Social Evolution

Translate this page

Facileness, Clientelism and Paternalism

Facileness expands too fast in too many places in the world. Facileness becomes an addiction when it is integrated with clientelism and paternalism.

When it becomes an addiction, it forces the environment to adopt an over-adaptive behavior which establishes a context where facileness, protected by a set of fallacious myths, appears as a functional “way of life”.

About Facileness

Facileness implies making what one believes, wants or can do prevail over what is needed to be done. Facileness degrades, marginalizes and kills social, institutional and personal evolution.

About Clientelism

Clientelism is the exchange of goods and services for support. Clientelism reverts the slope of the asymmetry of the relation between authorities and members of a group or culture.

The one who receives the goods or services behaves as the client and the authority behaves as a provider. This corrupts the relationships and establishes a structural context for facileness.

About Paternalism

Paternalism is an action that limits a person’s or group’s freedom or autonomy.

Paternalism is the consequence of two actions. On the one hand there is someone who wants to control an environment and on the other hand there are people, who are driven by facileness, that want to avoid assuming the responsibility for their actions.

Paternalism protects the people who adopt facileness as a way of life and uses clientelism to ensure the sustainability of its power.

The absence of paternalistic leaders is the solution for facileness driven environments. It begins by generating chaos but ends in an upgrade if the preexisting paternalistic leaders have established a structural approach.

If this is not the case, the new situation degrades the environment and a new paternalistic leader becomes installed.  

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed.


Trends: Work as the driver of the Power of Nations

The Power of Nations is now based on the construction capacity which is given by work and sustained by the non-exerted destruction capacity that we call dissuasion power. This trend also applies to any institution that intends to influence the environment or the market. This is a new trend that requires a new perspective where the value added to the environment and its consistency defines the influential power and the dissuasion power is the core of the defensive strategy.

The Power of Nations

The legitimacy of military expansion became illegitimate in the world. A new power became evident: Work. Work became the power of a nation and technology its catalyst. Military became the necessary dissuasion power to defend the power of Work.

This implies that the economic power has to provide the maximal strategy, the possibility of upgrading to the next step while the dissuasion power developed by the administrative authorities of the country provides the necessary secure environment to grow.

It has to be considered that the economic power is basically individualistic oriented. In the materialistic world the same “thing” cannot be shared. Money is in my pocket or it is in your pocket. It cannot be in both at the same time.

That is why the nature of the materialistic world is the dualism which naturally drives towards fostering activities based on individual initiatives.

This is not necessary at a subsistence level but it is a must if a culture fosters expansion and influence in the environment.

Materialistic activities are naturally driven by individual responsibility. This means that the institutions that develop materialistic activities need to understand and manage the individual needs of their members in order to be successful.

The economic power of a country is strongly influenced by the individual value of work of the culture. Individuals expand the power of a Nation when it is implicit in the archetype.

When it is not the case, the power of a Nation diminishes.

The Power of Country Archetypes is defined by Work

Work implies the capacity of displacing facts in nature in order to generate a usable added value for a society.

Therefore it is implicit that the fundamentals of work are consistent with the different levels of archetypes. We will describe in the following the fundamentals of work in the different archetypes:

1) Social Value of Influential Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in elites of influential archetypes is to generate added value in their societies. To do so their active function is driven by the transforming of nature and the energy conservation function is the need to overcome resource scarcity.

If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to transform nature driven by the energy focused on knowledge and the personal need that sustains their actions is the self-affirmation of their deeds.

The minimum strategy to overcome resource scarcity is driven by the energy of their capacity to produce and the personal need that sustains their actions is the capacity to manage the time to make things happen.

2) Social Value of Expansive Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in elites of expansive archetypes is to earn value in their societies. To do so their active function is driven by earning money and the energy conservation function is the need to survive.

If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to earn money driven by the energy focused on their efforts to do so and the personal needs for recognition sustain their actions.

