CC BY
16
UDC: 329.001(100)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-2224-2020-1(21)-236-251
Plakhtiy Taras Oleksiiovych,
independent researcher, 79014, Lviv, Tract Glynianskyi, 36-B, tel.: 38 (050) 317 37 01, e-mail: [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0003-1339-7441
Плахтш Тарас Олекстович,
незалежний дослгдник, 79014, Jlbeie, Тракт Глинянсъкий, 36-Б, тел.: 38 (050) 31737 01, e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-1339-7441
Плахтий Тарас Алексеевич,
независимый исследователь, 79014, Львов, Тракт Глинянский, 36-Б, тел.: 38 (050) 317 37 01, e-mail: tar as.plakhtiy© gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0003-1339-7441
POLITICAL PARTIES AS SUBJECTS OF TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES IN A POSTMODERN SOCIETY (ARCHETYPAL APPROACH)
Abstract. The necessity of constructing new generation political parties that would be able to carry out traditional activities for them — to effectively and efficiently rationally manage the society under conditions of transition from modern to postmodern and in the postmodern itself is substantiated.
An interdisciplinary model for analyzing the life of the political organizations, which was created for the purpose of such construction, is presented. It links the emergent qualities of the political organizations at the macro level with the choice of behavioural strategies of their members at the micro level through the interaction of these members within primary groups and party units at the meso level. The model incorporates biological, archetypal, socio-psychological, organizational, and political science approaches with aspects highlighted in each of them that link these approaches into a coherent model based on an archetypal approach.
The relationships between the aspects of the different approaches are described in detail. In particular, the organizational approach determines the type
of situations reproduced in the primary groups and party units that affect the course of group dynamics (socio-psychological approach) and actualize the relevant cultural archetypes in the unconscious participants of the interaction (archetypal approach), which, due to their established, their habitual settings, frames, discourses, symbols, values, determine the behavioural choice of the participants in the interaction, activating or passivating them (biological approach). All this accelerates or slows down to a complete stop the process of oligarchiza-tion of the political parties and determines their viability, efficiency and effectiveness, including their ability to realize their initial goals for a long time (political science approach).
The created and presented interdisciplinary model allows to analyze the life of the political organizations at the micro, meso and macro levels at the stage of their construction in order to choose the optimal set of organizational parameters of the structure of these organizations in accordance with the type of external environment in which they should operate.
Keywords: postmodern, archetypal approach, new generation political parties, organizational approach, law of oligarchization of Michel.
ПОЛГГИЧШ ПАРТП ЯК СУБ'еКТИ ТРАДИЦШНО!
Д1ЯЛЬНОСТ1 У ПОСТМОДЕРНОМУ СУСП1ЛЬСТВ1 (АРХЕТИПНИЙ П1ДХ1Д)
Анотащя. Обгрунтовано необхщшсть конструювання полгтичних партш нового поколшня, яю були б здатними здшснювати традицшну для них д^ яльшсть — ефективно та результативно у ращональнш площиш управляти сусшльством в умовах переходу з модерну до постмодерну i у самому пост-модерш.
Представлено мiждисциплiнарну модель для аналiзу життeдiяльностi пол^ичних оргашзацш, яка була створена з метою здшснення такого конструювання. Вона пов'язуе емерджентш якосп полгтичних оргашзацш на макрорiвнi з вибором поведшкових стратегш !'хшх члешв на мiкрорiвнi через взаeмодieю цих члешв у рамках первинних груп i партшних шдроздшв на мезорiвнi. Модель включае бiологiчний, архетипний, сощально-психоло-гiчний, органiзацiйний i полгголопчний пiдходи з видiленими у кожному з них аспектами, яю пов'язують цi пiдходи у цiлiсну модель на основi архетип-ного тдходу.
Детально описано зв'язки мiж аспектами рiзних пiдходiв. Зокрема оргаш-зацшний пiдхiд визначае тип вiдтворюваних у первинних групах та партшних шдроздшах ситуацш, якi впливають на переб^ групово!' динамiки (сощ-ально-психолопчний пiдхiд) та актуалiзують вiдповiднi культурш архетипи у несвiдомому учасникiв взаемоди (архетипний пiдхiд), що через сформова-нi на IX основi габ^уси, установки, фрейми, дискурси, символи, цшносп, ви-значають поведiнковий вибiр учасниюв взаeмодiï, активуючи чи пасивуючи !'х (бiологiчний пiдхiд). Все це прискорюе або сповiльнюe аж до повно!' зу-пинки процес олiгархiзацiï полгтичних партiй i визначае 1'х життездатшсть,
ефектившсть та результатившсть, включно зi здатшстю реалiзовувати про-тягом тривалого часу власш початковi цiлi (полiтологiчний пщхщ).
Створена i представлена мiждисциплiнарна модель дае можливiсть проа-налiзувати життедiяльнiсть полiтичних органiзацiй на мiкро-, мезо- i макро-рiвнi на стади !х конструювання з метою вибору оптимально! сукупност органiзацiйних параметрiв будови цих оргашзацш ввдповщно до типу зо-внiшнього середовища, в якому вони мають дiяти.
Ключовi слова: постмодерн, архетипний шдхвд, полiтичнi парти нового поколiння, органiзацiйний пiдхiд, закон олiгархiзащl Мiхельса.
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПАРТИИ КАК СУБЪЕКТЫ ТРАДИЦИОННОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ В ПОСТМОДЕРНОМ ОБЩЕСТВЕ (АРХЕТИПНЫЙ ПОДХОД)
Аннотация. Обоснована необходимость конструирования политических партий нового поколения, которые были бы способны осуществлять традиционную для них деятельность — эффективно и результативно в рациональной плоскости управлять обществом в условиях перехода из модерна к постмодерну и в самом постмодерне.
Представлено междисциплинарную модель для анализа жизнедеятельности политических организаций, которая была создана с целью осуществления такого конструирования. Она связывает эмерджентные качества политических организаций на макроуровне с выбором поведенческих стратегий их членов на микроуровне через взаимодействие этих членов в рамках первичных групп и партийных подразделений на мезоуровне. Модель включает биологический, архетипический, социально-психологический, организационный и политологический подходы с выделенными в каждом из них аспектами, которые связывают эти подходы в целостную модель на основе архетипного подхода.
Подробно описано взаимосвязи между аспектами различных подходов. В частности организационный подход определяет тип воспроизводимых в первичных группах и партийных подразделениях ситуаций, влияющих на ход групповой динамики (социально-психологический подход) и актуализирующих соответствующие культурные архетипы в бессознательном участников взаимодействия (архетипический подход), которые через сложившиеся на их основе габитусы, установки, фреймы, дискурсы, символы, ценности, определяют поведенческий выбор участников взаимодействия, активируя или пассивируя их (биологический подход). Все это ускоряет или замедляет до полной остановки процесс олигархизации политических партий и определяет их жизнеспособность, эффективность и результативность, включая способность реализовывать в течение длительного времени собственные первоначальные цели (политологический подход).
Созданная и представленная междисциплинарная модель позволяет осуществлять анализ жизнедеятельности политических организаций на микро-, мезо- и макроуровне на стадии их конструирования с целью выбора
оптимальной совокупности организационных параметров строение этих организаций в соответствии с типом внешней среды, в которой они должны действовать.
Ключевые слова: постмодерн, архетипический подход, политические партии нового поколения, организационный подход, закон олигархизации Михельса.
Formulation of the problem. The
modern political science in general and partology study in particular, study, classify and describe the existing political organizations, identifying their types, kinds and defining their qualities, capabilities and effectiveness within different political systems in different countries.
What is clear, however, is that the traditional political organizations that emerged and formed in the modern era do not cope with their key functions of managing the societies, countries, and the global world in the modern era of the transition from modern to postmodern.
Therefore, we see the actual problem of not describing the existing ones, but of constructing new-generation political parties capable of surviving and acting in a complex turbulent external environment with its multiplicity of truths, destruction of meanings and values, uneven social development of different countries, which causes manifestations of postmodernity there, where neither society nor its political organizations are prepared for it.
Analysis of the recent publications on the issue and identifying unresolved parts of the common problem. In their monograph [1] the Ukrainian scientists E. Afonin and A. Martynov conceptualize the results of many years
of theoretical and monitoring research of the Ukrainian School of Archetype (1992-2018), which uses the author's archetypal methods for diagnosing the transformational changes in the Ukrainian consciousness. On the basis of generalization of the received data and naturally expected abrupt qualitative changes in the public consciousness, the authors formulate an optimistic forecast of the nearest development.
At the same time, they emphasize that today the ability to see and actively shape different variants of events is gaining importance. This, in their view, is an important feature of new social engineering. The classical forecasting has mostly followed trends, and the new post-classical forecasting technology aims to foresee alternatives first. Accordingly, the broader definition of the subject field of the social engineering tasks lies in a set of applied sociology approaches focused on the purposeful change of the organizational structures that define human behaviour and provide social control functions.
According to the authors, the social and engineering factors such as the construction of the political institutions, the reception of the principles of the legal systems of the developed democratic states, the formation of a new type of culture based on new values and social priorities are of particu-
lar importance in the process of transition from one social order to another.
