Search results

Paper describes two basic principles of sociological analysis of ideology in the early XXI century: the principle of double contextualization of M. Burawoy and the principle of the duality of structures and subjects of P. Sztompka. This allowed to clarify the focus of the author's research on the intersection of the plurality of ideologies and multiparadigm of modern sociology. Authors have distinguished a sociological understanding of the transformations of the social role of ideology in the development of societies during the XIX – early XXI century and its three main phases. Taking into account the multiparadigm of ideology, the possibilities of its conceptualization in a number of major sociological metaparadigms and their axiomatic nuclei are analyzed. Paper emphasizes on diversifying the debate on the macro-micro dichotomy in the study of ideology by increasing the invariance in the interpretation of both members of this dichotomy and recognizing the complex nature of structures and subjects that have object-subject characteristics. There is a lack of sociological explication and conceptualization of such a vision of ideology and corresponding methods of empirical research. Therefore, the narrowing of sociological optics to the study of ideology within the socio-constructive direction of sociological theorizing in its critical version is argued. As the importance of studying the practical aspects of ideology and the role of its subjects in social transformations is emphasized today, the position of N. Fairclough was chosen as the main methodological source within the cluster of critical discourse analysis. Paper describes heuristic possibilities and limits of using the theoretical provisions of critical discourse-analysis of N. Fairclough for cognition of ideology. The main characteristics of ideological discourse are argued, as well as the main provisions of critical discourse-analysis are applied to the study of ideology with special attention to its subjects. As a result of the application of these research procedures, an approach to the conceptual scheme of ideology research is developed, which takes into account its object-subject characteristics and allows studying the role of agents and recipients in the construction and consumption of ideology, аs well as in the transformation of social practices and socio-cultural transformations.

In the article the essence of the neo-imperial ideology of the «Russian world», is revealed, which appearance is connected with the necessity of the modern Russia`s expansionist policy in ideological substantiation after the collapse of the Bolshevik`s empire commune – the Soviet Union. Moreover, the basis for resuscitation and the creation of a new empire is still preserved. In the newly created states from the post-Soviet republics, the vast majority of former party leaders came to the power, who sought little or no effort to eliminate the old, in essence, authoritariantotalitarian system of political government, almost all of them sought to preserve the economic ties that were established in a single economic complex between the republics of the former Soviet Union. The Union of Independent States (CIS), established in December 1991, provided additional opportunities for the new neo-empire. Under such conditions, pro-Kremlin theorists-statesmen were actively involved in the development of ideological and theoretical foundations for the new ideology. However, the very name «Russian world» was introduced into scientific and political circulation only in 2005. Since then, the spatial boundaries of the ideology «Russian world» are constantly expanding and now include those countries and peoples «where the Russian language is heard». Thus, the main goal of the new ideology «Russian world» is to include in the Russian neo-empire not only Russia itself, but all of Russia abroad, ie «almost a third - a billion Russian-speaking people or almost every twentieth inhabitant of the Earth» (O. Batanova). Thus, according to the great powers, it will be possible to correct the geopolitical mistake associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has been proved that the neo-imperial ideology of the «Russian world» is based on Russian ultranationalism, which is permeated by the ideas of pan-Russianism, Russian exclusivity, and strong statehood, which Putin now embodies. This feature of the ideology of the «Russian world» indicates its neo-imperial orientation and geopolitical intentions of the great-power policy of modern Russia.

