From the “Quasi Criticism of Authority” to the Discourse “Participation and Development”: A Public Agenda on the Runet Social Networks (Case Studies of Network Community Practices) | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
From the “Quasi Criticism of Authority” to the Discourse “Participation and Development”: A Public Agenda on the Runet Social Networks (Case Studies of Network Community Practices)
Vol. 21 (2020) No. 3, Public Politics
Vol. 21 (2020) No. 3
Public Politics

From the “Quasi Criticism of Authority” to the Discourse “Participation and Development”: A Public Agenda on the Runet Social Networks (Case Studies of Network Community Practices)

Ryabchenko N.A.
Kuban State University
ORCID ID 0000-0001-6980-2894
Miroshnichenko I.V.
Kuban State University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-2650-6662
Gnedash A.A.
Kuban State University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-3516-107X
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-21-3-20-36
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-21-3-20-36

How to Cite Array

Ryabchenko N.A., Miroshnichenko I.V., Gnedash A.A. (2020) From the “Quasi Criticism of Authority” to the Discourse “Participation and Development”: A Public Agenda on the Runet Social Networks (Case Studies of Network Community Practices). South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 21 (3), pp. 20-36. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-21-3-20-36 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2020-07-15
Accepted Date 2020-08-28
Published Date 2021-03-31

Copyright (c) 2020 Наталья Анатольевна Рябченко, Инна Валерьевна Мирошниченко, Анна Александровна Гнедаш

Creative Commons License

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

Abstract

The article presents the results of an empirical study of the public agenda of network communities in the Runet space. Online communities as part of the morphology of modern society become agents of social and political change, including in the process of constructing social problems and representing ways to solve them. Based on an empirical analysis of discursive practices of two online communities (“The Greenhouse of Social Technologies”, “Science | Science”), the authors determine clusters of structuring the problems of the public agenda and discursive models that reflect sustainable and contextual interest of community members in social and political problems. The results of the study showed that the studied online communities demonstrate different models of the public agenda, which represent not only the system of their value priorities in relation to the perception of social and political reality that take shape in ideological constructions, but also behavioral practices in public space. The study confirms that the public agenda is the result of collective self-determination of network communities, and not a reflection of objective social and political conditions, in which social actors put forward their own claims, claims and try to keep them in public space. Thus, the category of public agenda applicable to the empirical analysis of network communities allows you to go beyond the boundaries of understanding the process and effects of network communication in public space. The analytical tools and methods of empirical research proposed by the authors open new possibilities for studying the relationship between institutional practices and the subjective space of politics (political identity, political picture of the world, political culture, ideology).

Keywords

public agenda, Runet online communities, problems, discursive practices, value orientations, behavioral style

Acknowledgements

The research is given a financial support by The Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the research project No 18-011-00975 entitled “Subjective space of politics: opportunities and challenges of network society” (2018–2020).

