《Csepeli, Gy;rgy – ;rk;ny, Antal – Sz;kelyi, M;ria – ….doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Csepeli, Gy;rgy – ;rk;ny, Antal – Sz;kelyi, M;ria – ….doc（31页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、26Csepeli, Gy. rkny, A. Szkelyi, M. Barna, I.: Blindness to succeesCsepeli, Gyrgy rkny, Antal Szkelyi, Mria Barna, IldikBlindness to successSocial psychological objectives on the way to market economy in Eastern and Central EuropePrepared for Trust and Honesty Project, Budapest CollegiumDECEMBER 200
2、2. IntroductionIn 19891990 the collapse of state-socialist regimes and the emergence of liberal democracies opened up the way to the fast development of modern market-economy. The shift after the regime changes to a market-based economy in post-socialist countries not only radically changed living c
3、onditions and career perspectives at personal and micro-levels, but also changed the economic and social institutional structure and the principles, which guide such institutions. Transition in economy meant the completion of three closely related process in the region:1. Legal and institutional con
4、ditions of market economy had to be initiated, including the constitutional recognition of liberty and security of private property, the initiation of the autonomy of economic actors, the setting up of institutions ensuring the conditions of market competition, as well as the demolition and privatiz
5、ation of state property (STANISZKIS, 1991).2. Resources and economic actors way to them had to be liberated as being essential conditions for the take-off of market ventures and the marketization of economy. The change in economic relations set by the market re-defined the former value of capitals,
6、the mechanisms of capital conversions, as well as the main motives of the actors of market economy (e.g. profit maximalization, regulatory role of hard budget constrain, competitive economic behavior, equilibrium) (SZELNYI, 1990, 1991; KOLOSI, 1992)3. The actors of the newly born market economy and
7、state bureaucracy (they can be either entrepreneurs or employees in the private sector, as well as either elected holders of public offices or public servants) had to become acquainted with the new rules and principles, the movers and controllers of market behavior, since these set the parameters of
8、 division in and access to the market. Three types of new values, principles and behavior-patterns can be distinguished:a. Instrumental rules regulate actors in essential mechanisms of economic institutions controlled by the market. In state socialism citizens of the post-socialist Eastern and Centr
9、al European countries were socialized according to the redistribution-based principles of access, share and control determined by political/bureaucratic considerations. In market economy the very same people had to experience that the individual itself and its achievements became the source of profi
10、t making and remuneration. They had to realize that in market economy the distributive (and retributive) role of bureaucratic co-ordination is replaced by competition between economic actors (KORNAI, 1992), and the rules of competition based on social consensus are exemplary in the deals between aut
11、onomous actors. Co-operation enforced by central authority is replaced by voluntary co-operation. Connections based on subordination and dependence are superseded by determination of relations originated from autonomy and reciprocity both in interpersonal and institutional economic interactions. Lib
12、eral political philosophy restrict the principal of sharing based on individual achievement only insofar as it is expected that mechanisms regulating market competition allow to prevail the principles of equal chances in the course of obtainment of resources and information.b. Modern market economy
13、requires of following certain moral principals as well. In the absence of these norms the economic and political institutions get into a legitimation vacuum. These moral principals can be derived from the inner logic of interactions based on market exchanges (trustworthiness, reliability, good reput
14、ation etc.), but they also have significance beyond the narrowly defined sphere of economy. Morally approved economic transactions fall under positive moral judgments also in other operational spheres of the society approving the consequences and actors of such transactions. Morally endorsed economi
15、c views are built upon values of justice, equity and solidarity. In the absence of moral approval social representation of the sphere of economy is dominated by negative evaluations. Thus publics views about the actors of market economy are inflicted by the presumption of corruption, unscrupulousnes
16、s, dishonesty, prodigality and injustice, and furthermore the public and its leaders constantly ram these presumptions.c. Those psychological attributes and capitals also influence the effective functioning of market institutions, the actors possess. According to Aristotle such psychological phenome
