Articles Metapolítica
By Eduardo Hernando Nieto
In the so-called postmodern times the concept of civil society continues to spread with great force only under the reading proposed in the early 90's by Mr. and Mrs. Cohen and Arato (Civil Society and Political Theory, MIT Press, 1992), ie, that space emerged in the struggle against totalitarianism (in this case, paradoxically, communist) and then in opposition to big business (Economic Society).
Indeed, from the outset could feel the moral character with which they took that concept, and it was clear that everyone who fought against a dictatorship or against large economic corporations (State and Market and Society Politics and Economic Society finally) had to be on the side of good while the rest would be out of this moral category. However, to mitigate the opposition and not "fall" in the adversarial or controversial vision (Schmitt I would say) was considered more acceptable option for communication and cooperation among the three areas (political, economic and civil, of course) to to form a deliberative and democratic space. This time the dish was served to the left that could settle now in a space of ambiguity relieved of the burden Marxist (linked to totalitarianism) as saying that when considering the theory of cooperation with the market and the state in the political game but the framing political discourse from the realm of civil society so they (the "representatives" of civil society "would never be" contaminated "by the negative charges that could lead the market both as State.
So in a nutshell it would question the power shift but equally could benefit from its fruits (in fact we know that members of civil society as always want to be close to power but do not want to be involved with it), also would continue to preach against big corporations but in the same way would benefit from the resources of the market. The agenda of civil society in turn is being increasingly taking many times more extensive work that should correspond to the government and of course because it means the preaching turn around both the moral defense of individual rights (rights humans), as this moral consensus based on a course of evil (the struggle against the power embodied in the state government and its institutions as the armed forces) can have no other purpose than to oppose any political action ( devoted to the search of the good) consequences - according to this speech - never could command consensus, as a result always looked then much distrust any important political decision and also be deleted from any attitude decisionist dictatorial.
Finally, we know that along with "civil society" postmodern politics also brought us a host of new words, the State is now displaced by the global society, the government is replaced by the "Governance"; " politicians and technocrats, the left or right first for the already declining "third way" and now by the so-called egalitarian liberals (in our caviar), the sovereignty of the "global democracy, equality and inclusion and continue Terms as transparency, accountability (accountability), etc, etc, but how serious all this is that in fact politics has become today in pure speech, abstract rhetoric in "metaphysics cheap" that does not serve you interested in solving the many practical problems. So, if good and modernity itself generated an existential change us and opened the door to nihilism even harm than good in the beginning it was not as close to contemporary abstraction, despite all modern states parliaments, governments were intended to solve problems, unfortunately, the passage from modern to postmodern has sunk more than completely taking us to a destination unknown.
