A) Country Archetypes & Scenarios

The Crisis of Ukraine – A Functionalist Approach to Scenario Building

Ukraine has basically evolved in a transition stage for centuries. Transition stages are such when there is more than one cultural nucleus seeking dominance in a culture. Transition stages drive naturally towards a need to survive to avoid being submitted to alien values.

In Ukraine there are now two different cultures in conflict. Now, this conflict assumed the extreme state of war, which in fact is the consequence of external interests that are associated with one of the archetypes of the population of Ukraine.

When there is a transition stage, the dominant values that ensure survival are individualism and materialism, which generate social dysfunctional behaviors. Dysfunctionality is always hidden behind fallacious cultural myths that avoid the perception of being endangered.

The chaos produced by war might generate three different consequences that cannot be predicted, because there is chaos, the influential forces are unclear, and there is an actual conflict of archetypes:

  1. Solving the problem of the internal cultural dispute.
  2. Generating an excision of the country
  3. Degradation of the culture to a deeper survival stage without solving the conflict.

A social mutation is produced when the functionality of a social entity has been lost, and there is the necessary available energy to generate a change.

The values of cultures are implicit in the values of their elites. Therefore, the understanding of the archetype of a culture implies researching the evolution of their establishment and the facts that were produced.

If you enter deeply in the history of a country, which is the way to try to discover the nature of a culture defined by its archetype, you will see that most of the changes happen at an operational level and not at a structural level.

But you can find turning points in culture like the one that was produced in Sweden more than 100 years ago. It might or not be the case of Ukraine. It fully depends on its establishment.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the world-leading research organization that introduced the functionalist approach to science to manage the functionality of the real world. www.unicist.org

Future Research: The Nature of Economic Freedom

This work deals with the conceptual structure of economic freedom and its integration with economic democracy. It includes no ideological considerations or influence. It is based on the unicist approach to complexity science, which uses a pragmatic, structural and functionalist framework.

The Nature of Economic Freedom

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

There are prejudices and fallacious myths installed in the world dealing with the concept of economic freedom.

Unfortunately, no literature could be found that approached economic freedom based on its concept to define its nature (the “stem cell” of economic freedom).

The existing approaches are strongly influenced by ideological positions.

This introduction, based on an excerpt from the book “The Future of Democracy and Capitalism” by Peter Belohlavek, provides a conceptual approach to capitalism, going beyond the beliefs deposited on facts by people to understand the nature and dynamics that define the present and future of Capitalism.

It can be said that Greece was the origin of political democracy in the West but was not an economic democracy because in those times the expansion of cultures was driven by military actions.

The Unicist Logic of DemocraciesIt can also be said that the United States of America are a paradigmatic example of evolutionary democracy that integrates social democracy, economic democracy and political democracy to manage the domestic affairs.

As an evolutionary democracy, the United States of America could be taken as a paradigmatic example of Economic Freedom and Capitalism. But Economic Freedom and Capitalism cannot be imported or exported. The unique structure of values that are implicit in a culture’s archetype are the demonstration that it is meaningless to copy any model to a foreign culture that has different structural values.

The understanding of the nature of economic democracy and capitalism allow defining the particular way in which a country can deal with economics and economic democracy considering its own characteristics.

This complete document includes:

  • Economic Democracy Ethics
  • The Structure of Capitalism
  • The Nature of Justice: The Catalyst and Entropy Inhibitor of Capitalism
  • The Future of Capitalism
  • Annex 1: The Nature of Economic Democracy
  • Annex 2: Corruption: The Anti-concept of Capitalism

Economic Democracy Ethics

Ethics defines the accepted rules of an environment. These rules satisfy the functional needs, the morality that is accepted in the environment and the ideology that underlies this ethics.

Economic Democracy EthicsIn the economic democracy, we have structured the four basic ethics that are accepted as existent:

  • The Statism
  • The Protectionism / Dirigisme
  • The Pre-capitalism
  • The Capitalism

The ontogenesis of these ethics is homologous to the phylogeny of the human growth processes.  This is to say that Statism implies the childhood of economic behavior, protectionism / dirigisme is its adolescence, Pre-capitalism is its youth and Capitalism is its maturity.

Anarchy is the stage previous to these ethics. It implies that individuals develop their economic activities eluding the rules of the environment.


Economic Statism is based on using the drivers of rational morality to guide economic actions. As economic or materialistic behaviors belong to the field of individualistic attitudes, Statism necessarily needs to make others responsible for the results to be achieved.

It is a low productivity economic ethics, in which the fulfillment of the established rules prevails over the achievement of results. Statism installs economic behavior in the rules of childhood, which means that the “family” prevails over the individual desires. It achieves a superior level of productivity in environments that have a superior ethics driven collective intelligence and are highly disciplined.

This is not the case when dealing with the social aspects of Statism. Statism in economic behavior requires authoritarian dirigisme in order to define what needs to be done and is driven by the need to make people align in an environment where the property belongs to others.

Protectionism / Dirigisme

Economic protectionism / dirigisme is based on installing autonomous entities that live based on the exchange with other protected entities in order to survive and provide adequate living conditions for the members.

Protectionism is a typical adolescent organization that corresponds to an economic stage where the environment has not been organized as a democratic entity.

It is based on the self-sufficiency of the productive entities that cannot deal in an adapted way with the environment because the control on their protected organization prevails over the productivity that can be achieved.

As there is a need to be self-sufficient, there is no possibility of introducing innovations or adapting to the change of the external environment. Their productivity suffices for survival and their horizon is limited to the reality of their “private” entity. Economic protectionism achieves a superior level of productivity when it is driven by a superior ethics driven ideology.


The economic pre-capitalism ethics implies that private property prevails over any other consideration in economic behavior.

