When we think about freedom, we frequently think of large slogans and declarations. Meanwhile, our actual independency takes place in micro-decisions. The results of the social survey "Freedom and Uncertainty" which we carried out under the 13th Irresponsibility Conference under the substantive supervision of Prof. Tomasz Sobierajski show what it looks like today. The report's partner is ANG liable Finance.
Prof. Tomasz Sobierajski (Department of Artes Liberales, University of Warsaw) who during this year's Conference on Freedom He summarized the results of the study, in the introduction to the study “Freedom and Uncertainty” points to a fundamental paradox: Freedom is 1 of those concepts that seems completely apparent to us until we truly effort to realize and specify them. Although we usage it in everyday language without hesitation, this word hides highly subjective experiences – from unfettered choices, by deficiency of limitations, to peace, safety and life on its own terms. What's more, our notions of freedom are not created in vacuum; they are shaped by the process of socialization and the environment in which we live.
Watch the speech of prof. Tomasz Sobierajski at the 13th Irresponsible Conference summarising the most crucial conclusions of the study on Freedom and Uncertainty.
For this reason, direct questions like “Do you feel free?” usually give answers that are just a wishful declaration alternatively than a description of the real state of affairs. Therefore, we decided to look at freedom indirectly – by analysing circumstantial behaviours and everyday practices of Poles and Poles in 4 key dimensions: causities,posting decisions, functioning in the planet of information and freedom of expression.
Freedom as Perpetual
The conclusions of the first investigation block show that our decision-making is much more frequently associated with hesitation and uncertainty than with full conviction.
Although we realize the motives of our regular choices, our assurance falls in situations requiring hazard taking. Only 35.3% of those surveyed are willing to make crucial hazard decisions. In turn, as many as 56.5% of people are placed in a safe region of ambivalence.
In addition, nearly 1 in 5 Poles (18.7%) admit to postpone key decisions for fear of consequences.
The most powerful origin in the difference in perpetuity was age – it is younger people who experience much more uncertainty and external limitations, while older people show greater decision-making stability. For a sense of freedom in this area, it is crucial to be aware of having a real alternative, not the physical act of choice itself.
Freedom as delegation of decisions
In the planet of information overloading and expanding complexity of reality, posting decisions is not a sign of weakness, but a common strategy to deal with everyday life. We gladly hand over decisions to experts in situations that require expertise or experience.
Interestingly, Poles do not see expert advice as a failure of independence.
Freedom is realized here through the autonomous choice of who and to what degree we choose to trust. An crucial conclusion from this section is besides that for respondents, the most crucial point of mention and safety warrant are clear rules, unchangeable rules and procedures, which we frequently value much more than the trust placed in circumstantial people.
Freedom and the algorithm
This section of the study shows the tension between what we think of each another and how we truly behave online.
On the 1 hand, the respondents declare a very advanced level of digital autonomy – As many as 59.9% of us believe that they control what they are looking for on the Internet, rejecting algorithm suggestions. On the another hand, reality verifies these assurances. We admit that we regularly find unplanned content and spend much more time with it than originally assumed.
This phenomenon is clearly generational – It is the younger people who are most powerfully recommended by algorithms, although paradoxically, they are the ones who declare full control of their choices.. The impact of social media on what we think during the day straight confirms 15.9% of people, but the majority (53.2%) retains an ambivalent attitude.
Modern information freedom ceases to be based on access to cognition itself, and becomes art and freedom to manage its own attention and commitment.
Freedom of expression
The anticipation of unfettered saying what you truly think is simply a highly problematic and conditioned experience in today's realities. The study reveals a deep crack between the openness declared by Poles to the discussion and willingness to perceive to others and our actual behaviour in everyday relationships.
Our freedom of speech is subject to strict interior censorship and self-regulation processes.
Respondents admit that in many situations they consciously refrain from expressing their opinions. This is not due to external legal or political prohibitions, but due to a clean calculation of social risks.
We like to stay silent to defend valuable relationships, avoid criticism, rejection by a group or public embarrassment. Freedom of expression has so been integrated into the pragmatic process of managing what, erstwhile and who it pays to say.
Value Grading
This chapter shows what place freedom takes place against the background of another key life aspirations of Poles and Poles. It turns out that it is not an absolute or superior value for us – in the general hierarchy it is placed in the mediate of the bet.
At the top of the pyramid of values of the contemporary Pole, needs specified as safety and financial stableness prevail.
Only then do they appear Freedom, the comfort of life and Independence. Moving freedom to the background perfectly reflects how we experience it in practice – not as a theoretical absolute, but as an component of everyday life which we must constantly weigh, negociate and reconcile with the request for stableness and protection from the uncertainty of tomorrow.
Freedom
When we asked respondents about their subjective sense of individual freedom, more than half responded positively, declaring that they had the feeling that they could live as they wanted. This shows that freedom as a general thought and identity category is inactive highly crucial to us and present in social awareness.
But erstwhile we go deeper and look at the circumstantial areas of life described above, this coherent image is rapidly expanding. It turns out that a advanced declarative sense of freedom in 1 area very frequently coexists with a deep sense of entanglement, dependence and limitations in another.
Freedom in the eyes of Poles has ceased to be a permanent state, and has become an area requiring continuous work, our commitment.
What is freedom for us?
The final conclusions of the “Freedom and Uncertainty” study force deep reflection on the condition of modern society.
Freedom in Poland in 2026 is an experience of incomplete, dispersed and full of interior contradictions.
We make decisions under conditions of permanent uncertainty, we choose information in the digital environment that these elections are brutally co-created, and we form opinions that we frequently like not to talk out of fear of evaluation.
What is highly crucial from a sociological point of view, the most crucial dividing line in the endurance of autonomy does not go across gender, educational level or size of residence. This age and generational affiliation are a key origin in differentiation. It is the generations of Poles who compose completely different stories about what freedom is for them today, how they feel controlled and how advanced costs they are able to bear in order to preserve the remains of their independence.
Methodological note
The survey was conducted on a typical example of 1,000 adults of Poles and Poles, utilizing the CAWI method (web survey). Respondents responded to prepared situational claims on a seven-step scale (where 1 meant definite deficiency of consent and 7 definitely advanced consent). For the final analysis of the response, 3 categories were grouped: low approval (1–2), ambivalent attitude/area of fluctuations (3–5) and advanced consent (6–7). In order to destruct the alleged social expectations effect, direct questions about freedom were completely avoided, and the order in which claims were displayed was randomised. Data were analysed at general level and based on demographic variables: age, gender, education and locality.
We thank ANG liable Finance S.A. for supporting the report.
