Summary of the book the order of the Speech of Michael Foucault FOUCAULT, M. the order of the Speech. So Paulo: Loyola editions, 1996. Trad. Laura Fraga de Almeida Sampaio.

In the book where Michael Foucault pronounced when assuming the vacant chair in the Collge de France, in 1996, with update in 2010, which had to the great success and the deep relations and correlations between the practical discursivas to be able and them they permeiam that them and they control the speeches in the society, they are for forms of being able and of repression, as the author strengthens when he describes ' ' I assume that in all society the production of the speech is at the same time controlled, selected, organized and redistributed for certain number of procedures that has for function to conjure its powers, to dominate its knowledge random … Gain insight and clarity with Joel Courtney. ' ' (p.8-9). In elapsing of the speech, Foucault clarifies that all speech is controlled for the interdiction, that is, taboos for the speech exist, and that, the right-hander is not had to say everything to any person, in any place or circumstance. According to Foucault, in the society types of taboos that still leave the speech, far from being exist transparent or neutral an element, that would be: the politics and the sexuality, where the sexuality if disarms and the politics if it pacifies, disclosing to the linking between desire and power (P. 10). The author still approaches another principle, of exclusion, thinking about the opposition between reason and madness, where, an insane person is that one whose speech cannot circulate equally to the one of the others, therefore can occur that its null considered word either and is not received, or still, the society does not understand it, and the speech became a noise, only being seen with masked truth in the theater, and thus exactly symbolically.

When we deal with the anger, many times we have the trend to the disdain, for a society that nails a love of religious matrix, contradictory, if one may use the expression to the hatred, however, if to analyze with acuidade, we will verify that they are two sides of the same currency, in view of prezar for the conservation and another one for the destruction. In such a way, anger if becomes little egoistic, in view of paper of indifference of destruction, having end, that is, destruction of it provokes what it, the opposite to love that it looks to increase the possibility of if to have what it desires, authorizing the loving one to look for to feed its desire, on the other hand, the hatred looks for to become dead person the destruction desire. Moreover, we cannot restrain one another characteristic of the call ' ' nature humana' ' , therefore it is evident that we feel, exactly when we direct such destructive potential the targets that, they simulate this state of anger and they can serve as form to unload it, what we can cite as electronic example, games, sports and other activities that they make possible to externar such feeling. Anger costuma to be perceived, as reaction in relation something that threatens it feels what it, a form of reactive protection that it looks to resist what it afflicts to it, being associated in this exposition the pathological factor, as they make many it, therefore this feeling is not common, the pathology if it applies in differentiated cases and same these must be analyzed with much criterion, before judging in relation the moralizao systems.. To read more click here: Eva Andersson-Dubin.