About 20 years ago he published two texts that marked the public debate in Chile at the time: The Anatomy of a Myth of Moulian and the Human Development Report of 1998. These texts, and the answers they produced, operated on the same level: The debate about the diagnosis of society. Debate. in turn, reduced to an element: what the chileans are in favor or against the model?, that does not stop to be a manifestly gross Is a debate that has reverberated for a good time -the Center for Public Studies published, still, the 2017 does Unrest in Chile?
What we’re interested in mark in this entry is that it can be argued that the intellectual debate has changed in character in recent years. The recent discussions on the work of Fernando Atria (which, by now, have been completed in its Reason, Gross link here), for example, are not on the diagnosis -are directly discussions ideological (around which institutions are to develop, what are the core values that should guide the common life, etc). The relative emergence of disputes over the meaning of liberalism are also going in the same direction.
An ideological discussion does not require or use the most (at the most as something ancillary) the discussion of diagnosis. Instead of arguing about what you think about X, is discussed directly on X (not yes the population believes or not in the ‘model’, but directly on whether the model is negative or positive). If you want to: instead of debating the population, is discussed with the population -at the same level that she performs: around what should or should not do.
Given this, then it is worth asking why the public discussion was long about the diagnosis? Ultimately, I believe that this is due to that the discussion of diagnosis functioned as a substitute for the ideological discussion. It was not the ability to discuss directly about the ideological themes of, for defend in direct to what is thought correct, and was done by proxy in person: I Defended my ideas through the use of raised that it was what the population wanted.
The discourse on the diagnostic of Chile then it was a false argument -that said it was on the description of what the population thought, but in the end it was about what I wanted to happen in the society. In a moment, during the decade of the ’90, in that the mere idea of an ideological debate called criticism, and that the course was to have no conviction whatsoever, then we are left with that form lying-discuss.
It is the hope that, once the ideological debate can be considered as such, then the operation describe the society (the diagnosis) is released from the pressure of replacing the ideological discussion, and to devote himself to the task of understanding what is happening. A sign that this happens would be to find texts in demonstrating that one’s own position does not match with that of the population. Will have to see happens in this regard.