This psychological framework is based on the process of empowerment as it affects the individual within the wider community.  The primary consideration is the provision of a flexible framework that incorporates dynamics, which relate to human survival patterns.  The second is to analyse its suitability in accommodating objective and inherent elements of socially sustainable values.  The hypothesis is that survival comes together with morality and justice and that this has been an inherent consideration of these survival patterns for quite some time now, at least as long as recorded history.


This debate submits that the most obvious visible risk to human beings in the struggle for survival stems from the threat posed by other humans.  A rationale predicated on the belief that as yet no other species is capable of composing a similar threat, owing to our highly developed psychosomatic awareness (self-consciousness) i.e. our physical existence is counterbalanced and complimented by a psychological feature.  Our capabilities in response to survival pressures can be determined and can also be subjectively or objectively evaluated, by one individual in conjunction with or on behalf of another, with or without their accordance.  This potential, which psychologically is primarily utilised when addressing the need for and/or the management of resources can be the cause of serious ethical dysfunction in competitive relationships.  Problems, which are limited to human discourse and should not as a consequence of competition, be a factor in relationships with other species.  That is to say, the human condition is endowed with a psychosomatic ability, which distinguishes it and at this time represents a barrier between other living species and ourselves.


In actively fulfilling the purpose of survival, a stable individual processes data autonomously and consciously regardless of its source.  The data represents two types of information: one that without attenuation identifies the actual physical environment in its evaluation and the other which requires a correlative psychological appreciation, for the value of interpretations to transpire.  In competition, the ability to engage a minimum amount of risk whilst participating in this process, develops confidence and eventually confirms paradigm shift or cultural homogeneity.  However the reliability of the data only become relevant if competitors are active participants in the evaluation; there are no intermediaries for existence.  On one hand by merely being alive, the individual inherits authority and physical onus to respond in identifying the purpose of their coexistence.  On the other, due to the competitive dynamic, misunderstandings or misinterpretations can expose the individual to extreme risk while sharing in the value of that purpose.


The analysis here is mainly concerned with the circumstances surrounding this risk: circumstances, which are transparent to all and have been the source of tremendous confusion and conflict in the way we[1] address each other.  However before any decision can be made or activity undertaken while establishing purpose, a further consideration arises regarding the competitive process: having intermediaries in the dissemination process.  There are only three occasions when this event is sustainable between able-bodied parties:


a.       On occasions where inter-dependent or independent arrangements between parties can clearly be distinguished as separate mutual agreements


b.      Or where conditions of dependency even when incumbent on parties involved, is viewed as ultimately leading to independent evaluation.


c.       Or both.


Because either agents or mediators can also be rivals, psychological evaluations of risk are mainly calculated around issues relating to mutual trust.  That is to say, the risk involved in relying on information provided by others is primarily determined by the degree of trust placed on each other’s subjective and objective potential.


Mediation or agency introduces amongst other things the element of pedagogy and contract in social relationships, which in turn introduces duality: honour and challenge.  Due to the possibility of secrecy or insincerity in human intentions and the fact that these dynamics are all instantly mutually available to individuals, in communication discourse, the element of self-determination becomes essential in the process of developing trust and must be an integral aspect of human consciousness.  This is an element, which particularly in the process of data interpretation will facilitate the independence to discern, what is either contradictory or complimentary in meeting needs.  It will also enable compassionate and futuristic cultural constructs (paradigm shift) while inhibiting complete propagation, by unscrupulous agents or contenders and allow for variety in self-asserted choices.


In other words at this time, an individual remains a phenomenon from birth to death with an autonomous psyche, which cannot be copied or be fully accessed externally by any other; a logic which has unavoidable implications for all human social constructs in society.  It follows that the individual's cognitive process has a capability to develop independently while in association with others and can contain and assimilate many contrasting values.  The ability or desire to exercise some in preference to others reflects among other things, not just ownership and fraternity but also intentions and expectations.  In response to this and the possibility of serious consequences associated with the physical onus, many protective structures or constructs have been evolved for defining support and limiting risk.


