Philosopher Oleh Khoma: “Those who invented the concept of a social contract inserted it in a radically different meaning than we do today”

Aspen Institute Kyiv continues a series of dialogical events to discuss various social contract aspects. Ukrainian intellectuals and leaders from different spheres of our society are involved. In addition, as part of the project’s development, the Institute has prepared a collection of essays written by leading Ukrainian thinkers.

Aspen Institute Kyiv held a public discussion “The Social Contract in Ukraine: Quo vadis?” on January 24. Speakers explored both the philosophical aspect of the social contract and more practical as well as methodological issues.

The concept of the social contract in the past and now

According to the philosopher and head of the Department of Philosophy and Humanities at VNTU Oleh Khoma, the idea of a “social contract” is insidious due to its duality.

“The concept of a social contract is intuitively understandable. We all know the meanings of ‘agreement’ and ‘contract.’ At the same time, a social contract is not just an invented concept but a profound philosophical concept. Moreover, when we speak of a ‘social contract,’ we combine this concept of history, which seems to have disappeared, and modernity, which is practically understandable. It turns out to be a very unpleasant mixture.”

Oleh Khoma criticizes the use of the concept of “social contract.” According to him, this is historically incorrect.

“Those who invented the concept of the “social contract” had a different sense than we do today. For them, the social contract is the primary act of forming society. That is, when we conclude it, society emerges. In turn, the cancellation of the social contract destroys society. For natural theorists, such cancellation is a restructuring of the nation. So, when we use this metaphor, do we want to restructure the Ukrainian people? Do we want to cancel it and create something new? It sounds absurd. We want the Ukrainian people to live and prosper, improve society in which they exist,” the philosopher believes.

Interpretation of the modern understanding of the social contract

Oleh Khoma emphasizes that the social contract is based not on legal postulates but on the agreement among members of society to live with each other.

“The social contract is not an agreement among professors. It is not an agreement among lawyers and experts in philosophy, canonical and state law. It is an agreement among people who have gathered to form a society and delegate a portion of their freedom to a system that will maintain the unity of this society and ensure rights and inviolability of life and property. When we talk today about a new social contract, we mean not that we want to live together, but rather a mutual positioning of the people and the authorities, type of accountability, understanding of justice, and control.”

The philosopher emphasized that it is not worth giving up the metaphor of the “social contract,” but at the same time, using it consciously. “When we say ‘geometry,’ we do not mean measuring the land. Instead, we talk about a school subject. The same goes for the social contract because we mean something realistic, something important to us.”