The transgression of contemporary strategies of colonialism

7. Основою постколоніальних практик є концепт європейської ідентичності, який слугує принципом верифікації на приналежність до певної соціальної спільноти. Проте сам контент європейської ідентичності є суперечливим і неоднозначним. Тому маємо підстави стверджувати колоніалістський характер впливу та застосування цього концепту.

2. Постколоніальна стратегія сучасності ґрунтується на метафізиці відмінності, а не на метафізиці тотожності. Цим і пояснюється трансформація колоніалістських стратегій по принципу трансгресивності, розширенню сфери впливу та операціональності застосування.

3. Виходячи з вище зазначеної логіки, піддаються сумніву традиційні категорії культури, історії та ідентичності і впроваджуються в обіг концепти дискурсу, нарративу, емпатії та суб'єктивності.

4. Протиріччя в ідеологемах Старої та Нової Європи відображають логіку переходу від традиційних форм колоніалістських стратегій до некласичних трансгресивних принципів постко- лоніального дискурсу.

5. Аналіз концепту європейської ідентичності та стратегії її реіфікації дають передумови для розуміння концепту Європи як міфу, ідеологеми, необхідної для реалізації технологій поширення сфери впливу за допомогою практик "soft management".

Ключові слова: transgressive politics philosophical

ідентичність, культура, історія, нарратив, реіфікація, трансгресія, метафізика відмінності, дискурс, soft-management.

Urgency of the research. The problem of a post-colonial critic in contemporary humanitarian knowledge is important not only in the horizons of historical retrospections as well as in the context of relevant research. This toolkit allows us to explore the intrinsic intentions of a world-view paradigm that defines both the content of philosophy and international politics, and the course of daily practices and evaluations. The author's position is that the strategies of colonialism have not lost their relevance in the modern world. Not only in terms of discursive- narrative content. But the processes of globalization and unification of the modern world allow us to speak about the transformation of colonial technologies, the transgression of these operations, the expansion of the context and the plurality of the specification of their application. In fact, colonial strategies have gained more sophisticated forms of implementation. And the European policy of unity of diversity is a form of "soft management" technique in spreading and strengthening the sphere of influence.

Target setting. The main objective of the paper is to analyze the current transgressive state of postcolonial practices in view of the concept of European identity and its functions in the implementation of international politics.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. Postcolonial criticism includes a wide range of problematic issues, therefore, the attention of leading contemporary thinkers is attached to its problems. Louis Blond (2016) gives a rigorous assessment of postcolonial criticism by the example of the work of the famous philosopher E. Levinas. The author is convinced that ill-considered criticism threatens to become a unified doctrine of the spread of historical narratives: "We can see how the juncture between philosophy, Europe and Europe's suppressed other is a traumatic intersection for postcolonial theorists. There is the broad assumption that universal, ahistorical methodologies developed within the framework of European history further Europe's imperial ambitions and remove colonization from sight. In postcolonial society, there is a pressing need to understand the methodological practices of colonial and neo-colonial rule in order to dismantle colonial legacies; that need writes an imperative into much of postcolonial thought to accept Europe as a single project, as Glissant and Drabinski make plain above." [4, p.5] The discrepancy between the stated slogans and the real actions of the European Union's political elite condemns Gurminder K. Bhambra (2016), who considers the inconsistent policy of confronting the migration of the citizens of the former colonies to a cosmopolitan

Europe. Such actions are a continuation of the colonial past and are destructive in nature: "The arguments for `more Europe' are presented in the following terms: to address the rise in youth unemployment and social and economic inequalities across Europe; to constrain the possibilities of a `German Europe'; to continue the success of peaceful coexistence across the continent; to civilize globalization processes; to be a pioneering voice for the world. They are explicitly articulated against the arguments of the alliance of far-right groups, who are in favour of dismantling the Union, but also against those who would prefer `less Europe'. Interestingly, however, while the collective statement presents a strong case against one of the key elements of the far-right alliance, it has very little to say on the other: reduction in immigration and hostility to multiculturalism" [3, p.191].