This implies that while competing for resources, individuals and thence the community can be influenced or restricted (inter-dependence) but cannot be completely denied the authority to construct and assert their own identity.  This construct raises the question as to whether or not the human psyche can be explained by solely using an evolution theory.  In any case agency or mediation represents at least in part an inter-dependent agreement, for it can be interpreted as jointly serving many ambitions simultaneously.  Dependency is different.  It suggest that ambitions are or will become symbiotic, vindicating the coalescence of individual ethos and negating most risk caused by competition or misinterpretation.  Hence the individual's culture and sense of belonging will be constructed initially, from their own immediate and/or intimate experiences of information processing, while meeting needs and subsequently, by evaluating interpretations as necessary, in wider associations with others.




The element of self-determination (freewill) in psychological evaluation provides the capability to utilise preferences regardless of their nature or to regularise unfavourable conditions, even denial of choice.  For example, where an individual might have been previously expected to take flight or fight as a normal response to particular stimuli.  An irrational decision provoked by emotions can be made and customised, with the intentions to disguise and/or postpone; to challenge or recognise the authority of the stimulus, whichever is felt to be appropriate at the time.  With this autonomous capability, information processing and evaluation become a complex process into which, people contract and from which they assert an autonomous perspective.


From this configuration similar decisions can be arrived at based on different and possibly opposite interpretations, triggering a spectrum of duality: alliance and challenge.  One such possibility is that the ethos of both friends and enemies can be similar or in accord but their subjectivity in reasoning may represent different or opposing alliances.  Indicating that morality in decision making is purely of a narcissistic and artificial nature and its popularity will rely on the state of tolerance (which includes sexuality) in society.  Furthermore it implies that the custodianship of the individual's moral perspective cannot be appropriated or reassigned without transparent participation or approval.


The type of structures and constructs institutionalised and implemented to advance any preferences and to what extent they become established (time and place) reflects an individual or community assessment of risk and the hierarchical status of their authority (paradigm).  The issue of morality arises, if the value basis that the risk serves encounters greater stress, when transposed onto other areas outside which, the risk assessment was originally calculated (missioners as opposed to mentors). This ethical challenge will always arise when the boundaries of the individual’s physical sustainability are breached by the drive of indulgent external enthusiasm.  On these occasions a process of change will set in, revealing the true or fundamental purpose of the morale within both ambitions and which of their rationale is sustainable or not.  Thus the pressure generated will redress the imbalance caused by misinterpretation or dishonesty, weakening the potential of growth of whichever morale has become indulgent.


For example, even if European groups had the authority to do so, the fact that the context of slavery was used to transpose their linguistic and cultural values onto African people was and still is a moral issue.  In other words this authoritative nature even though it has been in practice for quite some time now, still poses questions as to its suitability for developing trust among DoS.  It could be that there is still an underlying psychology (fear?) of this nature in both word and deed that represents a crucial function of risk evaluation in their survival patterns.  This being the problem, then more research will be needed from a frame of reference that substantiates the experiences of descendants, in order to reveal its true nature.


During such times of extreme tension, for example, when people become displaced or when resources are scarce or both, the individual retains a potential to explore and cultivate new links with others, in adapting to and identifying different survival strategies.  This potential is adjusted and sensitised in accordance with personal ambition, the depth of paradigm that supports it and any social limitations encountered.  However, in maintaining the survival thrust when it encounters such formidable hurdles, another capability of the ‘information processing’ psyche is utilised.  This element correlates the tensions between these extreme postures and the psychosomatic strength of the individual i.e. as the physical pressure increases the individual becomes more mentally stressed until a critical point is reached.  Through consensus this factor exposes morale to relative competition and validates both the freewill and the independent authority to make decisions in realising ambitions.


