Suchergebnisse

At the present stage of development of the world community, accompanied by processes of globalization, when the world is «united», on the one hand, there is a natural strengthening of ties between the countries and peoples of the world, which is manifested in a certain degree of standardization of some cultural norms and principles perceived and used in the different countries, nations, ethnic groups etc. Instead, on the other hand, there is some increasing of the cultural differentiation and disintegration in various areas of public life, which were generated by the phenomenon of «ethnic and religious revival». This phenomenon is associated with an increase of the interest of traditional, sectional, heritable forms of identity (ethnic, religious, racial) and, accordingly, the traditional social practices.These phenomena cause frequent conflicts between different ethnic and national groups in multi-ethnic states. In the early XXI century such conflicts began to cover not only the countries and societies with the unfinished national unity, but also nation-states in Europe and America, where seemingly ethnic majority and minority groups are combined into a single nation-state «body» based on shared values, ideals and goals, but which have an inherent desire to preserve its cultural diversity.Therefore, there is so important to find and explore the new concepts and theoretical models that would allow to ensure peaceful, conflict-free co-existence of ethnic minorities within a common political space on the basis of mutual respect, respect each other's rights and cultural exchanges.Given the urgency and the need for further study of the problem, the author put a goal: 1) to identify and analyze the key concepts of co-existence of minorities in today's globalizing world; 2) to find out the advantages and disadvantages of each of the concepts, identifying the best option co-existence of minorities within a common political space.The object of the study is the national and ethnic minorities as a subject of political processes, and the subject is the modern concept of minorities' co-existence in the common political space.According to the Art. 1 of UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, it is reflected in the uniqueness and diversity of features that are inherent in groups and communities, of which humanity is created. This phenomenon is considered to be a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, thus it is defined not less need for human existence than biodiversity for the functioning of the world of nature as a whole.However, this variety generates now some problems of co-existence of different cultures. Along with the long-standing controversies of intercultural interaction in the multi-ethnic states, which are formed on this basis, a number of new problems continues to arise. It leads to the need to seek such theoretical concepts and form a practical policies based on these concepts, that would effectively solve the existing ethno-national disputes and prevent the emergence of the some new, based on consideration of the interests of both titular nations and national minorities living within these countries.The beginning of the 70s of the XX century was a time of the emergence of fundamentally new concept of co-existence between nations and cultures within a common political space, which are known as «multiculturalism». The basis of multiculturalism was the rejection of the idea of continuous civic integration in such semantic content, in which it remained dominant until that time. Instead, the key role is assigned to the promotion and maintenance of cultural diversity, «neighborhood» of communities within a single state.In one version, the term of «multiculturalism» began to be used in academic circles from 1957 in order to determine the official policy of Switzerland, which was based on the idea of uniting the various ethnic and cultural communities into one nation. According to statements by other researchers, «multiculturalism» as a scientific concept originated in Canada in the 1960s to refer the state of Anglo-French bi-culture in terms of the threat of Quebec separatism. Multiculturalism gained the official political recognition in 1971, when it was included as one of the basic principles of the Constitution of Canada to outline the new governmental course of this country has finally admitted the defeat of assimilation policy. Among the states, which are recognized officially multiculturalism, are the USA, Australia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and others.Thus, by the beginning of 80's of the XX century the key tenets of the concept of multiculturalism reached the level of the fundamental principles of political practice of most Western countries and international organizations.There are Western scholars Ch. Taylor, W. Kymlicka, Ch. Kukatas, A. Perotti etc. among the most prominent theorists of multiculturalism. There are many critics of multiculturalism, such as representative of the British egalitarian liberalism B. Berry, A. Schlesinger-Jr., A. Bloom.As one of the founders of the concept of multiculturalism Ch. Taylor said, hat this phenomenon is a form of self-assertion. Multiculturalism is not only in the struggle for the recognition of individuals, but also the requirement to recognize their originality, identity of groups, slides to the other. According to Ch. Taylor, some cultures are