From there the refusal of the analyses that if they relate to the symbolic field or the field of the significant structures, and the resource to the analyses that if make in terms of genealogy of the relations of force, strategical developments and tactics. ??? ???? ???? . I believe that what if must have as reference is not the great model of the language and the signs, but yes of the war and the battle. The historicidade that dominates in them and determines in them is belicosa and not linguistic. Relation of being able, not direction relation. History does not have ' ' sentido' ' , what it does not want to say that is absurd or incoherent. In contrast, it is intelligible and it must be able to be analyzed in its lesser details, but, according to inteligibilidade of the fights, the strategies, the tactics. Nor the dialectic (as logical of contradiction), nor the semiotics (as structure of the communication) could not give account of what it is the intrinsic inteligibilidade of the confrontations.
to the o hegeliano skeleton; ‘ ‘ semiologia’ ‘ it is a way to prevent its violent, bloody character and mortal, reducing to a it forms calmed and platonic of the language and dilogo.’ ‘ (FOUCAULT, 1979:5). Interesting that Nietzsche already had commented concerning relations of being able and the belicosa association, as well as the proper Max Weber it would a posteriori come to insist on this aspect. The fact is that Foucault becomes revolutionary for ‘ ‘ to open new leque’ ‘ , well vast for signal, of possibilities with respect to a historical hermeneutics, breaching rules of traditional schools en vogue and contradicting logical teorizantes, Hamann is perhaps correct when mentioning that, ‘ ‘ social and it reflects the conflicts of being able of form macro, occurring an exchange relativized for the desestruturalizante fluency of the relations of being able.