Public and private in the post-soviet area: the problem of demarcation

  • M. I. Zaidel PhD in political science
Keywords: public, private, the post­soviet area, power, state

Abstract

The article focuses on the problem of determination of public and private in the post­soviet area. Formation of these spheres should be a logical conclusion of successful transformation and modernization process in ex­soviet republics and getting all spheres of civil life out of the state control. Historical specific is underlined; it is given the determination and main characteristics of public and private. It is given two main approaches’ ways of interpretation the phenomena and formation of public sphere according to H. Arendt and Ju. Hubermas. The specific of formation and demarcation of public and private spheres in the post­soviet area is analyzed. The boundaries between public and private spheres were deformed by the soviet state and communist society. As a result it was built hierarchical relations among the state, society and ruler; it is typical for power centralized societies. The determining factor of institutional heritage in the processes of state­making is underlined. The deformation of division of state, public and private spheres is caused by combining of traditional and modern institutes and practices; as a result social practices that are against of logic of modern society slow down the development of market­oriented economy and modernization of institutions.

Author Biography

M. I. Zaidel, PhD in political science
V.N.Karazin Kharkiv national university

References

Dem’yanchuk, O. P. «Derzhavna polityka» ta «publichna polityka»: variant perehidnogo periodu («Politics» and «public policy»: a version of transit period). Naukovі zapiski, Vol.18, 2000. pp. 31­36.

Parsons, V. Publichna polityka: vstup do teoriyi i praktyky analizu polityky (Public policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis ). Kyiv, 2006. 549 p.

Baltserovich, L. Navstrechu ogranichennomu gosudarstvu (Towards to the limited government).Moskva, 2007. 92 p.

Erohov, I. A. Chelovecheskoe i politicheskoe: filosofiya Hanny Arendt (Human and political: philosophy of Hanna Arendt). Politicheskoe kak problema. Ocherki politicheskoy filosofii XX veka. Moskva, 2009. pp.72­93.

Kordonskiy, S. Ryinki vlasti. Administrativnyie rynki SSSR i Rossii (Markets of power. Administrative markets of USSR and Russia). Moskva, 2000. 240 p.

Krasin, Yu. Publichnaya sfera i publichnaya politika v rossiyskom izmerenii (Public sphere and public policy in Russian dimension). Regime to access: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/2012/03/12/1269113634/1.pdf

Malinova, O. Yu. Ideologicheskiy pluralism i transformatsiya publichnoy sfery v postsovetskoy Rossii (Ideological pluralism and transformation of public sphere of post­soviet Russian). Polis, 2007, no 1, pp.6­21.

Oleynik, A. Obshchestvo neopredelennosti: institutsionalnaya perspektiva (Society of indeterminacy: institutional perspective). Oikumena. Almanah sravnitelnyh issledovaniy politicheskih institutov, sotsialno­ekonomicheskih sistem i tcivilizatcih, 2006, no 4, pp.33­47.

Plotnikov, N. Vlast argument i public relations: 70 let Khabermasu (Power of argument and public relations: 70 years of Hubermas). Logos, 1999, no 8 (18).Regime to access: http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/1999_08/1999_ 8_12.htm

Soules, M. Jorgen Habermas and the Public Sphere. Regime to access: http://records.viu.ca/~soules/media301/hab ermas.htm

Published
2014-01-15
How to Cite
Zaidel, M. I. (2014). Public and private in the post-soviet area: the problem of demarcation. Grani, 17(2), 79-82. Retrieved from https://grani.org.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/430
Section
POLITICAL SCIENCE