The article is devoted to the disclosure of the place and role of ideology as a factor in the consolidation of Ukrainians in the post-colonial era. It is proved that in the Ukrainian state-building process the problem of consolidation of Ukrainians is relevant and complex, and still remains one of the most important. As Ukrainian progress, which opens up new opportunities for the socio-economic, political and spiritual development of Ukrainian society, depends on its solution. It is emphasized that effective work of subjects of consolidation of Ukrainians depends on a complex of socio-economic, political and spiritual factors. One of the determining factors in the spiritual sphere is ideology, which should be national in its essence, since it is intended to unite all representatives of ethnic and national minorities of Ukrainian society, based on the ideas of spirituality, social justice and national patriotism, taking into account historical traditions and existing realities of the modern world. Exactly this kind of unifying ideology should determine the main direction of the Ukrainian policy of the unity of society, the system of its ideals and values. Therefore, the search for such an ideology is an important factor in the consolidation of Ukrainians, especially in today post-colonial era. World experience clearly shows that those societies that have an ideological consolidation core, which is understandable and supported by every citizen, are developing more dynamically. According to its status, this consolidation core is one of the ideological foundations of state ideology, the discussion on its development is still ongoing. Its acuteness intensifies the existing confrontation of the various, though not formed party ideologies, which somehow still claim to state status, trying to revise the legislative norm, according to which the most important carrier of state ideology is the Constitution. And other bearers of state ideology have the right, within their powers and ideological directions, to use the fundamental principles of state ideology, such as: to defend state independence and sovereignty, democratic social order, civil society, human rights, etc., but they shoyd not revise these fundamental basics of statehood. A special protection needs a consolidation aspect of state ideology, since it is a kind of manifestation of civic education and the core of person politicization. In each state, ideology is called differently - Americanism, Russianism, Polonism, Zionism, and so on. In Ukraine, due to the kind of scientific ostracism that appeared (and quite well-grounded) after the proclamation of independence in connection with the contemporary ideology and mono-ideology that was in the Soviet Union, it is difficult to name the ideology. Nowadays, a number of scholars and party ideologists are inclined to think that the term "solidarism", based on the ideas of the consolidation of the ideology of Ukrainians, could be used, based on the ideas that only solidarity of just cooperation and mutual assistance of all members of society is the basis of social, economic and political progress.
It is noteworthy that some Ukrainian political parties in their updated (after the Revolution of Dignity) programs use the term "solidarism" to consolidate Ukrainians. In particular, the political party, the People's Front, defines its programmatic task to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine, liberate it from terrorists, foreign troops, mercenaries, and to conduct reforms. The PF ideologists associate these tasks with the consolidation of Ukrainians. Ideologists of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR) political party proceed from the assumption that only a consolidated country can be effective and competitive in the world. "We must realize, - stated in the UDAR program, that the goals that unite us are more important than the historical myths and ideologies that can separate us." A lot of attention is paid to the problem of consolidation of Ukrainians through the disclosure of the idea of
solidarity in the program of the political party "Petro Poroshenko Bloc Solidarity "(new edition). In this program it is declared for the first time that the party puts the idea of solidarity at the basis of its ideology. The idea of solidarity in the «Batkivshchyna» Party, whose program was adopted in 1999, has its own story, but as long as this solidarity spirit is officially not reflected as an ideology in its program.
The article contains a recommendation for Ukrainian political forces to study more thoroughly the ideological grounds of solidarity ideas with a view to their possible use in their political and ideological activities.

У статті розглядається поточний російсько-український конфлікт із точки зору класичної теорії тріадичного зв'язку Роджерса Брубейкера. Ми протиставляємо нову політику пам'яті, освіти та мови в Україні після Євромайдану офіційній російській критиці з її широкими посиланнями на, серед іншого, нацизм та "етноцид", міжрегіональну напруженість всередині України, а також спільне "героїчне" минуле росіян і українців. На перший погляд, риторичне та політичне загострення між Україною та Росією у 2014-2019 роках виглядає як типовий тристоронній конфлікт між постколоніальною державою-націоналізатором, етнічною меншиною та її зовнішньою батьківщиною, за концептуалізацією Брубейкера. Проте на основі історичної контекстуалізації ми робимо висновок, що класична теорія тріадичного наступу може лише частково пояснити причинно- наслідкові механізми ескалації російсько-українського конфлікту.

The research of the features of Ukrainian Christianity in the works of M.F. Sumtsov was analyzed. On this theoretical and philosophical-theoretical basis, the characteristics of the features of the «Ukrainian Orthodoxy», which have an influence on the formation of Ukrainian identity, are singled out and given. Modern scholars V. Gorsky, A. Kolodnyy, Y. Chornomorets emphasize the philosophical and cultural consequences of the Ukrainian Orthodox paradigm to determine the meaning of life-style guidelines of Ukrainians, the mental and identification characteristics of the Ukrainian nation. An ideologue of Ukrainian Orthodoxy contributing to the consolidation of modern Ukrainian society, the unification of common religious spiritual values, was presented in the works of Mykola Sumtsov, one of the first in his scholarly works. One of the ways to overcome the crisis of our society and a significant step towards consolidation of the national Ukrainian identity is to obtain autocephaly by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In the writings of Mykola Sumtsov it is emphasized that the Christian church is an important means of Ukrainian national unity. Mykola Sumtsov speaks about pan-European, democratic tendencies in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy, the approach of Ukrainian Orthodoxy to the soul and everyday life of Ukrainians, involvement through the church to public life. In the study of the features of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, the author identified his following defining characteristics: cordocentrism, democracy, harmony of public and ecclesiastical life. morality, focus on active moral and practical activity. On the basis of our research, we have identified a significant theoretical potential of M. Sumtsov's works, their high analytic and encyclopedic character.

The article explores the problem of the ideology of Putinism. It draws attention to the fact that in modern analytical texts about the phenomenon of Putinism, the dispute between scholars has shifted toward clarifying its ideological foundations. A few years ago, an intense scientific debate about the correctness of usage of the term "Putinism" itself took place. The authors investigate the current analytical publications on the ideological foundations of Putinism. The article points out the divergence of views of researchers on the existence of state ideological doctrine developed in the current Kremlin regime. The purpose of this article is defined as proving the fact that Putinism is not only a practical but also an ideological phenomenon of our age. The authors conclude that the ideology of Putinism exists. It seems convincing to consider Putinism as an ideological doctrine of the hybrid type, the general characteristic of which can be defined as neo-imperialism of the autocratic type with the elements of totalitarianism, "assembled" from a set of different doctrines of the past and present. Among them: Pan-Slavism, Russo-Centrism, Eurasianism and Neo-Eurasianism, Duginism (ideologically extremely close to the ideology of the Third Reich and the ideologists of the German "conservative revolution" at the same time, according to L. Lux), Messianism, Isolationism, Anti-Westernism and Anti-Americanism, Neo-Stalinism, Orthodox Fundamentalism, the role of the strong leader. Putinism as a neo-imperialist ideology is in line with the Kremlin's practice, beginning with Putin's rise to power when neo-colonial wars began on the perimeter of the former Soviet empire. It is partly orientated to suppress internal separatist movements, as it was in the case of Chechnya and partly to attempts to "gathering lands" as in the case of Georgia and now – of Ukraine.

Lady Gaga as a postmodern cultural icon manipulating with images and symbols has created in her "performances" a kind of new "post"-postmodern feminism, in which she followed the line of feminine anarchists – in politics, arts and culture. "Gaga ideology", which in fact "embraces a void", nowadays is vividly presented across alternative forms of popular culture with the subsequent great impact on the generation of millennials.

The article researches ideological principles of conflict regulation, in particular, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine in the context of forming of national-state ideology. This indicates theoretical and practical interest to a certain topic, which gets new sense and sound at each stage of national and state existence. It has been found out that political strategies should enable planning and forecasting political processes, minimize political bias, and meet reform projects. It is noted that the main vector of socio-cultural transformations had been proclaimed to be the posttotalitarian, post-colonial vector that a priori should permanently protect the state from the disadvantages and tragedies of the previous political era. Philosophical reflection is aimed at understanding of one of the most important components of national-state ideologies – a national idea. At present, there is no single national-state ideology in Ukraine, since new forms of understanding of social reality are in the process of formation. Obviously, it will be formed in the context of political forces' struggle and compromising. The crisis of unity in Ukrainian society is interpreted as a factor that does not contribute to the formation and implementation of a rational political strategy of the state. It is concluded that European spirit of Ukraine and national self-esteem should be formed on state level in internal and foreign politics, on theoretical level in the programs of state reforms, in the concepts and programs of education and upbringing, on daily life level in ideological regulations of interpersonal communication rules. It is concluded that there are the following steps towards peace, first, the cessation of hostilities and pressure, second, the establishment of dialogue, and third, the search for a solution to the contradictions through negotiations.

The author proposes the overview of the ideas of Ukrainian nationalism after WWII on example of one of the nationalistic organizations, revolutionary or Bandera's OUN. It is done through the analysis of three program documents published during the period from 1948 till 1968 with every time 10-years distance (two of them of S. Bandera's authorship), which shows the ways of thinking of its leaders and points of institutional development of this organization. Ukrainian integral nationalism was formed as an ideology and found its institutionalization in the interwar period and in the context of time marked with spreading of authoritarianism and the idea of a strong national leader. During WWII the OUN and the UPA became the main power of the Ukrainian national resistance to the occupational regimes. But in the new political realities after WWII and in the situation of emigration the Ukrainian exile parties incl. nationalists were faced with the new ideological as well as organizational challenges and had to search for the new methods and attitudes to the struggle for Ukraine's liberation. The key point for the formation of new ideas and political program became the resolutions and declarations of the Fourth Grate Meeting of the Bandera's OUN in 1968, the first so important party's assamble in the after war time. The views and ideas of J. Stetsko played a significant role on it, he appeared to be not only a participant of an international anticommunist movement, but also a political thinker who managed to integrate the nationalistic ideology with the new political realities and with the context of international policy of that time. In the questions of anticolonial discourse and anticommunist critic his theses corresponded to the most important ideas of the Cold War period and allowed to actualize the nationalistic ideas on their new stage of development.

The article is devoted to highlighting the importance of the process of decommunization in the study of the forbidden by Soviet ideology themes and personalities in the history of philosophy of Ukraine, namely: the history of neo-Thomism and the work of its representative, the historian of philosophy Fr. M. Conrad (1876–1941). The author establishes how the ideological pressure of the Soviet system influenced the course of historical and philosophical research in Ukraine and what were its consequences; whether Ukrainian historians of philosophy of the Soviet period could study the philosophical views of M. Conrad; if so, in what way and for what reasons was it not done? The study showed that the ideological pressure in the historical and philosophical sphere was not the same during the Soviet period. With the beginning of the "thaw" there was a turn in research on the history of philosophy of Ukraine from the study of philosophical thought of "revolutionary democrats" and naturalists to "idealistic" philosophical teachings, which allowed the study of the history of neo-Thomism with its obligatory criticism. Criticism then was often a way to study the views of thinkers that were considered dangerous to the Soviet system. For these reasons, Conrad could be criticized as an objective idealist. Or, for nationalist ideas, as a bourgeois nationalist. However, such opportunities had their limits. The analysis of philosopher's critical views on the socialist-communist mentality allowed to characterize them as well-argued and objective, which could be another reason for banning the study of his works. As a result of the 1972 repressions of Ukrainian philosophers and the strengthening of ideological control over the course of historical and philosophical research, the study of not only neo-Thomism but also the work of pro-Soviet thinkers ceased. The beginning of the decommunization process allowed the freedom of choice of themes and personalities and created the conditions for an objective study of the creative work of Father M. Conrad.

The article provides a comparative review of the history, current status and areas of scientific activity of the Sociological Association of Ukraine (SAU), its creative ties with the European and world sociological community, in particular, joint research with Polish scientists. It emphasizes that most of the Ukrainian sociologists SAU members work in universities, the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and public opinion research centers. Numerous sociological (theoretical and empirical) studies on various issues of vital activity of modern Ukrainian society are carried out by their efforts. It is noted that in addition to studying the issues of social transformation in its political, economic, legal, social and cultural aspects, that have become traditional for Ukrainian sociology, in recent years Ukrainian sociologists have turned to the analysis of such problems as external and internal migration (the problem of internally displaced persons); military conflict in the east of Ukraine and the volunteer movement; social inequality, including in its new manifestations, including those caused by the digitalization of public life. It is emphasized that today the most pressing issue of sociological reflection is the changes that occur in Ukraine after the last presidential election. Attention is focused on the fact that the victory of the political rookie in these elections was due to the huge social disappointments of the Ukrainians, since their expectations provoked by the Revolution of Dignity were not fulfilled. The first and most important disappointment, according to sociological studies, is the fact that peace has not reigned in the country. Second, the living standards of Ukrainian citizens have not improved. Third, the fight against corruption did not bring significant results. Fourth, social inequality deepened: the rich became richer, and the poor became poorer. The fifth disappointment is the inefficiency of the declared reforms: judicial, medical, educational, customs, electoral, etc. It is emphasized that the effectiveness of the new government depends, among other things, on its consideration of such features of the mass consciousness of the Ukrainian population as a critical level of distrust of all institutions of power; value and ideological ambivalence and uncertainty. The conclusions are formulated about the unlikeliness of return of Ukraine to the orbit of Russian political and economic influence, as well as the victory of radical nationalist ideology in our country.

