Monthly Archives: February 2012

Active Inaction: the Most Powerful Cooperation Destructor

The active inaction is a defense of individuals or groups that destroys the context they are dealing with by exposing the implicit weaknesses of the situation.

Each specific situation has strengths and weaknesses. But within strengths, there are implicit weaknesses. While weaknesses need to be managed, implicit weaknesses can not be eliminated as they are part of the nature of the strength.

When active inaction occurs, the implicit weaknesses become evident and the strengths vanish.  That is why active inaction is so destructive.

When societies stagnate, they naturally tend towards a stagnant survivor’s behavioral pattern. This means that people are fully focused on exerting power to appropriate as much value as they can from the environment having the necessary justifications to do so.

This happens in cultures or niches of cultures where involutionary trends are strong because of materialistic or anthropological reasons.

This produces a trend towards an increase of the level of conflict in order to appropriate what can be appropriated. The active inactions, like strikes, are a natural response in environments where the cooperative negotiation capacity doesn’t suffice.

Inaction is in itself, the most powerful social destructive method that has been used in human history. It allows destroying without feeling guilty.

Passive resistance is part of what we call active inaction. The paradox is that it is frequently used in evolving segments while it is only legitimate in survival environments and non-legitimate in expansive cultures.

The more underdeveloped a segment, the higher the risk of using active inaction as a conscious or unconscious defense of some interests.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became the major research organization in the world in the field of human adaptive systems. More than 4,200 unicist ontological researches were developed since 1976 until December 2011 in the field of individual, institutional and social evolution. They included the development of the unicist ontogenetic maps (DNA) of institutions: