These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
STUDY 8. THE LOWER AND THE UPPER THRESHOLDS OF (IN)INSECURITY
The Lower threshold of (in)security and the Upper threshold of (in)security are two basic concepts in the Science of Security. They have an essential role in understanding security and in efforts to ensure it at an acceptable and risk-free level.
The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of these two basic concepts:
Николай Слатински. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София: Военно издателство, 2011.
[Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011].
Nikolay Slatinski. Security – essence, meaning and content. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2011 (in Bulgarian)
I. The Lower threshold of (in)security
The Lower threshold of (in)security is such a minimum level of security, below which irreversible changes in the system begin or structural deformations occur with risky, and in a number of cases, destructive potential.
What happened to a young man who has been dealing with his anxieties, problems and suffering for a long time, who has somehow resisted what drives him to despair, who has managed to get out of all kinds of difficult situations, and suddenly ended his life?
What happened to the girl who, with varying degrees of success, made ends meet, experienced periods of poverty, but somehow managed financially in the most seemingly hopeless situations, and suddenly went out into the street and began to engage in prostitution?
What happened to a bum when he suddenly found himself in a state of complete indifference to everything that people think about him?
What happened to a society that went through quite difficult days and sometimes with great efforts managed to survive and continue to develop, but suddenly, at some point in its existence, it rose up, began to protest, began to rebel, to revolt against the social order, to demand a change in policy, and often of those who rule it?
The prominent German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) argued that man differs from the animals in one fundamental way – „he wants to be recognized as a human being, that is, as a being with a certain worth or dignity“. Moreover, in his opinion, the struggle for prestige, unlike the struggle for food, shelter or security, „is not determined by biology, so Hegel sees in it the first glimmer of human freedom“ [1].
And no less prominent French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662) argued: „Whatever possessions, health or important acquisitions someone has on earth, he will not be satisfied if he does not have the respect of others“ [2].
The Bulgarian scientist Lyuben Nikolov (1937 – 1991) wrote in his analysis of the philosophy of Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939): „Man is the only living being on the planet that does not just exist, but strives to be realized. This means that he wants to use his abilities in such a way as to achieve his aspirations and goals. In the manifestation of his abilities, in choosing his goals and in the struggle to achieve them, he compares himself with others in order to evaluate himself. He also wants to create a favorable opinion of himself in them. His well-being is determined by these two assessments – his own and others. Let's assume that the desire for high appreciation is an expression of innate narcissism, selfish self-love. But the question remains about the basis of the estimates. If we are valued for what we ourselves do not consider particularly worthy, this will hardly make us happy. If we do not find recognition of what we value in ourselves, this is also painful. That is, we strive not only for high marks, but also for the coincidence of the bases of our own assessments and the assessments of others. Without such a coincidence, our self-realization will never be complete. We need the opinion of others in order to fully experience our self-realization“ [3].
To put it simply and clearly, man is a social being who is always not indifferent to what others think of him, even if he flaunts the claim that he does not pay „public opinion tax“. To have a human appearance, to look acceptable, to be valued and appreciated, to radiate dignity, or at least not to cause disrespect or contempt, this is so inherent in every individual.
And above we mentioned the bum – he is not at all interested in these essential conditions for the normal perception of him by society.
And since there is no suicide, no prostitution, and no bum genes, and no one is born „programmed“ to become a suicide, a prostitute, or a bum; and also since there is nothing inherent in the DNA of a society that would predispose this society to social riots, it is worth asking again and again the same question: „What happened to the suicide, to the prostitute, to the bum, to the society, what is so pushed them to take such extreme actions?“.
One of the possible (and in our opinion, the most reliable) answers to this question is: „They have fallen below the Lower threshold (in)security“.
Various other such examples of extreme behaviors and decisions could be cited.
There are families in which the two exchange heavy insults and reproaches for years, even reaching a physical assault, but they continue to live together. While at one point not even the rudest word or gesture leads to the complete cessation of their relationship...
And some time ago in Bulgaria, an ex-military man pulled out a gun and fired 7 bullets at a former national football player, shortly after he scratched his jeep with his modest Soviet Zhiguli car...
