The ethnic principle as the basis of civil politics

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The ethnic principle as the basis of civil politics

Storozhuk SvitlanaVolodymyrivna,

Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy),

Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy National University of

Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine

GOYAN IhorMykolaiovych,

Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy), Professor,

Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy

Vasyl Stefanik Precarpathian National University,

Abstract

СТОРОЖУК Світлана Володимирівна,

докторфілософськихнаук, доцент, доценткафедрифілософіїНаціональногоуніверситетубіоресурсівіприродокористуванняУкраїни

ГОЯН Ігор Миколайович,

докторфілософськихнаук, професор, деканфілософськогофакультетуПрикарпатськогонаціональногоуніверситетуіменіВасиляСтефаника ethnicity civil policy socio cultural

Етнічний принцип як основа громадянської політики

У статті обґрунтовується думка про те, що в сучасних соціокультурних умовах буття українського народу та держави без переосмислення змістовного навантаження поняття «етнічна група», «етнос» та «етнічність», етнічний принцип не можна використовувати у сфері громадянської політики. Адже, будучи сформованими на тлі субстанційних підходів до проблеми націєтворення, згадані концепти можуть трансформуватиеь у засоби дезінтеграції, а не консолідації українського суспільства. Однак, в умовах переосмислення змісту поняття «етнічність», яка буде розглядатися як солідаризована група населення певної території, що об 'єднується заради досягнення спільних інтересів, маємо всі підстави отримати дієвий чинник для національної консолідації.

Formulation of the problem

Formation of Ukraine as an independent European state is accompanied by a permanent political and economic crises, solution of which has been greatly complicated with the military conflict which, according to officials of the state, was caused by external aggression. In general, recognizing the correctness of assessment of the political situation in the southern regions of Ukraine, would like to draw attention to causes of considerable support of Russian policy in Ukraine by part of the Ukrainian population. The latter in our opinion is caused with unresolved issue of national self-determination and with the consolidation of the population accordingly. Indeed, despite the very difficult political situation in the country political slogans «Ukraine for the Ukrainians» are constantly being developed. Moreover, the latter exist without a developed in details and popularized among the general Ukrainian population concept «Ukrainians». Furthermore, using theoretical and methodological principles of widely popularized in Ukraine thinkers of the Х1Х- beginning of ХХcentury (M. Kostomarov, V. Antonovich, P. Kulish, M. Hrushevskiy, D. Dontsov and others), representatives of Ukrainian ethnos are often considered to be the Ukrainian people, which results in exclusion large part of the «non-Ukrainian» population from the community.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, we have all basis to believe that no less important than external aggression, caused with the disintegration of modern Ukrainian society is the lack of an effective mechanism of national consolidation. In particular, various political forces use concepts inherent to the national intellectual discourse of the nineteenth century in order to achieve their own political targets without considering those essential differences that separate not only these two stages in the development of the Ukrainian nation, but also a substantial load of those ideas which can contribute to consolidation of population in different historical periods. Therefore, while ethnically homogeneous population of Ukraine in the nineteenth century could be guided by the slogan «Ukraine for Ukrainians» without the generation of internal destruction, in the end of XX - XXI century Ukraine becomes poly-ethnic state, and therefore the term «Ukrainians» requires substantial specification. Because main topic is that Ukrainians primarily are representatives of Ukrainian titular ethnic group, then accordingly, a significant part of Ukrainian population finds itself beyond the nation-creation process. In our opinion this contradiction is caused with the originality of modern Ukrainian political consciousness within which there is no clear distinction between the concepts of «ethnicity» («ethnicity») and «nation», as result the possibility of formation appropriate to modern world requirements and to level of social and cultural life of society mechanism of consolidation and formation of principles for the development of civil society is becoming more complicated.

Analysis of the recent research and publications

The problem of national selfdetermination has repeatedly appeared in the national intellectual discourse. The works not only of theorists of Ukrainian national movement, namely O. Bochkovsky, Yu.Bachinskiy, D. Dontsov, M. Dragomanov, T. Zinkivskiy, M. Kostomarov, I. Lysiak-Rudnytsky, V. Lipinskiy, O. Potebnya, L. Rebet, V. Starosolskiy, I. Franko and so on, but also of modern theorists such as A. Vlasyuk, Yu. Rymarenko, W. Lisoviy, M. Stepyko, V. Krysachenko, S. Storozhuk etc. are worth mentioning in this context. The important theoretical and methodological role in the study played the works of such the leading European researchers of nation as K. Wolf, E. Smith, F. Mayneke, R. Brubeyker, P. van den Berg, E. Shylz, C. Geertz, J. Fishman, B. Connor and so on.

