Strategies for Treating the Other in the Methodological Focus of Intersubjectivity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/po/101Keywords:
intersubjectivity, pluralism, the Other, integration, dialogue, existenceAbstract
In today's world, the “challenge” of cultural diversity turns out to be the basis for further social processes and necessitates the reorientation of conventional cultural institutions of social life to the recognition of the possibility of different cultures to develop fully within a particular social community. Another problem is the search for a person’s ability and capability to “protect” “his/her own self” in the face of the threat of unification and depersonalization of the globalized world, to choose the most personal thing to him/her in society. Evolution towards a multicultural world predetermines the search of productive methodological approaches in explaining the integrative processes of the modern world and outlining strategies for the development of cultural diversity and multicultural co-existence. An intersubjective approach is relevant and productive in this perspective of consideration. In philosophical discourse, intersubjectivity is understood as intersubjectness and implies a connection between subjects, not identical, not universal Ego-Ego, but rather individual, autonomous, equal Ego-Other, emerging and understood as unique existence world by virtue of their nature. The concept of dialogue is a kind of “solidarity” of the Otherness existences. The dialogue is seen as the goal and principal means of spiritual objective reality and renewal of modern social objective reality, demonstrating the ability to find common solutions, ways of understanding and harmony in resolving conflict situations, overcoming conformism and selfishness. A world deprived of cultural priorities in the development of certain cultures and the neglect of the opportunities and characteristics of others will deprive the human race of hostility and intransigence, will acquire the contours of a pluralistic, multicultural image, since it is “woven out” from the discourse of different value- worthy civilizational achievements.References
Bart, R. (1989). Izbrannyye trudy: Semiotika. Poetika [Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics]. (G. K. Kosikova, Trans.). Moscow, Russia: Progress.
Beck, W. (2000). Risk society: On the way to another Art Nouveau (V. Sedelnik, & N. Fedorova, Trans.). Moscow, Russia: Progress-Tradition.
Castells, M. (2000). Information era: Economics, society and culture (O. I. Shkaratan, Trans.). Moscow, Russia: GUVSE.
Deleuze, J. (1998). Skladka. Leybnits i barokko [Leibniz and baroque] (B. M. Skuratova, Trans.). Moscow, Russia: Logos.
Deleuze, J. (1980). Logika smysla [The logics of sense]. Moscow, Russia: Rarity.
Dovhopolova, O. (2007). Stratehiyi stavlennya chuzhoho v epokhu hlobalizatsiyi [Strategies for the attitude of a stranger in the age of globalization], Civil society in Ukraine in the age of globalization: Value-normative and institutional support for its development (pp. 262-278), Kiev, Ukraine.
Georgescu, C. M. (2018). The postmodernity of European integration: Affirming EU core values, identities and principles in the mass media. Postmodern Openings, 9(2), 196-209. doi:10.18662/po/28
Husserl, E. (1998). Kartezianskiye razmyshleniye [Cartesian reflections]. (D. V. Skliadneva, Trans.). Saint Petersburg, Russia: Science-Yuvesta.
Kantor, K. (1996). Chetvertyy vitok istorii [Fourth round of history]. Philosophical issues, 1-2, 19- 42. Sartre, J. P. (1990). Ekzistentsializm – eto gumanizm [Existentialism is Humanism]. Twilight of the Gods. Moscow, Russia: Science.
Skubashivska, T. (2004). Problema tolerantnosti u zrizi mizhkulʹturnoho dialohu [The problem of tolerance in the context of intercultural dialogue]. Practical philosophy, 4, 108-113.
Sălceanu, C. (2019). The evolution of human values – A comparative study of values in adolescents and emerging adults. Postmodern Openings, 10(2), 74-83. doi:10.18662/po/72
Pehoiu, G. (2018). Education and culture. Cultural consumption among young people aged 18-35. Postmodern Openings, 9(1), 165-181. doi:10.18662/po/11
Tabachkovskyi, V. (2004). Problema «YA-Inshyy» yak oserdya antropolohichnoyi refleksiyi [The Ego-Other problem as the heart of anthropological reflection]. Philosophy. Human world: A lecture course (pp. 157-178). Kiev, Ukraine: Lybid.
Toffler, E. (2002). Shock of the future (E. Rudnev, Trans.). Moscow, Russia: AST.
Waldenfels, B. (1997). Topohrafiya Chuzhoho: studiyi do fenomenolohiyi Chuzhoho [Non self-topography: Studies in non-self-phenomenology]. A handbook. of philosophical disciplines (V. I. Keluadze, Trans.), Kiev, Ukraine.
Welsh, W. (2004). Nash postmodernyy modern [Our postmodern contemporaneity] (A. L. Bogachova, M. D. Kultaeva, & L. A. Sitnichenko, Trans.). Kiev, Ukraine: Altepress.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Postmodern Openings Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND