So, they will work for another for personal gain, for selfish reasons.

Effective forms and means of activity of national-cultural societies are characteristic of the work of other all-Ukrainian organizations of smaller ethnic groups, in particular, Czechs, Slovaks, Moldovans, Armenians, Gagauz, Georgians, Lithuanians.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that the strengthening of the activities of all-Ukrainian public associations of ethnic communities contributes to the general revival of public and cultural life of the entire Ukrainian people. After all, the spiritual achievements of each ethnic group enrich the culture of Ukraine, lay a solid foundation for interethnic harmony, intercultural interaction, cooperation and understanding.

At the same time, this process is affected by a number of negative phenomena. Including:

reduction of the cultural and potential level of ethnic communities due to the emigration of national intelligentsia abroad; the growth of crisis phenomena in the material and spiritual spheres, when uncertainty and environmental instability lead to the squandering of collectively created values, the devaluation of labor and its product; narrowing the scope of languages ​​of many nationalities.

The solution of the problem with the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, the creation of a system of education of Bulgarians and other large ethnic communities, as well as the low level of representation of different nationalities in the cultural and social life of Ukraine can be singled out.

literature

Troshchynsky V., Shevchenko A. Search for consent and peace in the family (conceptual principles of ethnopolitics) // Viche. – 1997. – № 10. – P. 31. Antonyuk O. Cultural and national societies // Small encyclopedia of ethnostate studies / NAS of Ukraine. Inst. Of State and Law. VM Koretsky; Resp. ed. Yu. I. Rymarenko. – Kyiv: Dovira: Genesis, 1996. – P. 527. Yevtukh V. Governmental and public organizations in the system of ethnopolitical management of Ukraine // Scientific notes / Collection. – Sir. “Political Science and Ethnology”. – K.: IPiEND, 2001. – Issue. 15. – P. 137-143; N. Ishunin. Ethnocultural revival of the Greeks of Ukraine: Kyiv Greek Society “Hellas” // Ethnic History of the Peoples of Europe. Coll. Science. wash. – K., 2000. –Vip. 4. – P. 80 – 83; Leonova AA Ethnocultural policy of Ukraine. – K.: IPK-PK, 1998. – 228 p.; Lozko GS Ethnology of Ukraine. Philosophical-theoretical and ethno-religious aspect. – K.: “ArtEk” 2001. – 304 p.; Naulko V., Kryvtsova V. Trends in the development of ethno-national processes: interethnic relations at the present stage // Problems of migration. – 2000. – No. 1. – P. 28 – 36; Rafalsky O. Processes of cultural self-organization of national minorities in Ukraine (problems and prospects) // Modernity. – 2001. – No. 3. – P. 145.Davyda S. Young Roma of Ukraine // Renaissance. – 2000. – No. 1. – P. 24; Yermolova V. Ukrainian Republican Society of Russian Culture “Rus” // Bulletin of the Ministry of Nationalities and Migration of Ukraine. – 1996. – No. 4. – P. 13; Levitas I. We do not feel like stepsons of Ukraine, we are its children (national minorities) // Golden Gate. – 1994. – No. 3. – P. 36 – 42; Svistunov A. Formation of the interethnic movement in Ukraine and tasks of its development // Information collection on interethnic problems. Special. output. Proceedings of the International Forum of Ukraine. – 2000. – No. 2. – P. 5 – 8; Feldman O. Combining efforts for interethnic peace, interethnic understanding. Articles, speeches, interviews / Association of National-Cultural Associations of Ukraine. – Kyiv, 2001 .– 40 pp. Antonyuk O. Cultural and national societies // Instruction. Labor. National-cultural societies of Ukraine // Information bulletin of the Ministry of Nationalities, Migration and Cults. – 1995. – No. 1. – P. 36, 39. Moskal Gennady. Interethnic means all-Ukrainian // Voice of Ukraine. – 2003. – January 17. Feldman O. We work first of all in those areas where there are common interests of national minorities // Ibid. – 2001. – March 27. Feldman O. Combining efforts for the sake of interethnic peace, interethnic understanding. – P. 3.Feldman O. Combination of efforts for the sake of interethnic peace, interethnic understanding. – P. 9.Feldman O. Combination of efforts for the sake of interethnic peace, interethnic understanding. – P. 3. Svistunov A. Instruction. labor. – P. 7. So how many of us all the same // Evening Nikolaev. – 2003. – January 11. Ganin A. Among the leaders – Odessa // Odessa Herald. – 1999. – June 5. Lozko GS Instruction. labor. – P. 240. National minorities of Ukraine in the twentieth century. (National-legal aspect) / MI Panchuk, VO Zonailovich and others: IF Kuras (ed.); IPiEND NAS of Ukraine, K., 2000. – P. 311. Lozko GS Instruction. labor. – P. 240. Ukrainians – who are we? // Evening Nikolaev. – 2003. – February 11. National minorities of Ukraine in the twentieth century. (national legal aspect). – P. 313. Pryakhin Yu. R. Implementing the concept of national cultural revival (on the work of the Greek society “Hellas”) // Renaissance. – 1994. – No. 3 – 4. – P. 6 – 7. Davida S. Vkaz. Savchenko A. The First Congress of Roma Communities in Ukraine // International Congress “Consent”. – 2002. – No. 3.