The expansive work driven segments are conservatives that use work “for a living”. Their drivers are the benefits they receive as a counterpart for work.

They influence the subsistent and survival driven segments. Value adding is their utopia.

The minimum strategy is to ensure subsistence, which is driven by the energy of their capacity to collect from the environment and the personal need that sustains their action is the need to “have” things.

3) Social Value of Subsistent Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in elites of surviving archetypes is to follow the rules of survivors’ ethics. To do so their active function is driven by survival actions and the energy conservation function is the need to transfer costs.

 If we see it at an operational level we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elite is to survive driven by the energy focused on collecting and the personal need “to have” of the elite sustains their actions.

The minimum strategy of the elites that belong to this segment is to transfer costs to the environment and is driven by the energy focused on minimizing efforts.

This minimum strategy is sustained by the personal needs to fulfill their basic needs.

Subsistent work segments are driven by over-adaptive behaviors that make them do what is necessary to obtain the materialistic benefits to survive. They expect to be “adopted” by the environment and judged by their intentions.

4) Social Value of Survivors Work

The Power of NationsThe purpose of work in surviving archetypes is to gain, based on the necessary justifications exerting all the necessary power to obtain the benefit. This is the ethics of stagnated survivors. To do so the active function that drives their survival is the transfer of costs and the energy conservation function is the value appropriation.

If we see it at an operational level, we can define that:

The maximal strategy of the elites is to transfer costs driven by the energy focused on minimizing the efforts and the personal satisfaction of the basic needs sustains their actions.

The minimum strategy is to appropriate value from the environment that is driven by the necessary justifications and sustained by the personal exertion of power.


Understanding that the power of a Nation depends on its capacity to work is something very difficult to accept because it is rather new.

And accepting that the archetype of a culture defines the level of work that is the standard in an environment sounds deterministic and for some people racist. Because it implies that every culture obtains what it produces; that underdevelopment is defined by the underdeveloped, development by the developed and emergent by the emerging.

Power = W/t: Power can be measured in speed

Power can be measured in speed. That is why we say we can make a metaphor and measure the level of development in speed.

If developed culture move at a speed of 100 km/hour, underdeveloped evolve more slowly.

That is why the gap between development and underdevelopment increases from day to day.

But emergent cultures are emergent because they move faster than the developed ones, which means that the gap between emergent cultures and developed cultures decreases from day to day, until the emergent cultures surpass the developed cultures

(*) An excerpt from the book “Unicist Conceptual Economy” by Peter Belohlavek

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 use of dualistic logic to deal with the here and now

While the unicist double dialectical approach requires investing energy to apprehend the nature of reality, dualism provides the most energy saving approach to manage the “here and now”.

The dualistic logic implies using Hegel`s or Marx`s dialectics. This use has a specific functionality in order to allow dealing with aspects that require an operational approach to deal with the here and now.

It allows accepting “absolutes” in order to separate what is true from what is false. This gives dualistic thinkers the perception of inner freedom while they move within the boundaries of the absolute.

Dualistic thinking also allows avoiding uncertainty. Uncertainty is an unbearable feeling for people that forces them to use dualism to analyze reality until they are able to eliminate the uncertainty from the environment.

It has to be considered that while analysis requires the use of a dualistic logic, synthesis requires the use of unicist double dialectical logic.

The energy conservation functionality of a dualistic logic is given by its capacity to avoid ambiguity. It provides a spontaneous solution that confirms the “absolute” individuals have in their mind.

It has to be considered that dualistic thinkers cannot infer the future and need to forecast it using any kind of extrapolation. This implies assuming that the past and the future are symmetric which is “an aprioristic” fallacy.

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.


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:

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.


Future Research: the Era of Participation is changing the habits

The objective of people in the Era of Participation is to find a better place in the world, conserve it, expand it and avoid losing it. This era changes the way people deal with others. It generated a major change of habits that gives access to influential roles to all those who feel that they have something to say and drives towards an increasing transparency of public and private actions.

