political rights (Italy). To describe, 
analyse and understand how these conditions affect the 
human rights field and how it is possible to claim for 
justice, equality and freedom from a communicative 
perspective, are the final aims of this research.

La ciudadanía comunicativa,
aproximaciones preliminares

Para entender la relación entre comunicación, ciuda-
danía y derechos es necesario analizar por separado 
tres campos de la comunicación: el político, el social 
y el cultural. La investigación que se presenta en este 
artículo busca desarrollar un nuevo concepto de ciuda-
danía comunicativa, un modelo y unas herramientas 
metodológicas que permitan abordar de manera 
comprehensiva e integradora la relación entre comuni-
cación, ciudadanía y derechos. El proyecto contempla 
el análisis de los regímenes socio-comunicativos en 
un contexto de conflicto armado (Colombia), en un 
contexto multicultural enfocado hacia la acción política 
de los migrantes (Reino Unido), y en una sociedad 
donde el control político gubernamental afecta los 
derechos políticos y de expresión (Italia). El objetivo 
es describir, analizar y explicar cómo estas condiciones 
afectan los derechos humanos en estos países y cómo 
se puede exigir justicia, igualdad y libertad desde una 
perspectiva de la comunicación.

Keywords : Communicative Citizenship, Human 
Rights, Citizenship, Democracy, Public Sphere, Com-
municative Regime.
Search Tags: Human rights, Social Communication, 
Communication in politics, Communication and 
culture, Citizenship − social aspects, Social change.
Submission Date: July 5th, 2011
Acceptance Date: September 6th, 2011

Origen del artículo
Esta investigación es un proyecto que comenzó en la Universidad de Nottingham, Reino Unido, en el 2009, bajo 
la supervisión del Dr. Nick Stevenson. En el 2011, la Universidad de Huddersfield (Reino Unido) acogió este 
proyecto para desarrollar una ajuste teórico más preciso y pertinente y proponer estudios comparados sobre la 
temática. Este artículo presenta brevemente algunas de las construcciones teóricas realizadas hasta el momento.



107

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez*

*  Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez. Colombiano. Comunicador Social de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Colom-
bia. Estudios de Filosofía Política en la Universidad de Oxford (Reino Unido) y de Sociología en la Universidad Na-
cional de Colombia. Master meritorio en Ciudadanías Globales, Identidades y Derechos Humanos por la Universidad 
de Nottingham (Reino Unido). Estudiante del Doctorado en Política y Estudios Internacionales de la Universidad de 
Huddersfield (Reino Unido) y Experto Asociado al Centro Regional para América Latina y El Caribe del Programa de 
Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo – PNUD. Diez años de experiencia investigativa y docente en temas de comu-
nicación, ciudadanía, desarrollo, democracia y derechos humanos en América Latina y El Caribe. Autor y coautor de 
varios libros, como Lo que le vamos quitando a la guerra: medios ciudadanos en contextos de conflicto armado en 
Colombia (2008), Hacer real lo virtual: discursos del desarrollo, tecnologías e historia del Internet en Colombia (2008) 
y Mutaciones contemporáneas: medios de comunicación y proceso electoral en Colombia 2006 (2007), entre otros. 
Correo electrónico: camilotamayogomez@gmail.com

Communicative Citizenship,
Preliminary Approaches

Introduction

C
urrently, in order to understand the 
relationship between communication, 
citizenship and rights it is necessary to 
analyze three fields separately: the politi-

cal communication field, the social communication 
field and the cultural communication field. The 
boundaries of these fields are not static, they are 
very dynamic, it is possible to find intersections 
between them, and reflections on citizenship are 
very common in these studies; especially to try 
to understand what kind of new responsibilities 
and rights do citizens in Western societies have 
when new social conditions appear (Globalization, 
Information Age, Neo-Liberalism), how these new 
conditions affect, transform and change the sense 
of “citizenship” itself, and what kind of new com-
municative regime emerge (Curran 1997; Todorov 
1999; McNair 1999;Curran and Morley 2006; 
Castells 2006; Rey 2007; Mcloughlin & Scott 2010).

However, social researchers only developed 
specific approaches to these fields separately and 
it is possible to find well-developed research, 

reflections, debates and arguments in these fields. 
In other words, it is possible to find an “academic 
tradition” for these issues in contemporary studies, 
but there is a lack of comprehensive and integra-
tive approaches. In a nutshell, it is possible to 
independently understand the characteristics of 
the communicative regime in terms of political, 
cultural and social dimensions, but always uncon-
nectedly. This situation has five implications: 
firstly, it is not possible to understand in holistic 
terms, the relationship between communication, 
citizenship and rights; secondly, explanations of 
communicative regime are limited to specific fields 
and usually in instrumental terms; thirdly, a lack 
of information about causes and consequences of 
contemporary social communicative transforma-
tions; fourthly, deficient connections and links in 
order to understand the conformation of public 
spheres in Western societies; and finally, limita-
tions to the comprehension, analysis and research 
of socio-communicative field in society and its 
links with contemporary social science studies. 

In this context, this paper will try to present 
the theoretical frame of the research “Commu-



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

108

nicative citizenship, another dimension of rights” 
(supported by the University of Huddersfield) that 
developed a concept of “communicative citizen-
ship”, a model and methodological tools, to create 
a comprehensive and integrative approach to the 
relationship between communication, citizenship 
and rights, and overcome this gap. 

There are four principal aims of this research: 
firstly, to define the concept of communicative citi-
zenship and to create linkages with the communi-
cative dimensions of social, cultural and political 
rights; secondly, to build a map to understand this 
model and the relationship between communica-
tion, democracy and rights; thirdly, to develop a 
methodological box to produce different indicators 
for use in case studies, especially to understand the 
communicative regimes in different contexts; and 
finally, to generate empirical and qualitative data 
to compare categories and results. The principal 
objective of this research is to give provisional 
answers to the following question: Could the 
concept of communicative citizenship provide a 
new approach to integrate all the communicative 
dimensions of cultural, political and social rights 
and help to develop better democratic public 
spheres in Western societies?

Moreover, this research has five important 
significances: first, to overcome the traditionally 
instrumental consideration of the relation between 
communication and citizenship; second, to explore 
other dimensions of citizenship in the informa-
tion age and the globalization process; thirdly, to 
begin to create methodological tools to analyze 
the different communicative regimes in Western 
societies; fourthly, to generate empirical and 
comprehensive data to understand contemporary 
communicative regimes; and finally, to contribute 
to the academic relationship between sociology, 
communication and politics and their implications 
for the democracy in the long term.

Once again, this paper will focus on the theo-
retical approach of this research in order to show 
contemporary ways to understand the communi-
cative citizenship concept and the relationship of 
this new categorywith other social science fields. 

Citizenship and communication,
exploring the jigsaw

In the last two decades scholars from disciplines 
like sociology, media studies, political science, 
communication and political philosophy have been 
developing different approaches to explore the rela-
tionship between citizenship and communication 
and the role of these two categories in society. Fol-
lowing scholars like Curran (1997), Todorov (1999), 
McNair (1999),Curran and Morley (2006), Castells 
(2006), Rey (2007) and Mcloughlin & Scott (2010) it 
can be concluded that this relationship is inherent, 
structural, indivisible and essential. Now these two 
categories are in total redefinition and reconstruc-
tion, because geopolitical and socio-cultural changes 
have affected the conventional meaning of these 
concepts, precipitated by the globalization process, 
the crisis of the nation – state, the network society 
and the crisis of the modernity project. 

However, social researchers have developed 
various studies in this field and it is possible to 
find well-developed research, ref lections and 
debates in different academic fields, in other 
words, an academic tradition exists for this issue 
in contemporary social studies. There is, however, 
a lack of integrative approaches. Following this 
academic discussion, and the principal arguments 
of this theoretical field, I am going to establish 
five contemporary interconnections between the 
categories of citizenship and communication in the 
hope of building a more comprehensive idea of the 
importance of this relationship to understand the 
dynamic of the actual social structure.

These contemporary interconnections are: 
firstly, the homogenizing function of citizenship 
in developing senses of belonging and loyalty to a 
particular society and territory has changed,and 
now both communication and citizenship have 
new meanings in social spaces that provide people 
with a sense of political and cultural belonging, 
transforming social structures, roles and public 
responsibilities in the social arena. Secondly, 
the key role of citizenship and communication 
in the formation of democratic public spheres 



109

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

has been revitalized because values of equality, 
diversity, respect, solidarity and freedom have 
been expressed through different kinds of social 
and media narratives, affecting mentalities and 
representations of liberal ideas in public opinion.

