Forbiddance as part of liberal culture

The article is devoted to theoretical aspects of interrelation between institute of forbiddance, one of traditional elements ofculture, and idea and practice of liberalism. Are the notions that forbiddance is foundation of culture and the liberal ideal of freedomcompatible? And if they are what is the role of prohibition in liberal culture? What prohibitions does such a culture cancel and whatprohibitions does it save or even introduce? The ideal of liberalism is interpreted in the article via the analysis of the ethic "golden rule"and the slogan of the "revolution of 1968" "it is forbidden to forbid", which are applied to the "platinum rule" ("do unto others as theywant to be done unto") and to the principle formulated by Kant: "every person has the right to freedom as long as it does not entrenchthe freedom of other persons". It is shown in the article that the sanctioning of freedom and its protection imposes many restrictions onman and society. But these restrictions are not based on voluntarism of certain persons or social groups and they are not someunreasonable rules. This system of norms is rationally and necessary founded by the principle of respect to freedom of each subject.Many of these norms are an essential part of traditional institutes of morality. However, the evolving of abstract thinking improves anddevelops this system of norms, new norms emerge (such as adherence to the rights of animals, protection of environment). The articleintroduces concepts "society of values" and "society of norms". They allow clarifying the structure of current and possible interrelationsof person and social environment. Society of values and society of norms are two different principles of building of relations betweenpeople and these principles are complementary in the modern world. Values and norms are interchangeable, alternative determinants ofhuman behaviour: some type of behaviour can be caused by the fact that the subject has respective values or observes respective norms.To maintain a unified, total system of values in the society in order to form required values in the subject is a more reliable method toobtain certain acceptable behaviour from the subject. And this is the way the society followed initially in upbringing its new members.However, this way is the denial of internal freedom of person. Society of norms (which the liberal society belongs to) is such a type ofsocial interactions, which does not imply intrusion into the sphere of personal freedom of the subject. Vice versa, the essence of such atype of sociality is the defence of the subject's freedom (as long as it does not entrench the freedom of other subjects) and nothing more.It means that the subject may have any value orientation if he does not express it in the way, which is destructive towards others. Theview expressed in the article allows complementing the understanding of sociocultural processes in the period from the second half ofthe nineteenth century.

Keywords

Authors

References