independent nature; any individual can exist only as part of the culture.Addressing to the problem of political equality between the minority and majority of the multi-national society, another theorist of multiculturalism W. Kymlicka focuses on the problem of the significance and status of minorities. He said that national minorities have the right to consider themselves as the cultural-distinctive communities only if they are guided by liberal principles, recognizing the rights of other communities.W. Kymlicka believes that the state cannot be separated from the problems of ethnic and ethnicity in general. He recognizes that the demands of ethnic and religious groups about financial support of some cultural activities are fair, implying those stocks that support the wealth and diversity of cultural resources. It increases the stability of society and eliminates the disparities between ethnic and religious groups. Without some financial support from the state a significant amount of national minorities may simply disappear and lose their cultural identity. The researcher supports the cultural market. However, W. Kymlicka puts on the agenda such questions: 1) the reasons why society should support cultural diversity or originality; 2) the need of researching of immigrants' and national languages; 3) the issue of citizenship, which is connected directly to the problem of tolerance.The American political scientist Ch. Kukatas, exploring multiculturalism, offers five options of the community response to cultural diversity: isolation, assimilation, soft multiculturalism, hard multiculturalism, apartheid.According to the scientist, soft multiculturalism appears as the rejection of attempts to prevent the emergence of cultural diversity through isolation. On the other hand, it is the rejection of its strengthening using a policy of assimilation of ethnic minorities. The freedom to choose the degree of assimilation according to the desires of the individual should be guaranteed in society.A common characteristic of hard multiculturalism is that society should take active steps to ensure that minorities are not only full participators in society, but also provide maximum opportunities to maintain their identity and traditions. By diversity should be treated not just tolerated, it should be consolidated, promoted and supported, not only financially, but also through the provision for cultural minorities some special rights.For Russian scientist E. Pain, who researches ethnic and cultural diversity in society, multiculturalism is a «very fresh» concept, which appeared in the scientific use until the end of 1980 and in connection with his youth has not yet severe theoretical background. But the researcher said that despite this, the popularity of multiculturalism lies in its key postulate that recognizes the value of cultural diversity of the country (region, world) and the impossibility of ranking of crops (including ethnic) on a «lower – higher», «primary – secondary» etc.The Ukrainian researcher A. Kolodiy, focusing on the study of issues of ethnicity and ethnic policy, defines multiculturalism as a principle of national ethnic, educational, cultural policy that recognizes and supports the right of citizens to preserve, promote and protect by all lawful means the (ethno)cultural features, and commitments the state to support such citizens' efforts.Given the complexity of the term of «multiculturalism» and the presence of a number of different interpretations in modern political science, the Ukrainian researcher N. Vysotska identifies five scientific approaches to understanding of multiculturalism:- demographic and descriptive: multiculturalism is as a characteristic of the state or society with cultural, ethnic, racial diversity etc.;- political program: multiculturalism is defined as a set of political programs and activities aimed at providing practical co-existence of different minorities, based on consideration of their differences and respective needs and rights with maintaining of the national unity;- ideological and normative: multiculturalism is a collection of all sorts of ideological currents, which are based on the idea of cultural diversity;- social and transformative: multiculturalism is the specific activity of governmental institutions in the country to ensure elimination of any discrimination or restriction of the rights of minorities;- historical: multiculturalism appears as a need to study the causes and conditions for the emergence of cultural diversity within a single socio-political space.Analyzing the diversity of approaches to the definition of multiculturalism, we can add to the classification of N. Vysotska some another interpretation of the term as a separate principle, which can be the basis of ethnic policy that supports diversity in society.Thus, we can define the concept of multiculturalism as an ideology and political practices of cultural inhomogeneous society to official recognition and real security of minorities' rights at the public-state level and to support the restoration and development of different cultural systems.The descriptive characteristics of multiculturalism is to recognize the possibility of co-existence in the same political space of several different cultural, ethnic or other groups that are willing and able to reproduce its identity.However, this descriptive diversity does not give the rise to characterize the