The article deals with the theoretical aspects of correlation between national society and civil society and based on historical experience of the NIS, which geopolitically and stratificationally located in the Eastern European semi-periphery. The priority of a nation and state building over the development of civil society is declared. In the case of the NIS of Eastern European semi-periphery powerful national state, which is based on a strong national society, is regarded as the main foundation of developed civil society. Nation and nation-state are proved to be the results of long term integration and the historical processes. It is stressed that national community is much more integrated and rooted in history than regional integration communities. Civil society is regarded as a source of some threat forthe national security of NIS.
The essence of a modern society as societies of politically inspirational manufactures, distribution and consumption of risks reveals ; Раскрывается сущность современного общества как общества политически инспирированого производства, распространения и потребления рисков. ; Розкривається суть сучасного суспільства як суспільства виробництва, поширення і споживання ризиків, що політично інспірується.
The round-table sitting dedicated to the Russian-Ukrainian war took place on October 24, 2014. The question was, in particular, of its cultural and historical factors and peculiarities of the conflict of consciousnesses in the course of Ukraine-Russia opposition. The participants have analyzed the phenomenon of the hybrid war as anomia, outlined a rational system of ensuring national security. There have been represented the original interpretation of the war discourse and euphemisation of political leaders' language as the reduction of truth. The myth of the "Russian world" was considered as the basis of mobilization strategies of the aggressor and cognitive structure of its strategic culture. The correlation between philosophic traditions and the method of fighting the war have been outlined. ; Круглий стіл «Філософської думки»
The article analyses theoretical foundations of the development of an inclusive society in Ukraine. It demonstrates significance of theoretical investigations by D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson into the development of inclusive political and economic institutions as established practices of an inclusive society. The article investigates methodological possibilities of a mono-causal «simple theory» approach, which D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson use to clarify the main contours of economic and political development of different countries from the Neolithic revolution till now. The key idea of the two US scientists is that all the roots of poverty can be traced to politics and political processes. These topics form the subject of their analysis. We note that D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson maintain institutional point of view and argue that societies' growth requires effective institutions. Inclusive institutions, such as property rights, access to markets, equality before the law, access to infrastructure, support for economic and social mobility, and investment in human capital are needed for economic development. By contrast, extractive institutions enable the appropriation of rent by privileged groups in society, i.e. the elites. These institutions only redistribute resources rather than supporting development. They discriminate and expropriate. D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson consider political institutions fundamental to economic growth. They divide these into inclusive and extractive institutions as well. For D. Acemoglu and J.A. Robinson, politics is the process of a society choosing the rules governing its activities, and political institutions are the key determinant in the result of the struggle for economic gain – the prosperity of a nation, groups or specific individuals. Political institutions determine who has power in society and what power can be used for. Inclusive political institutions are characterised by plurality – various interest groups affecting political decisions. Under such conditions, the ...
У статті досліджується сучасний стан розвитку громадянського суспільства в умовах реформування країни за економічним, політичним та соціокультурним критеріями. Враховуючи його ключову роль у системі публічного управління в умовах реформування державного управління, місцевого самоврядування, модернізації механізмів взаємодії влади і суспільства, аналіз допомагає визначити проблемні аспекти, на яких варто зосередити увагу науковій спільноті та практикам-реформаторам.
Здійснено спробу соціально-філософського аналізу взаємозв'язку корпоративної культури та суспільства ризику. Розглянуто поняття корпоративної культури та суспільства ризику, досліджено особливості впливу ризиків на корпоративну культуру у суспільстві ризику. Розкрито комплекс критеріїв, за якими можна характеризувати рівень корпоративної культури в умовах суспільства ризику. Осуществляется попытка социально-философского анализа взаимосвязи корпоративной культуры и общества риска. Рассматриваются понятия корпоративной культуры и общества риска, исследуются особенности влияния рисков на корпоративную культуру в обществе риска. Раскрывается комплекс критериев, по которым можно охарактеризовать уровень корпоративной культуры в условиях общества риска. ; In this article was made an attempt to socio-philosophical analysis of the relationship corporate culture and risk society. The concepts of corporate culture and risk society have been considered. The peculiarity of risk influence to the corporate culture of risk society has been investigated. The paper presents a set of criteria by which characterizing the level of corporate culture in risk society. Corporate culture is an important part of modern society. Corporate culture reflects the company's values, norms of behavior of employees in the organization and rules of interaction with external target groups customers, partners and others. It has a significant impact on staff motivation, staff turnover in the organization and, ultimately, the efficiency of the employees. The corporate culture of each organization is unique