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

Tiago Quiroga 66 stitutive of those that already are. Now, such virtuality can be considered a landmark for the humanities. Consecrated by its emancipatory dimension, it guided several responses not only regarding the dialectic between knowledge and social form but, above all, regarding the very otherness of the human sciences - to a large extent derived from the experience of time as hu- man self-determination. It is the assumption especially dear to the humanities that it was time, in particular the present time, the virtuality that allowed them to link with specific projects of freedom. A possible link due to the actual achievement of the virtuality of the present - not so much in the direction of futurol- ogy exercises, but of a kind of openness to the spontaneity of the future, according to our capacity, as stated by Agamben (2009), to rethink the present . 7. Social behavior management Today, however, as a way to challenge the precepts de- fended by Habermas (2015), there are the current procedures of power by which neoliberalism renews its influence on the world of life. More specifically, these vectors now act in the agency of a new rationalization of desire (DARDOT; LAVAL, 2016) in the field of work, which intensifies the departure of freedom from the his- torical figure of contraction (HAN, 2015). According to Dardot and Laval (2016, p. 7), in fact, “capitalism is inseparable from the history of its metamorphoses [...], from the strategies that renew it.” For this reason, they say, one of the challenges today refers to the understanding of its current historical form. It is a morphological heterogeneity that does not speak so much of ideological representations but practical norms of life centered on the self-government of individuals. For the authors, we must think of a new rationality, characterized by the “generalization of competition as a [universal] conduct norm and of the company as a model of subjectification” (ibid., p. 17). Under the influence of Michel Foucault’s governmental reason, Dardot and Laval analyze neoliberalism as a set of dispositifs that no longer deals with institutions, but with procedures of power, techniques of governing, which, of a transversal and systemic character, cross