Ambiências digitais como lugares de visibilidade/invisibilidade das organizações na gestão das crises

• Andrade Scroferneker, Cleusa Maria ^[1] ; Silva, Diego ^[1] ; Amorim, Lidiane ^[1] ; de Oliveira, Rosângela Florczak ^[2]
  1. [1] Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

     Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

     Brasil

     
  2. [2] Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM)
• Localización: Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, ISSN-e 2174-3681, Vol. 11, Nº. 21, 2021 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Investigación en Relaciones Públicas (Enero-Junio)), págs. 207-226
• Idioma: portugués
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Digital environments as places of visibility/invisibility for organizations in crisis management
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
  • Texto completo
• Resumen
  • English

    The digital environments (re) defines the relationships in/of organizational spaces. We realize that in these spaces as associations they move between visibility and invisibility strategy, considering opportunities and risks that involve them recursively. In this scenario, we discuss possible places/non-places for organizational communication in digital environments and reflect on the crisis management process in associations and the respective 'place' of communication. We start from the assumption that the associations are immersed in a scenario of uncertainty (Morin, 2008) and hypervisibility in which the ordinary daily life becomes, increasingly, transparent and absent of borders for the social environment. With this, the critical hypothesis, which are conventionally called ‘crisis’, become the new common (Bauman, 2016). And it is precisely in times of crisis that communication gains centrality, because “without effective, transparent, timely communication, it becomes much more difficult to control the crisis” (Forni, 2013: 289). We resort to complex thinking (Morin, 2008) and, in empirical terms, to the observation of two crisis that occurred in Brazil involving a mining company, Vale S.A. (Brumadinho and Mariana). To reflect on the (non) place of communication in crisis situations, in the light of the analysis of the cases mentioned, we are anchored in the anthropological conception of place and not place proposed by Augé (2010, 2012). The results indicate that there is a (de/re) territorialization in/of communication in these environments, over the course of events, potentiating non-places (Augé, 2017) and the absence of dialogues. There is a potential for hierarchical communication to give rise to dialogical dialogue (Sennett, 2012), which is not always understood, comfortable and experienced by organizations. Such scenarios, fluid and accelerated, demand openness to horizontal and more egalitarian communication to the detriment of hierarchical, vertical, centralized and centralizing communication. As Santaella (2010) points out, digital environments, such as social media, greatly increase the collective relationships that underlie organizations, propose agency and hybridization, fluid territorialities and 'temporary upheavals', displacement marches through differences, “to communicate other visions and ideas that exclusive ideologies and absolute truths, closed in on themselves like walled cities, do not contain” (Santaella, 2010: 280). On the other hand, that same fascination and seduction in the face of the possibilities arising from this mediatized reality, sometimes overshadow movements of invisibility, silencing and emptying of relationships and interactions. Vale S.A.'s cases also show the dilution of borders and communicational territories, in the midst of mediatized contexts, which cause the unfolding of crises to overflow the geographic locations where critical events take place. If the digital age has ubiquity as one of its features, in which borders between private and public life, between inside and outside, between here and there (Santaella, 2010), we believe that the effects of crisis also become 'ubiquitous', that is, they are everywhere and completely reconfigure the notions of impact and reach. In this context, attempts to make aspects of the crisis invisible become insufficient. The qualitative and exploratory dimensions (Gil, 2021) characterize the nature of the work. The theoretical review was developed from the dialogue between authors such as Augé (2017), Bauman (2016), Morin (2015), Forni (2013) and Wolton (2010), among others.

  • português

    No presente artigo discutimos sobre o processo de gestão de crise nas organizações e o respectivo ‘lugar/não-lugar’ da comunicação nesse contexto, considerando que as ambiências digitais (re) definem as relações nos/dos espaços organizacionais e que nestes espaços as organizações transitam entre estratégias de visibilidade e de invisibilidade. Recorremos, no espaço teórico, ao pensamento complexo (Morin, 2008, 2015), articulando, entre os autores, as contribuições de Augé (2017), Bauman (2016), Forni (2013) e Wolton (2010). Em termos empíricos, partimos da observação de duas crises ocorridas no Brasil envolvendo a Mineradora Vale S.A. (Brumadinho e Mariana). As dimensões qualitativa e exploratória (Gil, 2021) caracterizam a natureza do trabalho. Os resultados indicam que há uma (des/re) territorialização na/da comunicação nessas ambiências, ao longo desses acontecimentos, potencializando não-lugares (Augé, 2017) e a ausência de diálogos. Conforme ressalta Santaella (2010), ambiências digitais, como as mídias sociais, incrementam sobremaneira as relações coletivas que fundamentam as organizações, propõem agenciamentos e hibridações, territorialidades fluidas e ‘sublevações temporárias’, marchas deslocativas pelas diferenças, “para comunicar outras visões e ideias que as ideologias exclusivas e as verdades absolutas, fechadas sobre si mesmas como as cidades muradas, não contém” (Santaella, 2010: 280). Por outro lado, esse mesmo fascínio diante dessa realidade midiatizada, por vezes ofuscam movimentos de invisibilidade, silenciamento, ocultação e esvaziamento de relações e interações. Os casos da Vale S.A. também evidenciam a diluição de fronteiras e territórios comunicacionais, que fazem com que os desdobramentos das crises transbordem os locais geográficos nos quais os eventos críticos acontecem. Se a era digital tem como um de seus traços a ubiquidade (Santaella, 2010), acreditamos que os efeitos das crises também se tornam ‘ubíquos’, ou seja, estão por toda a parte e reconfiguram por completo as noções de impacto e alcance. Nesse contexto, as tentativas de invisibilizar aspectos da crise tornam-se insuficientes