Thirdly, the tie between citizenship and the 
main characteristics of a democratic regime (con-
stitutionality, participation and rational choice) 
are now affected by the symbolic centrality of the 
new technologies of communication and informa-
tion, allowing citizens to take a more active role 
in the public sphere. Now the citizen has more 
communicative resources with which to receive 
quality information about public issues, and has 
different channels to express diverse points of 
view in the public sphere. In the same way, this 
new communicative context helps scholars to 
once again reconsider different perspectives of 
the “ideal concept” of the public sphere in liberal 
democracies (e.g. ideal concept from Habermas, 
Mouffe, Touraine) and how it is possible to build 
a strong civil society that demands respect of 
universal human rights principles. 

Fourthly, the urgent need for a new set of 
rights, especially communicative rights, emerged 
as a consequence of the tension between com-
munication and citizenship, because the new 
socio-communicative regime provides other 
ways of understanding the role of communica-
tion in the public sphere and how this new role 
transforms the traditional meanings of concepts 
such as democracy, representation, rights, duties, 
responsibilities and participation in contemporary 
social structures. Finally, the relationship between 
citizenship and communication can be used to 
try and develop a more democratic media system, 
and this new socio-communicative regime would 
highlight the central role of communication in 
contemporary society. 

These interconnections incorporate the ideas 
of scholars like Curran (1997), Todorov (1999), 
McNair (1999), Stevenson (2003), Castells (2006), 
Curran & Morley (2006), Rey (2007) and Mclough-
lin & Scott (2010), and are the principal resource that 
I will use to develop the category of communica-

tive citizenship. However, before explaining the 
concept and model of communicative citizenship 
in this paper, it is necessary to first focus on two 
central theoretical aspects: firstly, to understand the 
reconfigurations of the category of citizenship and 
its links with other social categories; and secondly, 
to analyze the intersections between the commu-
nicative dimensions of political, social and cultural 
rights and the new meanings of citizenship, in order 
to then explore what set of new rights and duties 
will emerge in this new context. 

First piece:
understanding citizenship challenges

Taking a traditional approach, Charles Tilly 
defines citizenship as a tie or special sort of con-
tract (Tilly 1995) and provides the next definition 
of citizenship: 

“A continuing series of transactions between 

persons and agents of a given state in which each 

has enforceable rights and obligations uniquely by 

virtue of (1) the person’s membership in a exclusive 

category, the native – born plus the naturalized and 

(2) the agent’s relation to the state rather than any 

other authority the agent may enjoy” (Tilly 1995, p.8).

Stevenson (2003) argues that the category of 
citizenship is “more often thought to be about 
membership, belonging, rights and obligations. 
In institutional terms the terrain of citizenship is 
usually marked out by abstract legal definitions 
as to who is to be included and excluded from 
the political community” (Stevenson 2003, p. 
4), in other words, “The state demands loyalty 
from the individual, and in return, the individual 
could expect duty of care and protection from 
the state. This conception of citizenship (…) 
prioritizes political belonging” (Yip 2008, p. 
102). However, writers like Castells (1997; 2006), 
Bauman (1998; 2007), Beck (2000; 2002), Plum-
mer (2003), Stevenson (2002; 2003), Croucher 
(2004), Held (2004), Hermes (2006),Sassen 
(2007), andVertovec (2009) share the view that 



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

110

the traditional concept of citizenship is in crisis, 
reconfiguration, threat or reconceptualization, 
because new social characteristics, in particular 
migration flows, transnational practices and the 
crisis of the Neoliberal agenda, have affected the 
original homogenous meaning of citizenship and 
its link with the nation - state. 

tions and citizenship dimensions, creating link-
ages with other social experiences, transnational 
practices, information flows, political identities 
and subjective recognitions. 

Figure 1.
Classical meaning of citizenship category 

Meaning: “As endowing all members of a political community with certain civil, political, and social rights 
of membership, including the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized 
being according to the standards prevailing in the society” (Marshall 1992, p.8).

Modern and dualistic interpretation to social categories like identity, nationality, ethnicity, power, territory and 
space. Modern moral and ethical values. One dualistic type of citizenship experience. Traditional approach to 
rights, responsibilities and duties.

Syncretic relationship between 
citizenship and the nation – 
state concept that produces 
a sort of specific process of 
identification and belonging 
where the dichotomies inclusion 
- exclusion and “them” - “Us” are 
crucial.

Three categories of citizenship 
rights (Marshall 1992): The 
eighteenth century emergence 
of civil rights, nineteenth century 
emergence of political rights and 
twenty century emergence of 
social rights.

Citizenship

Beck (2002) considers that “the nation-state is 
transforming into a type of political organization 
or apparatus involving more multiple and overlap-
ping jurisdictions, set of identities and social orders 
no longer really contained by borders” (Beck 2002, 
p.67), and that the traditional function of the 
nation – state to define a sense of belonging with 
one territory, in part for its political and symbolical 
centrality, is now in dispute with different forms 
of social and citizen experience. In the same way, 
Croucher (2004) argues that “a declining role of 
relevance of the state is considered an indicator, or 
part and parcel, of the globalization process itself 
(…) emerging forms of belonging and citizenship 
connected from more familiar attachments to 
identities or individual experiences” (Croucher 
2004, p.36), encouraging a consideration of another 
way to think about the relationship between 
nation-state and citizenship.As a result of the 
changes mentioned above, it is now possible to find 
other types of citizenship experience, identifica-

Terms such as “global citizenship” (Falk 1994), 
“media citizenship” (Castells 1997), “cultural 
citizenship” (Stevenson 2003), “intimate citizen-
ship” (Plummer 2003), “cosmopolitan citizenship” 
(Held 2004), “ecological citizenship” (Dobson 2004) 
or “transnational citizenship” (Vertovec 2009) are 
some examples of these new forms of individual and 
collective citizenship experiences, where a new set 
of rights, duties and responsibilities have emerged 
that also link to other dimensions of citizenship. 
At the same time, phenomena like migration, new 
technologies of communication and information and 
transnational experiences have an enormous respon-
sibility in the creation of these new social categories.

If in the last decades the category of citizenship 
has focused on creating a bond with civil, politi-
cal, social and cultural rights, it is now necessary 
to consider another set of rights and duties to 
understand the development of the actual social 
structures and the new communicative regime 
around them. Stevenson (2003) argues that “the 



111

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

development of new conflicts, networks, cultures 
of risk and reflexivity, globalization and com-
modification have transformed the operation of 
citizenship” (Stevenson 2003, p. 33) and, definitely, 
these contemporary citizenship transformations 
need, at the same time, to ask what consequences 
these operations have in categories such as power, 
mobility, identity, ethnicity and in social processes 
like the formation of civil spaces of participation, 
the construction of public spheres, or the reconfigu-
rations of the traditional shapes of public opinion.

My main argument is that there is an urgent 
need to create a new concept or category to develop 
another approach to the rights, responsibilities and 
duties in connection with this new set of citizenship 
experiences, especially from the communication 
field, that affect other social categories like identity, 
ethnicity and power as well. If the category of citi-
zenship is now in “crisis” it is necessary to explore 
other social categories in order to understand other 
social processes where the base is this category in 
itself (Bauman 1998; Castells 2006; Vertovec 2009), 
focusing on how a new set of rights, responsibilities 
and duties start to emerge in the public sphere.

Figure 2.
Reconfiguration of citizenship category

To conclude this part, it is necessary to make 
three final assertions. Firstly, is clear that the 
new communicative and informative global 
context has helped to change traditional social 
categories and processes (like citizenship and 
identity formations for example), and now 
questions about other dimensions of citizenship, 
and what kind of new rights, responsibilities 
and duties will emerge in this context is the key 
to understanding the transformations of the 
contemporary social structure. Secondly, asking 
how different public spheres are formed, the 
new role of citizens in this process, and what 
actions the media, the State, the market and civil 
society have to develop in order to democratize 
and diversify this field, is important in order to 
understand the contemporary tensions between 
power, diversity, rights, democracy and freedom 
in a communicative approach. Finally, question-
ing what new responsibilities citizens and civil 
society have in this new context to claim a more 
inclusionary, equal, democratic and diverse 
public sphere and what type of action it is now 
necessary to take to start the creation of a “robust 

Concept in crisis, reconfiguration, threat or reconceptualization Castells (1997; 2006), Bauman (1998; 
2007), Beck (2000; 2002), Plummer (2003), Stevenson (2002; 2003), Croucher (2004), Held (2004), 
Hermes (2006), Sassen (2007), and Vertovec (2009). New social context – new social.