The article analyzes the conflict between the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the totalitarian government and its projection on the contemporary ethno-religious processes in Ukraine. It is shown that the UAOC as a kind of modern ecclesiastical structure created under the heavy influence of the stormy events of the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1921, was Ukrainian in spirit and form, and brought up respect for national history and culture among Ukrainians and became an object of prosecution during the the Great Terror. It was revealed that the UAOC continued to be a Ukrainian religious organization and professed love for Ukraine, and its hierarchs and priests in their sermons called on believers to be Ukrainians, to respect their mother tongue, cultural history, customs and traditions also during the second half of the 1920th half of the 1930es. The UAOC was consistently persecuted and exterminated by the repressive structures of the USSR. It is shown that the Soviet authorities decided to destroy the UAOC finally, and ordered the repressive authorities to end the so-called «Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists» in the ranks once and for all, so that the «Clergy» case concerning the activities of the Ukrainian counter-revolutionary national organization was fabricated. It has been revealed that the totalitarian regime accused the arrested believing Ukrainians of counter-revolutionary actions, the revival of church and religious life in Ukraine, the promotion of their own candidates in the upcoming elections to the Local Councils in order to incorporate their people into important state bodies in order to use foreign powers in the case of foreign intervention. It is established that as a result of the complex and purposeful repression of the totalitarian regime in Ukraine, the UAOC ceased its Ukrainian-centric activity and its remnants were finally destroyed. It is proved that only from the late 1980es, when the decline of communist ideology began, the Christians of Ukraine were able to restore Ukrainian church organizations, including the UAOC. It is revealed that the heavy post-colonial and post-totalitarian legacy and the subversive anti-Ukrainian activities of the Russian Orthodox Church and the former KGB agents have contributed to the escalation of conflicts in Ukraine.

An activity of the Ukrainian Workers and Peasants Union (UWPU) headed by Levko Lukyanenko in West Ukraine at the end of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1960s was a manifestation of the struggle for independence of Ukraine. Contemporary historiography studies the UWPU's activity in the context of looking for new forms and methods of the political resistance to the Soviet system in West Ukraine without using the ideology of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The result of the struggle depended on the ability to consolidate a whole society by the leaders of the national liberation movement. In the article we shall study the ideas about unity of the Ukrainian society and potential factors of its consolidation in the program documents of the UWPU. A task in hand of the UWPU was "to unmask before workers and peasants an irreconcilable opposite of their interests and the interests of the bureaucratic officialdom as well to compel the direction to comply in the sphere of increasing freedoms of people. Nevertheless an addition complication in the UWPU's propaganda in West Ukraine was Lykyanenko's and Kandyba's, the leading members' belonging to the system of the Soviet justice which was a part of the party and state structure and estranged deeply from people. The UWPU proclaimed a start of a new stage of struggle for the independence of Ukraine by the most conscientious workers and peasants which are united all over Ukraine and do not communicate with each other. The struggle of the UWPU for Ukraine's secession from the USSR should be peaceful and according to the Soviet constitution on the tactic and ideological grounds. The UWPU has thought that the idea of the independent Ukraine is only one possible idea which could unite the whole Ukrainian people, exploited by the Russian Soviet colonialist polotics workers and peasants deprived of their rights. The programme of the Union opposed the whole Ukrainian people to the Ukrainian Communists, the representatives of the party and state officialdom, as obedient representatives of the colonial administration. The members of the UWPU, high-principled Marxists, proclaimed their unstinting support the struggle of the Ukrainian Uprising Army for the independence of Ukraine and blamed an armed repression by the Soviet state the Ukrainian underground in West Ukraine. Taking into account the Ukrainian people changed during centuries of slavery and a social oppression the UWPU's programme does not only presume to challenge the presence of the protest potential of the Ukrainian people but also affirms that in time the Ukrainian people's aspiration to independence develops widely and its struggle for the independence becomes fiercer. The UWPU suggests to campaign among workers and peasants for the uniting the whole Ukrainian people for the struggle for Ukrainian state independency, as well to win representatives of other nationalities which live in Ukraine, and fight for general democratization of the state structure in the USSR

