I begin by thanking you for the honor and the opportunity to share with you this solemn moment of the opening of the academic year, in which the milestones of the past academic year are made report and academic year is restarted with vigor in this young and thriving university.

Today I have been invited to speak on "The communication of ideas and values in a pluralistic society". At the origin of the arguments I will present are two perceptions that I consider to be very widespread.

The first is the growing importance of Public Communication, that which takes place in the scenario of old and new media, and which is substantiated in local, national or international public opinion. In the interconnected planet we inhabit, a great conversation is taking place in which citizens and institutions participate, and in which trends and shared opinions are created.

The second perception is that the world of Public Communication is a complex reality, like a stormy sea, full of dangers. Along with the apparently innocuous frivolity and lightness that often characterizes it, there are crises of great harshness, where ideas and values that occupy a central place in our most intimate convictions come into conflict. Every day we witness debates about life, family, Education, Economics, customs, religion, politics and all the issues that most interest and affect us.

With these perceptions as background, in the following minutes I will try to briefly answer this question: is it possible to communicate ideas and values in a pluralistic, global, relativistic and complex society? Is it possible not only to transmit these ideas and values, but also to argue them in a way that they have some capacity to convince?

The question is particularly pertinent for those of us who are dedicated to the university, that is, to the generation and transmission of knowledge. But it is for many other people.

I anticipate the main thesis of my intervention. In my opinion, the communication of ideas and values has two aspects requirements. In order to communicate well, it is necessary to be clear about the messages we wish to disseminate and it is also necessary to be clear about the rules of communication. Just as there are laws of Economics or of construction that apply universally, similarly there are rules of Public Communication, which apply regardless of the intrinsic validity of the messages I wish to convey.

Throughout this exhibition I will propose nine principles of communication activity. Three refer to the message to be disseminated; three to the person communicating; and three to the way in which the message is conveyed to the public.

Let us first look at those that refer to the message:

First of all, the message has to be positive. We are prone to follow the banners raised by people who want to promote projects, people who make the well-known principle come true: it is better to light a fire than to curse the darkness.

Perhaps it has to do with the virtue of hope and the desire to improve. The fact is that we accept the leadership of those who propose solutions and do not limit themselves to pointing out problems. In a certain way, a promoter of values must have the spirit of the entrepreneur, of the one who wants to move forward a business with the financial aid of others, not with the negative spirit of the one who always finds flaws in the proposals of others.

Certainly, it is not only a question of communication, but of something deeper: of understanding and formulating one's own values in a positive way. Often, we see how people who claim to defend ideas intervene only to criticize those who postulate the opposite ideas. They adopt a reactive, complaining attitude, which goes so far as to model their own worldview on the paradigm they criticize, not on their own positive proposal .

Secondly, the message must be relevant. Communication is not above all about what I say, but about what the other person understands. And the process of disseminating ideas takes place in a world saturated with information, political proposals (vote for me) and commercial offers (buy me). Citizens are like those poor drivers who suffer the traffic jams of big cities, stunned by the deafening noise of the horns. In this saturated atmosphere, our message has to make its way through, not through noise but through meaning.

We can recall at this point a distinction made by Thomas Aquinas. The Neapolitan theologian says that there are two types of communication: the first is locutio, which consists in that monotonous flow of words about matters that do not interest the interlocutor at all. The second is illuminatio, which consists in shedding some light on the intelligence of the interlocutor. May it help him to better understand the complex world he lives in, or to better understand his mysterious heart. Relevance implies the art of finding out what really concerns the other. Hence the importance of listening. It has been said that prudence in decision making presupposes "a silent listening to reality". We could say that this implies an attentive listening to people.

In this sense, communicating does not mean arguing to win, but dialoguing to convince. Let us consider the case of abortion. The effort of communication is aimed at trying to ensure that those who defend it today come to the conclusion, through their own conviction and their own freedom, that the best thing they can do in this world is to defend life, thanks to the light they have received in the dialogue. The search for relevance, the desire to enlighten, to convince without defeating, deeply marks the attitude of those who communicate.