Postmodernism, “second modernity” and crisis in dualistic interpretation to social categories like identity, 
nationality, ethnicity, power, territory and space. Characteristics Information society: 1. Modern society cannot 
be defined through a central conflict. 2. Information rather than labour power has become the key resource 
within modern society. 3. Impact of globalization on modern economies, politics and cultures. 4. Breakdown 
of belief in the ideas of progress and certainty and their replacement by risk, doubt and uncertainty. 5. Idea of 
reflexivity, which seriously challenges the sociological pessimism and optimism of industrial society. 6. A society 
based upon production shifted to a genuinely consumer society (Stevenson 2003).

Crisis in the relationship 
between citizenship and 
the nation – state concept. 
Consequence of migration, 
transnationalism, new informative 
flows, new communicative 
and informative regimens, 
globalization process, crisis of 
modern ideas. 

Emergency of new set of 
rights, duties and responsibilities. 
Cultural rights, Communicative 
rights, Gender rights, Sexual 
rights, Ecological rights, Global 
rights, which responds to a new 
kind of citizenship experiences, 
identities, belongings, ethnicities 
and subjectivities.

Citizenship



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

112

civil society” (Stevenson 2003), an “active civil 
society” (Rey 2007), or start a real process of 
“civil solidarity” (Alexander 2008), could be the 
right approach in order to understand what the 
meaning of being a communicative citizen is in 
the information society.

Second piece:
The relationship between citizenship and 
the communicative dimensions of political, 
social and cultural rights 

In the historical development of civil, political 
and social rights Marshall (1992) drew atten-
tion to, in Stevenson’s words, “the contradiction 
between the formation of capitalism and class, 
and the principle of equality enshrined within 
the granting of basic rights” and perceived that 
“the principle of civil and political rights had 
been granted in the eighteenth and nineteenth 
centuries, whereas the twentieth century had 
seen the acceptance of the idea of social rights” 
( Stevenson 2003, p.6). Furthermore, in the 
relationship between citizenship and this set 
of civil, political, social and cultural rights it is 
usual to find a different dimension in connection 
with various communicative issues, where the 
boundaries of these fields are not static, but are 
very dynamic, and it is common to find intersec-
tions between them. 

Following scholars such as Bennet & Entman 
(2001), Couldry & Curran (2003), Bonilla (2004), 
Voltmer (2006) and Curran, Iyengar, Anker, & 
Inka (2009) it is possible to establish the next eight 
communicative dimensions in civil and political 
rights that form the political communication field: 
the mediatisation of politics, the role of the mass 
media in Western democracies, the development 
of the public sphere, the responsibilities of mass 
media in times of elections, political marketing, 
public opinion makers, the relationship between 
governance and media and the access to govern-
mental information and data for citizens. As a 
consequence, the political rights of freedom of 
speech and expression have a strong link to com-

municative values, opening the door to reconsider 
questions like the role of the mass media in 
democratic countries and how the communica-
tive process can help to develop better democratic 
public spheres as well.  

In this context, scholars like McNair (1999) 
argue that the functions of communication 
media in “ideal – type” democratic societies 
are fivefold: firstly, they must inform citizens of 
what is happening around them; secondly, they 
must educate as to the meaning and significance 
of the “facts”; thirdly, the media must provide a 
platform for public political discourse, facilitating 
the formation of public opinion, and feeding that 
opinion back to the public from whence it came. 
This must include the provision of space for the 
expression of dissent, without which the notion 
of democratic consensus would be meaningless. 
Fourthly, to give publicity to governmental and 
political institutions (the “watchdog” role of 
journalism); and finally, as a channel for the 
advocacy of political viewpoints (McNair 1999, 
pp. 21 – 22). 

In the same way, Bonilla (2004) has argued 
that contemporary mass media “are central are-
nas for competition and symbolic power display, 
where political and social antagonists struggle 
for access to the public sphere” (Bonilla 2004, p. 
113), and Medina and Garcia (2001) argue that 
the public sphere, which includes mass media, 
“is a permanently tense space in constant dispute 
when journalists and media establish coopera-
tion, consensus, censorship, inequality, rupture, 
opposition and /or autonomous relationships 
with other communication agents - groups and 
institutions to access to symbolic power in soci-
ety” (Medina & Garcia 2001, p. 25). Moreover, 
the creation of this new “mediatised agora” 
(Bonilla 2004), as space for thinking about the 
reconfiguration of new societies and how values 
like diversity, respect of difference and inclusion 
in western democracies now operate, shows the 
importance of social cohesion in the social struc-
ture and how mass media affects the meanings 
of all them. 



113

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

Figure 3.
Political communication field

(Beatson & Cripps 2000; Klang & Murray 2005; 
Barendt 2005; Gumucio-Dagron & Tufte 2006 
and McPhail 2009). In this respect, efforts like 
the Communication Rights in the Information 
Society – CRIS – Campaign (2005), provides an 
interesting approach to this relationship between 
communication and social rights, developing four 
pillars of social communication rights: firstly, 
Communicating in the Public Sphere, where 
analyzing the role of communication and media 
in exercising democratic political participation in 
society is the main issue; secondly, Communica-
tion Knowledge, the terms and means by which 
knowledge generated by society is communi-
cated, or blocked, for use by different groups; 
thirdly, Civil Rights in Communication, the 
exercise of civil rights relating to the process of 
communication in society; and finally, Cultural 
Rights in Communication, where the commu-
nication of diverse cultures, cultural forms and 
identities at the individual and social levels are 
the principal issues (Siochrú 2005). 

To understand the global meaning of these 
rights scholars like Siochrú express that:

“Each Pillar of Communication Rights relates 

to a different domain of social existence, experience 

and practice, in which communication is a core activ-

ity and performs key functions. The rational for the 

1.  Mediatisation of politics.
2.  The role of the mass media in 

Western democracies.
3.  The development of the public 

sphere.
4.  The responsibilities of mass 

media in times of elections.
5.  Political marketing.
6.  Public opinion makers.
7.  The relationship between 

governance and media.
8.  The access to governmental 

information and data for part of 
the citizens.

Citizenship

Civic & 
political 
rights

Communicative Dimensions

Communicative Issues

Public 
sphere

To sum up this part, it is important to 
express that these civil rights such as freedom of 
expression, press freedom and freedom of speech 
have a direct relationship with the formation of 
democratic public spheres, and some scholars like 
McNair (1999), Curran (2005) and Rey (2007) have 
established a reciprocity between the development 
of democracy and the formation of plural, equal 
and diverse public spheres in democratic countries. 
Besides, political rights like freedom of associa-
tion and participation in civil society and politics 
have important connections with communicative 
dimensions as well, because the public exercise of 
these rights is a “communicative exercise” at the 
same time (Rey 2007), where people become visible 
in the public sphere sharing meanings, discourses, 
narratives and points of view, developing different 
senses of symbolical, political and communicative 
belonging with their communities as well.   

Equally important, in the relationship 
between social rights and communicative dimen-
sions that forms the social communication field, 
it is common to find debates and arguments 
focusing on discussions of freedom of speech and 
freedom of expression in relation to social rights, 
communication for development, citizen and 
public media, the role of NGOs in public spheres, 
and the responsibilities of social civility to guar-
antee social rights and development in society 



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

114

four pillars is, that each involves a relatively autono-

mous sphere of social action, yet depends on the others 

for achieving its ultimate goal - they are necessary 

interlocking blocks in the struggle to achieve com-

munication rights. Action can be coherently pursued 

under, each, often in collaboration with other social 

actors concerned with the area more generally; while 

bridges can and must be built to the other areas if the 

goal is to be achieved” (Siochrú 2005, p. 39).

Similarly, the social communication field 
describes the relevance of citizens’ media in the com-
municative ecosystem, a type of media that implies 
“a collective embracing of new media and interac-
tion, in a way that contests social codes, legitimized 
identities and institutionalized social relations, 
through a means of empowering the community” 

In this context, my main argument is that 
civil society is one of the principal social actors 
that has to develop a new type of socio-commu-
nicative regime, demanding in different spaces, 
fields or “ socio-political arenas” the recognition 
of communicative social rights as citizen rights, 
and start a process of communicative democra-
tization where citizen counter hegemony power 
and action are one of the principal resources. 
As result, the category of power is central in 
this debate, and understanding citizenship as a 
continuing process, and not as something static 
or inherited (Mouffe 1992), is one of the final 
aims in this challenge.

