Yes, absolutely. This is one of the characteristics of com-munication thinking in the region, although it is not theonly one. Ever since research in this field began, in thecontemporary sense of the term, communication was reallynever the starting point. The starting point for scholars wasa political project. And, what they all shared was a pioneer-ing vision of the strategic and decisive place of communica-tion processes in building democracy in these countries, both in political and in social terms.I am talking about the seventies and thinking of the ‘fa-thers’, like Luis Ramiro Beltrán in Bolivia, Mattelart in Chi-le, Pasqualli in Venezuela, Mario Caprún the Uruguayan,Hector Schmuckler in Argentina, Bordenabe from Para-guay, amongst others. Publications like
Comu-nicación y Cultura
are practically political projects per se. Soone can understand why Latin America pioneered in na-tional communication policies. These first thinkers placedLatin America in the foreground in
. It is this regionthat originates the proposal of a new world order for infor-mation and communication, as it is recorded in the Mac-Bride report.
From the beginning, studies in communication werelinked to politics in, let's say, two senses. What we valued incommunication was its political content in the negativesense of domination, i.e., the
instrument for control....in such a way that when one spoke of cultural imperialismwe also meant ideological imperialism, and communicationwas spoken of as the great tool for non-democratic policies.And in the other sense, from the scholars point of view,there was always a project that led to policies, to state cul-tural and communication policies. The vision was of ‘poli-
One World, Multiple Voices
, Sean MacBride,