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

The unicist future research on the displacement of the “Era of Knowledge” by the “Era of Participation” was triggered by the need of knowing how to influence people in an adapted way. The notorious change in communication technologies, that gave most of the hidden villages in peripheral countries an access to the world, made evident that a new ideology was being introduced.

The research was led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute using the Unicist Complexity Science Methodology. The research began in 2001 and included: Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, India, Israel, Korean Republic, Mexico, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Norway, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, USA.

The closing of the conclusions was possible based on the experiences with Google, Greenpeace, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

To access the basics on Unicist Future Research please enter:

Which technologies have given birth to the Era of Participation?

Internet (Sharing)

The sharing capacity of Internet changed the world of communication in the field of work and of pastime activities. Although it began as a tool to work it evolved towards a tool to access and share.

Cell Phones (SMS – Short Message Service)

The communication and influential capacity of messages when they are used to share weaknesses transformed cell phones into a weapon to generate both adaptive and over-adaptive participation.

Facebook – Twitter (Social networks)

Social networks became the natural tool to be used by all the segments of participants (publicity driven, bragging driven, utopia driven, recognition driven, action driven). They made the building and managing of superficial relationships possible, which were not possible before.

Linkedin (Professional Networks)

Professional networks became a way to position individuals in hypothetical roles in order to make them become real personal roles. Their use is based on providing hope to the participants who want to find or improve their place in the world.

Consequences of this New Era:

  1. The change of the depth of relationships making them basically superficial and based on fallacious myths
  2. The increasing importance of the word of mouth communication to install ideas
  3. The increase of the value of charismatic leadership and its dysfunctional counterpart: the “manipulative leadership”
  4. The substitution of structural participation (institutions) by conjunctural participation
  5. The loss of credibility of formal authorities and the empowerment of authoritative roles
  6. The increase of egocentrism and the demand of permanent sensorial and materialistic stimuli
  7. The increase of addictive behaviors to escape
  8. The increase of fundamentalist groups to ensure survival (religious, civil, military)
  9. The multiplication of sectarian movements
  10. The installation of over-adaptive behaviors as a standard in the world
  11. The existence of multi-minorities
  12. The installation of active inaction as a standard in underdeveloped environments

The Increase of the Influence of Public Opinion

Public opinion became the central power in democratic countries. Public opinion is now driven by the new technologies that are available and tends to install a dualistic approach in cultures defined by those who accept something and those who oppose to it.

Era of ParticipationAs public opinion is intuition driven, this conflict becomes extreme when untrue information or disinformation is used by the parts.

Public opinion has always integrated the structure of the governmental power integrated by the legislative power, the executive power and the judiciary power.

The role of the legislative power is that of the driver of maximal strategies. In this role, it needs to be compatible with the public opinion but at the same time foster expansion and equality of opportunities.

The executive power has two alternatives in this Era: covering both the needs of expansion and distribution or focusing on distribution becoming a populist government. The extreme situation occurs when Distributism prevails absolutely to sustain the power of the government itself.

The judiciary power equilibrates the conflict between the public opinion, the legislative power and the executive power.

In the Era of Participation, the direct influence of people in governmental decision becomes dominant.

The End of the Era of Knowledge

The Era of Knowledge implied that the access to personal and social evolution was basically sustained by the knowledge individuals had and was demonstrated by their credentials.

But the Era of Knowledge came to an end. An “ERA” is such when it establishes an imperceptible “gravitational force” that sustains the behavior of an environment.

It has to be considered that knowledge began being ruled by religions in order to avoid the deviation of human behavior from the moral rules, but became a value in itself with the appearance of the Industrial Era in the world.

The paradox is that industrialization empowered knowledge but at the end, the Era of Industrialization was exceeded by the Era of Knowledge. Nevertheless, knowledge is still an appendix of religions in pre-industrialized societies.

Internet opened a window that allowed making the access of knowledge massive. It expanded the use of data and information that gave access to any person who lives in a non-marginal environment.

