The 'Social' as symbolic: the distinction between Public and Private in contemporary societies in light of feminist thought (and with a digression on surrogacy contracts)

According to Hayek’s classic distinction between Private and Public the one would correspond to a space of freedom and to a spontaneous (or unintentional) order, the other to a space of authority and to a planned (or intentional) order; the one to Liberalism, the other to Socialism. Recalling the case of surrogacy contracts, the article argues that, today, this distinction is collapsing. The Private and the Contract have ended up expressing an authoritarian logic of planification of the social world: the pleas to individual freedom and self-determination are used performatively, disguising a purpose of governing the entire society which is purely intentional. By reaction, the supporters of the planned order have sharpened their authoritarian arguments: people can claim no freedom, if not that recognized by laws in the general interests. How to escape from such a dead end? With the help of Feminist Thought and by recalling the pioneering experience of the Saint-Simoniennes, the article maintains that the dualism between Public and Private has always been too poor. In fact, it does not take into account that the social has a political and spiritual, i.e., symbolic, dimension, which exceeds both sides of that traditional alternative.