Following Van der Kolk and Alexander all preconditions for sociopsychological integration should be addressed together. It is both about a fulfillment of vital needs and a “reconciliation” (in the words of Alexander) of these needs. This is precondition #1.

Van der Kolk and Alexander’s bottom line is that if humans are in a situation in which their vital human needs are not met they adapt to the situation by means of antisocial behavior that restores the fulfilment of these vital needs, if only in a superficial way.

It is far from clear in which direction individuals will adapt. Alexander focuses on addiction. Van der Kolk focuses on depression. More relevant for OZO is resource mobilization theory (RMT). According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences RMT “focuses on the assets and capacities of aggrieved groups to explain the rise, development and outcome of social movements. Drawing on a rational choice approach, resources are defined broadly to include tangible resources, such as money and facilities, and intangible resources, such as the solidarities, cultural commitments, and identity networks of groups that facilitate their pooling of resources.”

OZO is designed for groups to mobilize their resources. But the last thing we would want is OZO to be instrumental in empowering organised antisocial groups. To avoid this, the concept of “aggrieved groups” is important. This is a reference to the relative deprivation theory that claims that a sense of relative deprivation by groups is essential in the coming into existence of social movements – far more than objective socio-economic indicators. While it is disputed that relative deprivation is sufficient for the birth of social movements, recent studies on conspiracy groups is returning to the concept as one of the main factors that is correlated with the coming into existence of these groups.[i] Another factor is belief in simple solutions.[ii] Since it is the subjective nature of relative deprivation that seems important that groups are not focused on being “aggrieved”. The communality of the group should not be on what separates individuals from ‘haves’ in society, if only to avoid (further) social stigmatisation and isolation as a result of distancing by out-group individuals.[iii] This is precondition #2.

[i] F.i. Siroky et al. (2020)

[ii] Van Prooijen (2016)

[iii] Bilewicz et al. (2019)