Mediatization, polarization, and intolerance (between environments, media, and circulation)

Juremir Machado da Silva 18 Fausto Neto, José Luiz Braga, my colleague Jacques Wainberg, Luís Mauro Martino, Lucrécia Ferrara, Tiago Quiroga, Ada Mach- ado Silveira, Pedro Gilberto Gomes, Ana Paula Rosa, Stefan Bra- tosin, Bernard Miège, and many other researchers, all revolving the topic of mediatization, produces a convulsion: are we scien- tists or intellectuals? What does that change? Social science is not a set of theses and demonstrations, but a social relationship between people [scientists? intellectuals?] mediated (media- tized?) by subjective ideas and evaluations? How do we know that when we say “consistent” there is consistency, in fact, in the object classified as such? Or our tranquility is statistical: nine out of ten, in appearing blind, would classify as consistent what I also saw as such? Talking about these things, pataphysics, should not offend anyone. At most, amaze. Or, more useful, make them laugh. But there is a soft hypothesis, without pretending to hurt or produce controversy: what if it was time to strongly value all texts, especially books, like this one, in an ode to expression, to the crossing of ideas, giving time for the best to stay, the worst to pass, the useless to fall into oblivion, and the wheat be separated from the chaff, pardon me the cliché, including the cliché of this request for forgiveness? Mediatization is a social relationship. I ended up think- ing about how the mediating social relationship is founded, or what gives it prominence and meaning, mediating it in the quali- fied spaces of scientific objectivity. We work in classroom with the ideas of authors such as Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu. Are we, however, able to apply them to our do- ing? Or in our mediations (I keep jumping from mediatization to mediation) is there never surveillance and an attempt to con- trol the “field?” For the rest, one will only gain by reading this book on mediatization. It makes one think. There is no result without simulation. There is no simulation without a result. The book is a technology of the imaginary. It is part of technological imagination. It has a history. Finally, its publication is available to everyo I n n e. thesis 66, Debord was a poet, radical, and prophet, which, according to some, goes the same way: “The spectacle does not sing the praises of men and their weapons, but of com- modities and their passions” (1992, p. 43).