The article is devoted to the study of the biggest challenges, threats and dangers for modern Ukrainianness. The issue of challenges, threats and dangers facing Ukraine and Ukrainianness since 1991 is very relevant today. Scientists who work in the field of crisisology distinguish the concepts of «challenges», «threats», «dangers», «crises», «risks», «catastrophes», «collapse», «wreck», etc. The theoretical and methodological basis of our study is a combination of scientific potential of crisisology, conflictology and Ukrainian studies. Crisisology, conflictology and Ukrainian studies face the task of transdisciplinary understanding of the essence and severity of these challenges, threats and dangers, which are relevant in many areas such as military-defense, geopolitical, demographic, state-building, spiritual worldview, ecological, economics, energy, information, cultural and artistic, linguistic, moral and ethical, scientific, nation-building, educational, political and legal, social, territorial, technological, financial, etc. To these are added threats and dangers: 1) large-scale war with Russia; 2) total spread of COVID-19 in Ukraine; 3) the implementation of a new geostrategic course in Russia (called «geopolitical revenge»); 4) spreading the ideology of the «Russian world», intensifying new attempts by the Russian Federation to dismember Ukraine, supporting separatization and federalization of Ukraine; 5) possible escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts, which could lead to a new global confrontation and even a world war; 6) ineffective fight against corruption in Ukraine; 7) the lack of a proper response from the authorities to the need to immediately end Russia's information and psychological war against Ukraine; 8) destruction of small and medium business and further financial and economic stratification of Ukrainian society; 9) procrastination with the solution of the poverty problem (in conditions when about 60% of Ukrainians are below the poverty line); 10) possible man-made disasters in Ukraine; 11) possible transformation of Ukraine from a subject into an object of international relations; 12) possible rejection of European integration; 13) discrediting the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity, in order to spread Russian narratives about the coup in Ukraine; 14) intensification of interfaith conflicts in Ukraine; 15) inadequate decision-making by incompetent authorities (threat of economic decline and large-scale financial crisis in Ukraine, possible change in Ukraine's vector of development, threat of capitulation, refusal of the authorities to resolve the «Ukrainian crisis» (which began after Russia's aggression and has become a factor influencing the security of Europe and the world) from the standpoint of Ukraine as a subject, not an object); 16) refusal to solve the problems of internally displaced persons; 17) possible «freezing» of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict in order to further destabilize Ukraine; 18) strengthening of geopolitical and geoeconomic instability, intensification of intercivilizational and geopolitical confrontation in the world; 19) possible decline of democracy and rise of authoritarianism in Ukraine; 20) expansion of the border with Russia (in case of its absorption of Belarus); 21) possible disintegration of Ukrainian society and world Ukrainiannes; 22) further violation of international law by the Russian Federation; 23) exacerbation of the economic and migration crisis in Europe; 24) radicalization of part of the Islamic world; 25) due to the collapse of the USSR. The challenges, threats and dangers facing Ukrainians can unfold at the global, continental and national levels. Ukrainians must find adequate answers to modern challenges and mechanisms to minimize threats and dangers; ensure stable economic growth; to create a powerful system of national security, army and defense-industrial complex; find ways to ensure national interests in the current crisis; to develop optimal models for resolving the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, reintegrating the population of the occupied territories and restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine.