Politicization of the Creative Elite as Reflected in Digital Public Space (Analysis of Political and Cultural Codes and Narrative Schemes) | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
Politicization of the Creative Elite as Reflected in Digital Public Space (Analysis of Political and Cultural Codes and Narrative Schemes)
Vol. 23 (2022) No. 3, Political Institutions and Processes
Vol. 23 (2022) No. 3
Political Institutions and Processes

Politicization of the Creative Elite as Reflected in Digital Public Space (Analysis of Political and Cultural Codes and Narrative Schemes)

Suslov I.V.
Saratov State Law Academy
ORCID ID 0000-0003-0991-6368
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-23-3-67-79
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-23-3-67-79

How to Cite Array

Suslov I.V. (2022) Politicization of the Creative Elite as Reflected in Digital Public Space (Analysis of Political and Cultural Codes and Narrative Schemes). South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 23 (3), pp. 67-79. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-23-3-67-79 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2021-12-15
Accepted Date 2022-11-20
Published Date 2023-02-28

Copyright (c) 2023 Иван Владимирович Суслов

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The dialectics of confrontation and cooperation between the world of art/culture and the world of politics has always been a relevant and controversial issue. But for the first time, modern digitization of everyday life has enabled an incredibly extensive debate about the attitudes and activities of celebrities from the world of culture, while simultaneously considerably expanding their influence on public opinion. Owing to new informational technologies, private “kitchen conversations” transformed themselves into interviews, personal video blogs, and reports, leaving their private space and becoming accessible for Internet users. Incidentally, the producers and consumers of information have remained geographically located in the same proverbial “intellectual kitchens”. Hence, the increasing opposition of creative elites, as well as emerging communication technologies necessitate their analysis as a new challenge to current political realities. In most cases, views of critically-­minded people from the creative spheres are transmitted through social networks, because they are denied access to television, even to entertainment channels. This article is aimed at exploring both the motivations and modalities / forms of politicization of the creative elite. Approximately one hundred interviews with celebrities from the spheres of culture, art and show business, posted on YouTube channels, served as a source of the empirical data. The analysis of the narrative patterns and the politico-­cultural discussion codes of the personal experience of the politicization of creative intellectuals is an important contribution to understanding the specificity of modern public deliberations and of the ways of constructing a dialogue between the public and the power.

Keywords

Internet discussions, creative intellectuals, digital public space

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out with the financial support of the RFBR within the framework of the scientific project “Dissent and politicization of the Creative intelligentsia in modern Russia: the meaning and potential of discourses and discussions in the digital public space” No. 21-011-32221.