Era of ParticipationInformation can be defined as any data that can be transformed into a meaningful entity and thus can be stored in the long-term memory of an individual. Knowledge is such when the information one has can be used to produce something.

Google, as a concept, made the access to information basically free for everyone. The paradox is that people now have all the information they are willing to search but the value generation, which is based on knowledge, depends on the concepts they manage.

This explains why the open access to information did not produce a significant increase in productivity and quality of work.

Thus, the functionality of knowledge as a driver for personal evolution became fallacious. Education became a hygienic key; it was necessary to open doors but did not suffice to drive personal evolution and provide a meaningful place in the world.

The occurrence of economic crises in the world was the trigger to the end of the Era of Knowledge. Every economic crisis generates the lack of opportunities for many and the degradation of the ethical intelligence of a culture in order to survive. When crises are not cured, but only palliated, they plant the seed of the next crisis and the degradation of cultures continues.

A consequence of these crises is a growing individualism, which drives people to develop a surviving attitude that diminishes the generation of value and installs an unstable social environment.

Another consequence is the exclusion of youth, the newcomers in societies, diminishing their possibilities to find a social role to evolve.

These consequences gave birth to the Era of Participation, which can be synthesized in a shout:

“I need a better place in the world”

What is the Era of Participation?

The objective of participation is to find a better place in the world, conserve it, expand it and avoid losing it.

What needs to be established is the social role an individual looks for, which can imply a structural or an incidental positioning. It implies that there has to be an acceptance of the reference group the individual accepts as a rule maker.

This reference group can be real, virtual or super-natural. All what matters is that it has to exist in order to make a participative process possible. Without a superior reference group’s acceptance, there is no true place in the world and the participation degrades towards achieving a role of active or passive opposition.

The social role individuals fight for needs to have a belonging group where the individuals feel at home. Belonging groups are what make a place in the world safe. Therefore, participation implies fostering the existence of belonging groups who share similar utopias while they share the same weaknesses they need to cover.

Era of ParticipationThe participation process becomes redundant when a place in the world, accepted by the reference groups and the belonging group, has been gained. However, as the satisfaction of needs generates new needs this is a never-ending process at an operational level. This process generates social evolution when individuals have a role in the world that allows them to evolve based on the value they add.

Adaptive Participation

Evolutionary participation requires beginning with a conscious adaptive process where the individual is looking for a place to be who s/he is. This makes the individual a differentiated person that needs to begin by participating through value adding actions (participation to do) while sustaining the identity of the role by having the necessary image that allows others to tag him/her properly (participation to appear).

Participation is only possible when the members who participate are able to recognize each other as part of the same group. In fundamentalist groups this tagging might include tattoos or similar timeless marks but in social groups individuals need to have the necessary “look & feel” in order to be tagged and recognized as members.

This appearance is extremely notorious in social and professional networks that establish the basics of the profile that need to be covered in order for the group to accept a possible member. That is why appearance, which is given by the personal brand or image, is the entropy inhibitor that makes expansive participation possible.

When the image has been positioned, the final objective of being a real member becomes possible.

Over-adaptive Participation

The apparent paradox is that over-adaptation is the minimum strategy. This requires an explanation. Adapting implies influencing while being influenced to achieve a goal, which in this case is to have a place in the world. Influencing is what we call adaptive participation and being influenced is what in this case is named over-adaptive participation.

Over-adaptiveness implies accepting the rules of the environment, which implies submission but beginning with a dominant participation in order to feel that one is not submitting but establishing the rules.

When the self-esteem has been conserved by this dominant participation, which mostly implies active inaction that allows judging the environment, an oppositional role becomes necessary to accept the rules of the game.

When individuals are able to feel superior by judging the environment, opposing to some aspects to preserve their self-esteem, then over-adaptive participation becomes functional. But, this functionality depends on its compatibility with the adaptive participation.