Thus, the constitution of the political institutions, in particular political parties, through the purposeful change of their organizational structures, which determine human behaviour and provide social control functions, is an effective way of addressing the problem that we have set at the beginning.
In his work [2] the Ukrainian philosopher Myroslav Popovych, considering modernity and postmodernity notes that rationalism is the characteristic feature of the first in the last decades. Since the Enlightenment the European civilization has been trying to find the answer to the question of how the society should choose its goals and the role of rationality in their choice and realization.
In the same work the author notes that the postmodern categorically rejects the idea of the hidden meaning of the human and human history, and that postmodernists proclaim the end of a whole-rational history and the beginning of something completely new.
This, in our opinion, negates the significance and destroys the meaning of the traditional activities of the political parties that arose and formed in the modern times and for the most part relied on static — unchanged, longstanding ideologies, whose basic foundations tried in one way or another, more or less successfully spread, and, in some places, impose on the societies.
Further, Myroslav Popovych, describing the postmodern, notes that the "mirror", that is supposed to reflect the reality, is broken into small pieces, from which one cannot unite the whole — because there is no project that
would allow viewing all these pieces from a superhuman height to unravel the mystery mosaic. There is a single mechanism for combining the particle chaos as a whole — communication, in which individuals-subjects look not from above, from immense heights, but from each other in the eye, and find understanding rather than internal unity on the basis of the project of a superpersonal and timely rational collective Self.
In our view, this approach of the postmodernists is a reaction to the awareness of the inability of the existing political organizations to cope with the complexity of the modern world, which is steadily and rapidly increasing.
At the same time, the following quote is the key to solving this problem. The traditional activities of the political parties in the postmodern must unite and for a long time keep in the dynamic equilibrium particles of the broken "mirror", reflecting the reality, in order to obtain its holistic image, its perception, analysis and understanding. Moreover, such political parties, by organizing in a certain way intra-party communication and communication of the party with the society, should ensure the formation and support of the holographic brain of the organizations, the metaphor of which is presented in his book [3] by the American scholar G. Morgan — when every particle in the broken "mirror" are capable of reflecting a coherent self-image, and an image of the reality that is reflected throughout the "mirror", whereby the organization acquires the ability for continuous self-organization and self-reproduction.
In our work [4] we have shown that the collective subjectivity of the organizations, which includes a conscious and rational collective Self formed in a certain way, which continuously interacts with its collective unconscious, is a guarantee of the prevention of totalitarianism, which, according to My-roslav Popovych, try to avoid the ideologues of the postmodernism.
In his work [5] the Russian scientist N. Rozov presented a structural diagram of the general concept of the dynamic interaction of the mental and social components, revealing their basic patterns.
All the social structures are real and operate only insofar as they are driven by the behaviour of the people occupying their positions in these structures. This behaviour is directly governed by the mental settings, and in general by habits, frames and symbols that are conditioned by the cultural patterns passed down from generation to generation, including the deepest and most inertial — ethnic and civilizational archetypes. The new symbols and frames that emerge can override the old ones and replace them in the process of in-tergenerational translation, which is how cultural patterns evolve. There are also changes in archetypes, which already means a profound cultural and civilizational shift.
However, the speed with which this transition occurs in a context where there are a large number of successful developed countries that have already made it does not allow us to expect the natural course of the processes described by the author. In our opinion the archetype should be purposefully changed as a structure-forming com-
ponent of the mentality, which implies the automatic change of the symbols, frames, habits, rituals, etc.
It should be borne in mind the same thesis of the same author, who, without diminishing the factor of chance, indicates an important pattern: in the turning moments of the history new ideas arise only through the selection and combination of ideas already existing in the given culture [6].
We plan to address this problem at the outset in the context of the archetypal approach developed by the Ukrainian School of Archetype. In particular, we will rely on the principles of archetypal management of the society developed by us [7] on the basis of the "Archetypal Management" developed by the Ukrainian scientist O. Don-chenko [8].
Considering the evolution of the ideas about governance in the context of classical, non-classical and post-non-classical scientific rationalities, in his book [9] the Russian scientist V. Lepsky formed a holistic vision of the processes of forming the ideas about management and trends in its development in a postmodern world — within the framework of the corresponding post-non-classical rationality. The author considers that, in the context of post-non-classical rationality, unlike classical and non-classical, control is understood not as rigid determination of systems, but as "soft forms of management" — the creation of conditions for their development. In fact, the dominant types of management are various types of management through the environment.
That is, the political parties, in order to become effective and efficient
in the postmodern era, must integrate with the society and form one whole, while being separated from it across a fuzzy border.
