Космополітизм: українська версія
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Лисий, Іван
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Сутністю драгоманівського соціально-політичного космополітизму є ідея прав особи і самоуправи громад і країв, що передбачає їхню автономію і федеральну злуку.
Чесноти космополітичної позиції Драгоманов акцентував, протиставляючи її націоналізмові,
точніше – україноцентризмові. Для Драгоманова-космополіта національна культура, оскільки
вона є несамодостатньою частиною справжнього цілого – світової вселюдської культури, не
може мислитися як культурний космос. Цим статусом він потрапляючи часові наділяв Європу.
Але безпосереднім, екзистенційно сущим втіленням європейської культури для нього як від початку російськокультурної людини була російська (точніше, кажучи його ж мовою, "всеросійська",
або "общеруська") культура, складником якої він вважав українську. Саме "общеруське" було для
нього наднаціональним культурним космосом. Тому Драгоманов був послідовним опонентом україноцентричних поглядів, яким протиставляв космополітичне світотлумачення, розгорнуте на російськокультурному ґрунті.
Mykhailo Drahomanov was the major figure representing cosmopolitism in the ideological sphere of Ukraine. Drahomanov’s interest not only was social and political, it also encompassed the cultural aspects of cosmopolitism in their internal unity. The idea of the rights of individuals and communities to self-administration, land providing their autonomy, and federal unity are at the core of Drahomanov’s social and political cosmopolitism. Not a national state, but a world confederation of free unities – communities or, at least an “EU–wide confederation”, where national principles will disappear, is the model for the sophist. Drahomanov emphasized the virtues of the cosmopolitan position, contrasting it with nationalism in the persona of Ukrainocentrism. In his opinion, the main disadvantages of the latter are, first of all, conservatism and a focus on the past, whereas his cosmopolitism was based on progressivism; secondly, the absolutization of national signs, which he considered as merely relative; and finally, compulsion, ascribed by Drahomanov to nationalism in opposition to the liberating mission of cosmopolitism. The disadvantages of nationalism can be overcome or weakened, in his opinion, only when “patriotism is placed under the control of cosmopolitism”. For Drahomanov, a cosmopolitan, national culture cannot be interpreted as a cultural cosmos as it is not a self-sufficient part of the real whole, the world of panhuman culture. For him, initially a person of Russian culture, the immediate, existentially essential embodiment of European culture was “All-Russian” culture. Ukrainian culture, in his opinion, being part of it. Namely, the “All-Russian” for him was the supranational culture cosmos. Thus, Drahomanov, belonging to the Russian whole and adhering to Russian culture, was the sequential opponent of Ukrainocentric views, to which he contrasted the cosmopolitan explanation of the world, deployed on Russian cultural ground.
Mykhailo Drahomanov was the major figure representing cosmopolitism in the ideological sphere of Ukraine. Drahomanov’s interest not only was social and political, it also encompassed the cultural aspects of cosmopolitism in their internal unity. The idea of the rights of individuals and communities to self-administration, land providing their autonomy, and federal unity are at the core of Drahomanov’s social and political cosmopolitism. Not a national state, but a world confederation of free unities – communities or, at least an “EU–wide confederation”, where national principles will disappear, is the model for the sophist. Drahomanov emphasized the virtues of the cosmopolitan position, contrasting it with nationalism in the persona of Ukrainocentrism. In his opinion, the main disadvantages of the latter are, first of all, conservatism and a focus on the past, whereas his cosmopolitism was based on progressivism; secondly, the absolutization of national signs, which he considered as merely relative; and finally, compulsion, ascribed by Drahomanov to nationalism in opposition to the liberating mission of cosmopolitism. The disadvantages of nationalism can be overcome or weakened, in his opinion, only when “patriotism is placed under the control of cosmopolitism”. For Drahomanov, a cosmopolitan, national culture cannot be interpreted as a cultural cosmos as it is not a self-sufficient part of the real whole, the world of panhuman culture. For him, initially a person of Russian culture, the immediate, existentially essential embodiment of European culture was “All-Russian” culture. Ukrainian culture, in his opinion, being part of it. Namely, the “All-Russian” for him was the supranational culture cosmos. Thus, Drahomanov, belonging to the Russian whole and adhering to Russian culture, was the sequential opponent of Ukrainocentric views, to which he contrasted the cosmopolitan explanation of the world, deployed on Russian cultural ground.
Description
Keywords
космополітизм, космополітичні принципи, націоналізм, М. Драгоманов, стаття, cosmopolitism, principle of cosmopolitism, nationalism, M. Drahomanov
Citation
Лисий І. Я. Космополітизм: українська версія / Лисий І. Я. // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Літературознавство. - 2018. - Т. 1. - С. 74-86.