Figure 4.
Social communication field

1.  Discussions of freedom 
of speech and freedom of 
expression in relation to social 
rights.

2.  Communication for 
development.

3.  Citizen and public media.
4.  The role of NGOs in public 

spheres.
5.  The responsibilities of social 

civility to guarantee social 
rights and development in 
society.

Four pillars of social 
communication rights: 
Communicating in the Public 
Sphere, Communication 
Knowledge, Civil Rights in 
Communication and Cultural 
Rights in Communication.

Citizenship

Social 
rights

Debates and dimensions

Public 
sphere

(Meikle 2004, p. 78), where media users (citizens) 
have become media producers (social action), 
attempting through this to change information 
and communication equality through participatory 
democracy. The relevance of defending social rights 
in public spheres and claiming diversity and equal-
ity in mass media, especially in terms of resources, 
narratives and access, the significance of cultural 
transformations in society and how these changes 
affect communicative relations of meanings, nar-
ratives, discourses and symbolic regimen, are other 
important issues within this field. 

Finally, following scholars like Martin-Barbero 
(1993), Wolfsfeld (1997), Stevenson (2002; 2003), 
Castells (2006), Curran & Morley (2006) and 
Hesmondhalgh & Toynbee (2008) it is possible to 
establish the next seven debates in the relation-
ship between cultural rights and communicative 
dimensions, that forms the cultural communication 
field:  the role of the mass media in the creation of 
inclusionary and plural narratives, the visibility and 
representation of equality resources in the media 
agenda, the role of communication in cultural 
processes, the relationship between media, citizen-



115

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

ship and cultural power, globalization and the 
impact of technocultures, the uses of communica-
tion as part of civil society and social action, and 
how culture affects communication and vice versa. 

One aspect of that field paid particular attention 
is the relationship between inclusion and construction 
of public space, because the possibility of achieving 
a genuinely participative and educative democracy 
rests upon building an inclusive civil society taking 
a cultural approach, in Stevenson’s (2003) words:

“We need to rethink our ideas in respect of 

social democracy and liberalism, we also need to 

address the “cultural dimension” of citizenship. The 

emergence of new social movements and critical 

questions that can be related to “identity” politics 

has been crucial in this respect. Social movements in 

respect of race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, 

disability and others have all sought to interrupt the 

construction of dominant cultures. These move-

ments look the challenge widely held stereotypes 

that once permeated the symbolic cultures of civil 

society. The deconstruction of ideas that have been 

associated with the “normal” citizen has attempted 

to widen the “inclusive” fabric of the community, 

while creating space for difference and otherness. 

Questions of “cultural” citizenship therefore seek 

to rework images, assumptions and representations 

that are seen to be exclusive as well as marginalizing. 

At heart, then, these dimensions ask: how might we 

build an inclusive society? Crucial in this respect is 

how we imagine and construct public space” (Ste-

venson 2003, p.18).  

Once again, is important to say that the bound-
aries of the communicative dimension of political, 
cultural and social rights are interconnected and 
related (Rey 2007) and it is usual to find similar 
questions with different approaches or relevancies. 
This is important in order to express that the neces-
sity of establishing an inclusionary public space, a 
diverse, equal and participative public sphere and 
a strong civil society, are the main nature of the 
relationship between communication and rights. 
Moreover, the central role of the mass media in 
the deconstruction of public and private spaces and 
how global media transforms cultural meanings in 
society, especially in representations, stereotypes and 
global values through narratives and discourses, are 
other central topics in the cultural communication 
field. In this context, scholars like Martin-Barbero 
(1993) argue that the mass media have a particular 
role in the creation of national narratives and, in 
some contexts, the tension between hegemonic 
cultural discourses and diversity of cultural practices 
affects the revalidation of cultural rights in the 
public sphere (Martin-Barbero 1993, p. 45).

Figure 5.
Cultural communication field

1.  The role of the media in the 
creation of inclusionary and plural 
narratives.

2.  The visibility and representations 
of equality resources in the media 
agenda.

3.  The role of communication in 
cultural process.

4.  The relationship between media, 
citizenship and cultural power.

5.  Globalization and the impact of 
technocultures.

6.  The uses of communication as 
part of social civility and social 
action.

7.  How culture affects 
communication and vice versa.

Citizenship

Cultural 
rights

Debates and dimensions

Narratives

Inclusion and construction of public space

Public 
sphere



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

116

To sum up this part, it is necessary to make three 
assertions. Firstly, the contemporary centrality of 
global media in providing different narratives to 
more complex audiences, opens the door to rethink 
issues like identity, cultural rights, appropriation 
and cultural consumption in a more connected 
/ disconnected world (Castells 2006), providing 
interconnected relations between local, national and 
global public spheres and cultural rights in different 
scales as well. Secondly, the emerging role of a media 
literacy (Mcloughlin & Scott 2010) to provide citizens 
with skills to access, analyze, evaluate and create 
media content, could be the answer to configure a 
stronger tie between cultural rights and inclusion in 
public spheres; and finally, the development of a new 
set of cultural policies where the respect of difference 
and the recognition of cultural diversity are essential 
issues, could be an opportunity to establish cultural 
centrality in the citizen rights field.       

Exploring the communicative citizenship field

“Nothing is more practical than a good theory”. 
Jeffrey Alexander

Following the five interconnections between com-
munication and citizenship described previously in 
this paper, I am going to develop the next three steps: 
firstly, the creation of the category of communicative 
citizenship and what dimensions this new concept 
contains; secondly, a description of the communi-
cative citizenship model, including the provision 
of information as to how this category operates in 
the public spheres and what aims and goals follow, 
in connection with the role of civil society in these 
fields. Finally, it will explain the “methodological 
box”, a methodological tool to explore how this 
category could be analyzed and find trends of com-
municative citizenship in different contexts.

Three considerations will shape this theoreti-
cal exercise: firstly, this effort tries to go beyond the 
instrumental, parochial, relativist or mediacentric 
perspective that the social sciences traditionally use 
to comprehend the communicative field and its 
relation with other fields such as political, cultural or 

social (Hesmondhalgh & Toynbee 2008); secondly, 
this communicative citizenship concept aims to 
create a tie between communication and citizen-
ship that crosses the disciplinary borders of social, 
political and communication theory, cultural and 
media studies, and describes the communicative 
regimes on different scales: global, regional, national 
or local. Moreover, this approach is always intercon-
nected with the role of civil society and citizens in 
the construction of more democratic public spheres. 
Finally, this concept comes from a civil society per-
spective, and tries to provide more tools to build the 
utopian process of civil solidarity (Alexander 2006) 
that understands the civil sphere as a project, and 
where the formation of a strong civil society in public 
spheres could be the key to create a more free and 
equal world with real possibilities of justice. 

Communicative citizenship concept

Following the communicative dimension of 
civil, political, social and cultural rights and the 
five contemporary interconnections between the 
categories of citizenship and communication 
described previously in this paper, I hope to 
have conveyed that communicative citizenship 
is an interdisciplinary concept that is concerned 
with the values of equality, solidarity, access to 
technology, respect of difference, participation, 
recognition, justice, information, knowledge and 
quality of life within a global arena. 

This concept represents the instrumentalization 
of a new dimension of citizenship where communi-
cative action is at the centre of the social dynamic, 
and one of its primary purposes is to understand 
the different communicative manifestations, 
actions, strategies and tactics associated with the 
contemporary struggle for recognition, meaning 
and significance for different actors in public spheres. 

Furthermore, communicative citizenship can 
become a concept which is used to claim equal 
representations and plural narratives in the mass 
media, access to governmental information and 
data, guarantee of freedom of speech and expres-
sion, to promote the use of communication and 



117

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

information for governance and development, to 
generate participatory communicative practices in 
public spheres and to encourage diversity within 
the mass media ecosystem.The citizen, civil soci-
ety and the civil sphere are at the centre of the 
dynamic that emerges from the instrumentaliza-
tion of the concept of communicative citizenship, 
and provides communicative agency to citizens 
in order to transform different social structures.

