
ОСОБЛИВОСТІ СХІДНОЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОЇ КОНЦЕПТУАЛІЗАЦІЇ ГРОМАДЯНСЬКОГО СУСПІЛЬСТВА
Author(s) -
В. Л. Пасісниченко,
І. М. Пасісниченко
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
sučasne suspìlʹstvo: polìtičnì nauki, socìologìčnì nauki, kulʹturologìčnì nauki
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2413-0060
pISSN - 2411-7587
DOI - 10.34142/24130060.2019.17.1.13
Subject(s) - civil society , slogan , politics , communism , opposition (politics) , political science , democracy , conceptualization , state (computer science) , sociology , political economy , law , philosophy , linguistics , algorithm , computer science
This article reviews how civil society was reemerged in Eastern Europe during «velvet revolutions» as the central concept of the democratic opposition due to the efforts of its representatives and what role it has played in defeating communism and shaping the nature of post-communist societies. What is emphasized as a first paradox is that civil society as a western idea had revived in the East and after a long «silent period» when it went out of use in the middle of the nineteen century. The article focuses on the particular features and ambiguities of civil society conceptualization first by addressing its slogan use which fits revolutionary period of emotions and deeds priorities. Nevertheless, theoretical innovations of this civil society model are also visible due to a contribution of such Easter Europe intellectuals as A Michnik, M. Vaida, B. Geremek, V.Havel, A. Smolar, Y. Kiss etc. Their focus on a state-civil society distinction has its theoretical roots not only in a western liberal tradition but could be explained by local assumptions as well. In particular, these links lead to a theory of totalitarianism and strategies of self-limitation, self-organization and finally anti-politics approach employed by these Easter Europe intellectuals. Finally, the article exposes weak sides of these strategies that were revealed by post-communist realities. Week analyses of the state and power issues, wrong efforts to restrain from politics made Easter Europe civil society model not only revolutionary but also minimal in its impact and temporary in its scale. As result, a second paradox of the Easter Europe type of civil society is its quick transition from a discourse of civil society revival in 1970-1980 years into an opposite discourse of civil society decay in the late 1990 years.