DISCURSIVE ETHICAL PRACTICES DISCERNMENT ON THE ROAD TO
CIVIL
SOCIETY IN UKRAINE
Lviv, Ukraine
Civil Society perspective in contemporary Ukraine is very often discussed
This relates to the need of undermining the roots of corruption and
strengthening the developing of
democracy and rising the social
standard level of the people. But many from
the opposition conceder that since Ukraine has regained its political
independence a steps into civil society direction didn’t have the positive
effect. Wherein lies the
difficulty?
1.
There are several interpretations of civil society. They are more intimately to
political scientists, sociologists and law scholars. Civil society nature is
considered as an apart-determined division, space, or dimension of social
association.
I would like to take a look at civil society as a semiotic phenomenon. It
has (according to the works of G. McLean) three inseparable parts related to
subjectivity or human involving in social life. It is about: a) arche or origin
of action, or freedom as the properly human exercise of life and being; b) the
pattern of values and virtues as constituted in cultural traditions which gives
forms to freedom; c) civil society as the structure of relations between people
and social institutions. On the whole, civil society is constituted as a process
of semiosis in which generation and refutation of signs, significations and
symbolization take place involving language-speech communication as well as – discursive ethical
practices.
2. In this paper discourse means the assembly of signs, significances,
symbols, objects, codes which are
organized in verbal, lingual, musicals, narrative texts through speech and
communication. Discourse serves as the base for choice, selection and lending
priority of one-category significances
instead of another. Discourse is active through community, social group, social
and cultural traditions. Discourse works as a semiotic act which appear in
events, affairs, actions that outline signs, symbolic and object framework of
Actuality and its human perception.
3. We can distinguish between Reality and Actuality.
If former is the independent on human as an assembly of physical things,
the later is dependent on human perception and experience.
Actuality is coming into being in a sense of putting into practice of
human intentions and comes true as
discourse of action (Paul Ricouer) or in other words, as ethical norms and
values (or Sittlichkeit) that are stipulated with semiotic terms.
4. Because human life
is taking place in common space of freedom and necessity or
under compulsion, there are reasons for discerning at least two discursive
actions with ethical patterns,
arise around contradictory directed social relations. Some are so called
horizontal and others are vertical and hierarchical relationship. It is possible
that the value of human existence converts into the means for achieving another ethical action purpose.
Actuality consists of at least two-dimensional discursive ethical
practices. The Idea which is closer to the above we can find in Aristotle
(master-slave relations); in J. Locke (mutual submission – dignity
recognition); in A. Ferguson (as diverse standards of behavior) in Hegel (as
Sittlichkeit and Antisittlichkeit); in A. de Tocquille (as traditional and
public activity and nonpublic, concealed activity); in R. Putnam (as horizontal,
fear and trust relations and vertical hidden relations) and in others.
5. Discursive actions or ethical practices
are realized by placing the accent around laying stress on signs and
significations in relation to: a) freedom, free will, benevolence, voluntarily
and self-identifying actions and b) coercion, compulsion, necessity, subjection,
submission, subordination and patron-client relationship. Not all semiotic
stipulated discourses and correlated ethical practices carry out intentions of
increasing freedom and the dignity of human beings. There are ethical and
cultural traditions that serve the benefit of submission or advantage.
6. In Ukrainian history two contradiction in discourse-ethical practices
and social-cultural traditions came into being: a) freedom and dignity of human
being and also b) paternalism – cliental relations.
Social tradition and ethical intentions within the frame of discourse of
freedom and dignity, which can be identical with values of civil society and
democracy, almost completely effect the Ukrainian-cultural Actuality (Lebenswelt).
Ethical tradition which expresses paternalism
– cliental pattern as opposed to freedom and democracy and corresponding to
its discursive practice have been historically identical with non-Ukrainian in
language and cultural political
institutions, identified by indifference and often hostility to Ukrainian
cultural Actuality.
Two marked ethical traditions were composed in the Actuality of social
and political history, and not brought into it by force.
7. Hence, the developing of Civil Society in Ukraine can be a desirable
option in the case of identification of its perspective with the discourse of
freedom and corresponding ethical tradition. This is historically related to the
maintaining of Ukrainian socio-cultural patterns of the Lebenswelt. Rhetoric
about Civil Society on the base of indifference to discursive-ethical freedom
practices – that is also possible on a dominant political regime ground –
involves the spreading of
non-Ukrainian cultural Actuality and this inevitably will lead to the widening
of the semiosis of paternalism-cliental ethics pattern. This kind of Civil
Society will stop only on the middle of the road to democracy and the primacy of
human rights.