synthesis, which would, ofcourse, be nothing more than the sum of what Good there is in those twosides. ClosingGiddens shares with Bobbio, and with the dominantdiscourse on left/right dualisms, the conviction that the farthest extremes ofboth present us with totalitarianism. Onthe extreme right and the extreme left, fascism is believed to reside. The historical appearance of Nazism andStalinism serve for the dominant discourse on the dyad as a proof thatpolitical action is at its limits when productive of fascisms. That is why, for both Bobbio and Giddens,left and right need to be uplifted. Forthe former, in a way that recognizes their natural right to exist; for thelatter, a synthesis of the dyad is what is necessary for their teleologicalconfirmation. Both authors believe thatthe human political experience has tyranny as its natural walls, not freedom,or neither of the two. The politics ofdualism is, for these authors, and for the dominant society they represent,legitimated by the belief that, when at its extremes - if there really are any- human political action will alwaysproduce tyranny. Biopower, thefunctioning of regulating mechanisms that continually inscribe homeostasis,stability, and equilibrium, requires this escape from supposed excess. And racismis that configuration oflegitimate vs. Illegitimate selves who should live and who should die orwho counts as a political being and who does not.The centrality of Self in Westernizedsocieties has a fundamental share on the politics of dualism. Left and right depend on a self that seesitself as the space of autonomy. Theself here is understood as inherently moral, and so is history. The dualisms of left and right, self andother, have authority on the basis of a history that is supposedly moral. That,together with a self that understands itself to be the fundamental space ofassessment, as if the "outer" world was only secondary or evenirrelevant in the assessment, has provided the grounds for domination. Left and right as universal categories areable to be in a culture that is made up of a moral ethos, in which theindividual does not examine politics as anything greater that might beoverwhelming to and unidentifiable with the Self. It is the tyranny of interiority over sociallife, which mistakes identity for practice. Alienation will provide that we remain content as long as we can say ifwe are "left", "right", or anything in between. It will also cheer us up, though, when wethink we can be fully removed from dual politics. That might happen even when we say toourselves "I am fully removed form left and right reduction, because I seethe whole thing." Actually, thatdiscourse is located within a metaphysical thinking, and therefore one thatreproduces the exact power structures it is supposedly critiquing. We can strive to question the dualism of leftand right, and even claim it as reductive, but to then reduce it to a"thing" that we can be fully "beyond" is to play within thesame rules. It is to accept that the worldis double by trying to provide a "higher synthesis". The dominant struggle against the dualism,then, is working within the same Law that says that the world is dual. Resistance against the politics of dualismcan