Segments of Participation

Era of ParticipationThere are different segments or participants that need to be understood in order to deal with them. Accessing profiles and activities on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn is very useful to identify the different segments, which are never pure but always have an implicit dominant trend that drives their participation.

  1. Publicity Driven
  2. Bragging Driven
  3. Utopia Driven
  4. Recognition Driven
  5. Action Driven


Paradoxically, the Era of Participation implies a prevalence of observation over true participation. This implies that this Era will represent implicitly a battle between observers and participants.

Over-adaptive participation is based on an observational attitude while adaptive participation is based on the synergy of the members to produce something.

The preexisting Era of Knowledge will be included as a secondary driver during the next decades to sustain, on the one hand, those who participate to build and, on the other hand, to sustain those who participate to expose the implicit weaknesses of the adaptive participants.

This makes this period a battle and an integration of these two groups. Dualism will be the driver for the mass that over-adapts while integralism will be the driver for the elites who adopt an adaptive participative approach. It is a battle of communication.

Adaptive Participation Building

The building of adaptive participation is the responsibility of the elite of cultures. It is an institutional role that needs to exist in order to make participative behavior meaningful.

Era of ParticipationThe purpose of adaptive participation building is to establish an influential social capital. Social capital is given by the strengths of the bonds among the members of a group or community that drive their value generating actions. Social capital implicitly implies the existence of a greater good to sustain the relationships among the members.

Adaptive participation requires the existence of a double ethical behavior in the community. On the one hand, there has to exist an internal ethics of the group which needs to be based on cooperativeness and, on the other hand, an external ethics with the environment is required, which needs to be driven by competitiveness in order to ensure survival.

This is evident in the behavior of countries that naturally have two different attitudes: one towards the environment and another towards the members of the culture. However, both ethics need to be integrated by a social capital, which establishes the participation rules for the members of the group towards other members and towards the environment.

If cooperation is replaced by competition among the members of a group or community, the social capital becomes corrupt and over-adaptiveness replaces adaptiveness.

Corruption and over-adaptiveness also prevails when competition is based on the destruction of the environment in order to take advantage of it.

Adaptiveness drives towards evolution and over-adaptiveness is the cause and consequence of involution.

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

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 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.


The Unicist Ontology of Humor and Anti-Humor

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

“Je suis Charlie” has triggered a turning point in Europe and perhaps in the world.

Humor is an art that fosters personal and social balance. It builds a bridge to solve the conflict between idealism and realism.

By using an aesthetic communication, humor demystifies reality and establishes a conflict with the authority that embodies the values of the reality that is being idealized.

Illegitimate humor, anti-humor, is a communication that seeks the destruction of transcendent values of the environment that cannot be accepted.

It generates an unbalance of reality that produces extreme conflictive reactions.

Part 1 – Humor as a Driver of Social Evolution

“Je suis Charlie” represents the need of people to accept humor as an art that fosters evolution. The unicist ontological approach to humor gives access to its concept and allows understanding its importance.

Humor is one of the mechanisms used by human beings to solve their adaptation to reality.

On the one hand, humor seeks to solve the conflict between the ideals an individual has and the reality s/he needs to deal with, and on the other hand, it provides a mechanism to allow individuals to integrate in groups.

“People are separated by their strengths and integrated by their weaknesses.”

Humor is a mechanism that allows projecting one’s weaknesses outside and integrating all kinds of people including those who belong to different social or cultural groups.

Humor is a way to solve individual or social problems

Laughing at oneself is a way to solve one’s problems or to manage them. It fosters functional behavior.

The Functional Concept of Humor

Humor is a human behavior that poses or tries to solve authority conflicts using an aesthetic demystification of reality.

About Authority Conflicts

Humor solves the authority conflict demystifying reality. This demystification seeks to establish a superior reality in which the individual assumes the role of a judge of the environment.

This demystification generates a high level of influential power and thus humor achieves the goal of empowering the people who use it. This demystification requires building smart fallacies to make people feel superior.