It should be noted that around the same time that the idea of the postmodern formed, the theory of organizations solved the problem of choosing an organizational structure, depending on the complexity of the external environment. Thus, G. Morgan believes that the type of environment is the main factor that determines the optimal structure of the organization and its other key parameters [3]. The authors of the book [10] prove the same, arguing that in a simple and defined external environment, a simple linear hierarchical structure with appropriate (involving forced concessions) competition strategies, with formal communication systems, with an unbending organizational culture, and with routine tasks for employees would be optimal. Instead, a turbulent external environment requires a shift to a horizontal structure with appropriate cooperative competition strategies, an efficient information exchange system, an adaptive organizational culture and delegation of authority.
In his book [11] the American scientist J. Garaedagi, summarizing the development of an organizational approach in the modern world, identified two shifts in the organizational paradigm that illustrate the transition from the idea of organization as a mechanistic system without one's reason to organizational systems of a biological model with one reason and, further, to organizations — multi-reason social model systems. Actually, the latter type of organizations have proven
their effectiveness and efficiency in the turbulent external environment due to the introduction of distributed (parti-sipative) management in their midst and the acquisition of the ability to adaptively restructure in the process of their activity.
All this testifies to the possibility of building a new generation of political parties capable of acting effectively and efficiently in the postmodern world, carrying out rational targeting on the basis of broadband processing of increasing flows of information coming from the external and internal environments.
The purpose of the article is to create an interdisciplinary model for analyzing the vitality of the political organizations, linking their emergent qualities at the macro level with the choice of the behavioural strategies of their members at the micro level through the interaction of these members within primary groups and party units, which can host new generation political parties capable of carrying out their traditional activities — effectively and efficiently in the rational plane to govern the society in a transition from modern to postmodern and in the postmodern itself.
Outline of the main research material with full justification of the scientific results. The organizations, especially political ones, cannot be adequately reflected in just one scientific approach or discipline. And when it comes to constructing them, you have to use and agree on a whole range of different approaches, identifying the relationships between them and checking the formulated theses within one of them for their simultaneous compliance with all the other approaches.
To create an interdisciplinary model to analyze the life of the political organizations we have chosen the following approaches: biological, archetypal, so-cio-psychological, organizational and political science.
The choice of this set of approaches for the model creation was made in view of the possibility of combining them into one whole by identifying their key aspects — a kind of nodal points that connect all of these approaches to each other. In our view, we have highlighted two key aspects of each of these approaches in order to simplify the presentation of the complex and voluminous descriptions of the latter, which, however, sufficiently adequately represent the totality of the relationships between them.
The basic approach in this list is, undoubtedly, an archetypal approach that binds them all together and is central to the relationship between them, effectively providing a transition from micro level to meso and macro level.
Thus, the first two approaches — biological and archetypal describe the organization at the micro level — allow to define and, accordingly, to predict the choice of its members behavioural schemes and strategies in the process of interaction within the organization.
The socio-psychological approach allows to describe what is happening on the meso level, namely, how, under the influence of what patterns the interaction of the members of the organizations in groups occurs, between groups within units and between different organizational units.
The organizational and political science approaches make it possible to describe an organization at the macro
level — to determine its most general characteristics and qualities. The direct correlation of these approaches with the archetypal approach makes it possible to establish the interdependence of these characteristics and qualities with the choice of the members of the organization of behavioural schemes and strategies in its primary groups and units.
The interdisciplinary model we have created to analyze the life of the political organizations is presented in Scheme 1.
One of the most important approaches is the biological approach we have presented within its biopolitical [12] and ethological [13] branches. It includes the following two basic aspects.
The first aspect is based on the thesis about the existence of two fundamental mechanisms for the survival of the populations — confrontation and cooperation, which ensure the realization of its biological purpose — survival. Thus, A. Oleskin in [12] notes that in terms of biopolitics, the social behaviour is a complex interlocking of its two forms: 1) agonistic, including forms of behaviour associated with conflicts between the living organisms, namely aggression, isolation, subordination (as a set of behaviours aimed at stopping aggression by another person); 2) non-agonistic (loyal, "friendly"), which includes affiliation, cooperation, as well as social relief and imitation.
At the same time, we will consider it obvious that the collective unconscious was formed under the influence of the natural need to ensure the realization of the biological goal of the human activity — survival, as the ability to self-
Scheme 1. An interdisciplinary model for analyzing the life of the political organizations
reproduction in time and expansion in space within the ecosystem. This leads to the deep interconnectedness of our biological and mental systems and, accordingly, the interconnectedness of the biological and archetypal approaches.
