TRANSCENDENTAL ASPECTS OF GENDER

Volodymyr V. Khmel, O. M. Korkh

Abstract


This 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.

Keywords


gender ethics; gender construct; feminism; communicative action; transcendental; gender justice

References


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.


GOST Style Citations


1. Апель, Карл-Отто. Трансформация философии. Пер. с нем. / Перевод В. Куренной, Б. Скуратов. - М.: «Логос». - 2001. - 344 с.

2. Гусейнов А.А. Что я понимаю под. негативной этикой? /Вестн. Моск.ун-та. СЕР 7. Философия. – 2009. - №6. - С.3-20.

3. Єрмоленко А.Н. Попередні примітки до трансцендентальної прагматики / Философская и социологическая мысль. – 1992. – С. 64-71.

4. Йонас Г. Принцип відповідальності. У пошуку етики для технологічної цивілізації. Пер. з нім. А.Єрмоленка. – Київ.: Лібра 2001. – 400 с.

5. Корабльова Е. Смысловые парадигмы современной знаково-символической реальности /текст/ / Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень. - 2012. - №4 . - С.91-99.

6. Малівський А. Філософія Декарта: базова інтенція та статус антропології /текст/ / Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень. - 2012. - №2. - С.108-117.

7. Митчелл Дж. Женская сексуальность / Гендерные исследования. - Харьков: ХЦГИ. - 1998. № 1. – С.27-41.

8. Панов С.В., Ивашкин С.Н. Гендер и дискурс: основы конструктивизма, гипотеза биоцентризма, истерия желания, нарративный формат. - Философские науки. - 9/2013. – С.118-132.

9. Хабермас Ю. Моральное сознание и коммуникативное действие. - Санкт- Петербург. - "Наука". - 2001. – 377 с.

10. Хмель В.В. Ентропійний “вірус” демократії / Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень. /текст/ - 2012. - №1. – 73-79.

11. Хьосле В. Трансцендетальная прагматика как фихтеанство интерсубьєктивности / Философская и социологическая мысль – 1992. – С. 72-93.

12. Челищев В.И. Феномен фундаментализма в современном мире. - МГУ сер. 18. - Социология и философия. - № 4. – 2006. – С.98-117.

13. Butler J. Bodies that Matters: on the Discursive Limits of “Sex” New York: Routledge, 1993 – Р. 27.

14. Danylova T.V. Towards gender equality: Ukraine in the 21 century / Anthropological measurements of philosophical research. – 2013. - №4. – рр. 43 – 51.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr2014/25045

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.