A few days ago, after sharing some topics with a poet friend, I was moved to try to go deeper into the new realities we are going through in the postmodern society, however, in order to enter into this analysis, I must start from the historical attempts to describe or explain the continuity of the species in the world. And the fact is that there are not recent appreciations that explain the probable reasons why we exist today, as well as how we have managed to get here. Of all these approaches, the creationist and evolutionist theories are undoubtedly the most important and have always fought a battle in human thought, with arguments that may be controversial but that, in a practical sense of current scientific knowledge, are not so divorced, that is, without appealing to the paradox, there is no evolution without creation or creation without change.

Now, without leaving aside what Charles Darwin proposed in his study on natural selection, where he proposes causes for which species remain in ecosystems, is the need for them to adapt to changing conditions, here the force factor is not the most important, if not (said in modern language) the flexibility to the phenomena or events that accompany the environment of these species.

If we start from this postulate and extrapolate to a social explanation of our permanence in the world, we could understand that societies have adapted the resources that have allowed them to maintain themselves, they have changed in order to survive. Social thinking should be composed of agreements and common objectives that make that society not only legal, but also legitimate. However, history shows us how these same societies have been involved in processes of change that are not necessarily framed within the scope of the permanence of our species, indeed, we can say that they have been precisely the opposite.

We can then start from the above analysis to support the following hypotheses:
Are we as a society doing exactly the opposite of what we are called to do to maintain our permanence in the world? Are we as a society contradicting the basic meaning of life? Are we unable to adapt to the changes and challenges that the modern world has brought us? Are we aware of what this non-change implies? In short, are we devolving?

In his book “Infocracy: Digitization and the Crisis of Democracy” Byung-Chul Han makes a solid critique of the social system, largely influenced by the new “data science”. This phenomenon permeates even the most traditional social organs, thus taking away the power social organs, thus taking away the power of self-decision and delegating it to the interpretation of metadata. Freedom of thought, collective desires and this intrasocial understanding pales more and more every day in this “post-society”.

We see with concern how Dominican society has been self-mutilating, dangerously acquiring a more individualistic concept every day and although it is contradictory, this individualism contradictory, this individualism is becoming more and more collectivized. It is this same individual sense is the reason why species do not manage to adapt to the new spaces or conditions of their habitat or conditions of their habitat, and it is precisely from this point where the principle (at least in theory) What happened to the society where values were more important than wealth? What happened to the society where the critical sense was more important than being right? What happened to the society that understood the need to belong to a system and understand each other? Finally, is the Dominican society involuted?

Author: 
Master Ariel Báez P. – Dean of the School of Humanities.