The second aspect is the biological activation and passivation of the members of the population in the process of their interaction in small or large groups due to the course of a number of relevant neurohumoral reactions in the brain of each of them [13]. The activation and passivation are manifested in the process of ranking the candidates for leadership in these groups, resulting in hierarchical structuring of the biosocial systems. Hierarchies regulate the access of "less valuable" parts (low-ranking individuals) to the limited sources of resources. Another social function of the hierarchy is to reduce
the level of intra-group aggression, that is, passivation, by developing rules for the peaceful interaction of the individuals of different ranks: dominant, sub-dominant, subordinate [12].
Thus, the biological approach allows to predict the biological activation or passivation of the members of the political organizations at the micro level, depending on the level of actualization of a particular mechanism of the population survival — confrontation or cooperation.
It should be noted that the biological activation and passivation directly link the biological approach to the socio-psychological approach through, respectively, social facilitation and inhibition.
The archetypal approach we use
and develop [4, 7, 14] is based on the refinement of the Ukrainian School of
Archetype, in particular, on the basis of the approaches of the Ukrainian scientist O. Donchenko.
In her work [8] the collective psyche is represented by a formation based on an autonomous foundation — the foundation of archetypes. When one enters an archetypal situation, he/she operates according to an internal pattern that is typical for everyone. The archetype, wherever it may appear, has a powerful driving force that always comes from the unconscious. The mechanism of activation of the archetype occurs through the phenomenon of libido, that is defined as a common life instinct or "psychic energy". Its source is the conflict between the infantile instinct and the ethics that cannot be avoided. In the presence of a suitable situation, certain structures of the collective unconscious can be activated immediately. The psychological mechanism of activation of these structures is one, but the forms of manifestation depend on many factors — the situation, the type and kind of group, the level of confidence or cognition by the consciousness of the layers of the collective psyche, that is, the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious in the psyche of the individual and the group. The archetype as a whole image always consists of dichotomies. There are no isolated archetypes because one cannot become a person without relationships and relationships with other roles and internal hypostasis.
Introducing the concept and describing the organizing principles of the fractal archetype of the psychosocial evolution, O. Donchenko distinguishes the following components: to-
talitarian (totemic) type of the social life, authoritarian type of the social life, liberal life style, democratic way of life, which, in a more appropriate format for our presentation, correspond to the cultural archetypes of consolidation, confrontation, competition and cooperation.
Using the concepts of cultural archetypes, we mean that each of them represents a set of dichotomies of personal archetypes corresponding to it, political myth invariants, etc., which offer different classifications of archetypes of the unconscious [7] and which form the basis around which the frames, discourses, habits, rituals are formed [5]. It should be understood, however, that the cultural archetypes of consolidation and confrontation are extremely volatile and are constantly shifting either to confrontation or to cooperation (voluntary or forced) [14].
Therefore, the first aspect of the archetypal approach that establishes the link between it and the biological approach is the cultural archetypes formed on the basis of the more ancient mechanisms of the survival of the human populations and identified by us in describing the biological approach.
The second aspect of the archetypal approach is the activation of particular habits, settings, frames, discourses, symbols, values, etc. as a result of the activation of a particular cultural archetype by the situations of the interaction and their contexts, which are reproduced in the groups and units of the political organizations. This aspect directly links the archetypal approach to the socio-psychological and organizational approaches. The first one determines the dependency of the members
of the organization on the behaviours and strategies of the interaction situations in which they are located and their contexts, and the second determines what type of interaction situations will be systematically reproduced in the primary groups and units of the organization (more on this below).
Note that these two aspects also link the archetypal approach to the political science. They suggest, on the one hand, the viability of the political organizations based on the fact that the energy allocated by the party members will be redeemed in internal conflicts as a result of the actualization of the cultural archetype of confrontation, or accumulated and directed towards the realization of the party goals due to the actualization of the cultural archetype of cooperation. On the other hand, they determine the outcome of the internal organizational processes, which, if not designed and implemented preventive measures, causes the manifestation of the law of oligarchization of Michel, which leads to the oligarchization of the political organizations.
Thus, the archetypal approach allows to predict the viability of the organizations depending on the actualization of a cultural archetype — confrontation or cooperation, which, in turn, is determined by the appropriate type of archetypal situations that are constantly reproduced in the primary groups and units of the organization. At the same time, the actualization of one or another cultural archetype activates the corresponding habits, attitudes, frames, discourses, symbols, values, etc., which determine the participants' choice of behavioural patterns and strategies at the micro level within the
framework reproduced by the various organizational party parameters of the archetypal situations.
The socio-psychological approach
occupies an intermediate place in the interconnected set of approaches presented by us and describes the course of group processes at the meso level in the organizations. It is also represented by two of the most important aspects, in our opinion.