The authority conflict requires also annulling the ideal proposed by the authority, which is frequently done by the use of sophisms. This annulment of an ideal, implicit in the authority conflict, does not need to be harmonic.

Finally, the authority conflict implies developing a power game against the establishment, which basically covers all aspects that deal with human relationships. In this context, humor produces paradoxical results when dealing with religious faith.

About the Aesthetics

Humor can only exist when it is perceived as “aesthetic”, which means that people want to appropriate it in order to use it. A joke really works when the individual who learned about it uses it in her/his environment.

Humor also needs to be harmonic with the environment where it works. This is the case of each of the different types of humor, such as caricatures, jokes, the use of irony, etc., which require the adequate harmony with the environment in order to be accepted.

This harmony is defined by the culture, the moment, the group or the subjects involved. Rejection is the consequence of a humor that is not harmonic with its context.

About Demystification

Demystification is a power game. It seeks the destruction of those elements that bother an individual and thus fosters self-esteem. This power game opens two possibilities.

On the one hand, humor demystification allows solving the problem the individual has when dealing with a specific reality and, on the other hand, it allows individuals to avoid the need of assuming responsibilities in the environment.

Demystification needs to annul the influence an ideal exerts in an environment. When an ideal requires investing a high level of energy and is dysfunctional to the needs of a group, humor allows mitigating the stress produced.

Part 2 – Structural Segments of Humor

Three functions of humor could be defined:

  1. The expansive humor that fosters the expansion of individuals or cultures.
  2. The inhibiting humor that pretends to eliminate threats. It is a typical humor in authoritarian environments.
  3. Anti-humor that seeks for the destruction of the transcendent values of individuals. The destructive humor needs to destroy a specific reality.

It has to be considered that there is a legitimate humor and an illegitimate humor. As humor drives an authority conflict, it is only legitimate when those who have been attacked are able to respond to the message through their actions. Therefore, humor becomes illegitimate when it attacks supernatural aspects that deal with religious faith.

The Unicist Ontology of HumorFive structural segments of humor have been defined that characterize its influence in an environment. These functional segments include all the types of humor that exist. These segments are:

  • Aggressive Humor
  • Mordacious Humor
  • Projective Humor
  • Introjective Humor
  • Desacralizing Humor

Segments of Inhibiting Humor

The purpose of inhibiting humor is to destroy threats. These threats might be real or be part of a parallel reality of an individual. This humor is natural in environments where people feel submitted. It relieves the pressure produced by the need to over-adapt to an environment. It generates smiles.

The Aggressive Humor

The purpose of the aggressive humor is the destruction of a specific reality that is annoying a person or group. This type of humor might be subtle or violent but, in all the cases, it aims at the destruction of some aspects of the environment.

It exposes the weaknesses of a given aspects of reality making it appear as fully dysfunctional, which provokes smiles or laughter that disqualifies the aspects that are bothering.

This type of humor is functional to sectarian groups or extremely individualistic or marginal cultures.

The Mordacious Humor

It is the humor that seeks for the destruction of someone’s self-esteem or authoritative role. It uses subtle communication, including subliminal communication, and is built upon well disguised fallacies that allow installing fallacious perceptions.

It seeks to annul authoritative roles by attacking their implicit weaknesses, which sustain their strengths, destroying their legitimacy while creating the sensation of a superior intellectuality of the one who acts this mordacity out. This humor is functional among intellectual groups and inaction driven cultures.

Segments of Expansive Humor

The purpose of expansive humor is to solve the conflict between idealism and realism in order to better adapt to the environment. It is the humor that fosters personal and social evolution and generates smiles and laughter.

The Projective Humor

This humor allows individuals to project outside the personal problems they have to avoid having the need to adapt to the environment. It is the typical humor of bestselling comedies in theatres or movies.

The spectator shares the weaknesses acted out in the comedy, which liberate the spectator, who avoids the need to face the conflicts they generate in the real life. The projective humor is the best bridge to build social relationships.

