System polityczny Unii Europejskiej jest przykładem rządzenia odbywającego się w silnie zróżnicowanym środowisku kulturowym, społecznym i politycznym. Jego rozwój jest nielinearny, a wyznaczenie jego granic okazuje się bardzo trudne lub wręcz niemożliwe. Traktat z Lizbony nie określił w sposób jednoznaczny dalszego kierunku rozwoju UE, a wręcz przyczynił się do pogłębienia złożoności systemowych. W sposób szczególny zjawisko to zarysowało się w obszarze rozwiązań instytucjonalnych, które kumulują wszelkie napięcia i kryzysy pojawiające się w procesie integracji. W wyjątkowy sposób do zwiększenia niespójności w systemie integracyjnym przyczyniła się komasacja zjawisk kryzysowych po 2009 roku. Jednocześnie obserwujemy specyficzne właściwości towarzyszące kształtowaniu się mechanizmów instytucjonalnych, które w odpowiedzi na powtarzające się trudności wykształciły zachowania elastyczne i odpornościowe. Efektem są przeobrażenia systemu instytucjonalnego, które kreują niejednorodne rozwiązania o tendencjach zarówno integrujących, jak i dezintegrujących system. ; The political system of the European Union is an example of governance realised in a highly diversified cultural, social and political environment. Its development is non-linear and determining its boundaries turns out to be very difficult or even impossible. The Treaty of Lisbon did not clearly define the further direction of the EU's development, and even contributed to the deepening of systemic complexities. This phenomenon is particularly visible in the area of institutional solutions that accumulate all tensions and crises that appear in the integration process. The amalgamation of crisis phenomena after 2009 contributed to an exceptional increase in inconsistencies in the integration system. At the same time, we observe specific properties accompanying the shaping of institutional mechanisms, which in response to repeated difficulties have developed flexible and resilient behaviors. The effect is transformations of the institutional system, which create heterogeneous solutions with both integrating and disintegrating tendencies.
The Visegrad Group countries are taking actions that confirm their ambitions in the framework of cyber security policy. The tasks formulated both in strategic documents and in international forums are evidence of the active role of Central European governments in the area of cyber security. Many countries are facing a rising tide of cyberattacks, which are likely to intensify over time. Any such incident has the potential to inflict significant damage, undermining trust in government and causing unpredictable political consequences. For this reason, there is an apparent desire on the part of the V4 countries to build common cyber resilience based on close cooperation with the EU and NATO. Another way of describing the actions taken in the article is budget spending on cyber security, which is an important measure for assessing the development of the cyber capabilities of individual countries. The article is an attempt to summarize the actions taken by the V4 countries in the period 2013-2021 within the framework of cyber security policy, which for the most part remains in the sphere of mere political declarations. The research analysis undertaken can serve as a starting point for further consideration of V4 cooperation especially in the context of the military aggression of the Russian Federation after 24 February 2022. This event mandates consideration of the future of cooperation between Central European countries – in the broadest sense – on security policy.
This book proposes a theoretical-methodological approach to resocialization diagnosis from a positive perspective. The author presents theoretical assumptions of positive diagnosis in resocialization and creates its methodological model. Her starting point is the belief that a well-conducted diagnostic process, inherently linked with the process of resocialization, belongs to the most important factors which determine the effectiveness of the latter. Her standpoint is that both processes should be carried out within the same theoretical-methodological paradigm; she points out that diagnosis serves as the basis for planning resocialization activities, which are directly tied to its results. Moreover, diagnosis is further developed in the course of resocialization, while methods used are subject to modification during the whole process. In the conceptualisation of the area, scope and object of resocialization diagnosis, the author took into consideration assumptions which follow from: a) the concept of personality as a system of interdependencies, where individual development is treated as an unstable process, influenced by many contradictory internal and external forces; b) the idea of a dynamic "system of attitudes towards the world," which implies a psychological perspective on the subject of its interest, that is a human being in the process of self-development; c) the concept of resilience, which refers to the processes and mechanisms conducive to a proper (positive) functioning of an individual — despite life's adversities, risk factors, developmental hazards, and traumatic past experiences; and d) the concept of salutogenesis, which harks back to the transactional theory of stress. This view calls for an interdisciplinary approach to diagnosis in resocialization, which would encompass data from the field of psychology and social pedagogy, developmental psychology and health, special needs education and biosciences. From this perspective the object of resocialization diagnosis are multifarious conditions which determine the process of "shaping" the human being or, more specifically, problems in his or her development throughout the life cycle, including environmental, cultural and personal factors. In the positive approach to resocialization diagnosis proposed by the author, various categories of diagnostic description of an individual are important, such as multidimensionality (various areas of activity), continuity (development throughout the life cycle), orientation of individual development (prosocial, prodevelopmental vs. antisocial, destructive) and, most importantly, necessity to discover individual resources (potential). The proposed approach situates the diagnostic process in the paradigm of positive psychology and positive resocialization, basic to human cognition, which focus on autocreation and creative resocialization, at the same time pointing out the necessity to identify the unique potential of an individual (positive diagnosis). The book comprises two chapters. The first one presents the theoretical assumptions of resocialization diagnosis; the second chapter explains its methodological premises. The models presented by the author (so called complementary approach) assume the priority of positive diagnosis (focused on resources and potential) and a supplementary role of negative diagnosis (focused on deficits and disorders). Chapter One ("Positive and negative diagnosis in resocialization — general theoretical assumptions") comprises: a) a description of the main approaches in resocialization diagnosis — pathogenic and salutogenic — with their specific ways of explaining adaptive disorders; and b) a description of the major factors and problems in diagnosis for resocialization. On the whole, the author adopts the approach typical of salutogenesis to explain adaptive disorders. She also provides evidence that it is possible to implement the concepts of positive psychology in resocialization diagnosis. She presents resocialization models which refer to resilience and salutogenesis, using them as the theoretical foundation of positive diagnosis in resocialization: the risk model, the well being model and models which support development. As a result, she creates a complementary model of supporting development. In Chapter Two ("Positive and negative diagnosis in resocialization — narrowing down on the theoretical and methodological assumptions), the reader is introduced to the theoretical problems of social maladaptation and to the specific objects of positive and negative diagnosis. The author describes adaptive disorders in the context of basic markers, dimensions and mechanisms of human development on the one hand and developmental disorders on the other, focusing mainly on the cognitive mechanisms of development and psychopathology of developmental disorders (cognitive distortions). She analyses the environmental and sociocultural context of development and demonstrates a risk factor model and a protective factor model. It is against this background that she creates a complementary methodological model of resocialization diagnosis, in which positive diagnosis (salutogenic approach) is treated as primary, and negative diagnosis (pathogenic approach) as supplementary. A discussion of the model of resocialization diagnosis closes with remarks on the markers and characteristic features of a resocialization pedagogue's ethics of conduct — the teacher acting both as a diagnostician and a tutor who fosters the process of inner transformation of a socially maladapted individual.
We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.
We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.