society that really delivers its existence and development. It creates a need of existence of some regulatory side of multiculturalism. It lies in the use of state of specific measures to ensure the rights, dignity and welfare of its citizens regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion, language etc.However, we must admit, that in practice the policy of multiculturalism, solving some problems in the functioning of multi-ethnic states, may cause the new problems. In particular, multiculturalism, which was offered by its theorists (Ch. Taylor, W. Kymlicka, Ch. Kukatas), causes the revival of group forms of cultural identity through the inhibition of individual cultural diversity. For example, Western countries, which were actively implementing in practice the policy of multiculturalism, witnessed the fact that citizens who because of certain objective or subjective circumstances have lost their group (ethnic, religious, racial etc.) identity, returned to it influenced by multiculturalism. It was due to the fact that the privileges granted by governments to support and develop of cultural and ethnic uniqueness concerned the groups rather than individuals. In similar cases found the expression such defect of multiculturalism as a tendency to increase the isolation of ethnic communities and the creation of artificial boundaries between them.A. Schlesinger-Jr. defines multiculturalism on this occasion as an ideological concept that leads by its nature to the replacement of social ideals: «from assimilation to fragmentary, from integration to separatism». The same view is held by A. Bloom, who insists that fragmentation and separatism are alarming in multiculturalism, and the concept of multiculturalism leads to neglect of personal rights of the individuals.The Russian scientist A. Borisov understands multiculturalism as a phenomenon of ethnic and cultural fragmentation of society that opposes culture as a national movement.Therefore, we can agree with E. Pain, who identifies the following defects of the political practices of multiculturalism:- multiculturalism as an official policy actually addresses the state support to the specific groups representing the national and ethno-cultural minority in the state. In this regard, using the benefits these groups wrongly assume the role of representing the interests of their ethnic group or all religions;- stimulating the state support of groups and communities, multiculturalism promotes the community identity by suppressing of the individual identity. A similar policy deprives a person of the possibility to choose, consolidating the power of the group to which it belongs over this person;- multiculturalism creates obstacles for individual integration of different minorities to civil society;- the policy of multiculturalism creates an artificial segregation of groups, forming «a kind of voluntarily ghetto».Not only the majority of scientists and experts in the field of national and ethno-cultural policy are agree with this claim, but also the broad political circles. For example, the evidence of this fact is that in 2009 the Council of Europe issued «The White Book of Intercultural Dialogue» in which critically assessed the concept of cultural assimilation and the theory and practice of multiculturalism.As a result, in the early ХХІ century even those states, where multiculturalism was enshrined at the constitutional level, began to refuse from its use. Therefore it was necessary to find a fundamentally new concept and a political practice that takes into account the defects of previous concepts and would allow solving the problem of co-existence of different cultural and ethnic communities in the political space. One such attempt was the strategy of division of the sphere of culture. It says that in public sphere the maintenance of cultural homogeneity of representatives of all ethnic, religious, racial and other groups is encouraged. It based on the recognition and observance of formal rules that are common for all citizens of the state, and the principles of implementation, controlled by civil society. In the private sector, on the contrary, this concept gives the preference to cultural diversity. The ideological inspirers of the strategy of division of the sphere of culture emphasize that this model can be considered a compromise, because it creates the opportunities for the rights and freedoms of the individual regardless of cultural, ethnic, national, racial identity, on the one hand, and will provide unity and integrity of contemporary multicultural, multi-ethnic society, on the other hand.However, we must admit that this model of co-existence generates a question: is it possible and how to draw a line in real social life between the public and private sectors? In practice we see that the distinction between these spheres of human life and society is quite thin, because they are intertwined with each other. For example, if members of certain ethnic groups will to dress up in traditional clothing, it is an expression of his individual rights, freedom of choice with regard to the private sector. It generates a question: do they have the right to appear in this form in the streets within the state of their residence, where the titular nation is different from other by traditions in dress? It can apply to using of the language of community: does the model of division of the sphere of culture mean that minorities