The loneliness of the snowman

In the afternoon of the day it snowed, the kids went out to play in the yard. My four-year-old granddaughter was having such a good time that when her mom told her she had to go inside because it was getting dark and they were all wet, she replied that not only did she have to build a snowman, but her whole family, including her mom, dad, grandparents, and dog. She also said it wasn't right to leave him alone out there.
I'm telling this because it connects with something I've been thinking about for a few days. From what concept do we think about politics? What idea do we put in tension with politics to understand it? We're accustomed to that concept being the individual, a subject fully aware of their rights, obligations, and interests. The individual is linked to the political order through collectives like the people, the nation, or the class, or fictions like the social contract.
But this wasn't always the case. The Greeks conceived of politics not from the perspective of the individual, but from the perspective of the family. For them, the in-dividual, the true atom—literally, "that which has no parts" —was the family. A theoretical assumption derived from direct life experience, like that of my granddaughter: everyone has—or should have—a family.
Political conceptions centered on the individual are the inspiration for modern Western liberal-democratic institutions, which have become a universal political paradigm. There are virtually no political traditions that do not recognize liberal institutions, to a greater or lesser extent.
But liberalism did not emerge as an afterthought or an isolated process. It responded to ongoing economic and social transformations. The accelerated development of capitalism and technological innovations introduced changes in social life. During the pre-capitalist historical phase, the family played a fundamental role as the economic unit of production and allocation of goods . It was the center of subsistence economies.
This role was maintained in the early stages of accumulation, but began to fade with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the concentration of the population in urban centers. Children gradually ceased to be contributors of resources— "coming home with a loaf of bread under their arm "—in this peculiar system of intergenerational solidarity.
Throughout human history, no better way to produce, provide, and distribute material goods and well-being has been found than capitalism. The fundamental principles of the market economy are virtually undisputed anywhere in the world.
The fundamental toolNeither liberal institutions nor capitalism could function without a tool at their service that guaranteed certain functions: the State. At first, it was limited to providing two basic services: justice and security, both internal and external. Later, as a result of industrialization, the growth of services, and the urbanization of the population, it began to take over various social functions previously performed by the family, the church, and the small community: population control, education, social assistance, care for the elderly, and health.
The more concentrated the functions, the greater the power. Later, the development of post-industrial capitalism— changes in lifestyles , work and consumption habits, the entry of women into the wage labor market, contraceptive methods, and medical advances that improved and extended the quality of life —led to a deepening and expansion of the functions of the state.
In the 1970s, with the oil crisis and its impact on rising production costs, the state had to seek new forms of expansion. The economic crisis did not strictly imply a withdrawal or retraction of the state, but rather a modulation of its function. It shifted from being a state of social benefits to a state of rights.
Thus began the era of so-called neoliberalism. The canonical and relentless criticisms of neoliberalism from the left, progressivism, and, more recently, the woke perspective should not mislead, as Diego Vecino explains. This ideological conglomeration was its perfect cultural and intellectual counterpart: a strengthening of the centrality of the individual, which would produce a new generation of identities.
The State has only increased its control and functions for more than a century and a half, relieving the old institutions of their original functions. Market rationality and State rationality are not contrary; they are complementary. The service or good not provided by the market is provided by the State. Post-revolutionary political logic only admits two terms of the relationship: State and Individual. The "lifeworlds" that Habermas sought to preserve (family, friends, various associations, small communities) have gradually succumbed.
Here and nowBut what does this universal process tell us Argentines? Two local news stories show the effects of the economic and political evolution of liberalism in recent decades. Few have noticed their intimate connection.
The first : births in our country have experienced an unprecedented 40% drop, in a steady trend that began 10 years ago . There's no reason to believe it will recover in the short or medium term. Everyone claims to love children, but no one wants to conceive or raise them. Our demographics have fallen far below the population replacement rate.
The second : the opposition managed to pass a bill in the Senate to increase pension benefits. The amount is paltry; it barely serves to hide the reality of a broken and unviable system, not only due to successive mismanagement and looting, but also because it was based on a budget that no longer exists: a base of (individual) contributors larger than the mass of (individual) beneficiaries.
The pension system, which was conceived as a complement to the family's system of intergenerational solidarity, became its substitute. The same thing happened with public education. Having children went from being a resource to an expense. The State constructed an individual to suit its needs. Now it cannot sustain them.
The Autumn of the Philanthropic OgreAre there solutions to state social engineering from within the state? Everything indicates no. Is it possible to conceive of its self-limitation, its voluntary decline? It seems not either. That's why anti-state ideologies and politicians make perfect sense. Could they eventually eliminate the state as an institution serving political power? Impossible.
What is reasonable is to push it from the outside back to a previous, more limited model, with less interference in people's lives. Vecino explains that libertarians aren't actually supporters of capitalist accelerationism, but rather nostalgic for earlier, less invasive forms of government.
The spectacular material development of capitalism and its own social and cultural reconfiguration have come at a price. We are also experiencing the deepest and most serious trade-off in individual-centered policies, as the formidable humanizing and socializing potential of the family is being exhausted after centuries of marginalization and contempt.
The State, a complementary body of liberal institutions and the market economy, is mired in a profound crisis. Retirement, education, justice, healthcare, security: take your pick. Its greatest achievement, the modern individual, could begin to melt, like a snowman in the sun.
* The author is a professor of political philosophy.
losandes