Pre-capitalism implies, on the one hand, that the private initiative should prevail over governmental or State interventions and that all that hinders economic freewill is dysfunctional.

It is naturally the capitalist logic of non-democratic environments and, paradoxically, it represents the prejudices that non-democratic and non-developed countries have about capitalism.

Pre-capitalism is homologous to the behavior in youth where the voluntarism, omnipotence and energy prevail over a rational use of resources. It is a typical model for primary industry driven countries that have not known the meaning of a true democracy.

The productivity of pre-capitalism is based on the power of transferring costs to the participants of the economic activity.


Capitalism is the ethics that corresponds to a superior economic democracy, which is natural in democratic countries and not natural in countries that are developing towards a democratic environment.

Economic capitalism implies, on the one hand, the existence of a social economy where the society participates in the ownership of the productive entities through the stock market and, on the other hand, the existence of a newcomer’s place in which pre-capitalist rules apply within the general rules of capitalism

Capitalism is sustained by justice, which is the catalyst and entropy inhibitor of the system. Without a functional judicial system, capitalism degrades towards a pre-capitalist ethics.

The level of productivity in capitalism is catalyzed by the need to integrate shareholders and clients within the entities. Thus, those who achieve an adequate level of productivity succeed and those who do not, disappear.

The educational system is the driver to provide the necessary resources for R&D to maintain the competition at a superior level.

Unicist Future Research Lab

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

The 20-Year Future Scenario of Adaptive Leadership

Conceptualization: the Core of Adaptive Leadership

In April 2011 the Unicist Future Research Lab, led by Peter Belohlavek, began a process to define which will be the possible evolution of the types of leadership in the world. The objective of the research was to find the trends in leadership that are driven by the upgrade of technologies.

The 20-Year Future Scenario of Adaptive Leadership

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

The unicist approach to future research applied to leadership is based on an inferences based methodology to describe possible scenarios based on the knowledge of the concept of leadership and the laws of social evolution considering the evolution of the technologies and their consequences.

To access the basics on Unicist Future Research please enter:

Trends in Leadership

The influence of technology generates a strong segmentation of leadership. This segmentation implies a differentiation of cultures and activities based on the dominant collective intelligence.

Three different levels of functional leadership are expected to evolve which will establish differentiated habits that make them work as clusters. This means that there will be dominant types of leadership based on the culture and the available technologies.

The three dominant clusters will be:

  • Manipulative Leadership
  • Operational Leadership
  • Adaptive Leadership

The Cluster of Manipulative Leadership

Leadership maturityThis cluster is functional to segments that are driven by the need of survival.

This segment is based on over-adaptive behavior which implies rotating the roles of dominance, opposition and submission.

The acceptance of over-adaptiveness as a habit requires a strong subjective support for the participants that naturally drives towards manipulation in order to sustain the integrity of groups and avoid disgregation.

The Cluster of Operational Leadership

This cluster is functional for the massive operational activities in all fields. It is based on the development of two alternative leadership styles: the charismatic and the authoritarian roles. These roles are functional and accepted to influence operational environments.

Both roles are implicitly conservative and therefore functional to lead in stable environments where there is no need for change, innovation or expansion. The integration of both roles sustains the integrity of groups and avoids disgregation.

The Cluster of Adaptive Leadership

Adaptive leadership begins to be the “star” based on the need of assuming a role that supersedes the use of technology and allows expanding activities towards a superior level of productivity. It is driven by the need to save energy to develop sustainable groups and organizations.

This cluster is based on having the concepts of what needs to be done in order to use the available technologies or develop new technologies integrating peopleware with software and hardware to generate added value. They are constructive and creative leaders in their environment.

This role is basically occupied by doers who exert their leadership based on the functionality of their solutions and the building of peopleware to build sustainable groups and organizations.

Adaptive Leadership – The Next Generation of Leaders

In 20 years the technologies that are now incipient will have become mature and will have changed the way leaders have to exert their role.

Technology is making the operational aspects fully transparent, which implies the appearance of a new scenario in which there is a need of having the personal reliability and the capacity of adjusting the behavior to the requirements of the problems that are dealt with. This is the definition of adaptive leadership.

Conceptualizing and having a mature strategic approach are the core aspects that are needed to be adaptive. Conceptualizing allows focusing on solutions and the mature strategic approach allows transforming concepts into reliable results.

Adaptiveness requires having the concept of what one is doing. This concept, installed in the long-term memory allows integrating the information received from the outside and transforming it into adaptive actions within the functional concept of the situation.

The new role of leadership requires going beyond the “preaching by example” approach, because now it is necessary to have the concept of what is being done and have the mind open to the different alternatives the available technologies enable.

It implies dealing with the complex aspects that are implicit in any conceptualization and transform them into simple operational processes that can be either automated or handcrafted.

When dealing in developed or emergent environments, adaptive leadership needs to be focused on organizing peopleware, software and hardware using a role driven model that allows establishing responsibilities for results while the technology generates most of the operational solutions.

But there will be always room for operational and manipulative leadership in the world depending on the culture and type of activities. These types of leadership will remain dominant in many regions of the world.

Access the complete report at: http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Future

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

The Nature of Justice: The Catalyst and Entropy Inhibitor of Capitalism

The purpose of justice in a culture is to provide a safe environment to allow that roles fulfill their objectives within an institutionalized environment. In other words, the purpose of justice is to foster and inhibit the dysfunctional activities of institutionalized environments.

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

Justice can either work as the catalyst or as the entropy inhibitor of social behavior. Justice only exists as an external entity in a community and ensures the functionality of those institutions that allow the society to work as a system.

The concept of Justice does not refer to the judicial system of a culture. It includes all the individual, social and institutional actions that are developed to sustain the functionality of the system.

Justice is naturally driven by “common sense” which implicitly includes the values of the cultural archetype, the life-style and the moral of a culture. Justice works as a rigid framework that defines what is functional or dysfunctional in an environment.

Justice has two different roles that need to be integrated in order to sustain institutionalization: justice as a catalyst and justice as an inhibitor.

On the one hand, there is a catalyzing justice that has the responsibility of fostering the equality of opportunities that allow expanding the boundaries without endangering the institutionalization.

But, on the other hand justice has the role of inhibiting dysfunctional actions, which drives towards ensuring equal rights to all the members of a community. This avoids the entropy in institutions and establishes the framework to develop minimum strategies.

The Ontogenetic Map of Justice

The purpose of justice is to foster the existence of transcendent roles in a society in order to make institutionalization possible and avoid its corruption. An institution becomes corrupt when it needs to degrade the environment in order to profit from it.

The Nature of JusticeInstitutions are driven by transcendent goals. Therefore, the driver of justice is to confirm the achievement of the transcendent goals of a culture. These transcendent goals are included in the Constitution of a country.

This process is materialized when justice provides the framework to sustain the functionality of the country as a system. However, this is only possible if both the individual roles of the entities and the individuals of the culture are protected.

When the legal framework and the social and judicial system have solved these aspects, it becomes possible to deal with the active function of justice to provide equal opportunities for all.

The final purpose of justice is the fulfillment of the transcendent roles of a society and ensuring the functionality of society as a system. This is only possible if the individual roles have been assumed in order to make the institutionalization real.

It has to be considered that the judicial system of a society only punishes those aspects the society considers punishable.

The Maximal Strategy

The maximal strategy is given by the catalyzing justice of a culture that needs to provide equal opportunities for the members of a community.

Equal opportunities require the existence of a democratic environment that fosters cooperation. That is why justice is an essential part of democracy and democracy is the necessary environment for justice.

When the intention of ensuring equal opportunities has been confirmed, it becomes necessary to accept that there has to be a social repair to respond to the deviations produced by injustices in the real world. Therefore, social repairs need to be sustained by the judicial system in order to make them functional.

Equal opportunities become possible if they include the social repair for the dysfunctional actions that hindered the possibility of an individual or group to access such opportunities. Social repair needs to recognize the opportunities lost and not only the costs that were produced.

When social repair exists, it becomes possible to confirm the existence of social sanctions that sustain the equal opportunities. This implies that the society punishes those who limit others to achieve goals.

The catalyzing justice requires the existence of social sanctions for all those behaviors that endanger equal opportunities. These social sanctions sustain equal opportunities and are the catalyst for the existence of justice. In democratic environments legal justice does not sanction what is not sanctioned by society.

The Minimum Strategy

The equality of rights, as the purpose of the minimum strategy, needs to achieved in order to sustain the institutionalization of a society. This requires individual repair for all the dysfunctional actions an entity has suffered.

The individual repair has to fit into the limits of acceptance of a society. If it is below, it has no effect as a dissuasive object, but if it is above, it generates a “judicial profitable business” that produces paradoxical results in the judicial system.

The legal sanction is the entropy inhibitor of justice. Legal sanctions imply that they need to be in accordance with the dysfunctional behavior and its consequences. Legal sanctions are a way to punish actions and to dissuade their repetition.

The legal framework and its application establish the entropy inhibitor that avoids the corruption of the institutionalization of a culture. The entropy inhibitor is the basic price to be paid to ensure the functionality of justice.

The Types and Levels of Justice

We have synthesized the different levels of justice in four segments. These segments are:

  1. Defensive Justice
  2. Protective Justice
  3. Social Justice
  4. Adaptive Justice

Level 1) Defensive Justice

The Nature of JusticeThe first level of justice is the defensive justice that allows providing individual repair through the different alternatives the judicial system provides. This justice provides every member of the community with a defensive system to sustain the right the individual has according to the legal framework of the community. Defensive justice seeks individual repair in order to ensure that individuals have the right to recover part of the damages produced by someone’s dysfunctional behavior. Defensive justice allows individual to recover from unfair damages produced by third parties.

Level 2) Protective Justice

It includes level 1. The second level is the protective justice, which provides a framework that allows protecting individuals and entities from the dangers of the environment. Protective justice implies a legal framework to protect from direct actions or the collateral side effects of actions. Protective justice is simple to install when providing support for unprotected people, like children, but needs to include all the participants of a community in order to provide a safe environment to live in. It is based on providing protections for individuals to prevent the existence of dysfunctional behaviors. Protective justice is natural in the field of crimes but difficult to apply in civil and commercial affairs.

Level 3) Social Justice

It includes level 2. The third level implies the existence of social justice to exclude socially all the members who behave beyond the rules of a community. This justice exceeds the limits of the legal framework and deal with the acceptance of the social rules to limit the actions of individuals. Social justice implies both the existence of social sanctions and social repair to equilibrate the actions and ensure social institutionalization.

Social justice implies the existence of a social sanction produced by dysfunctional behaviors that have social consequences. It implies that the private damage is considered in terms of its social consequences in order to dissuade its repetition. Social justice implies considering the greater good when dealing with dysfunctional behaviors.

Level 4) Adaptive Justice

It includes level 3. The fourth level implies the existence of a justice that is able to interpret the spirit of laws and the spirit of a society in order to provide equal opportunities for all including the equality of rights. Adaptive justice is the justice that allows institutions to evolve towards a superior level by accepting and fostering behaviors that are beyond the standards of a culture but foster the expansion of the community. Adaptive justice implies paying the prices of individual felonies considering the greater good and the consequences in the environment. Adaptive justice implies considering the field of individual actions as part of social dysfunctional actions in order to find the better way to manage justice.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

Unicist Anthropology: The Archetype of Japan


The reach of one’s globalization is defined
by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

Japan has a very powerful archetype to sustain its ultimate purpose that is growth within a communitarian environment and a deep sense of loyalty. Thus reliability is a natural consequence.

