To make this happen the social body must be informed and this means that you can contextualize with own and strange, past and present history. If you don’t have information you may not act or act wrong. The democracy of the 20th century was characterized by one sufficient minimum information barely to act individually. If we turn the parapet and cast base to have the social body look for itself the information we will have active subjects. The first step is the contact between the various social actors, what is setting up a culture of communication, one where no need of such information as a unique food, they begin to need another, which makes them look at the world as an internetwork.

Communication with the other reduces the importance of the self. If we move towards what might be called a connected society it is clear that society is autogobierna still using known rigid democratic channels and can autotransformarse. It is clear that a 21st century democracy requires individuals and social groups other than those who acted in democracy of the 20th century. It is not a utopia or an irrationality. It is, simply, avoid that energies are spent in a non-participatory hierarchical and authoritarian structure reinforcement and achieve a leap of a society which only seeks information to one that seeks the formation of an alternative will achieved through the attainment of tax by a collective behavior changes in the social form.

Thus would be more freedom and more movement. We must conclude that democracy is a process without end. In each phase of the advance political culture plays a fundamental role that allows autogenerarse and autoreproducirse. Democracy is only possible when you have the exact dimension of a democratic culture. Well, this person who thinks is a social product. The society makes a person, but this person can not forget having an instituent power capable of change, in turn, to society. The person is manifested in the socio-historical field itself (action) and the psyche. It has gotten us into that psyche than a change within it that may lead to an action is impossible. It is true that the actions of the instituent society do not give through visible radical action. Touches us, to those who think, noted, noteworthy, that participation imposed in an established heteronomy, prevents customization of the person, but is possible alteration of the social world by a process slow imposition by a transferred society’s instituted to instituent. The possibility passes through the creation of joints, not very showy, i.e., through deployment of the society subject to a process of imagination that change meanings thus producing alteration that may lead to a change sociohistorical (action). Behold, the need for a new language, the creation of new paradigms that continue through the social and the psyche. We assume, necessarily, the conviction of things as they are not working and should be replaced (psyche) and this other kind of sense must offer. The second (social) is to make Note that the person can achieve this without one explicit power (mass control, a party, or any other institutions that have traditionally been depositories of power). We must suggest an alteration of the established procedural. It is producing a shift from passive acceptance toward a field of replacement creation.