In both of the above cases, it is logical to ask the same question: „What happened, why these extreme reactions?“.
The abandoned husband may ask himself: „On other occasions I yelled nasty things at her, and she put up with it, why exactly today did she leave and put an end to our family?“.
This is probably due to the fact that his wife has fallen below the Lower threshold of (in)security as a result of many years of depreciation, exhaustion, attrition and rupture of the family relationship and after too long a time of harassment, insults and disregard for her personal dignity...
And about the unfortunate shooter, we can ask ourselves a question – was it worth it to get a gun and shoot a person just like that and for no real reason? But he probably did it because he, too, has fallen fell below the Lower threshold of (in)security – either because of personal problems, or because the football player exuded aggression, leaving his luxury jeep with a menacing look at him, the owner of the old Zhiguli car, and it is known how much many times arrogant guys with super expensive cars mercilessly beat ordinary people in ordinary cars for the slightest scratch on their jeep...
But the justice system examines a particular situation and passes a harsh sentence for it, not caring about the possible circumstances that caused it.
The Lower threshold of (in)security is such a minimum level of security, below which, in fact, insecurity gets out of control and the system (individual, community, society) begins to disintegrate. When approaching this Threshold of (in)security, a crisis arises in the system, it begins to shake, to experience instability, and small impacts cause large consequences.
Every person (every community of people, every society) has its own Lower threshold of (in)security. The problem is, however, that this Threshold of (in)security is not one and the same for all people – like a temperature of 37º, so that there is a tool for measuring this Threshold and a person could measure his (in)security in the morning and say to himself: „No, I am very close to my own Threshold of (in)security, I’d rather stay at home so as not to make a scandal or drama in transport or in the office“!
Moreover, the Lower threshold of (in)security of a person is not a constant value – it changes depending on what this person experiences, on the influence of the external environment.
This is due to the fact that both a person and society include „remembrance of the past“ in assessing their present state, i.e. the level of security they had in the past. If today, figuratively speaking, two people eat 2 bananas a day, but the first person had 10 bananas in the past, and the second – 1 banana, then, although they are now in the same situation, the standard of living of the first person has decreased 5 times, while the standard of living of the second one has grown by 2 times, which means that the assessment of the situation and, accordingly, the feeling of security for both of them will be radically different.
In addition, a person and society, include „remembrance of the future“ in assessing their present state, i.e. the level of security they expect to have in the future. If today, again figuratively speaking, two people eat 2 bananas a day, but the first one hopes that in the near future he will have 10 bananas, and the second one is worried that he will have only 1 banana in the near future, then although now they are in the same situation, the former will have a 5-fold increase in the standard of living, while the latter will have a 2-fold decrease in the standard of living, which means that the assessment of the current situation and, accordingly, the feeling of security for both will be radically different.
The Lower threshold of (in)security can sometimes be much lower and the person is able to tolerate much more insecurity because it will not damage his value system, but in other cases the Lower threshold of (in)security can be much higher and then the person is unable to tolerate a little more insecurity because it will damage his value system.
To summarize:
The Lower threshold of (in)security is an individual characteristic that changes over time. Therefore, a person, a society, a system should self-analyze and strive to exercise maximum effective control over their own security. This is primarily the responsibility of the subject of security management, of the security managers of the system (man is also the security manager of his own security).
Any security manager of a system has two possible alternatives for managing processes when this system approaches its Lower threshold of (in)security.
▪ The first of the alternatives is to prevent the system from approaching the Lower threshold of (in)security by trying to keep it as high (as further) as possible from this Threshold.
For example, the rulers of the country must pursue such an economic and social policy that keeps the society away from falling to the Poverty Threshold, away from the situation where more and more people „fall“ to the social bottom.
In other words, for a society to be just, humane and sustainable and not to reach the Lower threshold of (in)security, it needs procedures to protect people from falling to levels of unbearable insecurity; it should include concern for the weak, the poor, the sick, the unfortunate, the unskilled, and those offended by fate or life; it is necessary that protective social mechanisms exist that guarantee certain social minimums, as well as at least some levels of social services: in health care, education, culture and security. And this is achieved with a partial redistribution of money and goods, which is carried out with the help of various legal mechanisms „taking“ from the rich and „giving“ to the poor.