21.03.2011

The concept of “citizenship”: models of normative justification. Abstract

“Citizenship” is a somewhat clumsy term that we use today, can be considered one of the key to the concept of civil society, as it claims to cover all the qualities and capabilities inherent in the individuals that make up civil society – autonomy, reciprocity , ability to interact with others for common goals, the ability to subordinate private interests to the general, and so on

Scientists from various fields of knowledge consider the study of problems caused by the development of civil society in Ukraine to be relevant and devote a significant amount of research to them. However, unfortunately, little attention is paid to such an important theoretical aspect as the concept of civil society and, in particular, to the justification of the norms of “citizenship”. After all, it is important to explain why citizens in certain circumstances act “as citizens”. Meanwhile, in the works of recognized researchers of social relations of different times, you can find options for answers to this important question today.

Studying the works of the founders of the concept of civil society, in particular, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, D. Hume, we can see how they tried to find a common basis for the diversity of actions and interactions of people in society … Such attempts were continued by subsequent generations of scientists. But they not only described and explained civil actions, but also convinced people of their expediency and necessity.

The study of what options for explaining and justifying civic behavior, motives for participation in public affairs have been proposed by political scientists since the concept of civil society, is important given the current problems of its formation and effective functioning.

In recent years, the topic of citizenship has been partially explored in the works of A. Kolodiy [15] and V. Tsvikh [16], as well as in the publication of the author of these lines “Civil society and non-governmental organizations : basic characteristics and relationships “[17].

In this article, the author does not claim to be a broad analysis of the concept of “citizenship”. Its purpose – to explore what grounds for such an important phenomenon buy an comparison essay cheap now as “reciprocity” – a component of the concept of “citizenship” – were found in the process of developing the concept of civil society.

“Citizenship” is a somewhat clumsy term that we use today, can be considered one of the key to the concept of civil society, as it claims to cover all the qualities and capabilities inherent in individuals that make up civil society – autonomy, reciprocity, ability to interact with others for common goals, the ability to subordinate private interests to the general, and so on.

At the heart of citizenship, and hence civil society, we have certain norms that determine these qualities and abilities. However, their research is a matter of more than one deep exploration. We seek to define only one norm, which, however, occupies almost a prominent place to substantiate our idea of ​​citizenship.

From Confucius, who first formulated the rule of the “golden mean” (“Everyone should treat others as he wants to be treated”), and to Kant with his categorical imperative, philosophers considered this rule the basis of society, rational interaction people – that is, the basis of civil society. However, as noted by J. Locke, this is “the most unshakable moral rule and the basis of any social virtues” still “must be brought to the realization of a person who does not know it” [1, p. 117]. In other words, the “most unshakable” rule must be justified.

How do we want others to treat us in the first place? We want them to stick to their commitments, to be friendly, to work together to solve problems that are too difficult for one person. What can persuade people to do just that and not the other way around?

This, by the way, is a classic dilemma formulated by D. Hume for farmers: “Your rye has arrived today, and mine will be ready; it is good for both of us to work with you today and you help me tomorrow. But I do not sympathize I know that you don’t have much sympathy for me either, so I won’t take on the extra work for you, because if I started helping you, I wouldn’t wait for a favor in return, I wouldn’t wait for gratitude, so we work alone, and the weather meanwhile it changes and we both lose the harvest “[2, p. 560].

The development of the dilemma of collective action today has resulted in the creation of game theory, which offers, for example, the solution of the farmer’s dilemma. And what if the situation referred to in D. Hume will be repeated? And do both farmers know that this is unavoidable? Then, if they care about the future and understand that they may suffer losses due to the refusal of the neighbor (or neighbors) to cooperate, they will be forced to decide to respond to the service.

So, they will work for another for personal gain, for selfish reasons. Thus, collective action can be based on selfishness, but on selfishness of a special nature, selfishness far-sighted, which takes into account the indirect and long-term consequences of our actions. After all, a person who is guided by far-sighted selfishness, understands the interdependence in which he is with others. “In civil society, everyone has a goal for himself, everything else is nothing for him … but without relationships with others he can not achieve his goal in full” [3, p. 228].