TRANSCENDENTAL ASPECTS OF GENDER
Keywords:gender ethics, gender construct, feminism, communicative action, transcendental, gender justice
AbstractThis paper aims to analyze the basic principles of gender philosophy applying methodological tools of communicative pragmatics; to demonstrate how gender construct can provide gender humanism formation as one of the ideals of democratic society; to specify gender glossary terms such as “gender democracy”, “gender equality” and “gender justice”. Methodology. In order to investigate a theoretical framework in feminist philosophy, methodological tools of communicative pragmatics and discursive ethics that were elaborated by modern German philosophers J. Habermas, K.-O. Apel for analyzing ethical gender principles and their legitimation ways have been used in this research. Scientific novelty. Based on methodological differences in concepts of J. Habermas and K.-O. Apel, two opposite approaches to gender concept analysis – rational and pragmatic (Habermas) and transcendental conceptual (K.-O. Apel) have been found out. The article helps to specify the framework of categories and concepts. According to the legitimation way of gender ethical theory it was discovered that such notions as “gender democracy”, “gender equality” and “gender justice” do not have the same meanings. According to the analysis of communicative action program and consensus, the “gender equality” concept by Habermas is an artificial social construct that is methodologically grounded in cognitivism and diminishes the possibilities of gender values legitimation. According to K.-O. Apel, the concept of “gender justice” is based on transcendental moral and ethical sense of opposite genders unity and does not discharge unequal distribution of responsibilities and any invasion as well as represents certain extent of their difference. Conclusions. Fast growing gender changes in the society face ageold drawbacks of moral and spiritual principles of communities, taking into account social and cultural, national and gender identity. Thorough understanding of various approaches to feminism philosophy leads more to complementarity of male and female principles of humanity with further acceptance of gender roles that reflect more complicated panorama of spiritual life.
Apel K.-O. Transformatsiia filosofii [Transformation of philosophy]. Moscow, Logos, 2001. 344 p.
Guseinov A.A. Chto ya ponimaiu pod negativnoi etikoi? [What do I mean by negative ethics?]. Vestnik MGU. Filosofiia – Bulletin MSU. Philosophy. 2009, issue 6, pp. 3-20.
Yermolenko A.N. Poperedni prymitky do transtsendentalnoi prahmatyki [Preliminary notes to transcendent pragmatics]. Filosofskaia i sotsiologicheskaia mysl – Philosophical and sociological thought. 1992. pp. 64-71.
Yonas H. Pryntsyp vidpovidalnosti. U poshuku etyky dlia tekhnologichnoi tsyvilizatsii [Responsibility principle. In search of ethics for technology civilization]. Kyiv, Libra, 2001. 200 p.
Korablyova E. Smyslovye paradigmy sovremennoi znakovo-simvolicheskoi realnosti [Semantic paradigms of modern sign-symbolic reality]. Antropolohichni vymiry filosofskikh doslidzhen – Anthropological measurements of philosophical research. 2012, issue 4, pp. 91-99.
Malivskyi A. Filosofiia Dekarta: bazova intentsiia ta status antropolohii [Descartes’ philosophy: basic intention and anthropology status]. Antropolohichni vymiry filosofskikh doslidzhen – Anthropological measurements of philosophical research. 2012, issue 2, pp. 108-117.
Mitchell J. Zhenskaia seksualnost [Feminine sexuality]. Gendernye issledovaniia [Gender studies]. Kharkov, 1998, issue 1, pp. 27-41.
Panov S.V., Ivashkin S.N. Gender i diskurs: osnovy konstruktivizma, hipoteza biotsentrizma, isteriia zhelaniia, narrativnyi format [Gender and discourse: the basics of constructivism, biocentrism hypothesis, desire hysteria, narrative format]. Filosofskie nauki – Philosophical sciences. 2013. pp. 118-132
Habermas Yu. Moralnoe soznanie i kommunikativnoe deistvie [Moral consciousness and communication act]. SPb, Nauka, 2001. 377 p.
Khmel V.V. Entropiinyi “virus” demokratii [Entropic „virus“ of democracy]. Antropolohichni vymiry filosofskikh doslidzhen – Anthropological measurements of philosophical research. 2012, issue 1, pp. 73-79.
Hoesle V. Transtsendentalnaia pragmatika kak fikhteanstvo intersubiektivnosti [Transcendental pragmatics as intersubjectivity Fichteanism]. Filosofskaia i sotsiologicheskaia mysl – Philosophical and sociological thought. 1992. pp. 72-93.
Chelishchev V.I. Fenomen fundamentalizma v sovremennom mire [Fundamentalism phenomenon in modern world]. Vestnik MGU. Filosofiia – Bulletin MSU. Philosophy. 2006, issue 4, pp. 98-117.
Butler J. Bodies that Matters: on the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York: Routledge, 1993. Р. 27.
Danylova T.V. Towards gender equality: Ukraine in the 21 century. Anthropological measurements of philosophical research. 2013, issue 4, рр. 43-51.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2014 Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the 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 earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).