▪ The second alternative is to make the system resistant to the increased level of insecurity when this system is close to the Lower threshold of (un)insecurity, which means actually lowering the Lower threshold of (in)security.
This can be done if, for example, the rulers of the country offer meaningful goals to society for the sake of which it can leave the troubles of poverty and low living standards in the background.
Thus, during the 19th and 20th centuries, Bulgarians deprived themselves of much and endured all sorts of pains and hardships in order to educate their children. For them, it was a lofty goal that helped them endure social hardships.
Isn't it telling that today's young people are much better off materially, compared to the material situation of their grandparents (in the 1950s and 1960s), but nevertheless often feel much more insecure and more discredited than them.
When people of our parents' generation started families, they often had no roof over their heads, no beds to sleep on, no pots and pans to eat, and had to borrow them from relatives and friends. But they were much happier. Why? Maybe because they felt that even if it is very difficult for them, they will build their own house with their own hands and hard work, will give birth, raise and educate children, will raise grandchildren. This sense of self-control over life, of the possibility of development, associated with their efforts to follow stable and appealing values, inspired hope and confidence in the youth of that time.
Young people of our children's generation have cars and computers and televisions and cell phones, and they tend to buy the latest models. But these are all unstable, transient, „extensible“ needs, which are formed by advertising, fashion, mass consumer society (and, of course, by rapidly developing new technologies).
Previously, the market satisfied needs, and when the corresponding need is already satisfied, nothing more is needed. If you are hungry, the market gives you the opportunity to buy food and satisfy your hunger; if you need clothes to be dressed, the market offers you clothes.
Now, however, the market satisfies demands, and demands can be formed, developed, multiplied and are practically insatiable – today one model of mobile phone, tomorrow – another, cooler, after tomorrow – the third and even cooler.
The feeling in many of today's young people is that they are not in control of their own destiny, that they are guinea pigs for external and invisible market forces; and the inability to plan their lives and imagine their future makes them insecure, pessimistic and therefore more unhappy than they should probably feel.
The Lower threshold of (in)security can be associated with socio-psychological phenomena, with psychological morbid states of an individual or a group of individuals (community, stratum, class).
For example, Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917) spoke of anomie when he analyzed the erosion of social norms and values in the context of economic and social crises. According to him, since people lose all their social bonds in such crises, they often find their only way out is to commit suicide.
Erich Fromm (1900 – 1980) reflected on Durkheim's analysis of anomie as a social phenomenon: „Durkheim, in his classic work on suicide, assumed that the cause is to be found in a phenomenon which he called „anomie.“ He referred by that term to the destruction of all the traditional social bonds, to the fact that all truly collective organization has become secondary to the state, and that all genuine social life has been annihilated. He believed that the people living in the modern political state are „a disorganized dust of individuals.“ [4].
The American sociologist Robert Merton (1910 – 2003), who further developed the analysis of anomie, very figuratively characterized it as a „collapse of the cultural structure“, occurring when, as a result of a breakdown and disorientation in their social position, individuals are unable to attach themselves and become attached to the values of a larger community to which they belong, or society as a whole [5].
And in Pierre Bourdieu (1930 – 2002) we read: „You cannot play tricks with the law of the conservation of violence: you have to pay for any violence. For example, the structural violence that financial markets exert in the form of layoffs, job insecurity, etc., finds its equivalent in the short and long term in the form of suicide, antisocial behavior, crime, drugs, alcoholism, acts of domestic violence“ [6].
Values andbility and direction to behavior, clarifies uncertainty and delineates the boundaries of duties and responsibilities. When these boundaries disintegrate or are eroded, or when adhering to them becomes a burden or condemns to losing social positions and reduced chances of integration and security, the relevant group of aggrieved people (as well as atomized individuals) cease to observe these values and cultural norms, or begin to destroy them, and often adopt different, even antagonistic „values“ and „cultural norms“, thereby demonstrating their rejection of belonging to a community or society and increasingly alienating themselves from it. However, this does not go unpunished – the replacement of some values and cultural norms with others is externally expressed in systemic and cognitive disorientation [7], and internally – in falling into a depressive state of stress and insecurity, anomie, anemia and apathy.