In this discourse, even the underlying categories and concepts are criticized. So, Leah Kalmanson (2015) substantiates the position that the concept of culture itself is a colonial phenomenon, because cultural differences and their research suggest a comparative approach, which in turn implies the existence of an example. As an alternative, the author proposes the following strategies for philosophizing: 1) historical context-making, (2) subversive categorization and (3) decentralization. The author explains the following definitions as follows: "By

"decentralization" I mean the self-conscious attempt to think beyond relativism as the only alternative to universalism, and hence to imagine cultural differences as decentralized rather than relative, perhaps indicating what Chakrabarty earlier called "radical heterogeneity." I also mean the decentralization of comparative philosophy as a field of study, in the sense that no culture (Europe) and no model for discourse (such as East-West) is seen as central while other cultures and discourses are seen as marginal. At times comparative philosophy already employs the strategy of decentralization, for example, by avoiding the West as a point of reference in all instances of comparison." [11, p.210] Even the concept of tolerance and empathy fall into post-colonial critics. Jens Elze (2018) suggests that the political turning to the benefits of cultural difference is due to the feeling of empathy, one of the main positive motivations of our time: "Postcolonial studies' conceptions of otherness, relationality, and empathy have received new stimuli with the advent of ecological criticism. An awareness of geological transformation and climate change has complicated questions of responsibility as to the effects of allegedly post-industrial accumulation and consumption. These challenges are amplified with the theoretical proliferation of the term `anthropocene', which posits humanity as a geological force that lastingly affects the shape of the planet" [10, p.160]. However, such a strategy is hypocritical, because the diversity of globalization and commercialization is hidden, and not sympathy for another.

Post-colonial criticism also influences the sphere of education. Lyn Carter (2006) explores the links between postcolonialist and scientific education methodology. The author argues that the theoretical ideas of postcolonialism and the philosophical framework of scientific education are capable of producing the necessary strategies for contemporary civilizational challenges.

Note that the current geopolitical situation produces a fertile field for post-colonial analysts. Monika Bhagat-Kennedy (2018) is convinced that the methodology of postcolonialism has not lost its relevance in the present. As the main argument, the author gives examples of the activation of national movements in a number of countries of the world, where liberal and secular ideals are inferior to traditional and cultural: "As much as we may have imagined ourselves as part of a postnational, transnational or truly "global" era, the recent inward turn towards nations suggests that postcolonial theory's conceptualization of anticolonial/nationalist/ populist struggles to secure different modes of sovereignty remains not only relevant, but pressing. Postcolonial studies still has a great deal left to teach us as we observe such phenomena occurring worldwide and in contexts that we may not have otherwise expected or predicted, however naive, c.8" [2, p.6]. Accordingly, postcolonial studies reveal the content of the political imperative of justice.

The philosophic discourse of postcolonialism and its intentions is offered by the well-known French thinker J. Derrida. He actualizes the meaning of differences, refuting the classical metaphysics of identity. The philosopher sees in the structures of language not only the semiotic function of the meaning of meaning, but also the discourse of power. Applying the concepts of deconstruction and textualization, the author insists on the contextuality of meaning, relativity in historical and cultural retrospection. Any text is organized according to certain power projections. Accordingly, in such conditions, speaking about autonomous identity and self-determination is unreasonable. Uniqueness and originality - illusions in the explication of a certain type of discourse.

Another well-known philosopher M. Foucault adds a component of genealogy as a method to the definition of discourse. Thus the history of the formation of a certain theory reveals its true nature. It is in the discourse that presents all the basic elements of power relations: semantics as a definition area, syntax as the embodiment of ritualized social relations and pragmatics as the legitimization of a certain social status. This methodology can identify the mechanisms of power that create the formation of national identities and cultural differences.

The phenomenon of colonialism is interpreted in negative evaluative coordinates as archaic and illegitimate in contemporary humanitarian discourse. However, how correct would be the conclusion about the end of the era of colonization and the existence of only its consequences in modern socioculture?

The statement of basic material. To answer this question, it is necessary to analyze the content of European identity, its ideological and methodological foundations. The well-known historian F. Chabod analyzes the content of the idea of Europe as a political association based on common values and ideological principles. Such an ideological basis was formed in the works of N. Machiavelli, Sh. L. Montesquieu, F. Voltaire, and others. Its meaning is to abandon the geographical understanding of the term of Europe in favor of the political, cultural and moral. It means that European identity is formed with unites people of different ethnic groups and cultural and religious traditions.

