Громадянське суспільство як чинник націотворення: ретроспектива і перспектива
Loading...
Date
2013
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ДВНЗ «Київський національний університет імені Вадима Гетьмана»
Abstract
У контексті розгляду громадянського суспільства як особливого способу комунікації доведено взаємозумовленість існування громадянського суспільства і правової держави, що формуються в умовах полісуб’єктного простору. Показано, що конститутивною характеристикою громадянського суспільства є репрезентація ним особливих (корпоративних) інтересів і відсутність претензій на представництво загального інтересу. Зроблено висновок, що громадянське суспільство як умова формування самочинності особи є фактором забезпечення її національної ідентичності.
In the context of consideration of a civil society as a special way of communication the author proves the existence of interdependence between a civil society and the lawabiding state, formed under conditions of poli-subject space. It is shown that the constitutive feature of civil society is a representation of thespecial (corporate) interests and the absence of claims to represent the general interest. It is concluded that the civil society as a condition of the formation of self-authorized person is a factor in ensuring its national identity.
Having critically considered the approaches of procedural understanding of communication formed by Ch. Taylor, J. Habermas, J. Coca, J. Keane, J. Cohen, A. Arato, the author proves that presence of a legalized and legitimized private interest is a precondition enabling the very phenomenon of a civil society.
Traditions of conceptualization of the problem of a civil society are considered. It is shown that they have one thing in common – the civil society confronts authoritative and political relationships, its structures have their own corporate (special) interest and do not claim to express the overall interest (to be political) or to offer the society in general any models of its organization. The border between the civil and political sphere is therefore the struggle for power, whatever civilized and democratic forms it might take. The civil society influences the authorities and controls them with a view to resolving its special interests; however it does not struggle for power.
The interdependence of existence of the civil society and the law-abiding state is revealed, which are formed under conditions of poly-subject space and grow from one communicative “root”, i.e. occurrence of a difference between the general – on one hand, and the special or single – on the other, and establishment of a correlation between them.
The same conditions are also required to form a nation: in absence of poly-subject communicative space, neither a mono-ethnic, nor a poly-ethnic community becomes a nation. In this context, differences between a nation and an ethnos are also considered. It is substantiated that an ethnic group is a bearer of cultural identity of a person, an original and self-sufficient entity, to which the person belongs by its cultural origin, irrespective of whether he or she is conscious of such provenance or not. Ethnicity is not to be chosen – it forms ethno-cultural features of a person by itself. Instead, national identity needs personal reflection.
It is concluded that the civil society as a condition of the formation of a self-authorized person is a factor in ensuring its national identity. The more a person is emancipated from the state paternalism, the more space he or she needs for self-realization, the more possible becomes the revival of the person‟s national self-awareness, conscious choice and acceptance of the values and patterns offered by the cultural environment as his or her own and native.
В контексте рассмотрения гражданского общества как особого способа коммуникации доказывается взаимообусловленность существования гражданского общества и правового государства, формирующихся в условиях полисубъектного пространства. Показано, что конститутивной характеристикой гражданского общества является репрезентация им особых (корпоративных) интересов и отсутствие претензий на представительство общего интереса. Сделан вывод, что гражданское общество как условие формирования самочинности личности является фактором обеспечения ее национальной идентичности.
In the context of consideration of a civil society as a special way of communication the author proves the existence of interdependence between a civil society and the lawabiding state, formed under conditions of poli-subject space. It is shown that the constitutive feature of civil society is a representation of thespecial (corporate) interests and the absence of claims to represent the general interest. It is concluded that the civil society as a condition of the formation of self-authorized person is a factor in ensuring its national identity.
Having critically considered the approaches of procedural understanding of communication formed by Ch. Taylor, J. Habermas, J. Coca, J. Keane, J. Cohen, A. Arato, the author proves that presence of a legalized and legitimized private interest is a precondition enabling the very phenomenon of a civil society.
Traditions of conceptualization of the problem of a civil society are considered. It is shown that they have one thing in common – the civil society confronts authoritative and political relationships, its structures have their own corporate (special) interest and do not claim to express the overall interest (to be political) or to offer the society in general any models of its organization. The border between the civil and political sphere is therefore the struggle for power, whatever civilized and democratic forms it might take. The civil society influences the authorities and controls them with a view to resolving its special interests; however it does not struggle for power.
The interdependence of existence of the civil society and the law-abiding state is revealed, which are formed under conditions of poly-subject space and grow from one communicative “root”, i.e. occurrence of a difference between the general – on one hand, and the special or single – on the other, and establishment of a correlation between them.
The same conditions are also required to form a nation: in absence of poly-subject communicative space, neither a mono-ethnic, nor a poly-ethnic community becomes a nation. In this context, differences between a nation and an ethnos are also considered. It is substantiated that an ethnic group is a bearer of cultural identity of a person, an original and self-sufficient entity, to which the person belongs by its cultural origin, irrespective of whether he or she is conscious of such provenance or not. Ethnicity is not to be chosen – it forms ethno-cultural features of a person by itself. Instead, national identity needs personal reflection.
It is concluded that the civil society as a condition of the formation of a self-authorized person is a factor in ensuring its national identity. The more a person is emancipated from the state paternalism, the more space he or she needs for self-realization, the more possible becomes the revival of the person‟s national self-awareness, conscious choice and acceptance of the values and patterns offered by the cultural environment as his or her own and native.
В контексте рассмотрения гражданского общества как особого способа коммуникации доказывается взаимообусловленность существования гражданского общества и правового государства, формирующихся в условиях полисубъектного пространства. Показано, что конститутивной характеристикой гражданского общества является репрезентация им особых (корпоративных) интересов и отсутствие претензий на представительство общего интереса. Сделан вывод, что гражданское общество как условие формирования самочинности личности является фактором обеспечения ее национальной идентичности.
Description
Keywords
громадянське суспільство, правова держава, етнос, нація, комунікація, civil society, law-abiding state, ethnic group, nation, communication, гражданское общество, правовое государство, этнос, нация, коммуникация
Citation
Метельова Т. O. Громадянське суспільство як чинник націотворення: ретроспектива і перспектива / Т. О. Метельова // Історико-політичні студії : зб. наук. пр. / М-во освіти і науки України, ДВНЗ "Київ. нац. екон. ун-т ім. Вадима Гетьмана", Ін-т історії укр. суспільства ; ред.кол.: І. Д. Дудко (голова) [та ін]. – Київ : КНЕУ, 2013. – № 1. – С. 121–130.