and individual. It reflects the specifics of the company's business, especially the thinking and behavior of employees. Any changes in the content of corporate culture require considerable effort and a long time for employees to adopt new values and adapt to the new conditions. For example, the continuous development of corporate culture brings first results after 2 years, and the complete conversion of a company culture requires a minimum of 3-10 years. Thus, corporate culture is a risk factor in the company. The development of modern corporations shows that they are constantly developing and function in conditions of risk. The phenomena of corporate culture and risk are closely interrelated. If the corporate culture is weak, it may itself be a source of risk for the company or even lead to a crisis, and vice versa, the risk caused by other factors, may reveal the essence of corporate culture and the nature of declarative values. Thus, corporate culture manifests itself effectively in risk society. «Risk society» is a concept introduced by the German sociologist U. Beck. Risk society is a society that produces technological and social risks. With the development of science and technology the risks not only persist but are produced in even greater numbers. The risks threaten not only the life of the individual, but also society. Risks are not an exceptional case of social life, they are consistently reproduced in economic, political and social spheres of life. So society has to decide. Therefore, the risks are produced not only in business but also in all spheres of society. Therefore, these risks directly affect the corporate culture as part of the social structure. Thus the overall level of corporate culture in a society of risk can be evaluated based on the following criteria: first, the extent to encourage risk; second the degree of orientation to the end result or the means of achieving results; third, the degree of orientation on the needs of the individual or perform tasks; fourth, orientation on individual or group performance forms of work; fifth the level of aggressiveness, encourage competition between employees who work inside the organization and outside it; sixth stability, that is reliability and constant change and the desire for further development. After analyzing some aspects of the risk society, it can be argued that in modern society the risk emerges as a sociocultural development of society. Risk society affects the functioning of the corporate culture. Above the human and collective dominates risk, which forms the basis work. Because the corporate culture is changing, it forces the society as a whole to function in such situations where stereotypes, rules of behavior are absent as in a individually and as a social practice. Corporate culture can influence a person only when she became part of the risk.
The article reveals the content of the category of Smart-society and correlates the legal categories of "Smart-society" and "information society". It was found that the information society is inextricably linked with the development and dissemination of the role of information and communication technologies, the availability of an appropriate information sector of technology, a high level of information culture in all spheres of public life, accessibility and transparency. It is noted that the category "Smart" means smart, one that promotes the development of smart technologies and the formation of a smart society, the transition of "traditional" information society to a knowledge society or Smart-society, whose guiding paradigm is the desire to improve all spheres of human life. to create a new quality of life. Smart-society is a new model of information society, which permeates all spheres of public life, namely – economic, political, social, spiritual, cultural, educational spheres of life. The correlation between the legal categories "information society" and "smart society" allowed us to say that they have both common and different characteristics. The common features include the following: 1) these categories are quite similar, but not identical; 2) they appeared in one period (in the early 1960s); 3) both are inextricably linked to the information sector; 4) apply to all spheres of public life; 5) determined by the development of information and communication technologies. It is noted that there are some differences between them, the main of which is the inseparability of the Smart-society with digital technologies, while the information society is not so dependent on Smart-technologies. It is concluded that the Smart-society is a new, more modern form of information society, which is characterized by its own features and specific characteristics. ; У статті розкрито зміст категорії Smart-суспільства та здійснено співвідношення правових категорії «Smart-суспільство» та «інформаційне суспільство». ...
This article is dedicated to process of informatization and formation of information society as a new civilization age of mankind development in the context of political and law transformations, connected with this process. ; Данная публикация посвящена рассмотрению процесса информатизации и формирования информационного общества как нового цивилизационного этапа развития человечества в призме политико-правовых преобразований, связанных с этим процессом.
Розглядається дефініція «громадянське суспільство», надається історичне підґрунтя поняття. Представляється взаємозв'язок і взаємодія «громадянського суспільства» і «держави». Розкриваються три особливості «громадянського суспільства», а саме: 1) наявність центрів соціальної влади, 2) незалежність цих «центрів», 3) почуття громадянської відповідальності, цивілізована поведінка і активна громадянська позиція.Досліджуються соціальні функції громадянського суспільства: захищає приватні сфери життя від необґрунтовано жорсткої регламентації з боку держави та інших політичних структур; сприяє здійсненню реальних прав і свобод громадян; забезпечує їхній доступ до участі в державних і суспільних справах.Розглядається поняття «громадянська свідомість», надається історичний екскурс введення поняття в науковий обіг. Досліджуються три диференційовані типи громадянської свідомості: активний тип, «адаптанти», індиферентні в політиці.