References

  1. Barney, D. D. (2004). The Network Society. Cornwall: Great Britain by MPG Books.
  2. Blattberg, C. (2009). Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies. Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  3. Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of The Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Castells, M., Cardoso, G. (Eds.) (2005). The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.
  5. Djik, V. J. (2001). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Houten: Bohn Staflen Van Loghum.
  6. Dyakova, E. G. (2003). Massovaya politicheskaya kommunikatsiya v teorii ustanovleniya povestki dnya: ot effekta k protsessu [Mass Political Communication in Agenda Setting Theory: From Effect to Process]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija [Polis. Political Studies], 3, 109–119.
  7. Hall, S. (1997). The Work of Representation. Representation: Cultural Representations and signifying practices. New Dehli.
  8. Hall, S. (2001). Encoding/ Decoding. Media and Cultural Studies. KeyWorks. London: Blackwell Publishers.
  9. Hammersley, М. (2003). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms? Discourse & Society, 14(6), 751–781.
  10. Iarskaya-Smirnova, E., Romanov, P. (Eds.) (2009). Vizual’naya antropologiya: nastroyka optiki [Visual Anthropology: Tuning the Lens]. Moscow: Variant, CSPGI.
  11. Jones, R. H., Chik, A., Hafner, C. A. (Eds.) (2015). Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Era. N.Y.: Routledge.
  12. Lapkin, V. V., Semenenko, I. S. (2013). “Chelovek politicheskiy” pered vyzovami “infomodernity” [“Homo Politicus” vs Challenges of “Infomodernity”]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija [Polis. Political Studies], 6, 64–81.
  13. McCombs, M., Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass-Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
  14. Minar, D. (1961). Ideology and Political Behavior. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 317–331.
  15. Miroshnichenko, I. V. (2016). Setevaya publichnaya politika i upravleniye: Monografiya [Network Public Policy and Management: Textbook]. Moscow: ARGAMAK-MEDIA.
  16. Miroshnichenko, I. V., Ryabchenko, N. A., Gnedash, A. A. (2019). Polyarizatsiya diskursivnogo prostranstva (na primere kheshtega #RUSSIA v sotsial’noy seti TWITTER) [Polarization of Discourse Space (on the Example of Hashtag #Russia in the Twitter Social Network)]. Kaspiyskiy region: politika, ekonomika, kul’tura [The Caspian Region: Politics, Economics, Culture], 1(58), 53–62.
  17. Morozova, E. V., Miroshnichenko, I. V., Ryabchenko, N. A. (2016). Frontir setevogo obshchestva [The Frontier of Network Society]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations], 60(2), 83–97.
  18. Mullins, W. A. (1969). The Concept of Ideology: An Analysis and Evaluation. Washington: University of Washington.
  19. Naybet, T., Roda, K. (2009). Virtual’nyye sotsial’nyye prostranstva: podkhody, praktiki, perspektivy [Virtual Social Spaces: Approaches, Practices, Prospects]. Sotsiologicheskiy yezhegodnik [Sociological Yearbook]. Moscow: RAN.
  20. Romanov, P. V., Iarskaya-Smirnova E. R. (2005). Sotsiologiya professiy: analiticheskiye perspektivy i metodologiya issledovaniy [Sociology of Professions: Analytical Perspectives and Research Methodology]. Moscow: Variant.
  21. Romanov, P. V., Shheblanova, V. V., Iarskaya-Smirnova, E. R. (2003). Zhenshchiny-terroristki v interpretativnykh modelyakh rossiyskikh SMI (Diskurs-analiz gazetnykh publikatsiy) [Women-Terrorists in The Interpretative Models to Be Found in Russian Mass-Media (Discourse-Analysis of Newspaper Publications)]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija [Polis. Political Studies], 6, 144–154.
  22. Ryabchenko, N. A., Gnedash, A. A. (2014). Online i offline sotsial’nyye seti: k voprosu o matematicheskom obosnovanii stokhasticheskoy modeli funktsionirovaniya [Online and Offline Social Networks: On the Mathematical Justification of the Stochastic Modal]. Politicheskaya Ekspertiza: PolitTeks: zhurnal [Political Expertise: Politex], 3(22), 91–100.
  23. Ryabchenko, N. A., Katermina, V. V., Gnedash, A. A., Malysheva, O. P. (2018). Politicheskiy kontent sotsial’nykh dvizheniy v online-prostranstve sovremennykh gosudarstv: metodologiya analiza i issledovatel’skaya praktika [Political Content of Social Movements in The Online Space of Modern States: Methodology of The Analysis and Research Practices]. Uzhno-rossiyskiy zhurnal sotsial’nykh nauk [South Russian Journal of Social Sciences], 3, 139–162.
  24. Spector, M., Kitsuse, J. (1987). Constructing Social Problems. N.Y.: Hawthorne.
  25. Van Dijk, Teun A. (2009). Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Walford, G. (1990). Beyond Politics. An Outline of Systematic Ideology. London: Calabria Press.
  27. WebCanape (2019). Vsya statistika Interneta na 2019 god — v mire i v Rossii [All Internet Statistics for 2019 in the World and in Russia]. Retrieved from https://www.web-canape.ru/business/socialnye-seti-v-2018-godu-globalnoe-issledovanie/
  28. Wodak, R. (Ed.) (1989). Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  29. Wong, S., Altman, E., Rojas-Mora, J. (2011). Internet access: Where Law, Economy, Culture and Technology Meet. Computer Networks, 55(2), 470–479.

Most read articles by the same author(s)