THE JÜRGEN HABERMAS’S ‘RATIONAL’ RATIONALITIES AND THE ‘IRRATIONAL’ CORDOCENTRISM: TOWARD THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTING CIVIL SOCIETY IN UKRAINE

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the potential of Ukrainian society in building a democratic model of development through the lens of discourse ethics, conceptually grounded in the works of K.-O. Apel and J. Habermas. The starting point of the analysis is the assertion that Ukraine’s aspiration for European integration has deep historical roots and remains relevant today, as the country simultaneously defends its independence in the Russo-Ukrainian war and seeks its place within the community of Western democracies. Ukraine is part of contemporary globalization processes, yet it remains a relatively young state, where democratic institutions and practices are still in the early stages of development and require thorough theoretical reflection. The methodological foundation of the study is discourse ethics, which allows for an assessment of the prospects of communicative rationalization as an important tool for consolidating civil society. Particular attention is paid to the interaction between “rational” factors – such as mechanisms of public dialogue, horizontal cooperation, and consensus-building – and “non-rational” components, including the Ukrainian cordocentrism. This phenomenon is understood as an emotionally and value-driven impulse expressing an intuitive striving for good, justice, and solidarity, while at the same time potentially leading to impulsive decisions and reducing critical reflection. The study takes into account previous research analyzing the development of Ukrainian society and emphasizes the importance of considering the emotional and cultural dimensions. The author highlights that the combination of rational communicative practices with the profound “choice of the heart” creates both unique advantages for democratic progress and certain risks: impatience with higher authorities, a tendency toward excessive individualism, and the dominance of strategic rationality over the ethics of mutual understanding. It is concluded that harmonizing rational and emotional dimensions, as well as addressing potential risks of societal fragmentation, constitutes a key avenue for further research. Such an approach allows for a deeper understanding of the specificity of the Ukrainian ethos, identification of its strengths and weaknesses, and the development of pathways to strengthen democratic practices necessary for Ukraine’s full integration into the European democratic space.