UDC 329+316.4
DOI 10.20339/AM.11-25.076
Maxim S. Kozyrev, Cand. Sc. (Philosophy), Docent, Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia; Plekhanov Russian Economic University, Russia, Moscow; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1643-3391; Researcher ID: 57188625469, e-mail: max-han@yandex.ru
Discursive practices are ideologically based. There is an indirect connection, a complex relationship between the social structure and the structure of discourse. In this regard, discourse becomes the main source of information about social reality. Based on the analysis of ideological discourse, to establish the peculiarities of the social position and role in the public political space of one of the groups of the non-systemic opposition. The methodologically applied version of discourse analysis is based on the work of Mannheim, Van Dyck, Vodak and other scientists, who proved the connection between the structure of discourse and social structure. Navalny A.A. and his followers could not (or did not intend to) occupy their niche in legal public policy with its institutionalized channels of interaction between actors. The followers of the “Russia of the Future” are socially closed, relatively high-status group with a volume of economic resources that allows them not to think about their daily bread and concentrate their efforts on a narrow area of political production. Moreover, it can be stated that their isolation is not only spatial, but also temporary, since this group does not associate itself with any historical period. This group is generally satisfied with the present, and the demonization of the population, ignoring the political subjectivity of the population are typical of conservatism. The described characteristics are of professional politicians who actively exploit the protest potential. At the same time, it is unlikely that their goal is to seize and retain power for the long term. Most likely, it is more mundane and connected with the intra-elite struggle. The unification of any population groups under the leadership of the “Russia of the Future” party is possible only on the basis of protest, the social base of which is situational and depends on many background factors. In the texts of the party leader, positioning him as, for example, a representative of the intelligentsia, the middle class or any other stable and specific social group, except as an opposition politician, was not found.
Keywords: ideology, discourse analysis, public policy, non-systemic opposition, social status
References
1. Bourdieu, P. Sociology of Politics. Moscow: Socio-Logos, 1993. 336 p. (In Rus.)
2. Bourdieu, P. Sociology of Social Space. Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology. St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 2007. 288 p. (In Rus.)
3. Valdera, H.M. The Legitimization of Social Inequality in Soviet Ideology during the Stalinist Period. The World of Russia. 2015. No. 4. Pp. 29–59.
4. Wodak, R. Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. Political Linguistics. 2011. No. 4 (38). Pp. 286–291. (In Rus.)
5. Guseinova, K.E. Critical Discourse Analysis as an Effective Method for Qualitative Analysis of Scientific and Educational Texts [Electronic resource]. Nauka.me “Contemporary Global Challenges and Political Processes”. 2017. No. 3. URL: http://nauka.jes.su/s241328880000051-0-1 (accessed on: 20.07.2024).
6. Dijk, T. Discourse and Power: Representation of Domination in Language and Communication. Moscow: URSS, 2013. 344 p. (In Rus.)
7. Derrida, J. Of Grammatology. Moscow: Ad Marginem, 2000. 512 p. (In Rus.)
8. Zemtsov, A.O. The End of the “Strong Hand”? A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Normative View in Russian Political Culture. Sociological Journal. 2020. No. 26 (4). Pp. 96–115.
9. Kozyrev, M.S. Research into the influence of social structure on ideology in the works of Karl Mannheim. Social Policy and Sociology. 2014. No. 4 (105). Pp. 150–162.
10. Kozyrev, M.S. Features of applying document analysis to ideological material of modern Russia when studying its social structure. Alma Mater (Vestnik vysshey shkoly). 2020. No. 9. Pp. 108–112. DOI: 10.20339/AM.09-20.108
11. Kozyrev, M.S. The social environment of the modern Russian ruling elite (based on publications by representatives of the United Russia political party). Vestnik of Perm University. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology. 2017. No. 4. Pp. 622–631.
12. Kozyrev, M.S. The Habitus of the Ruling Elite of Modern Russia. Ideas and Ideals. 2024. Vol. 16. No. 1. Pp. 185–206.
13. Linde, A.N. Justification of a new approach to critical discourse analysis: the case of public hearings in the Russian Federation. Discourse-Pi. 2019. No. 3 (36). Pp. 63–77.
14. Makarova, M.N. Representation of “traditional values” in the Russian political and public sphere (based on discourse analysis of family values). Vestnik PNIPU. Social and Economic Sciences. 2021. No. 3. Pp. 96–109.
15. Manheim, K. Ideology and Utopia. Moscow: INION, 1992. 245 pp.
16. Practices of qualitative data analysis in social sciences: textbook / ed. by E.V. Polukhina. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2024. 385 p.
17. Romashko, T.V., Gurova, O.Yu. Poststructuralist discourse theory and its methods of researching sociocultural reality. Sociodynamics. 2022. No. 10. Pp. 46–59.
18. Semenova, O.F. Discursive practice of criticism in the Russian-speaking linguistic community: a diachronic description (based on the examples of the Soviet period, the period of perestroika, and the present day). Contemporary Science: Current Issues in Theory and Practice. Humanities Series. 2024. No. 1. Pp. 137–142.
19. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman. 265p.
20. Hall, S. (1996). Who Needs “Identity”? Questions of Cultural Identity. L.: SAGE. Pp. 1–17.
21. Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse Theory: Achievements, Arguments, and Challenges. Discourse Theory in European Politics / D. Howarth, J. Torfing (eds). N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 1–32.
22. Wodak, R. (ed.). (1989). Language, Power, and Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 288 p.
.png)
