The paper analyzes problems and prospects of establishing multiculturalism in modern Ukrainian society, and explores some contradictions and paradoxical aspects of modern multicultural theory caused by the limitations of the liberal discourse of freedom and equality. The conclusion proposes the inadmissibility of abstractly generalized "legalizing" of cultures, and the need to take concrete historical conditions into account.
Current integrative trends in the world's political and economic life affect the socio-cultural development of different nations and ethnic-cultural communities within multicultural societies. Studying the patterns of this influence allows us to forecast future prospects for development of communities, and to prevent conflicts in intercultural relations.
In the Ukrainian case the central issue involves comprehensions of the correlation between culture and identity in the post-totalitarian/post-colonial age. At this time the main basis for future intercultural relations is being formed. These relations are to determine the next sequence of events in Ukrainian society. This process has often its contradictions. On the one hand, dominant culture is a factor of imperial hegemony. At the same time culture is one of powerful factors of resistance to imperial influence in the post-colonial world. But the paradox is that liberated culture can pretend to become hegemonic in its rhetoric. Therefore, while being built on democratic and liberal principles, the post-colonial society faces at its start not only socio-political but also cultural issues.
The liberal state has a duty to provide equal recognition of cultures of all its citizens. If it abandons its role as neutral judge, even when protecting a specific culture, it risks offending the identity rights of those citizens who don't share this culture. Recognition is so crucial because of its connection to identity. Lack of recognition can be harmful as a form of discrimination forcing "others" into a humiliating way of life. Recognition is not simply formal politeness, but a basic, vital human need.
So the basis of cultural diversity lies in equal opportunities to form and determine one's own identity. The need for equal recognition transcends merely understanding the potential equity of people. It requires adequate evaluation of the level to which this potential has been realized. This causes another problem: that equal respect requires the objectively blinded and therefore indifferent treatment of different peoples.
Even if we consider the possibility of such equal evaluation we can't accept the a-priori approach to cultural artifacts, because the a-priori evaluation of cultural significance deprives the sense and value of such evaluation. For this reason, the question is rather whether the survival of certain cultures can be accepted as a legitimate aim of social and judicial policy. The first step in this case may entail providing cultures with equal opportunities to protect themselves, within reasonable limits, and requiring the equal recognition of different cultures' values to world culture. This will mean for them not only a right to survival, but also recognition of their human significance.
Cultural diversity and its ramifications operate in very different contexts depending on the society in question, different conditions of development and different cultural landscapes. So neglecting the conditions of intercultural relations can actually raise the issue of a particular culture's survival, not merely of recognition of its equal rights and value among other cultures. Multiculturalism in general - both in descriptive and normative meanings - creates a possibility to prevent and reduce such incidents. But as we see, multicultural theory is despite decades of development still full of paradoxes, and requires thorough improvement before it can be efficiently implemented as means of managing intercultural relations in Ukraine.