Purpose.The aim of the research is to outline the theoretical prospects of use of ethnic principle in the process of modern Ukrainian state formation.

Presenting the main material

It should be noted that the conceptual incertitude of «ethnos» and «nation» is characteristic not only for Ukrainian outlook, because in the world intellectual thought there are two defining trends regarding this issue. On the one hand, these concepts are identified which can be clearly tracked in the works of P. van den Berg, E. Shylz, C. Geertz, J. Fishman, B. Connor, and on the other hand, quite often researchers justify their principal incompatibility. For instance, L. Snyder in the magazine «Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism» denounced the «constant mess of nationalism and ethnicity» and suggested that «ethnic» has always concerned «race» [1, s. 244]. Therefore, according to scientists, researchers of nations and nationalism should avoid the term «ethnic group» because nationalism should remain term for designation of political and cultural signs - as opposed to «race», which includes inherited biological trait. L. Snyder categorically states that «ethnos and nation have no common ground» [1, s. 244].

Certainly, in the range of aspects (historical, political) it is possible to agree with D. Snyder as for substantial differences of concepts «ethnos» and «nation», but his conclusions are too categorical in particular, it concerns the nature of biological aspects of ethnos and problems of its nature-creation meaning. Therefore E. Smith fairly notices at has work «Ethnic origin of nations» for recent years more and more ethnicities outside Western Europe started to struggle for status of nation began to enter the arena of politics and led the fight for the creation or revival of their own countries» [2, s.139]. In his turn, K. Wolfe goes even further. He is convinced that the outbreak of ethnic movements is typical for countries of Western Europe as well. «Since the 70s of this century [the last century. - S. S., I. G.], - the philosopher writes, - scientists who dared to impartial consideration of the modern nationalist movements among the Welsh, Bretons, Basques, Flemings, Valloniyans and Catalans in Western Europe with purpose to describe unexpected disturbances in environment of these people started using such terms as «ethno-nationalism» and «ethno- religionalism» [1].

In his turn, E. Smith, analyzing the causes of ethnic outbreaks of second half of the XX century, makes such a conclusion: «in order to survive, ethnicity should gain some attributes of nation» [2, s. 139]. According to scientist's opinion, all ethnicities, regardless of their size, level of economic development, natural resources etc do this way.

The trend determined by E. Smith and K. Wulff is inherent not only to the end of the XX century; similar processes could be observed in the second half of the XIX century, when the wave of nationalist movements spread across Eastern Europe and shook the stability of large monarchical states - the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empire. National movements within these public entities were significantly different from those observed in Western Europe countries, including Britain, France or the United States. Nationalism Eastern Europe countries was closely associated with the cult of ethnicity, formed against the backdrop of ethnic culture. Moreover, the latter within the national intellectual discourse, often seen as a substantial basis (which appears as the spiritual and material culture) against which occurs awareness of the unity of a particular group

- ethnic group. Actually this approach is dominant in the domestic intellectual thought and it itself causes destructive processes.

While substantionalists focus their attention mainly on the study of those historical events and phenomena that contribute to the formation of ethnic consciousness idea of a social group, constructivists defend the opposite position: «not cultural uniformity, - writes S. Sokolowski, - generates ethnos... but the very existence of this community may generate a certain level of cultural homogeneity» [3, s. 15]. «Ethnos is intangible, and suggested that between it and ethnos there is the same relationship as that between a rose and its name means reification of ethnic reality» [3, s. 15]. In other words, by S. Sokolowski determining factor of ethnic integrity is the belief that there is the result of deliberate and purposeful action of political or cultural elite aimed at developing a sense of group (ethnic) identity.

In unison with the Russian constructivist thoughts is found in the book «Ethnicity without groups» by famous American sociologist R. Brubeyker. In this work, the scientist seeks to show that ethnicity is manifested not only through the group as a category, schemes, identities, institutions, organizations, relationships and action [4]. To justify their own position, he cites the example of national revival in Eastern Europe (in this respect, it is about the nations of post-Soviet space). Last, notices the researcher often «explains the strong and deep-rooted national identities; identities are so strong and deeply routed with that they can survive decades of ruthless repression antinational communist regimes» [4].

