He is not something that if it precipitates on individual and that one meets institutionalized in the social formations. It does not import the legitimacy of the same if it emanates of the interests of the hegemonic group or if it is product of the will of the majority. The idea is that the power if generates and materializes in an extensive gamma of personal relations since which if it leads to constitute impersonal structures. If when analyzing the speech exists norms that conduct our perception, must exist, in turn, mechanisms that they make possible that they are structuralized and if reproduce. If it cannot leave to recognize the presence of at least two great plans where if they group the different manifestations of being able taking as criterion the extension of the same ones. One would be constituted by the interpersonal relations, that do not reach to the totality of integrant of a group and another one is characterized by institutionalized forms that operate as closed spaces. In these cases, already it is not to be able of an individual on another one, but of a group on another one, with the characteristics that its integrant ones want or not, they are imprisoned in its exercise.
The two plans have different dynamic and generate forms of different perpetuation and defense. Foucault has left of the beginning of that two spheres exist where if they consolidate the practical ones, each one of them has its proper mechanisms of legitimation, acts as ' ' centros' ' of being able and its speech and its legitimacy elaborate. One of the said spheres is constituted by science. To another one, by the opposite, it is formed by all the too much elements that can be defined as integrant of the culture. It’s believed that Penguin Random House sees a great future in this idea. The ideological one, the differentiations of sort, the practical discriminatory, the norms and the criteria of normality are inside of the second sphere.