One of the more important discussions before 
in this paper was what new form of individual and 
collective citizenship experience could emerge in con-
nection to other dimensions of citizenship, and what 
set of rights, duties and responsibilities it is possible to 
now establish. The next figure describes the relation-
ship between communicative citizenship dimensions 
and the set of rights that emerge in this context. 

Figure 6. Relationship between 
communicative citizenship and rights

As figure 6 shows, there are six communicative 
citizenship dimensions which link to a different set 
of communicative rights that come from commu-
nicative dimensions of civil, political, cultural and 
social rights. These six dimensions have a direct 
relation with rights and demands, because in this 
aspect the communicative citizenship concept tries 
to encourage the development of communicative 
agency in citizens. If by agency we understand “the 
ability to be able to act within a social and cultural 
context while making a difference to the flow of 
events. Agency should not be thought of as the 
opposite of structure, but dependent upon rules 
and resources generated by social structures. To 
have agency is defined by the ability to be able to 
intervene actively” (Stevenson 2003, p. 155), these 
linkages provide the different aims to achieve in 
the social structure, through citizen action.

The first dimension, equal representations 
and plural narratives in the mass media, refers to 

Set Of 
Communicative

Rights

Communicative 
Citizenship
Dimensions

Dimension 1:
Equal representations and 
plural narratives in the 
mass media.

Dimension 3:
Guarantee of freedom of 
speech and expression.

Dimension 5:
Generation of participatory 
communicative practices 
in public spheres.

Dimension 2:
Access to governmental 
information and data.

Dimension 4:
Promotion of the use 
of communication 
and information for 
governance and 
development.

Dimension 6:
Diversity within the mass 
media ecosystem.

Participation, inclusion, 
diversity, respect of 
difference, recognition and 
freedom of expression.

Participation, inclusion, 
equality, diversity and 
information.

Inclusion, participation, 
quality of life, knowledge 
and solidarity.

Communication 
knowledge, information, 
participation and inclusion.

Inclusion, participation, 
quality of life, knowledge, 
access to technology and 
solidarity.

Information, knowledge, 
participation and 
inclusion.



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

118

the possibility of claiming more diverse points of 
view in the narratives of mass media, especially in 
news and informative narratives. This dimension 
has a strong link to journalism practices and it is 
the social responsibility of mass media to provide 
information using different types of resources in 
order to describe the complexity of social real-
ity. The access of audiences to different points 
of view about social issues improves the quality 
of public spheres, because this diversity encour-
ages the recognition of other social actors and 
their demands. The rights of participation and 
inclusion have an important role here, and this 
plurality represents the first step in demanding 
another symbolic regime, where the equal access 
to other social perspectives and values could 
transform power relations in social structures. If 
multiculturalism seeks to understand how differ-
ent cultures might best live together (Stevenson 
2003), the aim of this dimension is to transform 
the mass media in plural spaces where different 
cultures and social actors can interact in equal 
conditions, and freely express arguments and 
reasons in the “mediatised agora” (Bonilla 2004), 
creating inclusive media spheres. Furthermore, 
the category of power is a central issue in this 
dimension and has an important connection to 
the creation of mentalities and representations 
in public opinion. 

The second dimension, access to governmental 
information and data, is crucial for “enabling citi-
zens to exercise their voice, to effectively monitor 
and hold government to account, and to enter into 
formed dialogue about decisions which affect their 
lives” (Mcloughlin & Scott 2010, p. 29), and has a 
strong tie with the relationship between communi-
cations and governance. This dimension provides 
citizens with the ability to use information to con-
tribute to governmental transparency and demand 
better governance and public services. The right 
to information is a central right here, establishing 
participation in governance for parts of civil soci-
ety, and promoting equal economic development, 
reducing poverty and fighting corruption. At the 
same time, this dimension is connected with the 

right of communication knowledge described 
previously in this paper, and tries to support 
governmental action in favour of participation 
and inclusion, stimulating the capacity of public 
bodies to provide information in public spheres. 
The British national data website (data.gov.uk), 
The United States Open Governmental Data 
Project (data.gov), The City of Toronto’s official 
Data Set Catalogue (toronto.ca/open) and The 
New Zealand Open Data Catalogue (open.org.
nz), are some examples of the instrumentaliza-
tion of this dimension in specific contexts, using 
a semantic web approach. 

The third dimension, guarantee of freedom 
of speech and expression, has a strong relationship 
with the historical development of civil and 
political rights, is one of the most traditional 
communicative demands, and is the dimen-
sion which press freedom is supported by. 
This dimension is crucial to understand the 
quality of democracy in a country, and is an 
indicator of how effective the communicative 
structure is in specific societies. Moreover, the 
right of freedom of speech is recognized in The 
International Covenant of Civil and Political 
Rights (ICCPR) and as a Human Right under 
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights (UDHR). In this context, this 
communicative citizenship dimension could be 
directly associated with a set of values including 
equality, respect of difference, participation, 
recognition, justice, information, knowledge 
and quality of life. This is the only dimension 
that falls within the category of Human Right 
and is the node which interconnects the action 
and development of other communicative citi-
zenship dimensions.   

The fourth dimension, promote the use of 
communication and information for governance 
and development, has two sides: on the one hand, 
this dimension focuses on the role of the State to 
support independent and plural media systems, to 
increase access to information, to give representa-
tion to marginalized social sectors in the State 
communicative agenda, to enable citizen partici-



119

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

pation, social accountability and State capability, 
accountability and responsiveness ((Mcloughlin 
& Scott 2010, p. 6). On the other hand, this 
dimension encourages the process of communica-
tion for development (C4D) in different scales, 
trying with this to promote social development 
from a communicative perspective. The United 
Nations (1997) expresses that communication for 
development “stresses the need to support two-way 
communication systems that enable dialogue and 
that allow communities to speak out, express their 
aspirations and concerns, and participate in the 
decisions that relate to their development“ (United 
Nations 1997, p. 2). In other words, the final aims 
of this dimension are to use communication and 
mass media to empower people and communities 
to visualise aspirations, discover solutions to their 
development problems and create a more diverse 
public sphere through citizens’ media. 

The fifth dimension, generate participatory 
communicative practices in public spheres, pro-
motes the use and development of communica-
tion and information resources to improve the 
action of citizens, social movements and NGOs 
in public spheres, especially in deliberation and 
public participation in political decision – mak-
ing. The rights of inclusion, participation, quality 
of life, knowledge and solidarity have a crucial 
relevance here, and are indicators of whether civil 
society has, or not, a key role in the deliberation 
of public policies. The final aim is to generate 
ideal conditions to develop a better dialogic com-
munication or democratic deliberation process 
in societies, increasing civic engagement and 
political participation. This process should be 
characterized by: inclusiveness, joint ownership, 
learning, humanity and a long-term perspective 
(Pruitt & Thomas 2007).

The sixth dimension, encourage diversity 
within the mass media ecosystem, focuses on 
issues like media democratization, concentra-
tion of media ownership, fight against media 
homogenization and media consolidation. This 
dimension stimulates democratic media activism 
and encourages the establishment of varied mass 

communication offerings, and tries to overcome 
the actual media’s democratic deficit (Hackett & 
Carroll 2006). The relationship between democ-
racy and mass media monopoly is crucial in this 
dimension, because without media diversity com-
mercial and private issues overcome public interest, 
affecting the quality of public spheres and values 
like pluralism and equality. Economic issues, the 
tension between treating audiences as “customers” 
or as “citizens” for parts of mass media and market 
development, have an important relevance in this 
dimension as well. 

Moreover, my principal argument at this 
point is that with these six dimensions is pos-
sible to encourage a communicative citizenship 
agency, to build a strong capacity for individuals 
to act independently and to make their own free 
communicative choices in specific contexts. One 
of the final goals of this citizenship experience 
is to start a long-term process of communicative 
emancipation, where citizens can develop a more 
active role in the configuration of their commu-
nicative and symbolic regimes and compete with 
other social actors for power and communicative 
resources in public spheres. Two considerations 
of this: firstly, this communicative citizenship 
experience is defined by claiming these six 
dimensions in liberal societies and by reviving 
the central role of citizens in the configura-
tion of plural, equal and diverse public spheres 
linked to universal values of solidarity, justice 
and freedom. Secondly, following my argument 
as to the centrality of the communication and 
information process in contemporary societies, 
which I developed previously in this paper, the 
exercise of this communicative citizenship could 
help the consolidation of civil, political, cultural 
and social rights in Western societies. My argu-
ment is that there is an opportunity to explore 
other ways to promote and claim universal rights 
from a communicative citizenship perspective, 
providing communicative resources to other 
social actors and achieving civil society demands. 
This is start a two way process where an active 
communicative citizenship could be the base 



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

120

from which to claim other sets of rights, and to 
exercise other types of citizenship experience at 
the same time.     