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (2012). Performative Revolution in Egypt: An Essay in Cultural Power. L.: Bloomsbury Academic.
  2. Anderson, P. (2011). Istoki postmoderna [The Origins of Postmodernity]. M.: Territoriya budushhego.
  3. Bayrau, D. (1994). Intelligenciya i vlast’: sovetskiy opyt [Intelligentsia and Power: the Soviet Experience]. Otechestvennaya istoriya [Russian History], 2, 91–110.
  4. Belousov, A. B., Davydov, D. A., Kochukhova, E. S. (2020). V postmaterialisticheskom trende: motivaciya uchastnikov protesta v skvere u Teatra dramy v Ekaterinburge [Post-Materialist Trend: Motivation for Protests in The Drama Theatre Square in Yekaterinburg]. Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social`nye peremeny [Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes], 6, 53–72. DOI 10.14515/monitoring.2020.6.1694
  5. Budabin, A., Richey, L. (2021). Celebrity, Disruption and Neoliberal Development. In Batman Saves the Congo: How Celebrities Disrupt the Politics of Development (pp. 1–28). Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet. Cambridge: Polity.
  7. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication, 2, 317–332.
  8. Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  9. Davydov, D. A. (2021). Ot “vlasti dostojnyh” k “vlasti populyarnyh”: blesk i nishcheta meritokratii v novuyu tekhnologicheskuyu epohu [From “Power of The Worthy” to “Power of The Popular”: Splendors and Miseries of Meritocracy in a New Technological Era]. Politiya: Analiz. Hronika. Prognoz [The Journal of Political Theory, Political Philosophy And Sociology of Politics Politeia], 4, 100–114. DOI 10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-100-114
  10. Fadeeva, L. A. (2017). Nacionalizm vs. Globalizm v intellektual’nom diskurse [Nationalism vs. Globalism in the Intellectual Discourse]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Sociologiya. Politologiya. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Bulletin of the Udmurt University. Sociology. Political Science. International Relations], 3, 302–308.
  11. Fadeeva, L. A. (2007). Otvetstvennost’ intellektualov: kraeugol’nyj kamen’ ili kamen’ pretknoveniya intellektual’nogo soobshchestva? [The Responsibility of Intellectuals: The Cornerstone or the Stumbling Block of the Intellectual Community?]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya Politologiya [Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science Series], 2, 11–18.
  12. Gadzhiev, H. A. (2020). Cifrovoe prostranstvo kak pole politicheskogo protivostoyaniya vlasti i oppozicii [Digital Space as a Field for Political Confrontation of Authorities and Opposition]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science], 3, 147–171. DOI 10.31249/poln/2020.03.07
  13. Hartle, J. F. (2020). Art Contra Politics: Liberal Spectacle, Fascist Resurgence. In S. Gandesha (Ed.) Spectres of Fascism: Historical, Theoretical and International Perspectives (pp. 241–260). DOI 10.2307/j.ctvxrpzqv
  14. Karlsen, R. (2015). Followers are Opinion Leaders: The Role of People in the Flow of Political Communication on and beyond Social Networking Sites. European Journal of Communication, 30(3), 301–318.
  15. Kislicyn, S. A., Nektarevskaya, Yu. B. (2019). Politicheskie praktiki funktsionirovaniya elity, kontrelity i frondy v istorii Rossii [Political Practices of Elites, Counter-Elites, and Fronts in Russian History]. Nauka i obrazovanie: khozyaystvo i ekonomika; predprinimatel’stvo; pravo i upravlenie [Science and Education: Economy and Economics; Entrepreneurship; Law and Management], 6, 137–141.
  16. Logunova, O.S. (2021). Digital-selebriti: transformaciya teoreticheskih podhodov [Digital Celebrities: Transformation of Theoretical Approaches]. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social’nye peremeny [Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes], 5, 12–31. DOI 10.14515/monitoring.2021.5.1992
  17. Nozick, R. (1998). Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? Cato Policy Report. Retrieved from http://www.kyoolee.net/Why_Do_Intellectuals_Oppose_Capitalism_-_Robert_Nozick.pdf
  18. Olazabal, M., Neumann, M. B., Foudi, S., & Chiabai, A. (2018). Transparency and Reproducibility in Participatory Systems Modelling: The Case of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 6, 791–810. DOI 10.1002/sres.2519
  19. Ol`denburg, R. (2014). Tret’e mesto: kafe, kofeyni, knizhnye magaziny`, bary, salony krasoty i drugie mesta “tusovok” kak fundament soobshchestva [Third Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Beauty Salons, and Other “Hangout” Places as the Foundation of Community]. M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
  20. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  21. Shirky, С. (2011). Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. L.: Penguin Books.
  22. Sunstein, C. R. (2004). Democracy and Filtering. Communications of the ACM, 12, 57–59.
  23. Volodenkov, S. V. (2019). Vliyanie texnologiy internet-kommunikacii na sovremenny’e obshhestvenno-politicheskie processy’: scenarii, vy’zovy’ i aktory’ [Influence of Internet Communication Technologies on Contemporary Social and Political Processes: Scenarios, Challenges, and Actors]. Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: e`konomicheskie i social’ny’e peremeny’ [Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes], 5, 341–364. DOI 10.14515/monitoring.2019.5.16
  24. Wang, M., Wu, B., Kirschner, P. A., & Michael Spector, J. (2018). Using Cognitive Mapping to Foster Deeper Learning with Complex Problems in a Computer-based Environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 450–458. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024