The great ideas and reports of the progress that characterized modernity have been in crisis for years. Instead, the reports without such close links gained strength, and the collective subject was dominated by the individual. In reality, however, this exchange between the individual and the superiority of the collective narrative is very old, that is, that this conflict has already occurred before. However, since the 1990s (and we should take into account the fall of the Soviet Union, the military superiority of the United States, the increase in the crisis of the so-called welfare state, etc.) It seemed that modernity was lagging behind and that a new time was beginning, although there was no consensus on naming the new stage and limiting its characteristics: advanced modernity, late modernity, postmodernity, etc.

I believe that this trend is not so clear in the last ten years. After the great economic crisis that began in 2008, which seems to be turning into the books of history under the name of Great Recession, modern authors returned to the front line in the realm of political thought. That's at least if we focus on book sales. In any case, along with these general structural tendencies, I believe there is no doubt that individual speeches have gained strength in the public debate, and that behind there are political objectives. Because, just as structural changes require a general theoretical framework, daily practice is also essential not to be limited to the practice of general slogans, and therefore becomes a fundamental exchange between them.

The ability of public administrations to define reality and disseminate the discourses and concepts that become protagonists of society makes them play a prominent role in this whole issue. I would like to say that in the same way that governments and institutions can promote policies and stories that prioritize the collective dimension, they can also limit reality to individual practices and responsibilities. I have always found it very clarifying, and paradoxical, how in workers’ strikes the right to work is claimed from administrations that should defend the interests of the majority, when and only in those contexts of strike, promoting an individualistic reading. Unfortunately, there are many examples in that direction.

Well, I think this choice is booming in the context of the pandemic. The health emergency associated with COVID-19, the risk of getting sick, the limits imposed on social life… are making weights and you notice fatigue anywhere. It will surely be difficult to do otherwise. But in a general context that leads to individual logic, in which “I, for me and for me” can be the motto, I believe that from the political power there is a fundamental role that puts the force in the opposite direction: in concrete practices and in the reports that prioritize and care for the collective level.

Fortunately, at the local level, above all, there are examples of this kind in our country. From the community care initiatives promoted by certain municipalities, to the intense and varied performance of social movements. An isolated and selfish man, dreamed of neoliberalism, who is not possible in the real world, and it is raised time and again that the human being is a social being, even in this erroneous pandemic context.