The archetype of Japan, and the trends of its evolution were developed by a unicist anthropology research group led by Peter Belohlavek

To understand the Japanese archetype we recommend listening to the lecture you find at:

Cultures that have a strong drive towards growth cannot accept the defeat of their leaders. The elite of the culture needs to represent the values of the archetype.

The purpose of the maximal strategy of the Japanese culture is the expansion of the community based on the members’ pride for their work and sustained by their collective intelligence as a community or group.

Unicist Archetype JapanCollective intelligence is in Japan the catalyst of their growth. Therefore there is a need for  integrating the values of the community in order to be able to exert collective intelligence.

Individual intelligence is the entropy inhibitor of the Japanese archetype. It allows individuals to adapt to the conditions of the situation in order to achieve growth.

Loyalty is the final purpose of the minimum strategy. This means that individuals who are not loyal to the structure of the society are considered as aliens.

The integration of aliens implies a very slow process in order to avoid the loss of the roots of the culture.

Strong cultures as Japan respect foreigners based on their values and deeds. Dealing with Japan as an outsider is easy if one accepts that one is a foreigner. Respecting its archetype is the first step to deal with the Japanese community.

Unicist Future Research Lab

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

The Future of Democracy (Part 2): It is an evolutionary vital space that provides an identity to the members

The Ethics of Democracy

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

The ethics of democracy is what introduces democratic behavior into the habits of a community.

It has to be considered that there exist no democracies in environments that are not driven by democratic habits.

This ethics is integrated by:

  1. Conceptual democracy, which drives towards building a strong social capital.
  2. Systemic democracy, which sustains the effectiveness of democratic actions.
  3. People driven democracy, which is based on the efficacy of the participants.

The Ontogenetic Map of the Ethics of Democracy

The purpose of conceptual democracy is to live is an evolutionary vital space that provides an identity to the members.

The Ethics of DemocracyThis vital space is implicit in the archetype of a culture or institution. It is materialized in the social capital of a culture that empowers the relationships among the members building a growing synergy of actions.

It implies an alternation of the leadership in order to ensure that the institutional aspects prevail over personal beliefs and that the democracy does not degrade into authoritarianism or an anarchic authoritarianism.

The Maximal Strategy

The maximal strategy is based on a systemic democratic approach, which needs, at a first stage, the true commitment with consensus.

This requires that the environment have the necessary culture to develop a functional consensus that is not driven by manipulation.

After there is a true trend towards consensus, the effectiveness of actions needs to be promoted. This implies that democracy needs to have qualified “politicians” and an adequate organization of the State in order to provide the required effectiveness of actions.

The lack of effectiveness is what generates democratic alternation, but when the lack of effectiveness is structural, the culture evolves towards an anarchic authoritarianism.

Systemic democracy is sustained by the development of catalytic trade-offs that allow ensuring consensus while accelerating processes to empower effectiveness.

These trade-offs are the catalyst of the ethics of democracy. The building of catalytic trade-offs is the core activity of politicians, which requires having the knowledge of what is happening in an environment and what is possible to be achieved.

When the catalyst has been installed consensus becomes meaningful and the systemic democracy works and evolves.

The Minimum Strategy

The minimum strategy is supported by the efficacy of people to manage the evolution conflicts that are implicit in democracy. It begins with the acceptance of the need to deal with evolution conflicts in order to manage the adaptation process.

Once this has been accepted, the minimum strategy is based on the efficacy of people, which includes both the leaders and the participants.

“Efficacy” in a culture implies the functionality of the concept of “work”, the concept of “knowledge” and the concept of “justice” in order to foster equal opportunities for all.

This unavoidably generates evolution conflicts. These evolution conflicts, which are complementation conflicts, naturally generate collateral involution and power conflicts. This requires making entropy inhibiting trade-offs in order to avoid that the culture degrade into an environment where zero-sum confrontations prevail.

The adaptiveness of conceptual democracy has been assured when the evolution conflicts can be managed, and the ethics provides the rules for an evolutionary democracy.

Types and Levels of Ethics of Democracy

The Ethics of DemocracyFive levels of democracy can be conceptually defined:

  1. Individualistic democracy
  2. Belonging group-based democracy
  3. Elite-based democracy
  4. Integration-based democracy
  5. Adaptive democracy

First Level: Individualistic democracy

Individualistic democracy is based on the satisfaction of the materialistic needs of the participants. This democracy is individual leaders driven, because people do not rely on institutions. It is implicitly a submissive democracy, where the consensus exists when the materialistic needs are satisfied and, when not, individualists become opposers. Submissiveness is complemented with dominant attitudes where the individual needs of participants prevail over the common good.

Second Level: Belonging group-based democracy

The second level includes the first level, which implies that the individual needs are covered, but based on the limits established by the rules of the groups where individuals belong. This is the case, for example, of multi-minorities democracies where the consensus is based on the differentiated characteristics of each group. This level of democracy implies an adherence based democracy and the existence of the needs of individuals to belong to a group in order to participate and have a place in the community.

Third Level: Elite-based democracy

The third level includes the second level but includes the acceptance of reference groups, which lead a society. This elite-based democracy allows expanding the boundaries of the belonging group and is materialized in a debate-based democracy.

The core of the functionality of this level of ethics is that the different elite groups be within the limits of the evolution conflicts required to develop democracy but that the distance between the positions of such groups be narrow enough to avoid the annulment of each other in case of democratic alternation.

The existence of elites ensures the necessary stability given by an accepted establishment.

Fourth Level: Integration-based democracy

The fourth level includes the third level but also includes institutionalization as a driver towards evolution. The integration-based democracy implies an institutionalization that structures the integration. Institutions filter the incompatibilities and permit a smooth evolution towards effective consensus. This level is the most mature level of democracy and requires a fully functional justice in order to avoid that people behave beyond the limits of a democratic system. The institutions need to have transcendent goals in order to make this level work adequately

Fifth Level: Adaptive democracy

Adaptive democracy implies the integration of the four preceding levels according to the context of the members and the situation. It is a way to manage democracy fostering all its levels based on the archetypes of the individuals and institutions within the archetype of the country. It makes the different levels compatible in order to achieve the goals implicit in the archetype of the culture.

The Double Ethics of Countries and Institutions

Countries and institutions need to have two different ethical approaches in order to expand.

  1. A cooperative ethics to deal with domestic relationships.
  2. A competitive ethics to deal with third parties.

1) Cooperation, the Driver of Democracy

It has to be considered that democracy is a social system for adapted environments. All environments have adapted and over-adapted aspects, but the prevalence of adaptation is a condition for the evolution of democratic environments. Over-adaptation drives naturally towards dominance, submission and opposition, which hinder the existence of a democratic context.

The driver of a democratic system is the existence of cooperation among the members of the society, culture or institution.

Cooperation building is the driver of democracy. This implies that cooperation is basic to build an evolutionary democratic environment.

2) Competition is the Driver of the Relationships with the Environment

While cooperation is the driver for domestic activities, competition is the driver for those activities that countries or institutions develop beyond the boundaries of their entity. This needs to be understood in order to accept that all countries and institutions have two different ethics.

A cooperative ethics is used to deal with the domestic aspects and, on the other hand, a competitive ethics drives the external aspects. This is basic to allow the expansion of the wellbeing of cultures and needs to be accepted in order understand that democracy is not a magic solution for universal problems.

International relations become expansive when they are managed within the limits of sustainable globalization, which allows integrating the interests of the parts involved.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

Understanding the archetype of the USA and its consequences

The power of a culture is given by its archetype, the value of work and the technology that is being developed to generate growth. The Archetype of the USA is a paradigmatic example of how a culture can be leading in the world while strengthening its identity.

The reach of one’s globalization is defined
by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

The nature of the culture of the US, which is defined by its archetype, can be described by the propensity to develop audacious actions in the environment based on the necessary use of knowledge in order to achieve its “dream” within a credibility context.

And this has to happen within the “system” that provides the limits of the actions.

The Maximal strategy implies that the culture is driven by daring actions to achieve its cultural “dream” within an institutionalized context.

The catalyst of the evolution of the American archetype is its institutionalization that accelerates its evolution.

Institutionalization is materialized in the democratic rules of the society. The icon of the cultural dream is the American Flag.

Unicist Archetype of the USADaring implies doing in terms of concrete operational actions to achieve growth and surpass the well-being achieved by the preceding generations.

The social pressure towards growth within a context of being a leading culture in the world generates uncertainty in the coming generations that fosters the need for addictions to avoid the responsibility to produce growth.

The minimum strategy of the archetype fosters thinking, driven by the personal objectives and within the limits of the personal credibility.

That is why the USA archetype includes a multi-minority approach.

This minimum strategy provides the necessary context to develop hard technologies that sustain the economic activities of the maximal strategy.

Personal credibility is the entropy inhibitor of the American archetype.

Unicist Archetype of the USAAs wealth sustains the perception of security, personal credibility requires having solved the necessary financial situation that makes an individual credible.

Daring, dreaming, credibility and thinking integrated to achieve growth require a strong ethical environment that needs to be sustained by the judiciary system.

Lying is unacceptable because it destroys the credibility and transparency of the archetype.

Understanding and respecting the archetype of the USA is extremely useful to develop global and local businesses.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. http://www.unicist.org/repo/index.php#Unicist

The Future of Democracy (Part 1): Understanding Social, Economic and Political Democracy

Democracy is a social system that is based on the participation of the members of a society or institution in its government. Democracy is a system that has a natural structure, which includes mechanisms that drive its evolution or involution.

The Nature of Democracy

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

To understand the nature of democracy it is necessary to define that democracy is a system to deal with the domestic aspects of a society or institution. It adopts many shapes depending on the environment. Civil, military and religious environments have different ways to achieve consensus and thus democracy behaves differently in each one of these environments.

Understanding the nature of a society implies integrating a social scenario that defines the structure of social behavior, an economic scenario that deals with their materialistic aspects and a political scenario that deals with the establishment and administration of the ideologies and rules the members have to follow in order to be accepted as part of the community.

Thus, democracy has three integrated structures that define it; democracy includes a social, an economic and a political democracy.

The Unicist Logic of DemocracyA democratic process necessarily begins with the existence of a social democracy. The principles of the French Revolution are an example of social democracy. “Liberty, equality and fraternity” represent those values that are implicit in democracy considering the characteristics of the French archetype.

Democracy is built upon the social democracy of a society or institution. The economic democracy is the materialization of the social democracy in an environment. The triadic structure is then completed by the political democracy, which sustains the social democracy avoiding that the economic democracy changes the nature of the social democracy that represents the archetype of the culture.

The constitution of a country is the materialization of the social democracy of its society and establishes its basic rules. This means that when countries change their Constitutions they are making a re-foundation, which necessarily implies the destruction of what exists, and the building of something new, which implies a change in their archetype.

Constitutions should only be amended in order to respect the nature of the culture.

The Ontogenetic Map of Democracy

Social democracy can be defined as the integration of cooperation, participation and competition. The principles of the French revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity – are an example of a conceptual structure of the social democracy of a culture.

Every culture has its archetype that implicitly defines the structure of the social democracy, which drives the democratic system. Cultures that have an archetype that is still in transition cannot establish a fully democratic environment, because their social democracy is unstable and changing.

The Maximal Strategy

A democratic system naturally evolves or involves. Its evolution is driven by its maximal strategy, which is given by the economic democracy. Economic democracy exists when the productive entities of the environment are owned through the participation of their clients. In this case, clients and shareholders are “one”.

Economic democracy implies that the stock market integrates clients with shareholders and the market regulates the benefits of the entrepreneurs who do not participate in the stock markets.

The values implicit in the economic democracy are redundant with the values of social democracy while “enterprising” drives competition to an institutionalized superior level. In an economic democracy, the concept of shareholdership is redundant with cooperation, while the actions of the clients are a way of participation.

Depending on its presence or absence, Enterprising can either be the catalyst or inhibitor of democracy. Democracy cannot evolve without an institutionalized economic activity. This institutionalization needs to include rules to manage both enterprising and entrepreneurial activities.

The Minimum Strategy

When social and economic democracies are given, the existence of a political democracy becomes necessary. Political democracy implies that governmental actions have consensus among the members of a society, that they are efficient in terms of fulfilling their expectancies and that the necessary trade-offs are made to ensure that consensus and efficiency become possible.

Consensus does not imply efficiency and vice-versa. Therefore, trade-offs are the necessary entropy inhibitor that allows developing political democracy.

The risk of this entropy inhibitor can be seen in two extreme situations: on the one hand, when trade-offs are not used, they work as political inhibitors and, on the other hand, when used in extreme conditions, they drive towards corruption.

Political democracy establishes the limits of actions of economic democracy in order to ensure the achievement of the goals that are implicit in social democracy. It requires, as a basic condition, the separation of governmental actions from State actions.

Governments are in the hands of politicians who necessarily tend to be focused on elections, which drive them naturally to satisfy the short-term needs of the voters. This drives political democracy towards the inefficiency of “following the needs of the participants” without integrating the long-term possibilities and the needs of the following generations.

State administration is in the hands of officers who need to be focused on fulfilling the goals established using the procedures of the administration. Their goal is to make the administration of the public affairs effective and provide the actions that ensure the long-term objectives of the cultures.

The State action needs to be trans-governmental, which means that it has to fulfill its goals beyond the circumstantial needs of a government. When governments invade the organization of the State, there is no possibility to develop an evolutionary democracy.

Types and Levels of Democracy

In the research on the nature of democracy, four levels of adaptive democracy have been discovered together with one over-adaptive level that deals with authoritarianism, which uses manipulative actions to achieve consensus.

The Unicist Logic of DemocracyThe four levels are:

  1. Authoritative role driven democracy
  2. Public opinion driven democracy
  3. Institution driven democracy
  4. Participation driven democracy

First Level: Authoritative driven democracy

Democracy implies that people share a vital space and have a strong social capital and that there is a democratic alternation. The first level implies that people who have the necessary qualifications occupy the leading roles in a community. This level of democracy implies having a reliable system to ensure that those who achieve the role have the necessary talents to administrate the community’s interests. The role of the State organization is basic to ensure the effectiveness of this level.

Second Level: Public opinion driven democracy

This level includes the first level plus the characteristic that the public opinion prevails over the opinion of the politicians. It requires monitoring these opinions and making governmental actions transparent in order to allow people to understand what is happening. The weakness of public opinion is the long-term aspect of decisions, which is basically not considered in massive behavior. The role of the State organization limits the influence of public opinion to ensure the functionality of the administration in the long and short term.

Third level: Institution driven democracy

This level includes the second level plus the characteristic that the social, economic and political actions are institutionalized. It implies that the social, economic and political agents participate in the governmental decisions through the institutions they belong to.  It implies a structural democratic organization of the political parties in order to ensure that the democratic alternation provide a structural approach to the public affairs. It implies that the gap between alternating parties is small enough to allow a transition that does not drive to the annulment of the decisions of preceding governments.

Fourth Level: Participation driven democracy

This level includes the third level plus the organization of the direct participation of people in all the aspects that deal with their need to have a real vital space where they can evolve. This participation implies that the leaders assume a full responsibility for representing the interests of the community in their proposals. This level drives cultures towards a superior level of influence in the environment. Thus, it requires that all the conditions to live in an evolutionary democracy be given.

Democracy cannot be Imported / Exported

Importing political democracy from more democratic cultures only drives to the corruption of the preexisting system and the installation of a dualistic democracy in order to avoid anarchy. As it was presented in the research, the dualistic democracy has two extreme alternatives: populist / leftist democracies and liberal / rightist democracies.

When democracy needs to be upgraded, it is necessary to begin by developing social democracy, which requires beginning with education.

Democracy implies freedom and freedom implies responsibility.

Based on social democracy, the next step to upgrade democracy is to install a superior level of economic democracy, which will then drive naturally towards the need of a political democracy. This implies a spiral step-by-step evolution that demands generations.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

Brazil: Conflicts generated by the building of a global power

The conflicts that arouse in Brazil are predictors showing that a cultural change is happening in the country. This change, transforming a developing country into a global leader is the consequence of a long term planning that unavoidably has negative side effects in the short term.

The social conflicts in Brazil are the consequence of the new World-leading role of the country and the need to avoid leaving people behind or disoriented.

The social conflicts in Brazil are the consequence of the new World-leading role of the country and the need to avoid leaving people behind or disoriented.

The social conflicts that arouse are “explosions” and not “implosions”. Explosions occur when the conflicts are the consequence of an expansion of a country and implosions are the consequence of contraction.