However, it is possible to recognize the fol-
lowing five barriers in the instrumentalization and 
conception of this perspective: first, a lack of social 
cohesion of counter-hegemonic groups in specific 
contexts that affect their socio-communicative 
action; second, particular political and social 
conditions where the concept of democracy is 
under threat or reconfiguration; third, a lack of 
participation of civil society in public spaces that 
encourage the reproduction of social and politi-
cal statu quo; fourth, a lack of interest and sense 
of apathy from citizens to be involved in social 
actions; and finally, a lack of realism regarding 
the effect of power and control with respect to the 
role of civil society in social change.

Communicative citizenship model
and public spheres 

The communicative citizenship model has a 
strong relationship with the development of 
democratic public spheres, because the perspec-
tive built in this paper privileges the exercise 
of communicative citizenship in public spaces, 
ignoring implications of this category in private 
spaces. This does not mean that this category 
does not have a relationship with private life, this 
relationship of course exists and is important and 
relevant, but for the aims of this paper I focus 
only on the public implications of this category. 
Classically, it was Jürgen Habermas in the early 
1960s who described the public sphere as an 
institutional space where political will formation 
take place, via the unfettered flow of relevant 
information and ideas. Mediated and face-to-
face interactions constitute this space (Habermas 
1962). In Dahlgren’s (2001) words, “After an 
extensive historical overview, Habermas arrives 
at the view that what he calls a public sphere 
began to emerge within the bourgeois classes of 
western Europe in the late eighteenth and early 
nineteenth centuries. 

The institutional basis for this public sphere 
consisted of an array of milieu and media, such as 
clubs, salons, coffee houses, newspapers, books, 
and pamphlets, all of which in various (though 
incomplete) ways enlightenment ideas of the 
human pursuit of knowledge and freedom” 
(Dahlgren 2001, p. 34). For this German scholar 
the interaction in this social space embodied 
the ideas of rational thinking, argument and 
discussion, defined the construction of the public 
as a rational and dialogic process, and had a 
strong relationship with the development of the 
ideal of democracy in Western societies. Fun-
damentally, the Habermassian notion of public 
sphere invites us to reflect upon the relationships 
between media, communication and democracy, 
and highlights three inseparable dimensions: 
accessibility for all citizens to this space, the 
spatial dimension and the interaction between 
different actors through narratives, structures 
and institutions. 

This Habermassian conception of public 
sphere has different critics in current social science 
discussions. Scholars like Fraser (1990), Calhoun 
(1992), Benhabib (1992), Warner (1992), Negt & 
Kluge (1993), Hauser (1998), Mouffe (2000) and 
most recently Negri and Hardt (2004) took this 
initial Habermassian concept and developed 
reconfigurations, reconsiderations and other 
theoretical approaches, nevertheless sharing the 
view of the usefulness of this initial Habermas-
sian step. For this paper I am going to consider 
the public sphere in four dimensions: Firstly, as 
a social space (face-to-face or mediated) where 
matters of public importance can be discussed to 
determine the public interest (Stevenson 2003); 
secondly, as a permanently socio-political field in 
constant dispute, where different social actors 
establish relationships ofcooperation, consensus, 
censorship, inequality, rupture, opposition or 
autonomy with other communication agents, 
groups and institutions to become visible or invis-
ible in this field and obtain economical, political 
or symbolical power, public recognition and 
public significance (Bonilla 2004). 



121

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

Thirdly, as a social interactive placewithout 
a specific centre, where four institutions - State, 
market, mass media and social civility - through 
narratives, actions and strategies, share and 
dispute communicative resources to form social 
hegemonies, affecting public mentalities and 
imaginaries (Bonilla 2003). Finally, as a discursive 
space in which social actors congregate to discuss 
matters of mutual interest, creating diverse waves 
of public opinion to influence political action 
(Rey 2007).   

Figure 7
Model of public sphere

In this context, communicative citizenship tries 
to give more relevance, power and resources to 
civil society in the interaction of this actor with 
other institutions in the public sphere. At the 
same time, the six communicative citizenship 
dimensions have structural relations with the 
State, the market and the mass media, and 
the civil society has the opportunity to claim 
for these actors’ specific responsibilities in the 
struggle for symbolical, political and economi-
cal power. From a field theory approach (Pierre 
Bourdieu), my argument is that the exercise of 
communicative citizenship and its dimension in 
the public spheres could transform and reconfig-
ure the position of civil society in specific socio-
historical fields. If the final aim of this concept 
is to provide communicative agency to citizens 
and to encourage a more active participation 
of citizens in the construction of their com-
municative and symbolic regimes, this is a good 
opportunity for them. 

Moreover, the exercise of this communicative 
citizenship tries to affect two dynamics: on the 
one hand, to break the homogeneous concept 
of public sphere into a heterogenic concept of 
public spheres, in other words, to recognize a 
central public sphere, the social space where the 
official language reproduces its issues, topics and 
arguments and is more legitimized in the soci-
ety, but, at the same time, to recognize minority 
public spheres, social power thematic spaces that 
overcome the central public sphere and config-
ure other types of narratives, actors, structures 
and dynamics that affect specific areas (Bonilla 
2003). On the other hand, to analyze the forma-
tion of communicative processes, structures and 
regimes in Western society, and to discover on 
what scale and level democracy is affected by this 
process. The next figure describes the relation-
ship between public sphere and communicative 
citizenship model. 

STRUGGLE FOR VISIBILITY
Access significance

INCLUSION  EXCLUSION
Public use of reason Concealment
Amplifly voices  Silence
Power visibility  Marginalization

STATE
(Political Power,

Coercive)

SOCIAL CIVILITY
(Symbolical Power,

Civic Agenda)

MASS MEDIA
(Symbolical Power,

Media agenda)

MARKET
(Economical Power)

Public 
sphere



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

122

Figure 8
Relationship between communicative 
citizenship model and public sphere

Communicative 
Citizenship Agency

Dimension 5:
Diversity within 
the mass media 
ecosystem.

STATE
(Political Power,

Coercive)

SOCIAL CIVILITY
(Symbolical Power,

Civic agenda)

MASS MEDIA
(Symbolical Power,

Media agenda)

MARKET
(Economical Power)

Public 
sphere

Dimension 6:
Equal representations and plural narratives in the mass media

Dimension 1:
Access to 
governmental 
information and data.

Dimension 2:
Guarantee of 
freedom of speech 
and expression

Dimension 3:
Promotion of use of 
communication and information 
for governance and development.

Dimension 4:
Generation of participatory 
communicative practices 
in public spheres

Figure 8 describes the ideal instrumentaliza-
tion of the exercise of communicative citizenship 
in the public sphere. Civil society promotes com-
municative citizenship agency in citizens and, at 
the same time, the citizens improve the quality of 
this social institution, in a two way process. The 
six communicative citizenship dimensions have 
specific ties with other institutions like the State, 
the market and the mass media, in the theoretical 
framework of liberal societies, and form the base 

from which to demand rights, duties and respon-
sibilities from these other actors for the benefit 
of civil society. This public sphere has different 
spatial references: face-to-face, mediated and vir-
tual, and different geographical dimensions: local, 
national, regional and global. The communicative 
citizenship agency involves instruments, actions 
and processes to reconfigure the communicative 
resources of these social actors in the demand of 
communicative rights.



123

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

To sum up this part, two theoretical considera-
tions: firstly, the purpose of this model is to give 
more power to citizens to exercise and demand 
rights in other ways, in this case communicative 
ways, amplifying the set of strategies, tactics and 
resources, and improving the quality of democ-
racy in Western countries from a civil approach. 
Secondly, the socio-historical context determines 
the specific conditions of the exercise of this type 
of citizenship, and analyzing social structures 
and the development of this particular agency in 
these fields, is one of thefinal aims of this paper. 
In other words, the question: what type of socio-
communicative regime allows the developing of 
what kind of communicative citizenship experi-
ence and vice versa? is crucial in this exercise, 
because the public sphere is a space in dispute 
and confrontation, and the category of power is a 
determinant in this process. 