The first covers the classical or natural group dynamics, which includes the set of group effects and processes that accompany the development of a typical human group. In a number of our publications we investigated the progress of the group dynamics in the political organizations and in [7] summarized their results and substantiated ways of managing it by managing the situations of interaction of the members of the party units created by the organizational tools within the organizational approach.
The course of group dynamics determine the reproduction and change of the situations of interaction at the appropriate stages of the group development, that determines its relationship with the archetypal approach, which updates the relevant archetypes in each situation that determine the behaviour of the participants of the interaction.
The second aspect concerns the influence of the interaction situation and their contexts on the behavioural choice of the interaction participants and is based on the results of the research presented in the book [15] by the famous social psychologists L. Ross, R. Nisbett.
The authors identified and analyzed in detail three basic principles of the
social psychology: strong deterministic influence on the human behaviour of the immediate social situation; influence on the behaviour of the subjective interpretation; dependence of behaviour on the state of the individual psyche and social group as stressed systems. According to these authors, they are the basis of the modern social psychology.
We see a direct connection of this aspect of the socio-psychological approach with the archetypal approach, namely with the actualization of a certain cultural archetype with an appropriate situation of interaction, which through it activates its corresponding habit, settings, frames, discourses, symbols, values that directly determine the behaviour of the participants of the interaction. At the same time, the actualization of a particular cultural archetype activates or inactivates the participants at the biological level by triggering the neurohumoral responses corresponding to it in the brain of each of them. This aspect is also directly related to the organizational approach, namely the reproduction of the typical situations of interaction in primary groups and political party units, which are determined by the parameters of its organizational structure.
Thus, the socio-psychological approach allows to predict the social facilitation and inhibition of the members of the political organizations on the meso level — in the primary groups and the triple units depending on the typical situations of interaction that are reproduced and changed in them as a result of the group dynamics. By changing its course with organizational tools that allow purposeful reproduc-
tion of the constructed situations of interaction, it is possible to change the course of the classical group dynamics by controlling the activation and passivation of the participants of the interaction.
We take the organizational approach to the macro level through research within the framework of the general parameters of the political organizations that determine their emergent qualities, which, in turn, through the relationships we describe, determine the behavioural choices of their members at the micro level. Let us also present it in two aspects.
The first of these identifies the double shift of the organizational paradigm, presented in his book [11] by the American scientist J. Garaedagi as a transition from organizations — unreasonable systems of the mechanistic model — to organizations — systems with one reason of the biological model and beyond, to organizations — multi-reason systems of the social models. This aspect directly links the organizational approach with the political science, determining what type of organization will be viable in today's turbulent, uncertain and fuzzy external environment with the increasing complexity and the flow of rapidly growing information in it. That is, in the transition from modern to postmodern.
The double shift of the organizational paradigm corresponds to the double shift of the paradigm of subject-object relations in the context of the evolution of perceptions of management, which considers it within the framework of classical, non-classical and post-non-classical rationality [9]. These two shifts reflect the change in
the paradigm of each type of entity — from subject as one person to subject — small group and further, to a subject in a large group whose interaction is organized by specific algorithms. This, as well as the relevant type of subjectivity, is the main political process in the new generation parties, which directly links the organizational approach with the political science, we have presented in our publication [16].
The second aspect determines the choice of a set of organizational parameters of a political party, which includes the organizational structure, organizational culture, type of leadership, roles (tasks) of the employees, approaches to the exchange and distribution of information, the direction of shift of competition, etc., according to the type of the external environment in which it operates whether this organization will operate.
As we noted above, in the 70s and 90s of the last century, in parallel with the emergence of the concept of postmodern, a general approach was made in the framework of the theory of organization to the choice of parameters of the organizational structure in accordance with the type of the external environment in which the organization operates. Thus, the authors of the book [10] argue that in a simple and defined external environment, a simple linear hierarchical structure with appropriate (requiring forced concessions) strategies of competition, with formal communication systems, with a rigid organizational culture and with routine tasks will be most optimal. Instead, a turbulent external environment requires a shift to a horizontal structure with appropriate cooperative competi-
tion strategies, an efficient information exchange system, an adaptive organizational culture and delegation of authority.
In fact, the second aspect specifies the first — it determines on what basis and how the next generation political parties should be built — multi-reason social model systems that will be viable, effective and efficient in a turbulent external environment, thus linking the organizational and political approach.
At the same time, the second aspect of the organizational approach determines the type of the situations reproduced in the primary groups and party subunits that influence the course of the group dynamics (socio-psycholog-ical approach) and actualize the relevant cultural archetypes in the unconscious participants of the interaction (archetypal approach), based on their habit, settings, frames, discourses, symbols, values, etc. determine the behavioural choices of the participants in the interaction, activating or passivating them (biological approach). All this accelerates or slows down to a complete stop the process of oligarchization of the political parties and determines their viability, efficiency and effectiveness, including their ability to realize their initial goals for a long time (political science approach).
