Problem
Contrary to the classical tradition according to which the sphere of politics, understood as the sphere of everything that affects the life of the polis, includes all kinds of social relations, in such a way that the "political" coincides with the "social" , the way in which the category of politics has been analyzed is undoubtedly reductive: resolving, as has been said, the category of politics in the activity that directly or indirectly has a relationship with the organization of power coercive means restricting the scope of the "political" with respect to the "social", rejecting the total coincidence of the first with the second. This reduction has a very precise historical reason.
On the one hand, Christianity has removed control over religious life from the sphere of politics, giving rise to the contrast between spiritual power and temporal power unknown to the ancient world. On the other hand, the birth of the bourgeois mercantile economy removed dominance over economic relations from the sphere of politics, originating the opposition (to use the Hegelian terminology, inherited by Marx and which has become common use today) between civil society and political society, the private or bourgeois sphere and the public or citizen sphere, which was also unknown to the ancient world.
Yes, on the one hand classical political philosophy is based on the study of the structure of the polis and its various historical or ideal forms, post-classical political philosophy is characterized by the continuous search for a delimitation of what is political (the kingdom of Caesar) with respect to what is not political (let this be the kingdom of God), by a continuous reflection on what distinguishes the sphere of politics from the sphere of non-politics, the state from the non-state, where by sphere non-state or non-politics is always understood as both religious society (ecclesia as opposed to civitas) and natural society (the market as a place where individuals meet independently of any imposition, as opposed to the coercive order of the state).
The fundamental theme of modern political philosophy is the theme of the limits, whether they are more backward or more advanced according to the different authors and the various schools, of the state as organization of the political sphere both with respect to religious society and with respect to society. civil (in the sense of society)
bourgeois or private).
Hobbes's political theory is also exemplary in this regard, which is articulated around three fundamental concepts and which constitute the three parts into which the matter of De cive is divided. These three parts are called: libertas, potestas, religio. The fundamental problem of the state and of politics is, for Hobbes, the problem of the relations between the potestas symbolized by the great Leviathan, on the one hand, and the libertas and the religio, on the other: the libertas indicates the space of relations natural, where it develops the economic activity of individuals, stimulated by the incessant race for the possession of material goods, the state of nature (recently interpreted as the prefiguration of the market society); la religio indicates the space reserved for the formation and expansion of spiritual life, whose historical concretion occurs in the institution of the church, that is, of a society that by its nature is different from political society and cannot be confused with the same.
Regarding this double delimitation of limits of the territory of politics, two ideal types of state arise in modern political philosophy: the absolute state and the liberal state; the first tending to extend, the second tending to restrict its own interference with respect to economic society and religious society.
In the political philosophy of the last century, the process of emancipation of society from the state advances so much that for the first time different sectors hypothesize even the disappearance of the state in a more or less distant future and consequently the absorption of the political. in the social, or the end of politics.
In accordance with what has been said so far about the restrictive meaning of politics (restrictive with respect to the broader concept of "social"), the end of politics means exactly the end of a society for whose cohesion relations of political power are necessary, that is, say relations of domination ultimately based on the use of force. The end of politics does not mean, as is clear, the end of any form of social organization. It means purely and simply the end of that social organization that is sustained by the exclusive use of coercive power. Taken from Bobbio, Norberto, et.al., POLITICS DICTIONARY, pp. 1222-1223. Twenty-first Century Publishers, Mexico, 1997.
Read and review the essay entitled LO POLITICO Y LO SOCIAL.pdf LO POLITICO Y LO SOCIAL: The student should write your review in essay form, namely:
The topics covered in the reading are: (describe each one briefly with your words):
1) What theme, idea or concept touched on in this reading is most important to you? Why?
2) What theme, idea or concept touched on in this reading is most confusing? Why?