Criticism of anti-national character of the USSR by R. Brubeyker, in our opinion, does not require additional comments. No doubt that exactly this regime not only recognized or ratified available, but also formed the basis for new identities. In particular, it «has divided Soviet territory for more than fifty supposedly autonomous national» homelands, «each of which» belonged to «a particular ethno-national group and granted every citizen with an ethnic «nationality», which was attributed at birth on the basis of origin» [4]. Actually established by Soviet authority ethnic policy and its consequences, according to R. Brubeyker is a strong argument against the idea of eternity of national (ethnic) identity, and therefore interpretations of ethnicity as substantial foundation of the nation's ground.

It should be noted that thoughts are unison to remarks of R. Brubeyker are found in works of Ukrainian historians of conservative school. In particular, W. Lipinski, analyzing the socio-cultural and political situation in Ukraine in the early XX century concluded that at this time Ukrainian failed to set their own independent state due to the fact that there was no created the only whole national culture and: in the bosom of the nation there were three of them. «Nation, - says scientist,

- with three souls - is absurd, it is negation of the concept of the nation that actually means one cultural and spiritual community» [5, s. 47].

Despite the fact that conclusions of V. Lypynskiy as for Ukrainian ethno-cultural unity in the early XX century were greatly exaggerated, though the appeal of researcher attracts attention to question about necessity for creating the only ethnic culture on clearly defined territorial space. In fact, in works of V. Lypynskiy, it is said about necessity of construction of ethnic and national identity on the territory of contemporary Ukraine. It should be noted that the carrier for ethnic identity is cultural elite, which produces clear for most part of the people cultural values.

In general, being align with the opinion of the researcher about artificial, created character of ethnicity, though I would like to point out that in the early XX century Ukrainians' ethnic identity, though not fully, and has already been formed. In particular, the Ukrainian cultural elite during the XIX century formed Ukrainian literary language which in its turn favored to formation of closed communication community; In addition, at the turn of the XIX - XX centuries appeared national literature which not only provided spiritual needs of all segments of the population, but also was an effective means of implementation in the public consciousness the myth of the common origin and preservation of historical memory. In other words, there are all reasons to consider that during the XIX century Ukrainian elite has managed to construct ethnic culture, which was shared and understood by all segments of Ukrainian population. In its turn, further crystallization and preservation of ethnic identity, its politicization and transformation into the nation happened due to the formation of the Ukrainian SSR [6, s. 458]. One could say that it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which became the basis of full-fledged Ukrainian nation that emerged as a result of the politicization constructed in the previous period of Ukrainians' ethnic identity.

Comments made by us give reasons to agree with R. Brubeyker's idea that ethnicity - is not only the basis of identification as a means of categorizing groups, which initially was used by Soviet authorities for approval of the federal principle. Subsequently, however, the policy of Russification and migration, led to blurring of ethnic boundaries of Ukrainians. As a result, we have all reasons to recognize the legitimacy of the conclusions of R. Brubeyker that formalization, institutionalization and codification of ethnic and national categories does not guarantee that such categories differ in depth, receive feedback or find strength in live experience of people who defy to categorization. Actually exactly with this problem Ukrainian society faced in the beginning of XXI century when under the influence of ideological propaganda neighboring countries the old ideal of Ukrainian ethnic identity considerably shake. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the stated circumstance is outlined out of futility of identity politics in general, because the desire to «convince people that they are the only; they constitute a limited, special, solidary group; that their internal differences do not matter, at least for this specific purpose - this constitutes a normal and necessary part of politics in general, not just the so-called «identity politics» [4]. Vise-verse, it is that the construction of identities, including ethnic - has to appear as a continuous process of formation of cultural unity community that aims to achieve a certain goal. Consolidation of the community, can occur only when identity politics will completely exclude inherent for social and political practices of the XIX century intention to create alliances between restricted groups with a common identity.

Despite the constructed nature of ethnic identity, it has remained for two centuries already the core policy of Citizenship and determines whether it is possible or not or not to consolidate the groups. Thus, the high level of consolidation in Western society is first of all due to features aimed at maximizing the rights and freedoms of all ethnic groups in the civil policy of Western nations. In its turn, in countries of the former Soviet Union such political practice is only a formality, which in its turn negates any attempt to build a political nation. This according to R. Brubeyker is due to the fact that in these countries policies in the sphere citizenship is not just identity politics, as it can be seen on example in Germany, but «policy of establishing certain interests» [7, s. 315].

