This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the theory of the politics of recognition within the framework of contemporary political philosophy and examines its relevance to Ukraine’s societal development amid large-scale transformations shaped by its postcolonial legacy and the full-scale war after 2022. The conceptual evolution of the politics of recognition is revealed as originating in the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, who understood recognition as the foundation of self-consciousness and intersubjective relations, and subsequently developing in the works of C. Taylor, who emphasized the necessity of public affirmation of cultural identities; A. Honneth, who viewed mutual recognition as a key condition for social integration and human dignity; and N. Fraser, who proposes combining recognition with material redistribution as a prerequisite for justice.
Against this background, the article examines the Ukrainian context, in which the politics of recognition is shaped at the intersection of decolonization processes, the restoration of historical memory, the formation of a shared civic identity, and responses to acute social challenges caused by war. Particular attention is paid to social groups for whom the issue of recognition is critical, including veterans, internally displaced persons, national minorities, families of fallen soldiers, volunteers, and other communities that play a significant role in contemporary public life. The research identifies a tension between the declarative nature of state rhetoric regarding inclusivity and social support and the actual access of these groups to resources and mechanisms of recognition, manifested in bureaucratic barriers, uneven implementation of policies, and the absence of a coherent state strategy.
The article emphasizes the need to balance a politics of equality, which ensures common conditions of belonging and civic solidarity, with a politics of difference, which guarantees the recognition of cultural, ethnic, and social particularities of diverse groups. While the prioritization of consolidation and national unity under wartime conditions is justified, in the long-term perspective excessive homogenization may restrict pluralism and narrow democratic space. Therefore, it is argued that post-war Ukraine requires a model of the politics of recognition that combines the ethical principle of reciprocity, the socio-economic principle of justice, and the principle of political participation, ensuring not only formal recognition but also effective mechanisms of inclusion and support. Such an approach allows cultural diversity to be viewed as a resource of national resilience, contributing to the construction of a democratic, open, and just state.

Hehel H.V.F. (2008). Fenomenolohiia dukhu [Phenomenology of spirit] / per. z nim. V. V. Puchkova. Kyiv: Osnovy. (in Ukr.)

Honnet A. (2015). Borotba za vyznannia: sotsialno-filosofskyi analiz [The struggle for recognition: a socio-philosophical analysis]. Lviv: Lohos. 340 p. (in Ukr.)

Teilor Ch. (2010). Multykulturalizm i polityka vyznannia [Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition]. Kyiv: Lohos. 256 p. (in Ukr.)

Dobrohorska A. (2023). Ukraine Veterans: Report 2023. German Marshall Fund of the United States. 85 p. URL: https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Dobrohorska_Ukraine%20Veterans_Report.pdf

Fraser N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age. New Left Review. № 212. Pp. 68–93.

Fraser N. (2009). Interview: Justice as Redistribution, Recognition and Representation. MROnline. May 16.

Honneth A. (2004). Recognition and Justice: Outline of a Plural Theory of Justice. Acta Sociologica. 47(4):351–364.

Shahabuddin M. (2021). Minorities and the ‘Ideology’ of the Postcolonial State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 312 p.

Taylor C. (1992). The Politics of Recognition. In: Gutmann A. (Ed.). Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp. 25–74.

Žižek S. (2010). The Paradox of Recognition. Journal of Political Theory. Т. 22, № 4. Pp. 430–455.