The aggressiveness of speech is proportional to the violence of social reality.
The Bolshevik practice was especially violent, destructive, and ruthless for Ukraine, which was destined for a long time to share a common state destiny with Russia.
Ukrainian society retained relative autonomy from government pressure, as it was 86% rural, with its own customs of rural self-government and cultural life in communities. Being within the framework of traditional culture, the Ukrainian peasant had never before experienced such total violence, which fell on him with collectivization and the cultural revolution since 1928. Radical changes were introduced not only at the socio-political level of power – the peasants were forced to change relations, understanding, vision and perception of man and the world.
The totalitarian form of violence perpetrated on behalf of the authorities is fundamentally contrary to the natural human right to freedom, but success is achieved not only by the army, intelligence services and the police. An important role is played by the readiness of a part of society to legitimately accept violence, fitting its forms into already existing, ready-made ways of life and, moreover, into the discursive-speech structures of worldview.
The first, subtle forms of violence begin in speech; for total violence, speech and language must be transformed into an encratic discourse of propaganda. Goebbels is a medium that, by means of discourse, transforms human dignity into the pride of a soldier and a subject of the metaphysical theory of the world, on whose behalf the interpretation is performed – sorcery.
Just as in the Middle Ages, where “truth messages” belonged to the educated clergy, “new facts” “if they crossed the threshold of the ordinary, were reshaped into” excellent “- into divination and miracles. Signs … Thus the novelty of the historical sphere of “message” was muted and, as signs and wonders, was drawn into the sphere of representativeness, where the people were allowed only with the right of approval to ritual or ceremonial participation in openness, unable to give independent interpretations “6.
Criticism as a sign of freedom
Criticism of witchcraft – from magic to propaganda – is a necessary condition for recognizing violence and identifying human free will. Criticism is first and foremost a natural function of mental activity that applies equally to humanitarian and natural pursuits. Therefore, for a totalitarian regime, anyone who is engaged in mental activity is under suspicion.
The silence of natural scientists on the violent actions of the authorities will indicate not so much their agreement with the government itself, but the hidden motives to use it or the elementary fear – in any case, the priorities of ethical orientations are indicated. When direct participation in power signals the settlement of accounts not only with critical thinking, but probably also with intelligence. It is impossible to accept a government that practices violence without accepting the language of violence. The difference will only apply to behaviors. After all, language is not only the words we use, it is also the idea of ourselves and others.
Criticism is a precondition for denying violence and a first step towards recognizing the priority of freedom and establishing the legal norms of social regulation of relations. As a rule, effective criticism can be made in the context of all humanities literature and culture; it is here that a person becomes an artistic hero who organically does not perceive violence and seeks to exercise his own freedom.
Denial of violence through the interpretation of its forms and conditions creates rational preconditions for its identification and separation of human rights and opportunities for their protection. Hence, rational forms of discourse based on the priority of the value of freedom are a necessary condition for the formation of a sociality with fixed legal norms.
Intellectual interpretation of the world in itself is a manifestation of its nature through human mental activity. Outside of intellectual penetration, society remains deaf, closed to freedom and human rights, where violence is perceived through the prism of “natural disasters” outside of differentiation with the peculiarities of human life. A critical attitude to violence at the level of intellectual-rational function reveals the inherent life property of its interpretation by man. Under the sign of criticism is the recognition of human dignity and quality of life, which can be ensured by the joint efforts of a free man.
Freedom of human action is a common process for many, which in the historical and cultural context is carried out through the nature of equality – that is, in the forms of civil society. In the society of civil society, violence is balanced not just by the appropriate action of the state, but by the orientation of society itself to such legal norms that best guarantee the expression of human will and encourage voluntary and charitable behavior.
In the sense of social organization – this is a society in which the benefit of one individual does not turn into the defeat of another. On the contrary, relations on the principle of “victory – defeat” are moved away from social reality; instead, there is an understanding and the need to complement the abilities of people with equal rights. Social reality, with a sufficiently developed discourse and ethics of freedom, gives rise to the need for civil rights and civil status as a well-organized fair social cooperation.