Conclusions

In present social and cultural conditions of existence of Ukrainian people and the state, without rethinking of substantial load the term «ethnic group», «ethnos» and «ethnic principle» cannot be used in civil politics. After being formed against the background of substantial approaches mentioned concepts can be transformed into means of disintegration but not consolidation of Ukrainian society. However, in terms of rethinking the meaning of «ethnicity», which will be considered as a whole group of people of certain territory that is combined in order to achieve common interests, we have all reasons to get an effective factor for national consolidation.

References (in language original)

1. Вулф К. Етнічний націоналізм: аналіз і захист / К. Вулф // Націоналізм: [антологія / упоряд.О. Проценко,

B. Лісовий; літ.ред. Л. Білик]. - [2-ге вид. перероб. і доп.] - К.: Смолоскип, 2000. - C. 244-252.

2. Основи етнодержавознавства / [Ю. І. Римаренко, О. Антонюк, І. Варзар та ін.]; ред. Ю. І. Римаренко. - К.: Либідь, 1997. - 656 с.

3. Соколовский С. В. Этничность как память: парадигмы этнологического знания / С. Соколовский // Этнокогнитология. Подходы к изучению этнической идентификации. - М.: Рос. НИИ культурного и природного наследия, 1994. - Вып. 1. - C. 9-36.

4. Брубейкер Р. Этничность без групп [Электронный ресурс] / Р. Брубейкер; [пер. с англ. И. Борисовой]. -

М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2012. - 408 с. - Режим доступа:

http://yanko.lib.rU/books/cultur/brubaker_rogers_ethmcity_without_groups_2004ru_2012_408s_sl.htm#_Toc34589 6795

5. Липинський В. Листи до братів - хліборобів: про ідею і організацію українського монархізму [писані 19191926 р.] / В'ячеславЛипинський. - Видано фотодруком у 1955 році без жодних змін - накладом Видавництва Булава в Нью Йорку. - 580 с.

6. Лисяк-Рудницький І. Радянська Україна з історичної перспективи / І. Лисяк-Рудницький // Лисяк- Рудницький І. Історичні есе: в 2 т / [пер. з англ. У. Гавришків, Я. Грицака].- Т. 2.- К.: Основи, 1994. -

C. 457-469.

7. Брубейкер Р. Громадянська та етнічна нації у Франції та Німеччині / Р. Брубейкер // Націоналізм: [антологія / упоряд. О. Проценко, В. Лісовий; літ. ред. Л. Білик]. - [2-ге вид.перероб. і доп.] - К.: Смолоскип, 2000. - C. 311-316.

8. Сторожук С. В. Нація: історія і теорія проблеми (історико-філософський вимір) / С. Сторожук. - К.: Вадекс, 2013. - 319 с.

References

1. Vulf, K. (2000). Etnic nationalism: analysis and defense. Natsionalizm, 244-252. - Kyiv, Smoloskyp (in Ukr.)

2. Basics of ethnic and state studies (1997). In Iu. I. Rymarenko (Ed.). - Kyiv: Lybid (in Ukr.)

3. Sokolovsky, S. V. (1994). Ethnicity as a memory: paradigm of ethnological knowledge. Ethnokognitologia. Podhody k izucheniyuethnicheskoiidentifikacii (Ethnic cognitology. Approaches in studying ethnic identification), 1, 9-36 (in Russ.)

4. Brubeyker, R. (2012). Ethnicity without groups. - Moscow: Publishing House of Higher School of Economics, 2012. Retrieved from http://yanko.lib.ru/books/cultur/brubaker_rogers_ethnicity_without_groups_2004_ru_ 2012_408s_sl.htm#_Toc345896795 (in Rus.)

5. Lypynskyi, V. (1955). Letters to the brothers-farmers: the idea and organization of Ukrainian monarchism. New York (in Ukr.)

6. Lysiak-Rudnytskyi, I. (1994). Soviet Ukraine in historical perspective. Istorychniese (Historical essays), 2, 457469. - Kyiv, Osnovy (in Ukr.)

7. Brubeiker, R. (2000). Qvic and ethnic nations in France and Germany. Nationalism, 311-316. - Kyiv, Smoloskyp (in Ukr.)

8. Storozhuk, S. V. (2013). Nation: history and theory of the problem (historical and philosophical demantion). - Kyiv: Vadeks (in Ukr.)