Serhii Pyrozhkov
Doctor of Economics, Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Vice President of the NAS of Ukraine
ORCID: 0000-0002-7539-0248
Nazip Khamitov
Doctor of Philosophy, Full Professor, Leading Research Fellow, Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, NAS of Ukraine
ORCID: 0000-0001-8193-9383
DOI: 10.37837/2707-7683-2021-34
Abstract. The article examines the essence of the concepts ‘independence’ and ‘agency’ of Ukraine, their specific manifestations, substantial differences, and the major characteristics of the civilisational agency of countries, which are archetypical and situational. Each of them consists of pairs of opposites (authoritarianism – humanism, weakness – power, passionarity – conformity). The authors emphasise that it is extremely important to find out the difference between the concepts of independence and agency of the country.
The authors note that the productive civilizational agency of Ukraine in the modern world should be humanistic and innovative. This determines its strength and quality, which are necessary for the decent life and prosperity of the people of our country and the achievement of its true independence. The issue of the genuine independence of the country, its people, and authorities is analysed and it is assumed that this is the transition of independence to freedom.
The authors identify three ‘waves’ of civilizational agency in the history of Ukraine, which precede the stage that began in 1991, and its current state. In particular, these are the periods of Rus, the Cossack state, and the Ukrainian revolution (1917– 1921). It is argued that the agency of modern Ukraine, expressed in a referendum by the will of the Ukrainian people, began to develop in 1991 on the basis of an independent state and had a long prehistory and deep roots that trace their origins back to the times of the culture of Rus.
It is noted that the agency of the country is the meaning and purpose of its security and not vice versa. Put otherwise, security is only a means of achieving agency. In addition, the national security and agency of the country are dialectically linked. However, in various social systems, the emphasis is placed on the main values: ensuring national security or updating the agency of the country.
It is proven that in the modern world, the development of the country’s agency through innovative development means the acquisition of strategic security. It is also highlighted in the article that the urgent task facing Ukraine today is to comprehend and ensure the innovation and humanistic nature of its social and political practices as the basis of its agency.
The authors conclude that in the modern geopolitical realities, the agency of Ukraine – both as an objective economic, political, and cultural process and as an image in the eyes of partners – has a rather contradictory effect on its security.
Keywords: Ukraine, independence, civilizational agency, national security, innovation, humanism.
References
1. Vorona, V. (2020). Sotsiolohichni narysy politekonoma [Sociological Essays of a Political Economist]. Kyiv: Instytut Sotsiolohii NAN Ukrainy. [in Ukrainian].
2. Hrushevskyi, M. (2015). Try akademii [Three Academies], in Sokhan, P. et al. (eds.) Tvory: u 50 t. T. 1 [Works in 50 Vol. Vol. 1]. Lviv: Svit, pp. 399–412. [in Ukrainian].
3. Kasianov, H. (2018). Past Continuous: Istorychna polityka 1980-kh – 2000-kh: Ukraina ta susidy [Past Continuous: Historical Policy from 1980s to 2000s: Ukraine and Neighbours]. Kyiv: Laurus, Antropos-Lohos-Film. [in Ukrainian].
4. Kremen, V. (2009). Filosofiia liudynotsentryzmu v stratehiiakh osvitnoho prostoru [Philosophy of Anthropocentrism in Educational Strategies]. Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka. [in Ukrainian].
5. Krylova, S. (2019). Krasa liudyny v zhyttievykh praktykakh kultury. Dosvid sotsialnoi ta kulturnoi metaantropolohii i androhin-analizu: monohrafiia [The Beauty of Human in Life Practices of Culture. Experience of Social and Cultural Meta-Anthropology and Androhin-Analysis: A Monograph]. Kyiv: KNT. [in Ukrainian].
6. Pyrozhkov, S. (1992). Natsionalni interesy Ukrainy: kontseptsiia bezpeky i suchasni realii heopolitychnoi sytuatsii v Yevropi [National Interests of Ukraine: The Concept of Security and Modern Realities of the Geopolitical Situation in Europe]. Viche, no. 11 (8), pp. 11–23. [in Ukrainian].
7. Pyrozhkov, S., Khamitov, N. (2020). Tsyvilizatsiina subiektnist Ukrainy: vid potentsii do novoho svitohliadu i buttia liudyny [Civilisational Agency of Ukraine: From Potencies to a New Worldview and Human Being]. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. [in Ukrainian].
8. Pyrozhkov, S., Khamitov, N. (2017). Ukraina: vid shtuchnoi ta realnoi konfrontatsii do konsolidatsii [Ukraine: From Artificial and Real Confrontation to Consolidation]. Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 28 (324), p. 4. [in Ukrainian].
9. Pyrozhkov, S., Khamitov, N. (2018). Noosferna tsyvilizatsiia: vid potentsii do novoi realnosti [Noospheric Civilisation: From Probabilities to New Reality]. Visnyk NAN Ukrainy, no. 2, pp. 71–82. [in Ukrainian].
10. Pyrozhkov, S., Khamitov, N. (2020). Chy ye Ukraina tsyvilizatsiinym subiektom istorii ta suchasnosti? [Is Ukraine a Civilisational Agent of History and Modernity?]. Visnyk NAN Ukrainy, no. 7, pp. 3–15. [in Ukrainian].
11. Khamitov, N. (2019). Filosofska antropolohiia: actualni problemy. Vid teoretychnoho do praktychnoho povorotu [Philosophical Anthropology: Relevant Problems. From Theoretical to Practical Turn], 3rd ed. Kyiv: KNT. [in Ukrainian].
12. Pyrozhkov, S. et. al (eds) (2016). Tsyvilizatsiinyi vybir Ukrainy: paradyhma osmyslennia i stratehiia dii: natsionalna dopovid [Civilisational Choice of Ukraine: Paradigm of Reflection and Strategy of Action: National Report]. Kyiv: NAS of Ukraine. [in Ukrainian].
13. Khamitov, N., Dandekar, D. (2019). Gender strategies and political leadership. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, Issue 15, p. 40–48. [in English]. 10.15802/ampr.v0i15.169479