Negative psychological phenomena in politico-legal sphere and identity risks
It is shown that negative psychological phenomena which have politico-legal content are based on citizens’ ideas about violation of their rights and freedoms, the importance of justice and its reconstitution, perception specifics about themselves and others as citizens, and certain problems concerning this item; thoughts and conclusions about politico-legal reality. Politico-legal identity is defined as a partial manifestation of person’s self-determination towards politico-legal reality and towards those social values and civil rights which are prioritized by a person in the state providing. There are described three generalized circumstances which determine the specificity and content of the self-identification process. The first circumstance of different identities producing is division to those who supported the Revolution of Dignity and to those who consider the events of 2013–2014 as not legitimate ones. The second circumstance is the interpretation of events in the country by means of “civil war” categories (e. g. “Russian aggression”). The third generalized circumstance is presented by the “patriot – not patriot” dichotomy. In addition, the analysys is made upon the processes of citizens’ identification in such dimensions as “the Army – the militias”, “the locals – the displaced persons”, “residents, close to the line of separation”, “those for whom the war is far”. The main risks of identity that occur due to military actions on the East of Ukraine are determined as following: 1) the significant polarization of ideas between supporters and opponents of the “Revolution of Dignity”;
2) the absence of a common (or coherent) vision of events on the East of Ukraine (“civil war” or “Russian aggression”?); 3) the estimation of government representatives as non-patriots (corrupted, criminal) and conclusion that the only patriots are ordinary Ukrainians; 4) the preconceptions about displaced persons (“men from the East do not protect their land”, “they do crimes”, etc.); 5) the tolerance upon the weapon usage, adaptation to the war; 6) the development of negative identities (“armed-man”, “Bandera-man”, “separatist”); 7) the social mimicry as an actualization of the mechanism of survival; 8) the ideas on the incompatibility of certain identities as an instrument of involvement into the conflict; 9) the increase in the contrast between the inhabitants of different regions of the country; 10) the radicalization of consciousness (people are ready to defend their rights, fight for justice, even if it won’t be legitimate, even with weapon in hands); 11) the mythologization of political beliefs; 12) the significant preconceptions and mutual accusations of ideological opponents (people who are on the opposite sides of the line of differentiation); 13) the destruction of Ukrainian and all-Ukrainian identities by means of constructing and using of different myths, and the extermination of sense of safety in citizens.