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

Image in circulation: shattering of the gaze and memory 193 death. The latter always is postponed; in the author’s words, it is “repressed”. Furthermore, Elias points out that the current soci- ety prefers to see the bodies than the dying. After all, they show the rawness of death itself, because they show life destituted of meaning. In another approach, Agamben (2010) deals with death and power by mentioning the notion of life that does not deserve to live. The author recovers the concept of “life without value” and that this decision to “judge” with value, or not, falls on legal and, more obviously, political aspects that indicate the powers at stake. Judith Butler (2017) discusses life as “not sub- ject to grieving” and the precariousness of life, that is, the fact that man, constantly, is exposed to social variables. However, as there are still limitations on recognition conditions, not everyone counts as a subject in contemporary life [...] what is at stake are communities that are not exactly recognized as such, subjects that are alive, but that are not yet considered “lives” (BUT- LER, 2017, p. 54) . In this scenario of disputes of power, the notion that we heavily assume on circulation emerges as a relation of attribu- tion of value. When considering that the image in circulation is the result of an intense dispute for meanings, what gains visibil- ity is the result of operations of power, exclusions, erasures, and, on the other hand, valuing. This valuing is not given by one or another agent; that is, it is not journalism that defines a frame - work alone, nor is it an institution, but in mediatization, this procedure occurs in interaction and multiple ways. It is not the photograph distributed by the news agency that generates a uni- son in the way of looking; it is not the Facebook rule to restrict the violence that erases the image of the crime scene; there is a set of elaborations and tactics that are developed in parallel because they have the same basic purpose: to narrate the world and man from the media imaginary. But to what extent is this imaginary compromised? Thinking about the condition of visibility leads us to under- stand that the heart of the debate is not in the image itself, but in the mediatization of conflicts to which it reports (HJARVARD;