This factor is hope.  As popular knowledge has it, there must be a ray of hope for life to have meaning.  It is the fuel of ambition at least within the human species.  Hope evokes courage to face risk; For example the hope of conquering new worlds and acquiring vast wealth, motivated past adventurers to face dangerous uncharted risk when imposing their authority on different cultures: which nowadays would be viewed as immoral.  Hope then, not only assists in identifying moral and time boundaries, it also equips individuals and hence the community with a tool which can identify and reinforce consensus.  In building confidence, hope realigns survival strategies to the environment by indicating which are appropriate, who can be trusted and along with freewill tailors the evaluation of flexible responses.  It then follows that the individual is quite capable of relinquishing, with or without coercion, old customs and restrictions, while constructing new or different responses in interpreting the integrity of an unaccustomed environment.


For the individual and hence the community there is always hope and fresh hope, a survival condition which permeates the psyche and obligates a connection with both the struggle for life and with identifiable partners in that struggle.  Prosperity and decadence, weighted values in the process of survival imply that hope plays a significant role in engineering relationships with partners and competitors alike, while facilitating struggle.  It informs the formulation and establishment of protocol in decision making and so by deduction, a greater propensity to prosper will be manifested when hope corroborates reality and the certainty of decadence or realignment, when it is in contrast.


One could now argue as far as processing information is concerned, the stable individual actively approaches the environment with at least one non-negotiable tool; hope, and an ambition based on but not solely confined to one particular agenda.  The first task is survival, which is initially addressed through dependence: traditional methods of seeking sustenance, then inter-dependence or independence.  In doing so data (including methods for trusting others) is gathered and/or exchanged from within the proximate vicinity and evaluated for reliability and efficiency during performance.  Rivalry is then encountered which in terms of actual hostilities proportionally introduces risk and reduces accessibility, while diametrically increasing responsibility.  The individual then either contracts into existing structures or explores other avenues or strategies depending on expectations, the strength of competition and the availability of resources.  Sustainability therefore is assessed firstly through personal experiences, then by social tolerance or acceptance followed by environmental endurance, overcoming in each case recognisable risk encountered in rivalry.


This vanquishing of risks that validates sustainable values also gives rise to communities, which are obligated to promote and/or embrace their own evolutionary forces and fulfil and/or recognise devolutionary ones, whatever their nature: the volitional process.  By their survival, members would have already confirmed, not only an ability to act appropriately on recognition of the prevailing conditions but also to utilise them constructively when realising survival objectives.  Given the human ability to make irrational choices, justice is determined by the sustainability of past decisions during further development: the life span of what the decision relates to.  The pragmatic qualities of justice therefore are inherent in the tension of survival and are time expired, which suggest that because their qualitative life span can be in existence for a lot longer than that of the individual’s, it is beyond human control but within their sphere of influence.


This decision making process although obligatory still remains flexible, for it contains the ability not just to alter outcomes but also to reconcile differences.  It is this in-built capacity for reconciliation that provides channels for individuals within the community to query the appropriateness of any particular reaction.  There is a popular belief that ‘there is no gain without pain’ but what is also credible is that, ignoring the symbolism of pain can possibly cause serious harm.  The social construct being referred to here is the relationship between development, prosperity, their antithesis and symbolism, in that evolutionary pressure is unavoidable and is seldom without cost or rewards.  Similarly pain or comfort in the fulfilment of survival pressure symbolises a compulsory struggle, which provides its rewards in the appreciation or not of full potential.  Hence methods by which prosperity or decadence is achieved are vindicated by outcomes, revealing the relative value inherent in its morale.


However life’s struggles not only implies winners and losers but also the presence of continuous adversarial engagement as regards the suitability or sustainability of its respective rationale.  From this, the morality basis in any strategic rationale at any period must be able to support and reflect at least two particular symbolic values, depending on perspectives.  For example, when symbolism crosses into a new dimension like greed as opposed to prosperity i.e. competition equating to indulgence rather than need.  The picture will be illuminated by decadence and its compositions and images will no longer be considered viable; opportunities will arise for rivals to put in successful challenges.  In other words there is a critical point in competitive development beyond which propensity will polarise around its founding values (devolution/evolution) becoming inappropriate, appearing insular and indulgent, being relatively unstable and even immoral.  All of which indicates a changed symbolism to decadence and need of review.  This process highlights the basis of pedagogy and how morality in knowledge is resolved: society is established through popular consent for the creation of a fundamental value basis.