If a system is subjected to constant external and internal, structural and symbolic, vertical and horizontal pressures for destructuring, atomizing and denormalizing, it inevitably becomes chaotic and disordered, no one in it has an incentive to follow norms and rules. Even those who have an internal need or a conscious attitude to comply with norms and rules are gradually demotivated to do this, if only because it does not bring them a competitive advantage, but becomes a strategic disadvantage to the extent that the vast mass of people do not comply with the norms and rules and thanks to this they are free from the constraints that these norms and rules impose and are therefore in a more advantageous position in pursuing and achieving its goals. And since even those who follow the norms and rules stop following them due to loss of meaning and strong demotivation, the chaos and disorder, and thus the insecurity in the system, increase even more.
At the same time, in an orderly system set up to enable and accelerate positive and to inhibit and „quench“ negative change, those who comply with norms and rules have a strategic advantage over those who do not abide by them, because the benefits of such constructive and optimizing behavior are huge. And this already stimulates even those who, in principle, do not observe any norms and rules, to start observing them, driven not so much by compulsion, but by benefit, as a result of which the system is even more organized and generates even more security and efficiency.
II. The Upper threshold of (in)security
The Upper threshold of in(security) is such a maximum level of security, above which irreversible changes in the system begin or structural deformations occur with risky, and in a number of cases, destructive potential.
In the study of (in)security, in practice, the Lower threshold has always been investigated. This is more than logical since it has been assumed that when security decreases and insecurity increases, the only problems for the system can occur when its security deteriorates and when an extremely negative confluence of destructive circumstances occurs, casting doubt on the ability for their successful counteraction and increasing in the probability of disruption and collapse of the system.
But some alarming symptoms in the developed Western countries, which until just a few decades ago were characterized by almost absolute (too high) security (for example, the Scandinavian countries – Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and also Finland), began to increasingly point to the importance of studying the Upper threshold of (in)security, above which similar negative changes and deformations can also be observed. And with excessive security as well the motives for development, for counteracting the circumstances, for self-improvement could be also lost, and the system could begin to degrade, to erode without goals and without incentives, even to disintegrate.
As the French economist Jean Fourastié (1907 – 1990) wrote: „Excessive stability can provoke a real psychopathy, a desire to destroy, which we see in the example of the Swedish phenomenon... It seems that some forms of freedom from coercion lead to an imbalance and cause the need for new coercions“ [8].
Erich Fromm reflects on the same problems in his book „Mentally Healthy Society“: „The countries in Europe which are among the most democratic, peaceful and prosperous ones, and the United States, the most prosperous country in the world, show the most severe symptoms of mental disturbance. The aim of the whole socio-economic development of the Western world is that of the materially comfortable life, relatively equal distribution of wealth, stable democracy and peace, and the very countries which have come closest to this aim show the most severe signs of mental unbalance! … Could it be that the middle-class life of prosperity, while satisfying our material needs leaves us with a feeling of intense boredom, and that suicide and alcoholism are pathological ways of escape from this boredom?“ [9].
In this spirit, Abraham Maslow wrote: „We have learned with Oscar Wilde to beware of what we wish-for the tragedy may come about that our wishes may be granted.“ [10].
No matter how far from this state they are at first glance, developed Western countries (and not only them) really have reason to think about dangerous phenomena in this direction – suicides, depressions, drug addiction, constant search for stronger, more extreme emotions.
When a person has a serious problem, he mobilizes all his connections, acquaintances, friends, family ties, i.e. all his social capital.
The concept of „social capital“ was introduced in sociology and social psychology by Robert Putnam (1941):
„Social capital is a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or in certain parts of it“ [11]. Social capital can be defined as „as a set of informal values or norms shared among members of a group that permits cooperation among them“ [12]. In addition to cooperation between group members, a number of authors also add response to external threats, minimizing costs and achieving common goals. In other words, social capital is a form of human capital that differs from its other forms „insofar as it is usually created and transmitted through cultural mechanisms like religion, tradition, or historical habit.“ [13].