Communicative citizenship
methodological box

In this final part, I am going to present a methodo-
logical tool to explore how this category could be 
analyzed and to find the trends of communicative 
citizenship in different contexts. This methodo-
logical tool combines quantitative methods and 

qualitative methods to develop a hermeneutic 
interpretation (Bryman 2008) and has three steps: 
firstly, triangulation, using qualitative research to 
corroborate quantitative research findings; sec-
ondly, facilitation, because one research strategy is 
employed in order to aid research using the other 
research strategy; and finally, complementary, 
using two research strategies in order that differ-
ent aspects of an investigation can be dovetailed. 
Furthermore, this methodology has four phases: a 
literature review, a secondary analysis of quantita-
tive data, a qualitative approach and a hermeneutic 
interpretation. The final methodological aim is to 
understand the different communicative regimes 
in different contexts, levels and scales, and how 
the communicative citizenship operates in this 
communicative regime.

First phase:
literature review

The first phase is to develop a literature review of 
the particular context where the communicative 
citizenship category operates. The aim of this 
literature review is to find out the socio-historical 
conditions of one specific territory, and the histori-
cal trends of the relationship between citizenship, 
rights, democracy and communication. In other 
words, to develop a deep context of the particular 
place that is to be analyzed.   

Second phase:
quantitative data

The next step is to build quantitative data to 
examine how the six communicative citizenship 
dimensions operate in particular contexts. In some 
cases it is possible to do a secondary analysis of 
quantitative data, because some organizations, 
Governments, NGOs, universities or think 
thanks develop specific and useful approaches 
to this dimension; but, in ideal cases, to conduct 
independent research is pertinent. The next table 
shows the communicative citizenship dimensions 
and their quantitative category: 

Central
Public sphere 
(Hegemonic - 
Institutional)

Minorities public spheres (peripheral)

Figure 9.
Central Public Sphere –
Minority Public Spheres



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

124

Table 1.
Quantitative Data and Communicative Citizenship Dimension

Dimension Quantitative Indicator Possible Resources

1. Equal representations and plural 
narratives in the mass media.

- Percentage of equal representation 
to different social actor in the mass 
media narratives. 
- Percentage of diverse resources in 
mass media news.
- Percentage of diversity in mass 
media agenda.
- Percentage of use of different 
narratives in mass media formats.  

- Media Monitoring.

- Diversity Mass Media Research.

- Agenda Setting Research.

- Media Watcher Reports. 

2. Access to governmental information 
and data.

- Percentage of information consulted 
by citizens. 

- Governmental Policies.
- Governmental projects.

3. Guarantee of freedom of speech and 
expression.

- Percentage of freedom of speech 
and expression.
- Percentage of free Press. 

- International and national 
freedom of speech and 
expression reports.
- Free press reports.

4. Promote the use of communication 
and information for governance and 
development.

- Percentage of independent media 
offer.
- Percentage of C4D projects.
- Percentage of social actors involved 
in C4D projects.
- Percentage of social actors 
represented in State Communicative 
Agenda.

- Media Monitoring.
- Diversity Mass Media Research.
- Agenda Setting Research.
- Media Watcher Reports. 
- C4D reports.

5. Generate participatory communicative 
practices in public spheres.

- Percentage of citizens, social 
movements and NGOs in deliberation 
and public participation of political 
decision – making.

- Governmental Reports.
- NGOS Reports.
- Governmental Policies. 

6. Encourage diversity within the mass 
media ecosystem.

- Percentage of monopoly and 
democratization of mass media in the 
context.

- Reports of the “state of art” of 
property structure of mass media.
- Governmental Reports.
- NGOS Reports.

a set of interviews to people engaged with counter 
publics and social movements to figure out their 
positions on topic.    

Four phase:
hermeneutic interpretation

Finally, with the quantitative and qualitative 
information to develop an interpretation of these 
results, to respond to the principal questions of 
this research: what type of socio-communicative 

Third phase:
qualitative approach 

The next phase is to conduct a qualitative approach 
in three steps: firstly, indentify important social 
actors in the quantitative phase, and do a set of 
interviews with these actors and explore reasons, 
explanations and arguments of the quantitative 
results. Secondly, identify relevant social actors 
in specific positions of power to discover their 
opinion about the quantitative results; and thirdly, 



125

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

regime it is possible to establish in this context? 
What kind of communicative citizenship experi-
ence it is possible to identify in this context? What 
type of socio-communicative regime allows the 
developing of what kind of communicative citi-
zenship experience and vice versa in this context?

Figure 10.
Methodological steps

Furthermore, in this paper I argued that the 
traditional concept of citizenship is in crisis and 
now it is possible to find other types of citizenship 
experiences, identifications and citizenship dimen-
sions, creating linkages with other social experi-
ences, transnational practices, information flows, 
political identities and subjective recognitions. 
Moreover, in this work I described the political 
communication field, the social communication field 
and the cultural communication field, providing 
the principal discussions, approaches and main 
debates of the relationship between citizenship 
and the communicative dimensions of political, 
social and cultural rights.

In this context, it is important to remember 
that one of my principal arguments was that 
there is an urgent need to create a new concept or 
category to develop another approach to the rights, 
responsibilities and duties in connection with this 
new set of citizenship experiences, especially from 
the communication field, that affect other social 
categories like identity, ethnicity and power. If 
in the last decades the category of citizenship 
has focused on creating, or revalidating, a bond 
with civil, political, social and cultural rights, it is 
now relevant to consider other sets of rights and 
duties to understand the development of the cur-
rent social structure and the new communicative 
regime. If the new social dynamic has a strong tie 
with communicative transformations, what kind 
of new citizenship experiences are emerging where 
the focus and centrality is the communicative 
process itself? What kind of new rights, respon-
sibilities and duties is it possible to reconfigure? 
Could the triad “communicative regime - democ-
racy - public sphere” be the clue to understanding 
the contemporary socio-communicative world in 
a citizenship approach? Is it possible to argue that 
the twenty first century is the era of communica-
tive rights?

For these reasons, in this paper I explore in 
holistic terms this relationship between citizenship 
and the communicative dimensions of rights, 
creating the category, model and methodological 
box of the communicative citizenship concept to 

A

B C

D

A. Literature review
B. Quantitative data
C. Qualitative data
D. Hermeneutic Interpretation

Conclusion

In this paper I described the relationship between 
communication, citizenship and rights and the five 
contemporary interconnections between citizen-
ship and communication as well, focusing on two 
in more detail: on the one hand, the urgent need 
for a new set of rights, especially communicative 
rights, to provide other ways of understanding the 
role of communication in the public sphere and 
how this new role transforms traditional mean-
ings of concepts like democracy, representation, 
rights, duties, responsibilities and participation 
in contemporary social structures. On the other 
hand, how this relationship provides new ideas to 
rethink the possibility of a better democratic media 
system and how this new socio-communicative 
regime could help to understand the central role 
of communication in contemporary society. 



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

126

provide a more comprehensive approach to this 
field. In summary, the communicative dimensions 
of citizenship need to break the boundaries of the 
static categories of political, cultural and social 
rights to introduce more complex social relations, 
and start to think of the centrality of communica-
tive rights as an independent and central category. 
This effort tried to overcome the limitations 
brought about by considering communicative 
rights in specific fields only and the limitations in 
the comprehension, analysis and research of the 
socio-communicative field in society and its links 
with contemporary social science studies.

References

Alexander, J. (2006), The Civil Sphere, Oxford, 
Oxford University Press.

Barendt, E. (2005), Freedom of speech, 2nd ed, 
Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1998), Globalization: the human 
consequences, New York, Columbia University 
Press.

-- (2007), Liquid times. Living in an Age of Uncer-
tainty, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Beatson, J. & Cripps, Y. (2000), Freedom of expres-
sion and freedom of information: essays in 
honour of Sir David Williams, Oxford, Oxford 
University Press.

Beck, U. (2000), What is Globalization?, Cam-
bridge, Polity Press.  

Beck, U. (2002), “The cosmopolitan perspective: 
Sociology in the Second Age of Modernity”, 
in Vertovec, S. & Cohen, R. (Eds), Conceiving 
Cosmopolitanism, Oxford, Oxford University 
Press, pp. 61 – 85.  

