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

Mediatization and virtuality in human sciences: An announced crossroads 69 80). The change has decisive political-epistemological implica- tions. In the context of the “strong state, guardian of private law” (DARDOT; LAVAL, 2016, p. 157), the body of knowledge is no lon- ger governed by the public space, submitting itself to the defense and survival mechanisms of organizations. In other words, as a way to guarantee the practical normativity of private law, as well as to protect it from political injunctions, knowledge radicalizes the condition of a war machine. Whether subsidizing competi- tive struggles between companies or between them and workers and even between them and external consumer audiences, what is called knowledge has come down predominantly to the opti- mization of results or the defense of the companies themselves. Thus, there is a body of knowledge on the basis of the new obscu- rantism. Not only because they detach themselves from the public space and fail to integrate an order of representation, in which work ethics is synonymous with a broader civilizational heritage, but because their private bias plans all the symbolic production to the imperatives of income, in which result acrobatics match any common sense, given that they link (and naturalize) all value pro- duction to behavior as a logic of competitiveness, with a view to success and professional recognition. In opposition to what was defined by Bourdieu, Cham - boredon, and Passeron (2007), in relation to the production of knowledge, in the sense that one of the initial steps in the achieve- ment of its legitimacy would be its break with common sense, knowledge as behavior management mixes with it by reducing all its discursive form to the regimes of the result by competition, of efficiency by war. Averse to the handling of “content,” which would belong to the theoretical field, as well as to a relative do - main and autonomy on the part of individuals, the “practice” of management encloses knowledge in a kind of accounting and fi - nancial subjectivity (DARDOT; LAVAL, 2016, p. 31), centered pre- dominantly on the values of competition and results, which make “life itself, in all its aspects [...] the object of performance and en- joyment devices” (ibid., p. 356). In short, in the name of freedom, a vast field of arbitrariness and violence opens up, which has in its desire an important sphere of cultural battles and epistemologi- cal amalgams in our contemporaneity. From the point of view of mediatization, especially in the cases of visibility and circulation,