It seems that the discourse of freedom developed long before the era of modernism with its mercantile dominance and economic interest in the urban environment. The movement for freedom and solidarity in Europe can be traced back to antiquity, but became a reality of social structures in the form of the first Christian communities, churches and monasteries. The man went to them voluntarily, often in defiance of political power, and could just as voluntarily withdraw. This seems to apply to any monotheistic religious movement.
Another thing is that the religious movement did not permeate all social structures, which soon in many cases gave it forms of political supremacy. The urban environment with a focus on private property has given the existing proto-civic forms of voluntary activity general distribution through their institutionalization, in particular in the economic sphere. However, the civil society is not so much focused on purely economic profits, but rather – on the contrary – it is basically associated with non-profit, charitable interest, obviously directed against the despotic government, and focused on expanding the intimate space of life and leisure as a social forms of the latter.
Economic benefit is in a way a specific manifestation of the gift of life and freedom through their compensation in the creation of leisure through better organization of social cooperation and the gradual elimination of hard, physically exhausting work for a living. It is known that each historical epoch demonstrates its inherent obvious connection between cultural and economic norms. Such norms were especially prominent in peasant societies, which, however, are not identical with national societies.
The explanation of civil society exclusively by the interests of the market, private property and the city lacks a reductionist methodology of reducing the meaning of human life to economic determinism, the pleasure of consumption, which ultimately leads to a great suspicion of man’s innate bad intentions … A classic example of a metaphysical interpretation of such assumptions about human life intentions was once given by legislators in ancient China. Marxism became only a belated Western version of the interpretation of distrust of life and freedom of will in a purely social context.
Belief in immortality, which, according to I. Kant, is a condition of moral freedom, is not given to exhaustive socialization, and all life and all history remains a private-intimate affair of man. In this sense, the position of atheism also becomes a manifestation of the reductionist intention to explain man and the world exclusively in terms of sociality, write my lab report for me reviews forgetting that it is not man who brought life to the planet, and that it can continue even after it does not.
The practice of communist transformations has shown that the consistent conduct of atheistic beliefs (and they are a prerequisite for practice) forms such a “social reality” in which the private-intimate difference between people loses its independent significance. There is a society for which “there are no irreplaceable people” – all possibilities depend only on the government.
Being in the circumstances of metaphysical pressure on society, a person loses the ability to engage in voluntary behavior as an immanent entity for life. Accordingly, language (and more broadly, discourse) “succumbs to naked will and activism and serves as an instrument of domination over the existent” (M. Heidegger), losing the semiotic foundations of solidary understanding. Under the metaphysical pressure of worldview, language becomes an “instrument of power” from which it derives the intention of coercion to reproduce the world locked in its meanings – in fact, the “antiworld” of human authenticity. The intention is to avoid high values, for which there is no intimate space.
The aggressiveness of speech is proportional to the violence of social reality. The discourse of domination and subordination continues in an ethic that is indifferent to violence. Together, they outline an aggressive environment: dirty facades, broken elevators, dilapidated porches, horrible public restrooms, stinking train stations, broken streetlights, mutilated public transportation, gray-identical architecture, and finally gloomy, unsmiling faces. completely indifferent to the dignity of people and quality of life.
In such a reality, a person can only be considered a citizen. In fact, it is entirely under the control of the authorities and the daily violence that, say, in the Soviet Union grew organically with the intention of making economic relations responsible for human happiness.
Civil society is a network of relations between people, which is carried out primarily around the recognition of human rights in the form of voluntary and solidary complementarity of equal dignity and opportunities for life. Civil society is a type of reality that consists of an intellectual interpretation of freedom raised to the values of human rights, focused on the awareness of the inadmissibility of violence and coercion in everything related to the organization of life together.