Third, the message must be clear. Clarity is always necessary, but particularly so when it comes to disseminating complex issues. It is a relevant quality, for example, in the work of knowledge dissemination that is carried out from a university. It implies transforming the erudite knowledge , the fruit of years of research into an understandable language . Communication is not compatible with the obscurity of language: it is necessary to look for simple and clear words, even knowing that it is not a matter of transmitting difficult arguments in a banal way. Hence the value of rhetoric, literature, metaphors, images, symbols, to convey ideas and values.

You know that the pace of television news is getting faster every day. In some countries, viewers will not tolerate a shot that lasts more than nine seconds without zapping. It is very difficult to say anything relevant in that time.

I remember the quickness of an Italian minister who was asked in front of cameras and microphones if his government was in crisis. "My government is like the tower of Pisa. Always leaning, it never falls".

The effort for clarity must be a permanent effort. Sometimes, when we are not well understood or well interpreted, we justify ourselves by blaming others: "the other person does not understand me because of his ignorance". This may be true, but shifting the responsibility to the receiver is the best way to block communication.

We move on to the second group of communication principles, which refer to the person who communicates:

First of all, communication is based on credibility. For a message to be accepted by a recipient, the person or organization proposing it must be credible. Credibility is earned by telling the truth and acting with integrity. On the contrary, lies and inconsistency nullify the basis of the communication process. We can say of credibility what we say of reputation: it takes years to build and can be lost in a few minutes.

On the other hand, in communication, as in Economics, endorsements count a lot. No one grants credibility to himself. An institution, like a person, does not give itself credibility: it has to deserve it, with its socially responsible actions and do its best to be granted by third parties. If I tell you that I am an extraordinary soccer player, you may rightly think that I have a problem of excessive self-esteem. If the coach of the Spanish national soccer team says so, you would believe it.

The endorsement of an expert, of an authority at subject, of an impartial observer, represents a guarantee for public opinion. In each field, there are instances that exercise this evaluative function. In the world of communication, they are journalists. Perhaps this journalist or this media are not up to their task mission statement. But the profession as such is the repository of this mission statement. For this reason, those who wish to disseminate ideas and values should not treat journalists as enemies but as allies, as independent professionals who should be respected for their important public responsibility.

Secondly, empathy is required. Communication is basically a relationship established between people. We are not dealing with automatic and anonymous mechanisms for the dissemination of ideas that take place in an aseptic environment. People intervene, each with their own points of view, circumstances and feelings. Once again, the importance of listening and of making oneself position of the questions of the other person appears. When one speaks in a cold way, the distance that separates one from the interlocutor widens. An African writer says that a person reaches maturity when she becomes aware of her capacity to "hurt" others and acts accordingly.

This is particularly sensitive in cases of crisis communication, when there have been victims and damage. In Spain, as of April 2011, there are more than four million people without work, almost 20% of the working population. In these circumstances, if a business has to present a profit and loss account with bulging profits, it has to do so in a sensitive way. It cannot address investors with the same language it uses to address the general public.

Our world is overpopulated with broken hearts and perplexed intelligences. Value propositions cannot be aggressive or arrogant. It is necessary to approach physical and moral pain with sensitivity. Empathy does not mean renouncing one's own convictions, but putting oneself in the place of the other. In the communication society, proposals full of meaning and humanity are convincing.

Third, courtesy is required. I do not know what happens here, but in many countries, the debates that take place in the media are plagued by personal insults and mutual disqualifications. In such an environment, those who have firm convictions may be tempted to defend their position in a radical way, as many others do. At the risk of appearing naïve, I think that we must dissociate ourselves from this approach.

The Greeks already distinguished two types of dialogue: the one established between two interlocutors without witnesses and the one that takes place before the gaze of a third party. In the second case, the spectator not only listens to what the dialogue partners say. He observes how they are, through their gestures and attitudes. Many centuries later, an American communication professional summarized this idea at degree scroll in a book: You are the message.

If one expresses oneself violently, the viewer will draw his own conclusions. Truth does not go well with aggressiveness. Clarity is not incompatible with kindness. Politeness financial aid to avoid the trap of verbal violence. A different matter is the right to contradict ideas calmly, firmly.

I remember a sign located at entrance of a British pub, near Windsor Castle. It said: "Gentlemen are welcome in this pub. Remember that a gentleman is a gentleman before and after drinking beer". A gentleman is a gentleman in a leisurely conversation and in a passionate discussion. A gentleman is a gentleman when he's being agreed with and when he's being disagreed with.

Let's move on to the third and last group of requirements of communication, which are related to the way of communicating:

The first is professionalism. Even in the UK, discussions can get heated, and not just because of the beer. This is especially the case when religious arguments come into play. Just think of the current strength of secularism in some countries; or of the strength of clericalism in the past. There is a risk that discussions about ideas, values and opinions may become "religious wars".

That is why it is important to keep to the professional argumentative level: if we are talking about laws, in the legal field; if about medicine, in the medical field; and so on. A believing parliamentarian (of any religion) who wants to refute a proposal law on a topic with serious moral implications, will not do so by evoking religious arguments, but by exposing reasons of comparative legislation, of Philosophy of law, or of another subject, as long as they can be shared by parliamentarians of any other religion.

Professionalism means respecting the methodology, arguments and terminology of each topic of discussion. As far as communication is concerned, professionalism means respecting - as far as possible - the times and other requirements. An opinion article must arrive on the day when the topic is appropriate, before the closing time, and at the appropriate length. Professionalism is expressed in these formal details and in others of a more fundamental nature.

The second is transversality. We have spoken of professionalism at purpose for discussions influenced by religious motivations. We now mention the importance of transversality in discussions influenced by political motivations. Sometimes, debates on values are closely linked to political discussions. Thus, rigid, almost irreconcilable positions are adopted: we move from the dialogic to the dialectic. For this reason, those who propose values such as life which, because they are in accordance with human nature, are potentially universal, must try to avoid these conditioning factors, must avoid the danger that proposal will be rejected in advance, not because of its objective rational weakness, but because of political positions taken a priori.

I think we all have experience of the imperative need for this principle of transversality: many social debates become desolately poor when they turn into mere confrontation between politicians who almost by definition cannot agree on agreement, and thus become incapable of solving people's real problems.

And the third is gradualness. Dominant ideas and social trends have a complex life: they are born, grow, develop, change and die following processes that are difficult to know and interpret. The communication of ideas has a lot to do with "cultivation": sowing, watering, pruning, cleaning, waiting, before harvesting. It is more like the cultivation of a garden than the construction of a building.

It has been said that our vision of the world usually follows a "masculine paradigm", where what is important is action, technique, efficiency and speed. It would also be necessary to apply the "feminine paradigm", because women know well that everything that has to do with life has its own rhythm, requires waiting, demands patience.

The communication of ideas and values affects convictions and behaviors, which do not change overnight and have long intellectual and existential maturation times. The opposite of the principle of gradualness is haste and short-termism, which lead to impatience and often also to discouragement, because it is impossible to achieve great objectives in short periods of time.

These are the nine principles I wanted to review with you. I think that, under these conditions - with positive, relevant and clear messages; transmitted by credible, empathetic and kind people; in a professional, transversal and gradual way - the communication of ideas and values achieves good results. And I also think that the best ideas deserve the best communication. In times of crisis and in times of normality.

We could add a tenth requirement: brevity, the golden rule of communication. Shakespeare said that brevity is the soul of wit. To paraphrase him, I could say that brevity is the soul of communication. By being brief, we are more easily forgiven the absence of any of the nine requirements mentioned. With that hope I end my speech. Thank you very much.