SOCIAL CONFLICT: ARCHETYPAL NATURE AND RESOLUTION MECHANISM

Authors

Keywords:

social conflict, social identity, societal identity, societal changes, archetypic nature of the conflict

Abstract

On the basis of the archetypic analysis of development trends of a conflictological paradigm the author’s model of minimization of conflict potential in modern society is offered. Institutional construction is the basis for model that is harmonized with a factor of societal identity.

It is noted that the problems of social conflicts, according to data from monitoring studies of the Ukrainian school of archetype, are increasingly shifted into the sphere of interpersonal relations. It is stimulated by the progression in society of so-called self-sufficient personalities, the “subjectification” of the social space, and at the same time narrowing down to the solution of entirely specific situations in which there is a collision of the interests of two or more parties.

Instead, in order to find the optimal solution for resolving the conflict, it is necessary to have interdisciplinary knowledge, in particular understanding of the deep nature of such conflicts. Collision of points of view, thoughts, positions — a very frequent phenomenon of modern social life. In order to develop the correct line of behavior in various conflict situations, it is important to adequately understand the nature of the emergence of the modern conflict and the mechanisms for resolving them in substance. Knowledge of conflict nature enriches the culture of communication and makes human life and social groups not only more calm, but also creates conditions for constructive development. It is proved that in modern life one can not but agree with the statement that an individual carries first responsibility for his own life and only then for the life of the social groups to which he belongs. And while making decisions within the framework of modern mechanisms (consensus), the properties of human psychology such as extroversion, emotionality, irrationality, intuition, externality, and executive ability will not at least contribute to such a task.

That is why in the author’s research attracted attention to the archetypal nature of the conflict — the primitive images, ideas, feelings inherent in man as a bearer of the collective unconscious.

References

Панарин А. С. Стратегическая неста- бильность в ХХI веке / А. С. Пана- рин. — М. : Алгоритм, 2003. — 559 с.

Афонін Е. А. Архетипіка соціально- політичних конфліктів: від модер- ну до постмодерну / Е. А. Афонін, А. Ю. Мартинов // Публічне уряду- вання: зб. — № 3 (8). — 2017 (спец- вип.). — К. : ДП “Вид. дім “Персо- нал”, 2017. — 422 с.

Сорокин П. А. Человек. Цивилиза- ция. Общество. — М. : Изд-во поли- тич. лит., 1992. — 544 с.

Арон Р. Этапы развития социологи- ческой мысли / общ. ред. и предисл. П. С. Гуревича. — М. : Изд. группа “Прогресс”–“Политика”, 1992. — 608 c.

Эрик Эриксон и эго-психология [Элекронный ресурс]. — Режим до- ступа : http://www.erikson.psy4.ru/theory.htm

Афонін Е. А. Закономірності та осо- бливості української трансформа- ції / Е. А. Афонін, О. В. Суший // Стратегічна панорама. — 2015. — № 1. — С. 94–108.

Афонін Е. А. Людська ідентичність та особливості її впливу на політику й державне управління / Е. А. Афо- нін // Концептуальні засади взає- модії політики й управління: навч. посіб. / Авт. кол. : Е. А. Афонін, Я. В. Бережний, О. Л. Валевсь- кий та ін.; за заг. ред. В. А. Ребкала, В. А. Шахова, В. В. Голубь, В. М. Ко- закова; Нац. академія державного управління при Президентові Украї- ни. — К. : НАДУ, 2010. — С. 265–289.

Московичи С. Машина творящая богов; пер. с фр. — М. : “Центр пси- хологии и психотерапии”, 1998. — 560 с.

Published

2018-01-24

How to Cite

Хасанов , Р. (2018). SOCIAL CONFLICT: ARCHETYPAL NATURE AND RESOLUTION MECHANISM. Public Management, (1 (11), 301-311. Retrieved from http://journals.maup.com.ua/index.php/public-management/article/view/557

Issue

Section

Статті