We said above – when a person gets into trouble or in a very difficult situation, he „remembers“ his social essence and turns to as many people as possible, relatives, friends who can somehow be useful to him in a difficult situation. But when a person „everything is fine“, when he is over-satisfied, when he has nothing to strive for and nothing to fight for, he can become closed and lose interest in the environment, and sometimes in life.
In a reservoir, for the fish to be tasty and diverse, there must always be a pike, a predator. Then the fish turn on their best skills and abilities, just to survive. Some hide at the bottom, others come to the surface; some merge with the environment, others swim very fast. Each mobilizes what it is strongest with, which is the main thing in its individuality.
But let's note at the same time that if the predatory fish in the reservoir are more than an acceptable minimum, then they can eat all other fish and from an irritant and a stimulator for survival and development, become their destroyer.
The Upper threshold of (in)security is such a maximum level of security, above which, in fact, insecurity gets out of control and the system (individual, community, society) begins to disintegrate. When approaching this Threshold of (in)security, a crisis arises in the system, it begins to shake, to experience instability, and small impacts cause large consequences.
By analogy with the Lower threshold of (in)security, each person (every community of people, every society) has its own Upper threshold of (in)security, which is also individual for each person and varies depending on the circumstances.
The Upper threshold of (in)security can sometimes be much higher and the person is able to tolerate much more security because it will not damage his value system, but in other cases the Upper threshold of (in)security can be much lower and then the person is unable to tolerate a little more security because it will damage his value system.
To summarize:
The Upper threshold of (in)security is an individual characteristic that changes over time. Therefore, a person, a society, a system should self-analyze and strive to exercise maximum effective control over their own security. This is also primarily the responsibility of the subject of security management, the security managers of the system (as it was said, man is also the security manager of his own security).
Again, any system security manager has two possible alternatives for managing processes when the system approaches the Upper threshold of (in)security.
▪ The first of the alternatives is to prevent the system from approaching the Upper threshold of (in)security by trying to keep it as low (as further) as possible from this Threshold.
In this spirit, Sweden dismantled its social model, a number of social benefits that were considered absolutely guaranteed and natural, as they should be, were withdrawn or curtailed, and thus the market, dynamism, instability were introduced into the motives and actions of people, and by this people were forced to get out of the lethargic state of complete satisfaction and maximum security, to start making decisions with elements of risk, to take responsibility for their life strategies and to pay a price for their mistakes in them, and not expecting and hoping that the good, caring state will be responsible for everything and everyone will be protected by it.
Here we logically and inevitably approach a seemingly eternal and practically insoluble philosophical, political and social problem. It was said that in order for a society to be just, humane and sustainable and not to fall below the Lower threshold of (in)security, it is necessary to carry out a partial redistribution of money and goods, in which, using various legal mechanisms, it is „taken“ from the rich and „given“ to the poor. But a society in which redistributive mechanisms become too large-scale and turn into a constant, too massive social practice can fall ill with apathy, become obese and regress, lose incentives for development, and demotivate its citizens to work and create. This also applies to the layers from which it is „taken“, because, in their opinion, a huge injustice is being created, and they see no reason to develop their creative abilities in order to feed those who are „lazy“; as well as to the strata to whom this redistribution is „given“ – why should they try and struggle to change their fate, to look for a different role and being, if they are already guaranteed a decent standard of living?
However, when the mechanisms of social redistribution are dismantled, the gap between rich and poor deepens, more and more groups of society fall to the social bottom. As a result, if in the first case (of excessive redistributive mechanisms) society becomes obese and stops in its development, then in the second case (of almost completely dismantled redistribution mechanisms), society revolutionizes and again stops in its development.
This is an eternal dilemma – how to stimulate society to develop and at the same time to prevent the stratification that grows in it as if it were a natural consequence of development. Private property is the eternal engine of social development, but in the end, if it is not stopped and if it is allowed to do only what it wants and what it is capable of, it always begins to act as an anti-redistributive mechanism, „taking“ from those who have less and less and „giving“ to those who have more and more.
