Tworzenie nadbudowy wyzysku ekonomicznego w świetle teorii dysonansu poznawczego.

• Authors: Michał Pytlik

Title variants

EN

Creating the Superstructure of Economic Exploitation in the Light of the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The most important legacy of Marxist philosophy is dialectical and historical materialism. One of exemplifications of how social psychology is inspired by this legacy is the theory of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger (1957) as a dialectical moment in human’s mind. This dialectics signifies that dissonances in cognition direct towards consonances in an infinite process of practical exploration coducted by individuals entangled in social relations and, at the same time, their creators. Cognitive dissonance, an unpleasant affect of contradiction between subjectively significant cognitive and behavioral elements, always tends to be reduced by either material praxis (behavioral component) or shift in consciousness’ content (cognitive element). Individuals privileged by exemption from physical work, disposing private propriety of means of production and capturing surplus value are in position of cognitive dissonance with the principles of primary commune’s social functioning. As multiple research in field of psychology has shown, it is more plausible to justify the contradictory and morally inappropriate behavior than to adjust to immoral deeds the behavior itself. Hence, privileged individuals make a shift in consciousness, creating new contents of cognition. These contents, justifying privileged position in social order, may or may not be transmitted from individual to social consciousness and become a part of ideological superstructure. Cognitive dissonance does not touch the falsehood or reality of subsequent edition processes of these new contents, but determines the plausibility of their appearance.

Keywords

EN

cognitive dissonance; superstructure; social psychology; Marxism; consciousness; praxis; cognitive component; behavioral component

• Publisher: Instytut Filozofii, Uniwersytet Szczeciński
• Journal: Nowa Krytyka
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 35
• Pages: 95-113

Contributors

author

Michał Pytlik

• Uniwersytet Opolski

References

• Abercrombie N., Hill S., Turner B. 1980. The Dominant Ideology Thesis, London Aronson E. 1969. The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective, w: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, red. L. Berkowitz, vol. 4, New York Aronson E., Wilson T., Akert R. 1997. Psychologia społeczna. Serce i umysł, Poznań Bandura A. 2007. Teoria społecznego uczenia się, Warszawa Baley S. 1959. Wprowadzenie do psychologii społecznej, Warszawa Breckler S. 1984. Empirical Validation of Affect, Behavior and Cognition as Distinct Components of Attitude, „Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, no. 47, s. 1191–1205 Eagleton T. 1998. Marks i wolność, Warszawa Festinger L. 2007., Teoria dysonansu poznawczego, Warszawa Gramsci A. 1991. Zeszyty filozoficzne, tłum. B. Sieroszewska, J. Szymanowska, Warszawa Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Harman C. 2007. Baza i nadbudowa, Warszawa Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, New York Higgins T. 1989. Self-discrepancy Theory: What Patterns of Self-beliefs Cause People to Suffer?, „Advances in Experimental Social Psychology”, no. 22, s. 93–136 Kenrick D., Neuberg S., Cialdini R. 2002. Psychologia społeczna, Gdańsk LaPiere R. 1934. Attitudes vs. Actions, „Social Forces”, no. 13, s. 230–237 Lenin W. 1949. Materializm a empiriokrytycyzm, w: idem, Dzieła, t. 14, Warszawa Marks K., Engels F. 1966. Przyczynek do krytyki ekonomii politycznej, w: idem, „Dzieła”, t. 13, Warszawa Marks K., Engels F. 1972. Anty-Dühring, w: idem, Dzieła, t. 20, Warszawa Martel K. 1963. Podstawowe zagadnienia marksistowskiej teorii poznania, Warszawa Mejbaum W. 2002. Materializm subiektywny. Zarys epistemologii marksistowskiej, Wrocław Mika S. 1972. Wstęp do psychologii społecznej, Warszawa Myers D. 2003. Psychologia społeczna, Poznań Osgood C., Tannenbaum P. 1955. The Principle of Congruity and the Prediction of Attitude Change, „Psychological Review”, no. 62, s. 42–55 Rainko S. 2015. Marks. Dwie filozofie, Warszawa Schaff A. 1965. Marksizm a jednostka ludzka, Warszawa Sykes G., Matza D. 1957. Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Deliquency, „American Sociological Review”, no. 6, vol. 22, s. 664–670 Sztumski J., Sztumski W. 1977. Materializm dialektyczny a współczesne nauki szczegółowe, Warszawa Tatarkiewicz W. 1988. Historia filozofii, t. 3, Warszawa Tavris C., Aronson E. 2014. Błądzą wszyscy (ale nie ja), Sopot Tsang J. 2002. Moral Rationalization and Integration of Situational Factors and Psychological Processes in Immoral Behavior, „Review of General Psychology”, no. 6, s. 25–50 Wypler W. 2013. Samousprawiedliwienie zachowania a rozluźnianie standardów moralnych, w: Zewnętrzne i wewnętrzne aspekty bezpieczeństwa indywidualnego i zbiorowego, red. J. Lipińska-Lokś, G. Miłkowska, A. Napadło-Kuczera, Zielona Góra