The political science approach determines the most general dynamic parameters of the political organizations in the time frame at the macro level — it forms an idea of the viability, efficiency and effectiveness of the political organizations in the external environment in terms of specific political systems and countries at each stage of their activity (the first aspect). At the same
time, the political science approach captures and analyzes the processes of the degeneration of political parties as a result of the Michel oligarchization law with a corresponding change in the initial goals, the concentration of power in the leading core when the public is passivated, and also captures and analyzes the emergence and dynamics of intra-organizational contradictions and conflicts (the second aspect).
The first aspect, as noted above, is directly related to the type of organizational paradigm used in the construction and structure of the party, and the second aspect — to the set of organizational parameters of the party that determine its structure and the flow of the internal organizational processes.
Conclusions and prospects for further research
The created and presented interdisciplinary model allows to analyze the life of the political organizations at the micro, meso and macro levels at the stage of their construction in order to choose the optimal set of organizational parameters of the structure of these organizations in accordance with the type of the external environment in which they should operate.
On its basis we created a project of a new-generation political party, which is capable of carrying out traditional activities in the transition from modern to postmodern and directly in postmodern [16] and tested in practice within the framework of this project the individual technologies and algorithms of the teamwork of the members of large groups of the party units.
The beginning of construction a party for this project will open the prospect of exploring its basic qualities
and the flow of the internal organizational processes at all the levels, which will allow to adjust the individual parameters of the project in the process of deployment of such an organization.
REFERENCES -
1. Afonin, E., & Martynov A. (2019). Ukrainske dyvo: vid depresii do sot-cialnogo optymizmu [Ukrainian miracle: From Depression to Social Optimism]. Kyiv: Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Publishing House [in Ukrainian].
2. Popovich M. (2002). Modern i postmodern: filosofiya i polityka. [Modern and Postmodern: Philosophy and Politics]. Dukh i Litera — Spirit and Letter, 9-10 [in Ukrainian].
3. Morgan, G. (1998). Imidzhy orga-nizatsyi: vosiem modeliei organizat-syonnoho razvitiia [Images of Organization]. (N. Lapina, Trans.). Moskov: Vershyna [in Russian].
4. Plakhtiy, T. (2016). Subiektnist orga-nizatsii v arkhetypnomu vymiri [Subjectivity of organizations in archetypal dimension]. Publichne uriaduvannia: zbirnyk — Public Governance: Collection, 2(3). (pp. 204-216). Kyiv: DP "Vydavnychyi dim "Personal" [in Ukrainian].
5. Rozov, N. S. (2010). Ritualy, instituty i resursy: socialnyie osnovy transfor-macyi mentaliteta [Rituals, institutions and resources: social foundations of the transformation of mentality]. Cennosti i smysly — Values and meanings, 5 (8), 50-67 [in Russian].
6. Rozov, N.S. (2017). Konceptualizaciya svyazi [Conceptualization of Communication]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo -Philosophy and society, 1 (82), 29-47 [in Russian].
7. Plakhtiy, T. (2014). Organizational Tools for Archetypal Management of Social Systems. Social Sci-
ence Research Network, June 13. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2542837.
8. Donchenko, O. A. (2012). Arxety-povyi menedzhment: monografiya [Archetypal Management. Monograph]. Kirovograd: Imex-LTD [in Ukrainian].
9. Lepskiy,V.E.(2019).Metodologicheskij i filosofskij analiz razvitiya problema-tiki upravleniya [Methodological and philosophical analysis control development]. Moscow: Cogito-centre [in Russian].
10. Daft, R. (2013). Organizatsionnaia teoriia I dizain [Organization theory and design]. (E. V. Kuznietsova, Trans.). Sankt Peterburg: Piter [in Russian].
11. Gharajedaghi, J. (2007). Sistemnoie myshlienie: Kak upravliat khaosom i slozhnymi protsesami. Platforma dlia modelirivaniia arkhitektury biznesa [System thinking: managing chaos and complexity: a plaform for designing business architecture]. (E. I. Nied-balskaia, Trans., E. V. Kuznietsova Ed.). — Minsk: Grievtsov Publisher [In Belarus].
12. Oleksin, A. V. (2006). Biopolitics. Biopolitika. Politicheskij potencial sovremennoj biologii: filosofskiye, politologicheskiye i prakticheskiye aspekty. [The political potential of modern biology: philosophical, political and practical aspects]. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University [in Russian].
