New ethics as a reaction to globalization

Authors

  • A. Suprun National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog15(1).2024.172-179

Abstract

Topicality. In the modern geopolitical space, the most urgent issue is the national security of individual states in the conditions of various forms of geopolitical expansion. Ukraine is at the epicenter of these extremely difficult conditions. The national security of our country is under threat. Socio-political forecasts and globalization processes point to the reformatting of the consciousness not only of an individual nation, but also of the entire world society. The cultures of the peoples of the entire planet Earth are under the powerful influence of globalization processes. The purpose of the article is to analyze the expected and unexpected changes that we will receive as a result of this large-scale and multifaceted process. especially the emergence of new ethics as a reaction to globalization. Therefore, the main tasks are to determine the possible interpretations of globalization processes in the conditions of geopolitical expansion, the main manipulative components: politics, economy, mass culture, mass media; analysis of consequential phenomena, such as: deformed consciousness of individuals and society as a whole, crisis of self-understanding in the globalized world, risks of loss of identity. As a result of the research, it was found that we associate the emergence of new narratives, norms, and prescriptions with the emergence of new ethics, which will become the main regulator within the limits of civilized globalization. As a conclusion, it can be argued that the most important problem remains the place of man and his relationships in the world of total globalization.

References

Atkinson A. (2002). Globalisation and the European welfare state at the opening and the closing of the twentieth century. H. Kierzkowski (Ed.). Europe and Globalisation. New York: Palgrave‐MacMillan, 249‒273.

Berger S. (2002). Globalisation and politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 43‒62.

Bergh A., Nilsson T. (2010). Do liberalization and globalisation increase income inequality? European Journal of Political Economy, 26(4), 488‒505.

Litvinova I., Ivanov A., Suprun A., Nitchenko A., Stets O. (2021). Impact of the pandemic on the personal freedom limitation (personal freedom includes freedom of mobility). Ad Alta-Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 11(2), 40–44.

Neal G. A. (1998). National Trauma and Collective Memory: Major Events in the American Century. New York, London: M. E. Sharpe, 224.

Stezhko Z., Hryshchenko N., Suprun A. (2021). Freedom or Arbitrariness: A Social and Philosophic Analysis. POSTMODERN OPENINGS, 12(2), 354–366.

Storozhuk S. V., Goyan I. M., Fedyk O. V. (2018). Rol kolektyvnoi pam’iati v protsesi formuvannia natsionalnoi yednosti: ukrainskyi vymir [The role of collective memory in the process of formation of national unity: the Ukrainian dimension]. Humanitarian journal, 1, 11–22.

Suchy O. (2014). Problema kolektyvnoi travmy v ukrainskomu sotsiumi ta poshuk stratehii yii opanuvannia [The problem of collective trauma in Ukrainian society and the search for strategies to overcome it]. Scientific notes of the Institute of Political and Ethnonational Studies named after I. F. Kuras NAS of Ukraine, 6 (74), 18–32.

Published

2024-02-27

Issue

Section

Article