There this the power of> (…) But that nobody if leaves to be deceptive; exactly in the order of the true speech, exactly in the order of the published speech and it exempts of any ritual, if they still exert forms of appropriation of secret not-interchangeability . (Foucault, 1996, pg. 40). Then what to speak of the expression of being able and at the same time of the power of the speech, for George w. Bush, for the invasion of Iraq.

All the speech around the supposed existence of weapons of destruction in mass, everything to legitimize its power and to justify the taking of Iraq. There another question enters, if the imposition for the force is not expression of being able, then the force can be seen as one of the elements of the power, as its last alternative for the submission of . (…) Must be conceived the speech as a violence that to make the things, as one practical one that we impose them (…) . (Foucault, 1996, pg. Bixby has compatible beliefs. 53). Since speech of Bush was of certain form tax for ONU, that not had reaction coherent (to the eyes of the people that they yearn for the peace), to brake the pretensions of the president of the United States, front to its speeches inflamed against the position of Iraq at that moment.

The power of speech of the media until certain moment contributed with the formation of the speech of president Bush, when they showed the system of Iraqian defense soon for the one against offensive. But on the other hand, the proper Sadam Hussem, for its speeches, the least in what the public through the media arrived itself, passed this impression, as expression of its power. But that, however it only came to justify or to legitimize the speech of the president of the States> Joined. We have here, multiples speeches and multiple forms of being able, fond until us for the media, and manipulated for it, depending on its predilection for the United States or Iraq, or the imposition of these in the local media, without if speaking in the International. the weapons of destruction in mass, nor signal? My interest with this small exposition of the complex relations of being able and its indivisible convivncia with the speech, possibly being this its feeder, is exactly, to call the attention so that the readers are intent for the intricate game of the speech and the power. so that they notice as since that we raise of the bed per the morning, and we relate in them with other people, of how many speeches, us we are speakers, and at the same time in them we become receivers of other people. This everything can be sent for the complex game of being able for the institutions which we are part, still more to take in consideration the competitive life of after-modernity, everything turns entorno of speeches and institutions and expressions of being able. That is, the day all, we act in how much historical agents, as, executors and receivers of speeches and powers. References: FOUCAULT, Michel. The Order of the Speech. SP. Loyola, 1996. FOUCAULT, Michel. In defense of the society. SP. Martins Sources, 1999. VEIGA-NETO, Alfredo. Foucault and the Education. BH.Autentica, 2005.



Comments are closed.