13. Zhukov, D. A. (2014). Stoj, kto vedet?
Biologiya povedeniya cheloveka i dru-gikh zverej: v 2 t. [Wait, Who Leads? Biology of the Human Behavior and other Animals: in 2 volumes]. Moscow: Alpina non-fiction [in Russian].
14. Plakhtiy, T. O. (2018). Archetypal principles behind political space realignment. Public management: collection, 4 (14), (Special edition). (pp.
227-243). Kyiv: DP "Vydavnychyi dim "Personal" [in Ukrainian].
15. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1999). Che-loviek I situatsiia: perspektivy sot-sialnoi psikhologii [The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology]. (V. V. Rumynskii, Trans., E. N. Yemelianova, V. S. Maguna Ed.). Moskov: Aspekt Press [in Russian].
16. Plakhtiy, T. (2019). Osnovnyj poli-tychnyj proces u partiyax novogo po-kolinnya [The main political process in new generation parties]. Zbruch: veb-sait — Zbruc: website. Retrieved from https://zbruc.eu/node/93087 [in Ukrainian].
СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ -
1. Афонш Е., Мартинов А. Украшське диво: вщ депреси до сощального onraMi3My / Е. Афонш, А. Мартинов. К. : Вид. дiм "Киево-Могилян-ська академiя", 2019. 296 c.
2. Попович М. Модерн i постмодерн: фiлософiя i полггика / М. Попович // Дух i Лггера. 2002. № 9-10.
3. Морган Г. Имиджи организации: восемь моделей организационного развития / Г. Морган; пер. с англ. под ред. Н. Лапиной. — М. : Вершина, 2006. — 416 с.
4. Плахтш Т. Суб'ектшсть оргашзацш в архетипному вимiрi / Т. Плахтш // Пyблiчне урядування : збiрник. № 2 (3) — червень 2016. К. : ДП "Вид. дiм "Персонал", 2016. С. 204-216.
5. Розов Н. С. Ритуалы, институты и ресурсы: социальные основы трансформации менталитета / Н. С. Розов // Ценности и смыслы. — 2010. № 5 (8). С. 50-67.
6. Розов Н. С. Концептуализация связи / Н. С. Розов // Философия и общество. 2017. № 1 (82). С. 29-47.
7. Плахтш Т. Оргашзацшш шстру-менти архетипного управлшня сощ-
альними системами / Т. Плахтш // Публiчне управлшня: теорiя та практика: зб. наук. праць асощацп докторiв наук з державного управлшня. Х. : Вид-во "ДокНаукДер-жУпр". № 2(18) (спецвипуск), чер-вень, 2014. С. 130-141.
8. Донченко О. А. Архетиповий менеджмент: монографiя / О. А. Донченко. Юровоград : 1мекс-ЛТД, 2012. 264 с.
9. Лепский В. Е. Методологический и философский анализ развития проблематики управления / В. Е. Леп-ский. Москва : Когито-Центр, 2019. 340 с.
10. Дафт Р. Организационная теория и дизайн: учебник / Р. Дафт; пер. с англ. В. Кузин. СПб : Питер, 2013. 640 с.
11. Гараедаги Дж. Системное мышление: Как управлять хаосом и сложными процессами. Платформа для моделирования архитектуры бизнеса / Дж. Гараедаги; пер. с англ. Е. И. Недбальская; науч. ред. Е. В. Кузнецова. Минск : Гревцов Паблишер, 2007. 480 с.
12. Олескин А. В. Биополитика. Политический потенциал современной биологии: философские, политологические и практические аспекты / А. В. Олескин. — М. : МГУ им. В. М. Ломоносова, 2006. — 583 с.
13. Жуков Д. А. Стой, кто ведет? Биология поведения человека и других зверей: в 2 т. / Д. А. Жуков. М. : Аль-пина нон-фикшн, 2014. 564 с.
14. Плахтш Т. О. Архетипш засади ре-структуризацп полггичного простору / Т. О. Плахтш // Публiчне урядування : збiрник. № 4 (14), чер-вень, 2018 (спецвипуск). Кшв: ДП "Видавничий дiм "Персонал", 2018. С. 237-253.
15. Росс Л., Нисбетт Р. Человек и ситуация: перспективы социальной психологии / Л. Росс, Р. Нисбетт; пер. с англ. В. В. Румынского; под ред. Е. Н. Емельянова, В. С. Магуна. М. : Аспект Пресс, 1999. 429 с.
16. Плахтш Т. Основний полггичний процес у парпях нового поколшня [Електронний ресурс] / Т. Плахтш // Збруч : веб-сайт. 27 жовтня 2019. Режим доступу: https://zbruc.eu/ node/93087.