Thus, over centuries, humanity has been looking for an optimal society – sometimes choosing development models that unleash, give complete freedom to private property (and these models are right-wing), then such models that seek to curb it, imposing restrictions on it (these are left-wing models), then models that to some extent combine these two extremes (such models are centrist – but all these names are nothing more than conditional characteristics). Until a general decision was made (under the slogans of building a socialist and communist society) to completely abolish private property; something that at the modern stage of development did not give the desired result and, as a result, failed with a deafening crash.
Even a billionaire like George Soros (1930) worries that the other extreme – the complete unleashing of private property, the absolutization of the market, the so-called Social Darwinism – will also not lead to the desired result, and in the end it may fail with an equally deafening crash [14].
Humanity's attempts to tame private property is nothing but the eternal search for a model of society with optimal security. Security that is not so great (that is, the insecurity, in turn, is not so small) that society and people refuse to fight and develop, because it makes no sense to do anything because of the complete satisfaction of all wishes and needs; and not so small (that is, the insecurity, on the other hand, is not so great) that society and people refuse to fight and develop, because this makes no sense – anyway, everything is lost for them and their efforts are doomed to failure.
This is how humanity develops – through trial and error.
▪ The second alternative is to make the system resistant to the increased level of security when this system is close to the Upper threshold of (un)insecurity, which means actually raising the Upper threshold of (in)security.
This can be done if, for example, the rulers of the country offer meaningful goals to society that are in the spirit of „man shall not live by bread alone“ (Matt. 4:4).
There are so many goals that a person and society can set for themselves after they have solved all the problems of their life's existence – dedication to environmental problems, the problems of the socially weak, to those living in insecurity. It is not for nothing that the Scandinavian countries, where the social problems of oversatisfaction first arose, which led to the need to introduce the concept of the Upper threshold of (in)security, are among the countries that allocate the most funds as a percentage of GDP to the treatment of chronic global problems (environment, poverty, poor governance, illiteracy) and for participation in peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions.
So, the functioning of every person, of every society, of every system is a Brownian movement, oscillation, fluctuations, trajectories between the Thresholds of (in)security – Lower and Upper.
Security managers must do one of two things – either prevent societies from getting too close to these Thresholds of (in)security, or build resilience in societies near those Thresholds of (in)security.
We, in Bulgaria (many Bulgarians), of course, constantly strive not to fail, not to reach the Lower threshold of (in)security, to guarantee our purely physical survival. Because the Lower threshold of (in)security is the Threshold of (in)security of the vast majority of people, of the „broad popular masses“ (while the Upper threshold of (in)security is the Threshold of (in)security of elite strata of society), we tend to think that every crisis is necessarily associated with a risky approach to the Lower threshold of (in)security.
Although the behavior near these two Thresholds of (in)security is fundamentally different, both of them present serious challenges, and society must stay as far as possible from both Thresholds of (in)security – these are the main tasks of every strategic thinking, every political engineering. The farther a society is from the two Thresholds of (in)security, the more effective will be its management and the more adequate will be the solutions to problems.
Although not approaching these two Thresholds of (in)security, society can also be in crisis, nevertheless counteracting the crisis is then much more effective and much easier to pursue a predetermined goal as a way out of this crisis.
This is the question of crisis management: „Can crises be managed without reaching situations on the edge, without walking on the razor's edge, i.e. without societies reaching the Thresholds of (in)security?”.
If both Thresholds of (in)security are too far apart from each other, societies are subject to very strong stratification, and stratified societies lose their cohesion, their unity; in them social networks are torn apart, systematically implanted ideologies of tolerance and humility for existence both of great poverty and of great wealth take over and take center stage. In such societies, there is a favorable environment for social explosion, for anarchy, for the lack of a sense of community, for a blurred identity, for building the image of an enemy.
However, if both Thresholds of (in)security are too close to each other, then a bifurcation occurs in society and among people – easy transitions from social despair to social apathy, with all the known symptoms of social schizophrenia.
Good governance of society is in fact a continuous attempt to find the optimal distance between two Thresholds of (in)security, i.e. for these Thresholds of (in)security to diverge if they start to converge too much (strong social alignment), or converge if they start to diverge too much (strong social stratification).