have the right to use their own language only at home, but in public places they must use only official language of the state in which they live? Or, for example, members of religion groups have a personal, «private» right to practice their faith and religious worship. But do they have the right to build their own churches in their places of residence, where they constitute an ethnic or religious minority? In this case, their freedom to practice their religion will go from the private sphere into the public sector, where the different doctrine can be declared as the official religion.Thus, the continuity of the public and private spheres of life points to the most obvious defect of the model of division of the sphere of culture. This defect is embedded in the title of concept. It generates the impossibility of its realization in practice and the need to find the new strategies of ethno-national cultural policy.One such model is the concept of individual freedom and cultural choice proposed by the famous philosopher and scientist, Nobel Prize in Economics A. Sen. Its main idea is the gradual weakening of group forms of identification and moving to individual choice. «Cultural liberty» is giving to individuals the right to live and exist according to their own choice, with a real opportunity to evaluate other options. A. Sen emphasizes that «the large number of existing injustices in the world remains and thrives because they turn their victims into allies, depriving them of the possibility to choose a different life and preventing their learning about the existence of another life». That's ethnic, religious and other cultural traditions of groups are not willingly, they are prescribed from birth. Therefore, the main objective of the policy of promoting cultural liberty is the weakening of traditions. The concept considers the cultural diversity as a tool for implementing of cultural freedom when «due to it the cultural range of social life and possibility of choosing are expanding». But the concept of cultural freedom hasn't become the norm in Western countries because there is a difficulty with the development of mechanisms for public policy which can break the power of traditions, customs, attitudes, mentality etc.The modern theorists and practitioners offer to combine all advantages of multiculturalism and the concept of individual freedom and cultural choice in the model of interkulturalism. Interkulturalism based on the idea of cultural diversity in the world and countries, but in contrast to multiculturalism, which offers the neighborliness between communities and cultures, it focused on the finding some ways of interaction of these different communities as members of different cultural systems. Interkulturalism requires a common interest of different nationalities and religions shared by a common sense of public responsibility for their country.Thus, we can admit multiculturalism, the concept of division of the sphere of culture, the model of individual freedom and cultural choices and interkulturalism are the key modern concepts of co-existence of ethnic and national minorities in the political space. These theories are based on the recognition and consideration of the fact of multiculturalism of globalizing world, separate states and societies. The differences between them lie mainly in the mechanisms proposed for use to assist the maintenance and development of different national, ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial and other minorities. Multiculturalism offers a policy of «neighborhood» of minorities on the principles of mutual recognition and tolerance. But it contributes to the strengthening of group and the suppression of individual identification of a person, leading sometimes to the increasing of segregation, intergroup hostility through the using of state measures to promote some individual communities. The model of division of the sphere of culture has a disadvantage: it proposes the distribution of culture to private and public sector, but doesn't include the fact that they are inseparable in real life. Hence its principles lose the ability to be realized in social and political life. The concept of individual freedom and cultural choice advocates the promoting to overcome the certainty of norms and values for members of communities, urging them to make independent choices, but does not offer some specific mechanisms to overcome the force of customs, traditions and mentality. Interkulturalism is the most optimal concept that favors to find some ways of interaction between different communities and different cultures. The common interests of citizens of different nationalities and religions are one of these ways. All citizens are united by common sense of public responsibility for their own state. ; Статья посвящена анализу современных концепций сосуществования национально-этнических меньшинств в пределах общего политического пространства. Сделана попытка определить преимущества и недостатки каждой из них, а также сделать вывод о наиболее оптимальной модели сосуществования меньшинств сегодня в глобализирующемся мире. ; Статтю присвячено аналізові сучасних концепцій співіснування національно-етнічних меншин у межах спільного політичного простору. Зроблено спробу окреслити переваги та недоліки кожної з них, а також зробити висновок про найбільш оптимальну модель співіснування меншин на сьогодні у світі, що глобалізується.