Archetypes and imagination in the formation of rural neo-societies: conclusions for the state policy of rural development

8

The article contains the results of a study on modelling new communities in rural areas of Ukraine. Modelling considers both the possibility of modernization of archetypes and archaization of the individual imaginary. The research methodology is based on the theoretical work of G. Durand on the structures of the imaginary, used in the study of the transformation of rural communities. The the applied value of the research is determined by the possibility of using the obtained results in the development of state policy of rural development. The initial hypothesis of the study was the assumption that the stratification of modern rural society is based on archetypes (images, myths or schemes), which subconsciously create an idea, crystallize the imaginary and form thinking. Social processes in rural areas were eclectic, mixed with “modern” and “archaic”. It is noted that old archetypes and ideas showed a high ability to survive and adapt to new conditions, demonstrating incredible configurations of a combination of tradition and innovation. Attention is drawn to the fallacy of the dominant notion that market transformations of the economy will contribute to forming an exclusive class of owners. The reality has become the antagonism of relations between owners and non-owners, who have become employees with poorly protected rights. G. Durand attributes a “dramatic myth” to the “night mode” of the structure of representation. It is noted that social gaps, violating the integrity of rural communities, also affected the perception of the individual’s place in the local social environment and his behaviour within the community, based on which 10 social groups of rural communities were modelled. It is concluded that the formation of imaginary and archetypes in rural communities occurs in an environment where the number of strangers is increasing. The polarization of the rural population and the confrontation of relations indicate the destructiveness of social processes in rural areas. Society must create artificial social institutions that will regulate human life, and this seems to be a super difficult task in the context of a variety of archetypes of rural life.

  1. Jung, С.G. (1994). On the psychology of the unconscious. Collected Works. Psychology of the unconscious. Moscow: Canon [in Russian]

  2. Donchenko, O. (2011). Archetypes – common in our lives (recognition of archetypes as a way to uniqueness). Psykholohiia osobystosti – Psychology of Personality, 1, 170-181. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Po_2011_1_23 [in Ukrainian]

  3. Gutsol, S.Yu. (2011). Psychological features of structural components of neomythological narrative. Visnyk Natsionalnoho tekhnichnoho universytetu “Kyivskyi politekhnichnyi instytut imeni Ihoria Sikorskoho”. Filosofiia. Psykholohiia. Pedahohika Bulletin of the National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute named after Igor Sikorsky”. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 1, 103-108 [in Ukrainian]

  4. Kozhemyakina, O.M. (2020). Tradition and archetype: creative bases of postmodern interpretation. Publichne upravlinniaPublic governance, 1 (21), 122-133 [in Ukrainian]

  5. Ponomarenko, L.V. (2020). Mentality of Ukrainian society and its influence on modern processes of institutionalization (archetypal approach). Publichne upravlinniaPublic governance, 1 (21), 266-278 [in Ukrainian]

  6. Sudakov, V.I. (2020). Archetypes of culture and subculture as determinants of social action and social management. Publichne upravlinniaPublic governance, 1 (21), 301-312 [in Ukrainian]

  7. Afonin, E.A., Martynov, A.Y. (2020). Tradition as a factor of integration and consolidation of Ukrainian society in postmodern conditions: an archetypal approach. Publichne upravlinniaPublic governance, 1 (21), 27-41 [in Ukrainian]

  8. Durand, G. (2015). Anthropological structures of the imaginary. URL: https://castalia.ru/translations/zhilber-dyuran-antropologicheskie-strukturyi-voobrazhaemogo-vvedenie-bespoleznyie-obrazyi [in Russian]

  9. Lozynska, T.M. (2017). Social transformations in rural areas and non-community. In New inequalities – new conflicts: ways to overcome: abstracts of reports and speeches of participants of the III Congress of the Sociological Association of Ukraine, Kharkiv, October 12–13, 2017 (pp. 185-186). Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University [in Ukrainian]

  10. Lozynska, T.M. (2020). Conflict of traditionality and innovation in state formation: archetypal approach. Publichne upravlinniaPublic governance, 1 (21), 151-162 [in Ukrainian]

  11. Moshiashvili, M.M. (2016). Economic archetypes and growth models. Moscow: Higher School of Economics [in Russian]

  12. Tennis, F. (2002). Community and Society. In S.P. Bankovsky (Ed.), Theoretical Sociology: Anthology in 2 parts. Moscow: Publishing House “University” [in Russian]

  13. Expenditure and resources of households of Ukraine in 2019 year: a statistical collection. (2020). Kyiv: State Statistics Service of Ukraine. URL: http: //www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2020/zb/06/zb_vrd_19_ue.pdf [in Ukrainian]

  14. Lozynska, T.M. (2015). Economic basis of rural communities as a factor of decentralization of power. In M.A. Lepsky (Ed.), Sustainable human development of local communities: scientific works of universities – partners of the Project of the Association of co-owners of houses for the implementation of sustainable energy efficient solutions “Local development, community-oriented” (pp. 189-197). Kyiv [in Ukrainian]