Davydov A.P. Between S. Freud and A. Maslow: Barriers and Conditions for the Development of Social Dialogue. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2025;68(3):133-159. (In Russ.) https: ...

Òåêñò ñòàòüè íà ñàéòå æóðíàëà URL: https://www.phisci.info/jour/article/view/3999/3633 (äàòà îáðàùåíèÿ 11.12.2025)

Abstract

The article discusses the nature of social dialogue by contrasting two fundamental and conflicting dimensions of human nature: archaic needs that impede dialogue and higher values that foster it. This antagonism is analyzed by juxtaposing two distinct methodological frameworks. First, Freudian psychoanalysis is employed to explore “lower needs” – such as survival, aggression, and submission to a leader – which cultivate a “mass individual” culture and obstruct dialogue through archaic mindsets like parochialism, syncretic thinking, eschatological anxiety, Manichaean thinking, world-renunciation, and the sacralization of power. Second, Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology provides a lens to investigate “higher needs” and values – including cooperation, respect, trust, and self-actualization – which form the intellectual bedrock of genuine social dialogue. These higher needs are interpreted as the basis of dialogical openness to the Other (M.M. Bakhtin, V.A. Lektorsky) and as the foundation of socio-individualism as an alternative to individual and collective egoism. Social dialogue is defined as the interaction among macro-social actors (the state, society, and the individual) that is grounded in higher values and functions simultaneously as both an object and an agent of governance. Several cases illustrate effective social dialogue: mediated implementation of national projects with the participation of local communities; the concept of “individual budget allocations” as a form of direct citizen involvement in state decision-making; and the volunteer movement as a model of state–society partnership that builds trust and shared responsibility. These examples show how practical mechanisms can translate abstract humanistic ideals into concrete policy and administrative choices. The article concludes that social dialogue, when rooted in higher values, transcends mere communication to become an independent “third subjectivity.” Emerging in the space between interacting parties (e.g., the state and society), it establishes a new common ground for collective action – irreducible to the interests of either original side – and serves as a mediating actor capable of bridging socio-cultural divides. Deliberate cultivation of such dialogical practices, the author contends, underwrites the humanistic evolution of society, enhances the quality of governance, and fosters the development of a substantive civil society.