The Market System as a Psychological Mechanism*

There is a widespread belief that economic efficiency of the market system is a result of the power of the self-interest motivation (“Greed is good”). This is because the market system creates a strong link between the productive activity of market participants (production and supply of goods) and their own access to goods. But, in reality, the size of wealth acquired does not depend directly on the improvement of productive activity: it depends on profit. Profit can be increased in various ways, not only by productivity. The imperfect connection between profit and productivity is the source of various pathological processes in the market if the only motivation of productive activities is self-interests. Alleged remedy for theses defects is extensive state intervention in the market. However, such interventions have their own serious faults. But it is not true that the only motivation of productivity is self-interest. The intrinsic motivation can play a very important role in productive activity if it is not suppressed by overstimulation the self-interest motives.

Differences in Mentality*

Intercultural similarity of ideological conflicts, which are manifested in many countries as the conservatism/liberalism opposition, is related to the origin of these conflicts. They are an expression of differences in mentality, reflecting two opposite tendencies that exist in human mind. One is associated with human’s fundamental adaptation task: maintaining cohesion of their community and protecting its welfare. The other is related to the strivings for emancipation of the individual. The first tendency is the basis for the collectivist mentality and conservative ideology, whereas the other one, historically much more recent, is expressed by the individualist mentality and liberal ideology. There are considerable psychological differences between the two, especially in value systems, moral thinking, and cognitive styles. But there are also similarities. Therefore, the widespread belief that those two ideologies constitute two separate, naturally hostile “nations,” is misleading.

Economic Freedom as an Ideology*

There are two sides to economic freedom. It is a precondition for activating powerful psychological forces that stimulate human entrepreneurship and creativity, which allowed capitalism to effect the huge civilization leap made over the past 200 years. It has not been able, however, to control the destructive forces involved in competitive and hostile attitudes associated with conflicts of interests and the desire to maximize one’s own individual and group benefits. What is more, social processes that develop under economic freedom may have adverse influence on human relations and foster various social pathologies. There is also a rise in social inequalities, connected with the concentration of economic and, consequently, political power. The belief that there is a linear relationship between greater economic freedoms and improvement of productivity as well as in the quality of life in human societies has been only partly confirmed.

Violence as a Mean of Attaining Group Goals*

For a very long period of human history, direct physical violence used to be one of the main means of obtaining power, wealth, and prestige, as well as social control, socialization of children, and regulation of social relations. Human societies were also developing various ways of controlling and curtailing direct violence, primarily in-group violence. Major changes in the social functions of violence were associated with the development of liberal thought and liberal institutions—the free market and the democratic political system. Liberal culture and liberal mentality have delegitimized all kinds of physical violence, except in defense of human rights and freedoms. Nevertheless, the tendency to use violence, as a means of attaining political, economic, or ideological goals has not disappeared. It is being fostered by ideologies that grew out of the transformation of traditional (conservative) thought into Right-Wing Authoritarianism and/or Social Dominance Orientation, but also the transformation of liberal thought into Libertarianism (egocentric individualism). These ideologies facilitate the change of competitions and disagreements between social groups into destructive conflicts.

Political Dialogue as an Instrument of the Democratic Policymaking

In democratic states, the decisions concerning important social problems may be attained by means of two different modes: by means of political competition and struggle, in which the winners can impose a solution according to its own interests and values (the adversarial mode), or through dialogue aimed at solving the problem collectively (the deliberative approach). The adversarial approach assumes that there are winners and losers, whereas the deliberative approach creates a potential opportunity to consider the interests and perspectives of different parties. Critics regard the deliberative approach as unrealistic and point to its limitations. This chapter explores the example of the Round Table talks in Poland, which led to a peaceful transformation of the sociopolitical system, to discuss the psychological and social determinants of the effectiveness of this approach in politics.

The Sources of Disenchantment with Democracy*

Disenchantment with democracy may have different sources. One such source is the discrepancy between the expected advantages of the system and the experience with real democracy. In our research, we found that these expectations depend on lay theories of democracy that may differ substantially from its normative conceptions and practical realizations. Another source is the change in social priorities that can be described as a conservative shift. This change is a reaction to an increased sense of existential and epistemic insecurity that entails higher preferences for strong government founded on tradition and a shared worldview. It is associated with decreased importance of political agency and pluralism. There is also disappointment with democratic politics based on adversarial principles, in which those who gain political advantage shape the political and social relations according to their own interests and points of view, ignoring the interests and views of others.

Opposed Interests as a Source of Conflict*

According to Realistic Conflict Theory, opposing claims to scarce resources such as wealth, prestige, and power generate antagonisms and initiate conflicts with potentially destructive consequences. However, the consequences of such opposed interests may differ depending on how people understand their own interests and how they interpret their conflict. The clash of interests is a certain form of interdependence between people that can be described in terms of the Dual Concern Model. The model implies that in conflicts people might take into consideration their own as well as the other party’s interests. Their behavior depends on their understanding of the conflict situation and the characteristics, which they attribute to the participants in the conflict. The dominant ideology may play a major role shaping peoples’ interpretation of the situation and preferences for strategies of conflict resolution.