Більченко, Є. (E. Bilchenko) (2015) Співвідношення цінностей свободи, нації і традиції у міфологічній тріаді «Захід – Майдан – Росія» як простір моделювання сучасної української ідентичності (The Ratio of the Values of Freedom, Nation and Tradition in the Mythological Triad of «West – Maidan – Russia» as a Space of Formation of Contemporary Ukrainian Identity). Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія «Філософія» (Вип.17). pp. 34-41.
Preview |
PDF
- Published Version
Download (288kB) | Preview |
Анотація
Стаття присвячена філософсько-культурологічному аналізу феномена українського Майдану як символічної події, що утворює навколо себе відповідний семантичний простір. Автор дослідження на основі компаративного аналізу двох моделей ідентичності Майдану (ліберальної та етноцентричної) доводить внутрішню суперечність між діалогічною настановою на легітимність Іншого та патріотичною настановою на національне самовизначення як головний парадокс сучасної української ідентичності. У роботі показано співвідношення ліберального і національного Майдану як травматичного суспільства «страждання» із суспільствами «радості»: традиціоналістським (Росія) та мультикультуралістським (Захід).
(Article is devoted to the philosophical and culturological analysis of the phenomenon of Ukrainian Maidan as a symbolic
event, which is formed around the corresponding semantic space. Author of the study on the basis of comparative
analysis of the two models of identical Maidan (liberal and ethnocentric ones) proves the inherent contradiction between
the dialogical setting on the legitimacy of the Other and the installation of patriotic national self-determination as the main paradox of contemporary Ukrainian identity. The paper shows the ratio of the Liberal and National Maidans as
traumatic society of «suffering» with the sociaties of «joy»: traditionalist one (Russia) and multicultural one (the West).
The proposed exploration under the given hypotheses was the classification of three mythological topos: West,
Maidan and Russia. For each of them are singled out the dominant values of triad: Western «freedom» (liberalism)
Maidan’s «nation» (ethnocentrism) and Russian «tradition» (conservatism). We try to describe each of these semantic
spaces in their paradoxes.
The West – is a Freedom, justified by Tradition. The event provides a synthesis of modern ideas of transcendentalism
consecrated classical rational space (tradition) and postmodern liberal mood chaotic of heterogeneity. The main
myth of the West – the legitimacy of the Other, inscribed in the rational and historical trim and mutual benefit (teleology Greek, Roman idea of law, education idea and postmodern dialogic idea). West claims to be a democratic pluralist world under the laws of tolerance, where the main weakness – that democratic plurality – actually «Western» values and its spread in the world in the image of «universal» turns tragedy totality under the guise of diversity.
Maidan – is Freedom, declared by the Nation. Within the semantic topos of Maidan there are two conflicting
identification mythological models: the liberal (the idea of rights and freedoms of Another) and ethnocentric (ideas of
rights and freedoms of the nation). Their internal incompatibility under certain conditions provoked a crisis of Maidan environment and weakened the effectiveness of its dialogue with the opposition-minded locus of East, which gave rise to tragic civil consequences. The main Maidan mythes are: the existential selfness of Ego («I have a right!») and existential selfness of nation («Ukraine – above all!»)/ Maidan aims to create the perfect romantic world of anarchic protest sample, higher values which is a person outside the system and the government and nation outside of colonialism and imperialism. The main weakness – the gradual deepening contradictions between individual poetic myth of «rebellious man» (judicial and Christian image and the image of European Romantics) and collective tribal myth of «rebellious people» (Cossack folk image).
Russia – is a Nation, justified by Tradition. Russia in this field is a mythological alternative to the West and to the
Maidan at the same time, offering a third combination of values: the nation and tradition, embodied in the imperial
myth and archetype Orbis Terrarum («Moscow – Third Rome»). If nationalism is ethnic Maidan shape (isolationism, folk naive, educational romanticism, voluntarism), Russian nationalism is a state forming (chauvinism, colonialism, imperialism). The main myth of Russia is an exclusivity of the Russian people, called to carry out mediation in the unification of peoples in the world by «international» (similar universal) state orthodox Soviet-type senses. In this global «family» should be «brotherly» (that is stylized in a familiar archetype of provincialism) Ukraine (Byzantine tsezaropapizm, Orthodox messianism, Soviet archetypes of «friendship» and «brotherhood»).
Trying to find common denominators in relations berween Ukrain, the West and Russia we understand, that it will
be really if mass culture as a mechanism of information war can open mythological meanings that have served as the Third (common ones) in dialogs of these confrontation spaces. To do this with all the mythological fields need to find
the dominant «in tune» sense and limit others («traumatic») meaning that hinder cooperation.
Toward the West through dialogue actually establish a liberal sense of Maidan – the idea of people’s right to determine its own traditions, which provides (and limits) democracy. Ethnic meaning that undergoes conscious limitation – concentrate radical liberal. The obstacle to dialogue here – the inability of the West to understand aborted institutes legal protection in Ukrainian society that gives rise to radicalism and inability of Ukraine in general and in particular to
develop a positive perception of the experience of the law as an institution no pressure, and as an institution of protection,
From the Russian mythological field this interaction is more difficult to carry out, because if the West and Maidan are
connected by value of freedom, Russia and Ukraine have a common sense of nation, each protecting their own interests.
Dialogue is possible or, through targeting nechyselni Russian liberal circles of «anti-Soviet» setting (which has reduced
less) or, through projection values of one nation to another («you protect your people, so donating our right to act
similarly»). The obstacle to dialogue here – is strongly developed imperialist Soviet meta-narrative of «cradle», based
on three key myths associated with mimicry (stylized under one another) – ethnic, social class and religious, national
mimicry under pressure «international» good (the rhetoric of «friendship» and «brotherhood»); mimicry lack of freedom
in the presence of «well-being» (the rhetoric of «happiness» in the «common house» where the free word «against» is
not necessary because of stability of «social package»); mimicry ща messianism in dialogical «openness» (Russia – шы
selected country that tends to imperialist forms of life, because she was «chosen» to unite people in the total «kingdom».)
| Тип файлу: | Стаття |
|---|---|
| Ключові слова: | Свобода, нація, традиція, ідентичність, семантичний топос, лібералізм, етноцентризм, консерватизм (Freedom, nation, tradition, identity, semantic topos, liberalism, ethnocentrism, conservatism) |
| Теми: | За напрямами > Філософія |
| Підрозділи: | UNSPECIFIED |
| Розмістив/ла: | Галина Цеп'юк |
| Дата розміщення: | 27 Лип 2015 14:22 |
| Остання зміна: | 27 Лип 2015 14:22 |
| URI: | https://eprints.oa.edu.ua/id/eprint/3881 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Переглянути елемент |