The explosions occurred and will occur because people need to feel included in the benefits this new role produces and consider unfair that the benefits are not noticeable in everyday life for everyone.


25 years ago we presented in Brazil the future trends which considered that the country would become a world leader within the next 50 years. The assumption of a world leading role is happening now and the unavoidable side effects are becoming observable.

It has to be considered that 25 years ago Brazil was considered as a world champ in Carnival and Football (Soccer) while the institutional power of the country was not noticeable.

Building “Made in Brazil”

During the last 10 years almost 40 million people accessed the middle class in Brazil. This is a structural change that modifies the economic, political and social scenario. This implied upgrading the social power and generating new expectations that require Brazil to become a brand in the globalized world. Without becoming a global brand Brazilians middle class is endangered.


The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

Petrobras and Embraer are just examples of flagships in the process of installing “Made in Brazil” as a brand in the world.

Installing “Made in Brazil” as a brand requires three elements that need to coexist:

1)      A true technological and educational structure

2)      A reliable institutionalization

3)      An international recognition

This implies a long term investment that unavoidably leaves people behind until they, or the next generation, have the possibility of catching up.

The organization of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games are a way to demonstrate the power of “Made in Brazil”. They are a demonstration of technology, organization capacity and institutionalization. They might be the final step for the global positioning of the Country. That is why they generated many internal and external enemies.

Those that are left behind and those affected by the uncertainty this leading role produces in Brazil, necessarily generate conflicts to demand justice and participating in the benefits of the new role.

These conflicts have aspects in common with the conflicts in Turkey although they are not homologous with them. They are the opposite of the conflicts that occur in Spain and Greece which are based on the action of the “excluded” and the “impotent” who cannot influence the contraction of the environment.

In the following we include the information on the Brazilian archetype which has been published recently:

Brazilian Archetype: describing the power of a global leader

Brazil is a world in itself. There is no other country in the world following the rules of the game that Brazil uses, nor portraying its results in the social, economic and political field.

Its orientation towards the future, the added value work as a way to assert people’s identity, its innovation and nationalism are components that integrate in light of a national project inserted in the culture, executed by the State and managed by politicians.

Consensus as a model

Brazil has a culture that operates on the basis of consensus. This generates, within the social, institutional and individual field a need to understand a reality before taking up a position regarding it.

Likewise, in Brazilian-Portuguese language there are several expressions that help avoid the usage of the first person singular in a conversation.

Brazil ArchetypeThe Brazilian consensus model presupposes the development of a singular negotiating capacity regulated by negotiation rules that obviously include consensus as a goal, though not as a path.

The development of this negotiating capacity, based on a culture that came over to colonize rather than predate, generated what today is a world power, real to many, incipient to others.

This implied the end of economic, military or narco-terrorism. The end as far as social legitimacy goes, though not in real terms, for there will always be terrorists who, being marginal, would rather have destruction than acceptance of their own marginality.

This social behavior is based on expansion as a main objective. The creativity to accomplish this allows Brazil a dosage of “marginal” behavior, basis of both academic and technological innovation which is felt today and which was dreamed of 50 years ago.

Social Capital

A country’s development is set by its social capital, political consistency or stability and economic growth.

Out of these three elements, the one that bears most weight is social capital, then comes political stability and last, the necessary, though of least relative weight, economic growth.

Brazil is characterized by its immense social capital if compared with that of other countries in the region, and if compared with those other countries Brazil competes with.

Its difference is outstanding in the region; Brazil has a slightly smaller social capital than the one in developed countries. Society conceives itself as a community.

This community feeling makes the notorious synergy there is among institutions and people possible, while it works as a significant support to political stability and economic growth.

Orientation towards the future

What characterizes Brazil is its orientation toward the future and its great capacity to pay for the price of mistakes.

There are many study centers in this country that are devoted to developing projects, action plans and forecasts of what lies ahead.

This is completely atypical in Latin America, that is why one can say that Brazil is a continent in itself, with own values and a path different from that of the region.

It grows because of its consistent investment in an academic technology model of its own, an acceptance of diversity and an “expansion compulsion”. There is room for everyone in Brazil as long as the rules of the game are abided.

One of the best diplomacies in the world

Brazil is a power with a very strong collective unconsciousness that consolidates in an identity that goes beyond political ideologies.

Consensus to grow is their primary objective, their second objective is to grow, and their third as well. Brazilian culture does not conceive the idea of being worse today than it was the day before.

That is why Brazilians “go crazy” in light of their defeats. Diplomacy, the mechanism to influence outside Brazil in order to uphold such a growth, is settled, and carries a political, commercial and social sense comparable to those of the best diplomacies in the world.

Diplomacy is its main tool to create, almost imperceptibly, a legitimated hegemony in its capacities.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. http://www.unicist.org

Understanding Cultures: The French Archetype

The reach of one’s globalization is defined by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

The reach of one’s globalization is defined
by the limit of the pronoun “WE”…

The French culture integrates efficiency and efficacy to achieve results prioritizing the latter. The French Archetype generated a unique way to develop a culture and a country.

France is a country with a very strong technological development. But, even though this strength, France prioritizes science over technology. It can be considered as a benchmark for scientific development both in hard and soft sciences.

In order to understand the French culture, one needs to understand the French Revolution as a detonating element of its assertion, which drives towards its evolution.

The French Archetype

France’s archetype integrates: pragmatism, which is notorious in its international policy, a democracy driven approach that is evident in its non-dissent model, a strong nationality and its characteristic of being a science incubator.

The Unicist Logic of the Archetype of FranceThe French archetype includes and will always include a high degree of State intervention in the economy through incentive systems. This is also evident if we analyze the history of France since the industrial revolution.

The French model has always combined a certain degree of Keynesianism and of structuralism with some classic elements.