The projective humor allows individuals to share their weaknesses, which allow building transitory relationships even between people who belong to different cultures or segments. It is the humor needed to participate in social events.

The Introjective Humor

It is the humor an individual uses to laugh at her/himself. It is a humor for the few and it is something that can be taken but not given. This means that the same humor that is perceived as projective by someone is used to laugh at her/himself by others.

It is a humor that cannot be perceived by those who cannot laugh at themselves. It is a typical humor of “doers” and groups who foster awareness. It doesn’t allow building bridges with others because it separates those who can laugh at themselves and those who cannot.

It has en extreme value for personal evolution and it also has a social value in those environments where “doing” is a dominant value.

Anti-humor (Illegitimate Humor)

It is the anti-concept of humor that seeks for the destruction of the transcendent values of a culture. It uses an apparent direct aesthetics, which works only when it includes subliminal communication, to install fallacious myths to destroy transcendent values. The anti-humor generates meaningless extreme conflicts. It is the humor used by fundamentalists. It generates rational adherence.

Desacralizing Humor

It is the humor that aims at the destruction of transcendent values that threaten the values of the one who is creating it. It pretends to establish an authority conflict with sacred institutions or aspects that deal with the faith of people. It is the kind of humor used by all types of fundamentalists.


The category of a humorous communication can only be measured by the reaction of those who receive it. Humor, like art in general, is a pathway to equilibrate the conflicts between individuals and society, which fosters a more functional adaptive behavior.

It also works as an internal equilibrator for an individual that has significant consequences on her/his personal health. The natural type of humor a culture uses is an indicator of its archetype.

On the one hand, humor is also used to destroy dysfunctional taboos, but produces paradoxical results when these taboos sustain the survival of a group or community. But, on the other hand, humor fosters personal evolution when it is used to eliminate growth taboos.

While humor generates the solution of problems, anti-humor is a fundamentalist action that generates extreme conflicts by fostering a parallel reality.

Since humor is an art, the development of humorous messages, includes a high level of non-conscious influences. The different categories of expansive, inhibiting, or illegitimate humor can only be confirmed through the reactions of the people.

This is an excerpt of the book on the Unicist Ontology of Humor published in 2004.

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.


Social Influence: The Discovery of the Social Critical Mass

Social critical mass is defined as the minimal amount of focused energy necessary to trigger a planned social phenomenon. Objects need to have the necessary critical mass to produce the value added to the process they participate in.

Its ontogenetic map is defined by extreme aesthetics, extreme influence and extreme credibility to provide the energy to produce results. Any social action requires having the necessary critical mass to produce the predefined results. Action without results is just unnecessary movement.

Critical mass is a basic condition for any social object, including the business objects. The final driver of SCM is the generation of an expansion process. It implies having an extreme aesthetics which is defined by the need to complete the essential needs of the participants of a social phenomenon.

This requires having the knowledge of the ontogenetic map of the phenomenon in order to be able to define the desirable aspects that need to be completed and the harmony that needs to be designed in order to generate an extremely aesthetic value.

Completing implies covering an explicit need. That is why completing requires having an extreme influence in order to be accepted.

Extreme influence implies having a complementation driven influence which integrates both cooperation and competition. Extreme influence requires establishing a complementation driven bond which includes both functional and personal aspects.

Extreme aesthetics can only be accepted with an environment of extreme credibility. That is why the credibility is the complement of aesthetics. Extreme credibility is an optimism based relationship.

Optimism makes people believe that what is possible will occur and that the validity of the process has been proven. Without optimism there can exist no social critical mass. Optimism is extremely far away from mania.

Social Critical Mass can be achieved when there is the necessary conceptual aesthetic, the complementation driven influence and the necessary social optimism.

Access more information on Social Evolution:

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using a logical approach to deal with evolution and became a private global decentralized world-class research organization in the field of human adaptive systems.


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.