The article is devoted to the study of the process of the emergence of rights in the primitive society of the period of savagery and barbarism. The time frame expands from the beginning of the birth of life (about 4.1 – 3.7 billion years ago) to the invention of methods of cultivation of land and the primary division of labor and the invention of ancient civilization of Sumerians of writing (respectively 6,500 years - 3,100 years BC). The social and anthropological reasons for the emergence of law (needs of common habitation, normative consciousness), the world-view basis, the nature of the binding character of the original rules, their interrelation with morality, are substantiated. The original rules of conduct in the form of prohibitions (taboos), custom, rite, worship and ritual were alloy, a mixture of divine and natural, magical and psychological. These mono norms formed the core of primitive law as the form of proper, necessary behavior, the most significant factor of the force of which was the joint residence and the mutual benefit of acting concertedly.In the absence of political power in the primitive society, they also supported the authority of tribal leaders, elders, healers, healers and sorcerers. With the emergence of religion and systems of morality, these norms receive a new religious and value justification and differentiate from those norms of morality that do not require more stringent, compared with them, sanctions. Thus, the social interaction in the process of living together and the elaboration of the rules of this residence, the improvement of the methods of resolving conflicts and disputes provided the ground on which the archaic right of the primitive society has grown, which in the form reached us in the relevant earliest historical sources, according to the constant scientific tradition, is called customary law.Article received 20.11.2018 ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню процесу виникнення права у первісному суспільстві періоду дикості і варварства у часових рамках історії людства з початку зародження життя (близько 4,1 – 3,7 млрд рр. тому) до винайдення методів обробітку землі та первинного поділу праці та винайдення давньою цивілізацією шумерів письма (відповідно 6500–3100 рр. до н. е.). Обґрунтовано соціальні й антропологічні причини виникнення права (потреби спільного проживання, нормативність свідомості), світоглядна основа, природа зобов'язувального характеру первісних правил, їхній взаємозв'язок із мораллю.Матеріал надійшов 20.11.2018
The article is devoted to the study of the process of the emergence of rights in the primitive society of the period of savagery and barbarism. The time frame expands from the beginning of the birth of life (about 4.1 – 3.7 billion years ago) to the invention of methods of cultivation of land and the primary division of labor and the invention of ancient civilization of Sumerians of writing (respectively 6,500 years - 3,100 years BC). The social and anthropological reasons for the emergence of law (needs of common habitation, normative consciousness), the world-view basis, the nature of the binding character of the original rules, their interrelation with morality, are substantiated. The original rules of conduct in the form of prohibitions (taboos), custom, rite, worship and ritual were alloy, a mixture of divine and natural, magical and psychological. These mono norms formed the core of primitive law as the form of proper, necessary behavior, the most significant factor of the force of which was the joint residence and the mutual benefit of acting concertedly.In the absence of political power in the primitive society, they also supported the authority of tribal leaders, elders, healers, healers and sorcerers. With the emergence of religion and systems of morality, these norms receive a new religious and value justification and differentiate from those norms of morality that do not require more stringent, compared with them, sanctions. Thus, the social interaction in the process of living together and the elaboration of the rules of this residence, the improvement of the methods of resolving conflicts and disputes provided the ground on which the archaic right of the primitive society has grown, which in the form reached us in the relevant earliest historical sources, according to the constant scientific tradition, is called customary law.Article received 20.11.2018 ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню процесу виникнення права у первісному суспільстві періоду дикості і варварства у часових рамках історії людства з початку зародження життя (близько 4,1 – 3,7 млрд рр. тому) до винайдення методів обробітку землі та первинного поділу праці та винайдення давньою цивілізацією шумерів письма (відповідно 6500–3100 рр. до н. е.). Обґрунтовано соціальні й антропологічні причини виникнення права (потреби спільного проживання, нормативність свідомості), світоглядна основа, природа зобов'язувального характеру первісних правил, їхній взаємозв'язок із мораллю.Матеріал надійшов 20.11.2018
The article is devoted to the study of the process of the emergence of rights in the primitive society of the period of savagery and barbarism. The time frame expands from the beginning of the birth of life (about 4.1 – 3.7 billion years ago) to the invention of methods of cultivation of land and the primary division of labor and the invention of ancient civilization of Sumerians of writing (respectively 6,500 years - 3,100 years BC). The social and anthropological reasons for the emergence of law (needs of common habitation, normative consciousness), the world-view basis, the nature of the binding character of the original rules, their interrelation with morality, are substantiated. The original rules of conduct in the form of prohibitions (taboos), custom, rite, worship and ritual were alloy, a mixture of divine and natural, magical and psychological. These mono norms formed the core of primitive law as the form of proper, necessary behavior, the most significant factor of the force of which was the joint residence and the mutual benefit of acting concertedly.In the absence of political power in the primitive society, they also supported the authority of tribal leaders, elders, healers, healers and sorcerers. With the emergence of religion and systems of morality, these norms receive a new religious and value justification and differentiate from those norms of morality that do not require more stringent, compared with them, sanctions. Thus, the social interaction in the process of living together and the elaboration of the rules of this residence, the improvement of the methods of resolving conflicts and disputes provided the ground on which the archaic right of the primitive society has grown, which in the form reached us in the relevant earliest historical sources, according to the constant scientific tradition, is called customary law.Article received 20.11.2018 ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню процесу виникнення права у первісному суспільстві періоду дикості і варварства у часових рамках історії людства з початку зародження життя (близько 4,1 – 3,7 млрд рр. тому) до винайдення методів обробітку землі та первинного поділу праці та винайдення давньою цивілізацією шумерів письма (відповідно 6500–3100 рр. до н. е.). Обґрунтовано соціальні й антропологічні причини виникнення права (потреби спільного проживання, нормативність свідомості), світоглядна основа, природа зобов'язувального характеру первісних правил, їхній взаємозв'язок із мораллю.Матеріал надійшов 20.11.2018