Note that this political strategy is a product of intellectual activity, namely, the Greek-Roman philosophy and law, the Judeo-Christian religion and the Enlightenment-humanistic philosophy. These cultural traditions contain legitimization of the axiological foundations of European identity. However, contemporary philosophical discourse subjects to crushing criticism the traditional narrative of the justification of identity. In contrast to the classical metaphysics of Aristotle, based on identity as a fundamental characteristic of Being, modern humanities produce the principles of pluralism and tolerance, the rejection of essentialism and centralization. In addition, according to the ideas of postmodernism, the definition of identity is not constant, but is based on the principles of hybridity, fluidity and plasticity. Therefore, the ideas of cosmopolitanism as a conceptual scheme for the formation of European identity are replacing national identity determination strategies. The concept of cosmopolitanism is logically unambiguous. The range of its interpretation varies from the radical project of U. Beck, who sees in him the principle of the modern global empire, to a more consistent explanation of G. Delante, who understands cosmopolitanism as a fundamental multiplicity of initial practices of identity. Consequently, identity formation techniques retain signs of totalitarianism even in cosmopolitan concepts.

The totality of influence on self-determination lies in the fact that at the present stage of the development of society, identity does not take shape spontaneously, in line with the historical and cultural tradition, but institutionally by implementing a balanced and systematic strategy of the intellectual and political elite.

The problem of European identity causes a significant resonance among researchers and inhabitants of this process. This is due to legitimize the chosen strategy of political identity. The question is: how liberal (really, not nominally) is this strategy? The French philosopher M. Crepon substantiates the idea of the heterogeneity of European identity as a compilation of European and non-European ideas and values. In his opinion, the process of the formation of Europe is fundamentally diversified, that is, the values on which the European identity is based arose not autonomously, but under the influence of other cultures and civilizations. This process of interaction cannot be conserved, the clash of meanings, symbolic and semiotic systems continues. Therefore, M. Crepon considers it necessary to replace the strategy of appropriation (conversion of quality into property) to deprivatization (recognition of one's quality with the quality of another) and re-appropriation (recognition of his otherness with his quality and property).

Therefore, we can conclude that modern strategies of colonialism were transformed on the basis of a transgressive principle. The political will of introducing European identity blurs historical and national criteria for identification, and the methods of political influence acquire the features not of physical influence, but of a manipulative and informational character.

If we analyze the history of the formation of the European space, then the obvious is the ambiguity and uncertainty of its conceptual foundations. It is difficult to imagine Europe solely as a geographic project. Rather, it is a theoretical-ideological structure, which is the result of the work of prominent thinkers of the past. Or as an operationally effective strategy to implement the policy of colonialism, because the cultural and political component is dominant in defining the

European one. Therefore, widespread thoughts on understanding Europe as a form of ideology, myth, discourse practice. Confirmation of this thesis may be the existing discrepancy between nominally articulated provisions and actual events and political decisions.

There is some logic in explaining this gap by using the differentiation between the concepts of Old Europe and New Europe. "Old Europe" ideologically is the result of the Greco-Roman, Jewish and humanistic-educational cultural tradition. In this sense, Europe is united by the common values of truth, goodness, beauty and justice, which are the true benchmarks for the daily activity of any person, at any point in time and space. The concept of "New Europe" embodies the non-classical philosophical tradition: the combination of differences and tolerance. Note that this project is political and institutional. Can we consider such a strategy a transformed model of colonial practice? No doubt Both projects in Europe are the embodiment of utopia, dreams, ideologies about the proper way of organizing social life and the technique of selfidentification.

The main content of these concepts form the idea of European values, historical and cultural, philosophical and world-view. The foundation of united Europe lies in the idea of the need to preserve a unique European civilization. However, this phenomenon is rather a reification of the abstraction of pure abstraction. In addition, the ideologues of the Old and New Europe contradict each other. If the traditional world-view paradigm of Europe postulates immutable substantive values, then non-classical post-colonial practice forms the discourse of the unity of diversity. We note only that the motivation for such a unification is the civilization-technological processes of globalization, which forms the axiological basis of a new ideology. That is, the rhetoric of the unity of the various is an integral part of the implementation of the policy of Eurocentrism, since engagement in the European space implies acceptance of the logic of relations and interaction, which are verified by European discourse as proper.