17、na can be ranked among these as desire, temper, fear, self-confidence, envy, jealousy, joy, affection, hate and compassion (ARISTOTLE, 1980). Beyond the above-listed psychological states the psychic dimension includes confidence and also its opposite, suspicion. The above-mentioned three dimensions
18、are closely related, but at the same time they can function independently and separately as well. Ideally all three dimensions together are penetrated with harmony, and what is legal, that is useful, good and likeable as well. At the time of changes relations between these dimensions are turned over
19、 and the evaluation of market functioning is characterized by disharmony.According to Eric M. Ulslaner strategic trust and moralistic trust had to be separated. While strategic trust refers to mutual transactions and is built on the prediction of other peoples behavior, “moral trust is a belief that
20、 others share your fundamental moral values and therefore should be treated as you would wish to be treated by them” (ULSLANER, 2002:18). According to Rawls, on the individual level the kind of psychological factors like envy or jealousy do not carry moral content. But if some collective effects sum
21、 up negative individual psychic factors, then they can be transformed to envy of socially dangerous extent. (RAWLS, 1971:615).None of these dimensions can be neglected while studying the Eastern and Central European economic and social changes of the 1990s. Literature on transition and its consequen
22、ces shows that more attention was paid to the analysis of economic dimension and researchers were less interested in that what kind of role moral and psychological factors played in the development of the new economic structure.In our study we attempt, at least partly, to fill this gap. We claim tha
23、t following the collapse of state-socialist regimes in 1989/90 the public was shocked in those countries by the suddenness and depth of the transition. At the time of this shock people retreated to the shelter of moral ideas thought to be safe, but from there the phenomena of economic transition see
24、med even more repugnant. Looking at the transition from the perspective of such beliefs like justice sentiments, trustworthiness and confidence in the new economic rules people saw corruption, untrustworthiness, injustice and unworthy enrichment there, where nothing else happened just the normal fun
25、ctioning of market. Disharmony and the blindness to success overcame people.Disharmony and the blindness to success willy-nilly delegitimated and denigrated the winners of transition, who succeeded in economy, politics and culture. Cultural achievements were the least overtaken by suspicion, and eco
26、nomic success became suspicious the most (CSEPELIRKNY, 1993). In the course of economic transition formerly concealed social inequalities came into sight. But the newly emerged new ones dwarfed these inequalities. Experiencing these social differences incensed most of the citizens of these post-soci
27、alist countries since they considered themselves as losers of the transition. Attitudes about success and wealth, as a special case of it, were dominated by moral disapproval. Therefore the presumptions of dishonor, dishonesty and injustice took over whenever the attention of the public focused on s
28、uccess and wealth.Nevertheless everyday attributions on success and wealth are not value-free. New light can be thrown to the very same phenomenon just by using different attributions to explain its occurrence. (KELLEY, H. H.,1967) Two choices are there to consider somebody as successful. In the fir
29、st case he/she does not acknowledge success, or rather tries to deprive it of its value. The psychological technique of success-deprival consists of that the observer explains success with external causes, independent of the successful person, whereby success is devalued, moreover he/she can dispute
30、 the fact of success. Luck, good connections, inherited advantages are theoretically independent of the person, and if someone uses these attributions to explain a persons (or a groups) success, then by this he/she undervalues it. The other choice when someone meets success is the acknowledgement of
31、 it. If the observer uses such kind of internal attributions to explain success which emphasize the persons abilities, diligence, love of work, then the person him-/herself gets into the center of success. This also means that the observer considers success as deserved, legitimate and concordant wit
32、h their values, even if he/she does not belong to the group of “winners”.Everyday causation usually does not depend merely on the caprice of the observer. These explanations usually lead back to the so-called “dominant ideologies” (KLUEGER, 1996; ABERCROMBIE, N.- S. HILL - B. S. TURNER, 1990). Egali
33、tarian, socialist ideologies usually stress external attributions, independent of the successful ones, while meritocratic, conservative-liberal ideologies emphasize the persons abilities, virtues in the explanation of success.This implicit ideological direction of attributions is determined by the f