Bennett, W. & Entman, R. (2001), Mediated Poli-
tics. Communication and the Future of Democ-
racy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Benhabib, S. (1992), “Models of Public Space”, in 
Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the Public 
Sphere, Cambridge Mass, MIT press, pp. 
75 – 97.

Bonilla, J. (2003), Presentación transformaciones de lo 
público, reinvención de la opinión. Modulo Diplo-
mado Periodismo Público, Pontificia Universidad 
Javeriana – Medios para la Paz,  Bogotá. 

-- (2004), “Medios de comunicación, opinión 
pública y conflicto armado: el consenso por 
otras vías”, in Síntesis: Anuario social, político 
y económico de Colombia, Bogotá, Nueva 
Sociedad, pp. 3 - 9. 

Bryman, A. (2008), Social Research Methods, Third 
edition, Oxford,  Oxford University Press.

Calhoun, C. (1992), Habermas and the Public 
Sphere, Cambridge Mass, MIT press.

Castells, M. (1997), The Power of Identity, Oxford, 
Blackwell. 

-- (2006), La sociedad red: una vision global, 
Madrid, Alianza Editorial.

Clark, N. (1998), The new political culture, Boulder, 
Westview press.

Couldry, N. & Curran, J. (2003), Contesting Media 
Power. Alternative Media in a Networked 
Lanham, Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield.

Croucher, S. (2004), Globalization and Belonging: 
The politics of Identity in a Changing World, 
Lanham, ML, Rowman & Littlefield. 

Curran, J. (1997), “Rethinking the media as a 
public sphere”, in Dahlgren, P. & Sparks, C. 
(eds), Communication and Citizenship: Journal-
ism and the public sphere, London, Routledge, 
pp. 27 – 57.

Curran, J. (2005), Mediations of Democracy. In 
Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (eds). Mass Media 
and Society. London: Hodder Arnold, pp. 
122 – 152.

Curran, J., & Morley, D. (2006), Media and Cultural 
Theory, Abingdon, Routledge.

Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Anker, B. & Inka, S. (2009), 
“Media System, Public Knowledge and 
Democracy: A Comparative Study”, European 
Journal of Communication, 24 (1), pp. 5-26.

Dahlgren, P. (2001), “The Public Sphere and the 
Net: Structure, Space and Communication”, 
in Bennett, W. & Entman, R. (Eds), Mediated 
Politics. Communication in the Future of Democ-
racy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



127

Camilo Andrés Tamayo Gómez  |  Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary Approaches

Dobson, A. (2004), Ecological Citizenship, Paper 
presented at the annual meeting of the West-
ern Political Science Association, Marriott 
Hotel, Portland, Oregon.

Fraser, N. (1990), “Rethinking the Public Sphere: 
A Contribution to the Critique of Actually 
Existing Democracy”, in Social Text, No 25, 
Duke University Press, pp. 56 – 80.

Gumucio-Dagron, A. & Tufte, T. (2006), Commu-
nication for Social Change Anthology: Historical 
and Contemporary Readings, South Orange, 
NJ, Communication For Social Change 
Consortium.

Habermas, J. (1962), Strukturwandel der Öffentli-
chkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der 
bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. (English translation 
in 1989 by Thomas Burger and Frederick 
Lawrence: The Structural Transformation of 
the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category 
of Bourgeois Society), Cambridge, Polity. 

Hancock, G & Mueller, R. (2010), The reviewer’s 
guide to quantitative methods in the social sci-
ences, London, Routledge.

Hackett, R & Carroll, W. (2006), Remarking Media. 
The struggle to democratize public communica-
tion, Abingdon, Routledge.

Hauser, G. (1999), Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric 
of Publics and Public Spheres, Columbia, Uni-
versity of South Carolina Press.

Held, D. (2004), Global Covenant, Cambridge, 
Polity Press.

Hermes, J. (2008), “Citizenship in the Age of the 
Internet”, European Journal of Communica-
tion, vol. 21, no. 3, pp 295-309.

Hesmondhalgh, D, & Toynbee, J. (2008), The 
media and social theory, Abingdon, Routledge.

Hesmondhalgh, D & Toynbee, J. (2008), “Why 
media studies needs better social theory”, in 
Hesmondhalgh, D. & Toynbee, J. (Eds), The 
media and social theory, Abingdon: Routledge, 
pp. 1 – 24.

Karppinen, K. (2008), “Media and the paradoxes 
of pluralism”, in Hesmondhalgh, D. & Toyn-
bee, J. (Eds), The media and social theory, 
Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 27 – 42.

Klang, M. & Murray, A. (2005), Human rights in 
the digital age, London, GlassHouse Press.

Marshall, T.H. (1992), “The Problem Stated with 
the Assistance of Alfred Marshall” (originally 
delivered in 1949), in Marshall, T.H. & Bot-
tomore, Citizenship and Social Class, London, 
Pluto Perspectives, pp. 3 – 51.

Martin-Barbero, J. (1993), Communication, Culture 
and Hegemony: From the media to mediations, 
London, Sage.

Mcloughlin, C & Scott, Z. (2010). Topic Guide on 
Communications and Governance, Birming-
ham, The Communication for Governance 
and Accountability Program (CommGAP).

McNair, B. (1999), An introduction to political 
communication, London, Routledge.

McPhail, T. (2009), Development Communication: 
Reviewing and Reframing, London, Wiley/
Blackwell.

Medina, G. & García, W. (2001), “Estado del 
arte de los estudios sobre comunicación y 
violencia”, in Angarita, P. (Ed), Balance de los 
estudios sobre violencia en Antioquia (pp. 331 
– 360), Medellín, Universidad de Antioquia.

Meikle, G. (2004), “Networks of Inf luence: 
Internet Activism in Australia and Beyond”, 
in Goggin, G. (Ed), The Internet in Australia, 
Sydney, University of New South Wales Press.

Mouffe, C. (1992), Dimensions of Radical Democ-
racy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community, 
London – New York, Verso.

-- (2000), The Democratic Paradox, London, Verso.
Negri, A. & Hardt, M. (2004), Multitude: war and 

democracy in the age of Empire, New York, 
The Penguin Press.

Negt, O & Kluge, A. (1993), Public sphere and 
experience: toward an analysis of the bourgeois 
and proletarian public sphere, Minneapolis, 
University of Minnesota Press.

Plummer, K. (2003), Intimate Citizenship: Private 
Decisions and Public Dialogues, Seattle, Uni-
versity of Washington Press

Pruitt, B. & Thomas, P. (2007), Democratic Dia-
logue: A Handbook for Practitioners, New York, 
United Nations Development Program Press.



Signo y Pensamiento 60 · Documentos de investigación  |  pp 106 - 128 · volumen XXX · enero - junio 2012

128

Rey, G. (2007), La fuga del mundo. Escritos sobre 
periodismo, Bogotá, Debate.

Sassen, S. (2007), Una sociología de la globalización, 
Barcelona, Katz.

Siochrú, O. (2005), Assessing Communication 
Rights: A Handbook, London, CRIS Cam-
paign. 

Stevenson, N. (2002), Cosmopolitanism, Mul-
ticulturalism and Citizenship. Sociological 
Research Online, Vol 7, No 1, Retrieved May 
18, 2010, from http://www.socresonline.org.
uk/7/1/stevenson.html 

Stevenson, N. (2003), Cultural citizenship: cosmo-
politan questions, Berkshire, Open University 
Press. 

Tilly, C. (1995), Popular Contention in Great 
Britain, 1758 – 1834, Cambridge, Harvard 
University Press.

Todorov, T. (1999), “Comunicación y verdad”,  
in Comte – Sponville A. & Ferry L., La sabi-
duría de los modernos”, Barcelona, Editorial 
Península.

United Nations (1997), Communication for develop-
ment programmes in the United Nations System, 
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 
New York, United Nations Press.

Vertovec, S. (2009), Transnationalism. Abingdon, 
Routledge.

Voltmer, K. (2006), Mass Media and Political Com-
munication in New Democracies, London, 
Routledge.  

Warner, M. (1992), “The Mass Public and the 
Mass Subject”, in Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Haber-
mas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge Mass, 
MIT press, pp. 377 – 401.

Wolfsfeld, G. (1997), Media and Political Conflict: 
News from the Middle East, Cambridge, Cam-
bridge University Press.

Yip, A. (2008), “The quest for intimate/sexual 
citizenship: Lived experiences of lesbian and 
bisexual Muslim women”, in Contemporary 
Islam, vol. 2, no. 2, pp 99-117