Emancipative values and tolerance in the context of modernization of Ukrainian society

297
1
Article(UKR)(.pdf)

The originality of the study is revealing the connection of the social and cultural dimensions ofmodernization (emancipative values and tolerance) to the economic development of modern society. Empirical basisof research contains data of the fourth wave(2008–2010) of the European Values Study (EVS) with overall of 62157 respondents, GDP per capita (IMF 2009); Global Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum The GlobalCompetitiveness Report 2009–2010), Human Development Index United Nations Development Program for 42 European countries. Methods of analysis are comparative and include descriptive statistics, ranking and correlationanalysis at a country level.

The paper dwells upon an original concept of modern tolerance that is based on J.C.Alexanderunderstanding of civil sphere. Prevalence of modern tolerance is compared to its opposite form ofarchaic tolerance among the population of Ukraine as well as other European countries. Specificity of relationshipbetween modern tolerance and emancipative values (in terms of R. Inglehart’s definitions) was clarified in differentregions of Europe and peculiarities of Ukrainian society were defined in the European context. The analysisrevealed that in modern Ukraine archaic elements outweigh the modern oneswhich jeopardizes the modernizationprocess in general.Since tolerance is inextricably linked to national identity, it can be concluded that the spread ofmodern tolerance is possible only in the case of civic, but not ethnic development.

Based on the data, the paperprovides recommendations to the Government of Ukraine and the Ukrainian media to promote national identity thatencompasses ethnic, cultural and civic components with the priority of the latter.

  1. Human Development Report 2014. Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. United Nations Development Program. (2014). New York: UNDP. URL: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf

  2. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J.A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York: Crown Publishers.

  3. Savelyev, Yu. (2013). Multidimensional Modernity: Essential Features of Modern Society in Sociological Discourse. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 6, 11, 1673-1691.

  4. Berger, P. (1990). Understanding of modernity. Socis – Sociological Studies, 7, 127-133 [in Russian].

  5. Eisenstadt, S.N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129, 1, 1-29.

  6. Savelyev, Yu. (2013). ‘Emancipativevalues’ and ‘power of choice’ in the understanding of modernization. The processes of modernization and transformation of values: proceedings of the round table. Ekon. prognozuvannâ – Economy and forecasting, 1, 136-137 [in Ukrainian].

  7. Wagner, P. (1994). A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and Discipline. London: Routledge.

  8. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

  9. Magun, V.S., Rudnev, M.G. (2007). Life values of the population: comparison of Ukraine and other European countries. Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya – The Russian Public Opinion Herald, 3, 21-34 [in Russian].

  10. Ruchka, A. (2011). Value priorities of Ukraine’s population in terms of social transformations. In V. Vorona, M. Shulga (Eds.), Ukrainian society. Twenty years of independence. Sociological monitoring. Vol. 1. Analytical materials (pp. 210-214). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine  [in Ukrainian].

  11. Misyutina, V.I. (2011). The change of value orientations of Ukrainians. In Determinants of socio-economic inequality in modern Ukraine. Kyiv: Institute for Economics and Forecasting of NAS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

  12. Panina, N.V. (2005). Factors of national identity, tolerance, xenophobia and anti-semitism in contemporary Ukraine. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 4, 26-45 [in Russian].

  13. Panina, N.V., Golovakha, E.I. (2006). National tolerance and identity in Ukraine: experience of using the social distance scale in monitoring sociological study. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, 3-4, 102-126 [in Russian].

  14. EVS (2011). European Values Study 1981–2008, Longitudinal Data File. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, Germany, ZA4804 Data File Version 2.0.0 (2011-12-30). Available at: http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fCatalog/Catalog5

  15. Welzel, C., Inglehart, R., Klingemann, H.-D. (2003). The theory of human development: A cross-culturalanalysis. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 342.

  16. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  17. Inglehart, R., Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  18. Sokolov, V.M. (2003). Tolerance: status and trends. Socis – Sociological Studies, 8, 54-63 [in Russian].

  19. Khomyakov, M.B. (2006). Identity, tolerance and the idea of citizenship. Civil, ethnic and religious identity in modern Russia. Moscow: Institute of Sociology RAS [in Russian].

  20. Jeffrey, A.C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  21. Shulman, S. (2002). Challenging the civic/ethnic and West/East dichotomies in the study of nationalism. Comparative Political Studies, 35 (5), 554-585.

Full text