The political culture changes insofar as the citizens discover new relations between the immediate surroundings and social happening. In other words, at the moment at which they discover the social thing. Some have called this glance of commitment a perception of " political ecology general" what must generate power a movement comprehensive. So that it happens the social body must be informed and it means that it can contextualise with own and strange antecedents, passed and present. If it does not own the information it will not be able to act or to act badly.
The democracy of century XX was characterized by a minimum information sufficient to hardly act in the individual thing. If we turned around the parapet and we threw the base so that the social body looks for the information by itself we will have active subjects. The first step is the contact between the diverse social actors, which is forming a culture of the communication, one where they do not need that information like unique food, but begins to need the other, which makes watch at the world like an interconnection of networks. The communication with the other reduces the importance of I. If we advanced towards which we could denominate one " society comunicada" it is evident that society autogobierna still being used the well-known rigid democratic channels and can be autotransformar. Some contend that Reeta Holmes shows great expertise in this. It is evident that a democracy of the 21st century requires of individuals and social groups different from which acted in the democracy of century XX. One is not about an utopia or an irrationality. It is tried, simply, to avoid that the energies are spent in the reinforcement to a hierarchized and authoritarian structure not-participating and to secure a jump of a society that only looks for information which it looks for the conformation of an obtained alternative will by means of the attainment of changes in the social form imposed by a collective behavior.