CONCEPTUAL SCHEMAS OF MODERN STATE DEVELOPMENT (ARCHETYPAL APPROACH) CJNVERGENCE OF TRADITION AND INNOVATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-2224-2020-1(21)-133-150Keywords:
co-evolution, transformation, collective “We”, archetypal approach, modern state, tradition, innovationAbstract
It was known that unity of the nation is a strategic safety plan and productive development of the modern state. In Ukraine, this process is formed gradually. The purpose of the article is to find out how Ukrainian traditions and innovations are combined in the modern approaches to the development of the state as an institute for social development.. The methods of analysis and synthesis, document analysis, sign modeling, comparative (synchronous) analysis are used in the work. It was regarded that co-evolutionary stage of state development and the concept of individual “I” and collective “We” as dominant subjects of social interaction at different stages of one cycle of social development.
Changing the traditional concept of governance is being implemented in the program of digitization (“State in a smartphone”) as a means of facilitating the provision of administrative services to the population. What is the level of readiness to accept these changes in traditional society? A sense of common and personal responsibility contributes to the development of the collective “We”. It was known trends that confirm positive changes in Ukraine are observed due to the emergence a lot of volunteer movements, crowdfunding platforms, an increasing a number of public organizations in recent years. At the same time, one’s own responsibility for one’s well-being is increased. The more developed the society, the more actively innovations are introduced into the sphere of social relations, significantly updating them. It has been found that public involvement in the public sector is partly driven by public interest and a growing demand for public sector employment and the pursuit of socially significant professional activity. Based on the analysis, a formula was developed that calculates the collective “We” index. Understanding the necessity of becoming a nation through the convergence of traditions and innovations is an important part in planning the Ukrainian state and social policy.
References
Андерсон Б. Уявлені спільноти (мір- кування щодо походження й поши- рення націоналізму). Київ, 2001. 272 с.
Шнапер Д. Спільнота громадян. Харків, 2007. 223 с.
Штомпка П. Социология социаль- ных изменений. Москва, 1996. 416 с.
Мартинов А. Ю. Історична соціоло- гія (циклічна парадигма): моногра- фія. Київ, 2004. 288 с.
Афонін Е. А., Бандурка О. М., Мар- тинов А. Ю. Велика розтока (гло- бальні проблеми сучасності: соціаль- но-історичний аналіз): монографія. Київ: Парапан, 2002. 352 с.
Кішіловська І., Кішіловський М. Адмінстратегія. Київ, 2017. 368 с.
Суший О. В. Наукові студії із со- ціальної та політичної психології. Націєтворчий процес у координа- тах соцієтальної кризи в Україні. № 43 (46). Київ, 2019. С. 83–109.
Донченко О. Функції колективної психіки в державному управлінні. Веб-сайт URL: http://www.kbuapa.kharkov.ua/e-book/putp/2010-2/doc/4/03.pdf.
Перотті А. Виступ на захист полі- культурності. Львів, 2001. 128 с.
Гоббс Т. Левиафан, или Материя, форма и власть государства церковного и гражданского. Москва: Мысль, 1991.
Реформа децентралізації. Веб сайт URL: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/diyalnist/reformi/efektivne-vryaduvannya/reforma-decentralizaciyi.