The employment problem will be a growing one, but one must bear in mind that France has the social perspective of employing people ingrained in the leaders’ minds; therefore, it is not a “struggle” between interests and employment but rather a “conflict” between them.

One should expect a reinforcement of government actions to foster the generation of employment in the country and a conflict with companies that seek to install manufacturing plants in some low wage countries.

The French idiosyncrasy is based on their structured social behavior, which is associated with a notorious individual freedom that drives to the existence of two different behavioral rules for public and private affairs.

Non-dissent as a Model

Non-dissent as a modelConceptually, the French Revolution symbolized the maximum expression of the weight of dissent in a culture.
If we look at France’s later evolution, we shall see that different models, social groups and ideologies coexist in the culture.

But their coexistence is possible due to a very strong national identity that, through respect toward dissent, and only with a few exceptions, manages to avoid larger conflicts. This is what the French Archetype is about.

The May 1968 revolt drove to the acceptance of the need to have a laboratory to monitor social evolution. From a conceptual point of view, the social laboratory is a way to measure society’s dissent and the possibilities to channel it positively to avoid outbursts.

France as the Birthplace of Sciences

France is, at an intellectual level, science driven. Its orientation toward dissent is the basis for the approach to sciences, which naturally drives to integrate foundations with justifications.

France produced notorious contributions in the field of hard sciences like mathematics, physics and chemistry and in soft-sciences like psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.

France’s development in the scientific field generates a knowledge basis in Europe. This is based on the Universities, which operate as excellence centers per areas and help guarantee that France and Europe count on think-tanks to maintain a worldwide leadership in their fields of specialty.

Public Ethics vs. Private Ethics

The French culture is based on a unique characteristic: the complementation of public and private ethics.
While public ethics is strongly geared toward security, driving toward institutionalization and a sense of communitarian identity, on the other hand, private ethics is geared toward freedom and the quest for the personal ideal beyond those duties that must be complied with in the community.

France’s Growth

Today France appears to be clearly inclined toward a growth based on the development of competitiveness in the culture.
It has to be considered that it is a nationalist culture that complements public and private behaviors. Its State is very strong, which is perceived in its diplomatic action, where the national interest is set above individual needs.

While the organization of the State assures structural stability, governments, like elsewhere, need to win elections and therefore need to be focused on conjunctures.

France’s evolution depends, like all evolution, on the competitors’ actions. The quality and speed at which it moves will depend on whether France maintains its current stage or whether it upgrades to a superior stage.

Absolute Ideology vs. Relative Ideology

The Concept of DemocracyFrance has been harshly criticized from the outside, because of its tendency toward ideological conflicts that appear to be absolute.

These actions, at a given time, may paralyze actions in social or economic sectors.

However, taking a closer look, one will see that these conflicts are relative ones if viewed from an internal standpoint.

That is why we can still expect a larger relativization of the ideologies “wrapped up” in conflicts that appear to be absolute.

Ideologies will become in France what they essentially are: beliefs that use an available technology to satisfy certain interests working within the accepted myths of a culture.

What are Unicist Country Archetypes?

Unicist Country Archetypes are the structure of fundamentals that define the behavior of a culture.

The functionality of the archetype is driven by the structure of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature. Therefore a country archetype has a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function.

If you study the history of a country you will find a structural behavior that hardly changes, producing the evolution or involution of the culture based on two aspects:
1) The change of the external environment where the culture has to live.
2) The change produced by the members of the culture.

When you enter deeply in the history of a country, which is the way to try to discover the nature of a culture defined by its archetypes, you will see that the majority of the changes happens at an operational level and not at a structural level.

Considering the Roman Empire you will see that it developed extremely slowly from the original tribes to an Empire and then evolved from an Empire to what it is today.

Hundreds of years are necessary for an archetype to evolve if the conditions of evolution are given. Involution is faster than evolution, but it also demands hundreds of years.

The values of cultures are implicit in the values of their elites. Therefore the understanding of the archetype of a culture implies researching the evolution of their establishment and the facts that were produced.

To define an ontological structure of a culture, which describes its fundamentals, it is necessary to find the hypothesis in its past, validate it with the facts of the present and falsify it with future forecasts based on its nature.

Unicist Ontology in the Social FieldTo explain this more operationally, some structural patterns for cultural behavior will be found by understanding the establishments of the cultures in the past. These patterns are in fact the operational concepts that are implicit in a country.

Operational concepts describe the myths that rule social behavior and the trade-offs that are made by the utopias that are posed by the participants of a culture.

When the operational concepts have been found the implicit purposes of their actions must be found.

The purposes are never those declaimed by the “actors”, they are those produced by the “actors”.

The purposes we are researching are not the operational objectives of actions but the structural results of the actions considered at a conceptual level.

It has to be considered that the real purposes of a culture are taboos that can only be shared by those who are able to influence them.

For the rest of the society they are mixed up with the operational objectives considering them as the real objectives.

The real objectives of a culture are those that are behind and guide the actions of the whole society. Basically, they are cross-cultural because they respond to the natural basic needs of people.

The active function of a society is materialized by the establishment and represented by the elite. This active function is observable, it can be measured.

Unicist Ontology of the Social StructureThe patterns of these actions are limited by the myths of a society. Paradoxically, the myths are implicit in the values of the middle class.

The middle class needs an external structure to be able to ascend socially. The myths are the energy conservation function and sustain the objectives, avoiding that the utopias posed by the elite change the real purpose of a society.

The final purpose of a social organization is the wellbeing of a society. This wellbeing can be considered as the ultimate goal in any society.

But it has to be considered that there are societies that do not include in their structure some of their members. In the ancient Greek democracy, slaves were not part of the social structure.

If you want to access more information about this study please contact

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist