SOCIAL ARCHETYPIC IN THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PROBLEM FIELD: CONTEMPORARY STATE AND PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

This article surveys the development process of social archetypes as a new direction for interdisciplinary research in the public administration problem field, that implemented in the framework of scholarly sessions of Ukrainian School of Archetypes (USArch), namely: International Theoretical and Methodological Seminars and International Competitions for Young Scholars “Archetypes and Public Administration” (2010–2018), International Lectures Cycle “Patterns and Characteristics of Ukrainian Social Transformation” (2016), Internet discussions and skype conferences. Program sessions themes of the listed scholary forms are summarized as well as prospects for further movement of USArch and development of social archetypes as a new direction for interdisciplinary research are defined.

Attention is drawn to the fact that the post-soviet scholarly community doesn’t have a sufficiently developed opinion on social archetypes as an interdisciplinary field of research and its methodological foundations. The basis for criticism is an ambiguous attitude both to the teachings of K. Jung about the archetypes of the collective unconscious, and to the psychoanalytic trend as a whole. It is suggested that reducing the degree of critical attitude to social archetypes as an interdisciplinary field of research in the subject field of public administration depends on a number of conditions. Firstly, using the common formulation and interpretation of the ideas that influenced its formation and development. Secondly, from an adequate understanding of both the possibilities of social archetypes which are determined by its original methods of explanation and methods of analysis of subtle social phenomena which can serve as a key point for further theoretical and empirical research, and the theoretical and practical limitations of the archetypal approach. That is why social archetypes is positioned as an interdisciplinary research area.

I argued that the social archetypes is not a universal scholarly apparatus and not an orthodox inheritance of the ideas of Jungianism. Finally, it is a methods that allows us to establish patterns and features of modern social development, the practical application of which expands the possibilities of public-management’s activity. At the same time, it is a metaphor through which the researcher is invited to plunge into the wider psychosocial and sociocultural context of social phenomenas and processes.