From this analysis, it is clear that any framework of community values must be resilient enough to accommodate and facilitate the volitional process serving natural development.  This process irons out discord inherent in tactics and provides an argument for flexible response, especially when the purpose requires wider community involvement.  Observing it subjectively, the volitional process within a sociological framework (following chapter) enhances or creates dynamics which impact on the life of every individual within the community and by deduction will mean the whole community.  For example in considering the dynamics of birth and death, the confirmation of this manifest itself when contrasting and harmonising pictures of cultural reflections: either individuals or the community will portray similar convictions of the phenomena within their culture.  That is the individual as a culture of human cells and the community as a culture of human beings, can eventually all come into being or die as a single body although they represent a collective nature in one form or another.


From this, culture could be surmised as, over time, individualities in responding to common stimuli in a cohesive way, empower trends/patterns of behaviour (socialised values).  In other words culture juxtaposes with the uniqueness of individuality, providing comparative parallels in predetermined objectives for singularity, within the volitional process.  Therefore sustainable communities or bodies, by definition, will be capable by themselves of utilising the human volitional process and simultaneously would be concordant with a wider volitional process, all enjoying the same convictions inherent in the individual.  The correlation of these convictions also observe the same inherency and in conjunction with the external environment, predetermines limits (including time) of cohesion and durability.  This framework will legitimise distortions whether artificial or otherwise, regardless of severity and will either return tangential projections (loose cannons) and their reverberations to a harmonious process consistent with relative sustainability or perish.


Empowerment is only one of these cultural convictions in its functionality and unless it reflects a consensual sociological framework, it becomes a devolutionary and marginalising concept.  To be sure any value that is construed as being empowering must not only be viewed by the individual as being so but also by the community of which that individual is a part and vice versa.  This hypothesis then will not only have important implications for social policy in general but also will afford a more adequate methodology for examining dynamics in social relationships.  In particular any methodology researching the human condition should incorporate in its design, a rationale marrying the ethos of researchers to that of all subscribers.  The ethics of anthropological investigation is such that unless the data gathered meets with mutual trust and approval by all players involved, the quality, the interpretations and even the quantity will suffer.  Therefore validation should be subject to and examined for transparency in intentions and expectations of all participants, in order to reduce this risk.


As explained, the individual's purpose in decision making is tied up in many autonomic evaluations.  When the evaluation is assessing data gathered from partners in a mutual relationship, the reasoning and interpretations of players involved will be closely aligned even though it is possible that they serve different moral subjectivity.  For example the appearance that people have similar ambitions is not evidence that they have similar intentions or expectations, it is possible that similarity may be due to environmental or even clandestine influences.  To illustrate this hypothesis, the event being considered is the triangular slave trade where Africans and Europeans were the main protagonist in a new competitive environment: plantation slavery in the Americas.


The institutions that have arisen and are continuing to prosper in addressing the purpose of both groups existence in this environment, reflect differential values they both adhere to, in responding to the demands of a volitional process that entwines them.  The emerging culture (including the remnants of the indigenous population), one could argue, represents an assimilation or integration of both their appraisals for addressing and interpreting risk.  The moral basis for this impetus however, comprises two diametrically opposite sets of values, one being servant and the other being master - a moral dichotomy if any.


In fulfilling the demands of justice and the volitional process, some characteristics of each appraisal will be frustrated while others will be incorporated, as being beneficial for addressing pre-eminent tensions created in formulating new survival strategies.  It is much to early to envisage the path this evolution will take, especially as there are no clear mutually agreed analysis of redeeming features (features they both trust as mutually beneficial and not detrimental to either) available.  However the search for the resolution of this moral dichotomy is evident but it is this that attracts the event and its consequences as an ideal opportunity for studying the human condition. 


More important though is distinguishing whether DoS owe their relative social status to, solely the dynamics of this event, the result of 'normal' competitive performance or maybe even some combination of both.  In any case following is a sociological framework (the family) which has withstood the test of time and does not preclude or exclude any cultural groupings.  It is being examined in the next section for consistency in relation to the expose in this framework.