34、act whether they appear as external or internal in relation to the person (WEINER ET. AL., 1972). In the case of wealth and success the use of external attributions makes the person appear as if he/she were just a beneficiary of forces and holder of privileges independent of him-/herself. Therefore
35、these are suitable to put his/her achievements in a morally, psychologically, moreover politically negative light. The collective name of these symptoms is envy, a psychological technique suitable for the total devaluation of others. (SCHOECK, 1966) If these “drops” of natural envy felt by certain i
36、ndividuals toward others are summed up and these techniques of devaluation of success used to judge not only successful and wealthy persons, but these persons are used to discredit and negatively judge the representatives of certain social categories (nomenclature, ruling class, “Jews”) then they ar
37、e organized into ressentiments and become identity-constructing factors (SZAB, 1989).As transition progressed, post-socialist countries were sociologically polarized by the delegitimation of success and wealth and thereupon a cognitive cleavage emerged between the successful and unsuccessful and als
38、o between the rich and the poor ones. While the former moved into the direction of a meritocratic, the later into an egalitarian concept of justice.Important to mention that the judgement of success in general and that of wealth do not necessarily go together. Data show that in post-socialism rather
39、 wealth is the source of disharmony than success, since the later is more elusive and therefore less irritating. Hereinafter we call this disharmony social envy and in this case identify it exclusively with the social distrust and distance keeping felt against wealth. Social envy should not be confu
40、sed with everyday envy whose targets are personal acquaintances. We assume that the efficiency of transition from state socialism to market economy depends on the degree of confidence in the new economic rules. The stronger the confidence is, the more we can expect that the habits of the redistribut
41、ive era (egalitarianism, authoritarianism, paternalism, learned helplessness), being now counterproductive in market economy, disappear, diminish. The weaker the confidence is, the stronger is the suspicion of the new economic system and the stronger is the disharmonious attitude against success, ri
42、se, and especially enrichment and wealth.Confidence means the acceptance and approval of the operation-mode of the social and economic system. Confidence is also such kind of social-psychological mechanism that can positively influence the social behavior of those participating in the system and can
43、 also serve as a link between personal motives, beliefs and the institutional, social goals to be achieved. The opposite of confidence is suspicion, which detaches and questions the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the society (or simply others) and psychologically undermines the a
44、ctors belief in the meaning and success of his/her actions. (FESTINGER, L. 1957) Following the interpretation of Barbara Misztral the mutual trustworthiness is such kind of social capital, which benefits the group and in the longer run establishes the framework underlying capitalist relationships. (
45、MISZTRAL, 1996:55)Confidence in the system is one of the main constituents of social integration. On the other hand, the lack of confidence results in social disintegration, the delegitimation of the political system.If we examine the role that confidence played in Eastern and Central European trans
46、ition, we should answer the question that to what extent people identify themselves with the main operational rules of new economic relations, how much they accept the ways of self-realization and success legitimated and marked out by market economy and how they view all those whose success and enri
47、chment embody the world of market relations. If the lack of confidence is the dominant attitude, then this keeps the legitimation of market rules and principles within strict bounds. Suspicion of the successful and the rich is part of the syndrome of the lack of confidence. If suspicion offers also
48、an explanatory scheme (e.g. the overestimation of external causes), then it can degenerate into envy. Merits for outstanding achievements disappear in the distortion of the attitude of suspicion and envy. The benefits of achievements declared undeserved seem unjust. It is not accidental, that the de
49、mand for the analysis of envy emerged most strongly in connection with the dilemmas of distributive justice. John Rawls, in his major book on social justice also discusses envy, which he uses to illustrate that rules and obedience to them are how much penetrated by socio-psychological factors. Rawls definition can serve as a starting-point for the discussion about the culture of envy in Eastern Europe: “Then we my think of envy as the propensity to view with hostility the great