What must be understood is that the policy ceased to be a space of action individually or uni-organizativo to become a great network of networks of information transmission, building coalitions and alliances and in articulation of political pressure. In his PostScript on the societies of control, Gilles Deleuze reminds us of the process, with Foucault, of disciplinary societies of the 18th and 19th centuries, in fullness in the early 20th century, where man spends confined space enclosed space, i.e. the family, school, barracks, factory and, eventually, prison, which would be the perfect analogue model. This model would be brief, just substitute calls societies of sovereignty, where death is more organized than life. Deleuze considers the end of World War II as the point of precipitation of new forces and the onset of the crisis of what we call civil society. In other words, they enter with force the societies of control that it replaces the disciplinary societies. Virilio talks so control outdoors as opposed to old enclosed spaces.
The great diagnosis made on this process, there is no doubt, Foucault, but is Deleuze who must resort to understand the old mould change to what he calls modulations. Modulation is constantly changing, adapting, becomes flexible. The key is that in disciplinary societies always began something, while in the control is never completed anything, the important thing is not even the mass, but the figure. I.e., we have ceased to be individuals to become dividuos. There is no doubt the mutation: we are in the era of services, the old capitalist way of production disappeared. I have defined this was like the speed, well, control is fast, changing, continuous, unlimited. If some terrorists placed explosive collars to their victims, the society of control puts us an electronic collar.
This Republic passing, backward, lifeline, repeats. This Republic March toward when there was no Republic. We return to be a possibility of Republic, a theoretical tired, tired eventually, tired dreamed by the first intellectuals who decided to address the issue of this nation and its path. We are putting in a return to reconstruct civility and in the way of return to the old theme of civilization and barbarism. For what I have I have a negative response. It must be a democracy of the 21st century, should be given to this country of tools allowing you to exit the unconsciousness of the setbacks, we must extinguish the bilious gaze. Here only laughter that fits is on Mimetic efforts of the caudillo, on the old language and old returnees approaches as if here there had been four decades of civilian Governments. What fits here is rebuilding ideas, give you a kick in the butt to the nineteenth-century Venezuela and the sesentona Venezuela to make him understand that we are in the 21st century. This country needs thought, not down-signatories; This nation needs who the tempt the greatness of spirit, not amodorrados in silence; This country needs who projected a new system politician, not those who come to repeat the old rotten language or to become objects of psychiatric study. You must create new fields of historicity, to use words of Alain Touraine. This implies to abandon old themes that insist on putting on the table avoiding serious discussion on new modes of the duty to be of the social body.