A real political challenge is to find that state of sustainability, requiring the least possible overexpenditure of resources, in which society finds its optimal balance between insecurity and security. This is achieved through very sophisticated manipulation of the environment, attitudes and goals of society. It, in particular, requires that the Two Thresholds of (in)security are not linked respectively: The Lower Threshold – with too low a standard of living (i.e. with too low Threshold of Poverty); The Upper Threshold – with too high a standard of living (ie too high Threshold of Wealth). For this purpose, the realization of which is a criterion for strategically successful political management, societies must have reliably built-in social elevators (mobility of people) and social buffers (stability of society).
References:
1. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc., p. 15.
2. Бурдийо, Пиер. Размишления по Паскал, С., Панорама плюс, 2007, с. 259.
Burdiyo, Pier. Razmishlenia po Paslkal, Sofia: Panorama plius, 2007, s. 259. (in Bulgarian)
(Bourdieu, Pierre. Reflections on Pascal)
3. Николов, Любен. Зигмунд Фройд: между бунт и примирението. – Във: Фройд, Зигмунд. Въведение в психоанализата, С.: Наука и изкуство, 1990, с. 41.
Nikolov, Lyuben. Zigmund Froid: mezhdu bunta i primirenieto. – Vav: Froid, Zigmuns. Vuvedenie v psihoanalizata, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1990, s. 40. (in Bulgarian)
(Nikolov, Lyuben. Sigmund Freud: Between Rebellion and Reconciliation)
4. Fromm, Erich. The Sane Society. Erich Fromm, 1955, pp. 146 – 147.
5. Дарендорф, Ралф. Современный социальный конфликт. М.: Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2002, с. 214.
Darwndorf, Ralf. Sovremennyi socialnyi konflikt. Moskva: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya enciklopedia, 2002, s. 214. (на русском языке)
(Dahrendorf, Ralph. Contemporary social conflict)
6. Бурдийо, Пиер. Ответен огън. С.: Св. Климент Охридски, 2008, с. 39.
Burdiyo, Pier. Otveten ogun, Sofia: Sv. Kliment Ohridski, 2008, s. 39. (in Bulgarian)
(Bourdieu, Pierre. Return fire)
7. Глухова, Александра. Политические конфликты: основания, типология, динамика (теоретико-методологически анализ). М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2000, с. 61.
Gluhova, Aleksandra. Politicheskie konflikty: osnovania, tipologia, dinamika (teoretiko-metodologicheskiy analiz). Moskva: Editirial URSS, 2000, s. 61. (на русском языке)
(Glukhova, Alexandra. Political conflicts)
8. Фурастье, Жан. 40 000 часов. – В: Бестужев-Лада, И.В. (редактор-составитель). Мир нашего завтра: Антология современной классической прогностики. М.: Эксмо, 2003, с. 149.
Furastie, Zhan. 40 000 chasov. – V: Bestuzhev-Lada, I. V. (redactor-sostavitel). Mir nashego zavtra: Antologia sovremennoiy klassicheskoi prognostiki. Moskva: Eksmo, 2003, s. 149. (на русском языке)
(Fourastié , Jean. 40,000 hours)
9. Fromm, Erich, ibid., зз. 10 – 11.
10. Maslow Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., p. XIV.
11. Fukuyama, Francis. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1996, p. 26.
12. Fukuyama, Francis. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Holford Yard, Bevin Way, London: Profile Books Ltd, 1999, p. 24.
13. Fukuyama, Francis. Trust.., p. 26.
14. Сорос, Джордж. Мыльный пузырь американского превосходства. На что следует направить американскую мощь?. М.: Альпина Бизнес Букс, 2004, с. 10.
Soros, Dghordgh. Mylniy puzyr amerikanskogo prevoshodstva. Na chto sleduet napravit amerikanskuyu moshch? Moskva: Alpina Biznes Buks, 2004, s. 10 (на русском языке)
(Soros, George. Soap bubble of American supremacy)
12.01.2023
Brief explanation:
The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.
