NARRATIVES OF FAILURE: MYTH, DECISION ECOLOGY AND CONTEMPORARY CRISIS GOVERNANCE

Résumé fourni par la source

One of the major challenges of crisis management and governance in the contemporary world is to make the right decisions at the right time. Complex crises such as climate change, pandemics, economic instability, political conflicts and technological risks often deepen not only because of a lack of resources or technical limitations, but also because of the inherent failure of the decision-making process. This paper will argue that ancient myths contain insights into recurring patterns of human decisions; powers, knowledge, and failure that can help construct a theoretical framework for analyzing contemporary crisis governance. The main purpose of this study is to propose a descriptive model called “Decision Ecology” by analyzing patterns of decision failure reflected in four well-known myths: Hamlet, Cassandra, Daedalus, and King Midas. These four narratives have been read not only as literary or mythological works, but also as symbolic models of different forms of governance and decision-making failure. Together, they point to four fundamental failure types of crisis governance: decision delays, signal rejection, unintended consequences, and over-optimization. The findings will show that many governance failures today are caused not only by technical or institutional problems, but also by recurring ways of thinking and cultural habits reflected in these narratives. Methodologically, this research will follow comparative narrative analysis and conceptual interpretive approaches. The study will suggest that crises should be understood not only as administrative or technical problems but also as narrative and cultural processes, offering new insights for crisis forecasting, risk assessment, and decision-making. This research will contribute to interdisciplinary dialogue between mythology, narrative studies, and governance theory. Future research may apply this framework to specific case studies involving climate change, public health crises, technological risks, and policy failures to test its analytical applicability.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.