Mythoanalytical transformation of leadership in the modern world: sociological approach of G. Durand


The mythoanalytical transformation of leadership in the context of modern concepts is analysed. The development of Ukrainian society is undergoing constant changes that require new leaders who can ensure constructive change. In the field of public administration, special attention needs to be paid to the issue of leadership, which is related to the generation of innovations and their implementation, resource issues of self-organisation. The theoretical foundations of leadership are considered, considering the main archetypal theories. The typology of M. Weber’s leadership is revealed based on the sense of social approval and expressed trust and reveals the following leadership legitimacy: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. The key differences between the concepts of “leader” and “manager” are highlighted. O. Neuberger’s typology of archetypal patterns of leadership is outlined, and their timeless, structural manifestations and determinants of interactions are revealed. Possibilities of applying the basic ideas of Durand’s sociology in modern concepts of leadership through the representation of symbolic structures that create meaning, structuring the basic guidelines of experience and actions, depending on individual interpretive abilities and continuous exchange between man and culture, demonstrating powerful psychoenergetic potential. The possibility of using a sociological approach to outline the determinants of leadership activity is substantiated. This approach is based on the ideas of psychoanalysis, deep psychology, structural and political anthropology, phenomenology, and ethology. It is noted that the fundamental concept of Durand’s theory of imagination is the imaginary. Peculiarities in applying mythoanalysis to public administration in the context of transformational leadership are considered. Leadership’s cognitive and emotional assets are considered to substantiate modern leaders’ innovation and self-realisation potential. Features of the mythocritical and mythoanalytical method of G. Durand are presented.

  1. Jung, C.G. (2016). Archetypal symbol. Moscow: Kanon [in Russian]

  2. Durand, G. (1984). The Anthropological Structures of the Imaginary. Paris: Dunod [in French]

  3. Eliade, M. (1998). The myth of the eternal return. Archetypes and repetition. Saint-Petersburg: Aleteyya [in Russian]

  4. Neumann, E. (1991). The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  5. Mark, M., Pearson, C.S. (2001). The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands Through the Power of Archetypes. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  6. Myers-Briggs, I., McCaulley, M., Quenk, N. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the development and use of the MyersBriggs type indicator). Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

  7. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

  8. Afonin, E.A., Martynov, A.Yu. (2019). Archetype as a source of the innovation process. Public Manаgement, 3, 28-42.

  9. Donchenko, O., Romanenko, Yu. (2001). Archetypes of social life and politics (deep regulations of psychopolitical everyday life): monograph. Kyiv: Lybid [in Ukrainian]

  10. Krymskyi, S.B. (2000). Philosophy as a way of humanity and hope. Kyiv: Course [in Ukrainian]

  11. Novachenko, T.V. (2013). The archetypal paradigm of the authority of the head in public administration: monograph. Nizhyn-Kyiv: Lysenko M.M. [in Ukrainian]

  12. Weber, M. (1998). Sociology. General historical analysis. Policy. Kyiv: Osnovy [in Ukrainian]

  13. Adair, J. (2007). Leadership for Innovation: How to Organise Team Creativity and Harvest Ideas. Philadelphia: Kogan Page Publishers.

  14. Gliddon, D.G. (2006). Forecasting a competency model for innovation leaders using a modified delphi technique. URL:

  15. Morozova, E.N. (2008). Balance of administrative and leadership skills. Saint-Petersburg: Rech [in Russian]

  16. Newstrom, J., Devis, K. (2000). Leadership and empowerment. Organisational behaviour. Saint-Petersburg: Piter [in Russian]

  17. Neuberger, O. (2002). To lead and to let lead: Approaches, findings and critique of leadership research. Stuttgart: UTB [in German]

  18. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 4, 370-396.

  19. Wheatley, M. (1992). Leader shipand the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  20. Durand, G. (1993). The Implication of the Imaginary and Societies. Current Sociology, 41, 2, 17-32.

  21. Durand, G. (1973). The Symbolic Imagination. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France [in French]

  22. Durand, G. (1979). Mythical figures and faces of the work: from mythocriticism to mythanalysis. Paris: Berg international [in French]

Full text