| Annotation |
The article raises questions of the xenophobia evolution in the Russian online communities. The main
task was to analyze the transformation of phobias into communicative aggression in the dynamics of social
interaction. Considering communicative aggression as a tool for establishing dominance in social goal-setting,
we turned to the study of communities of different types in order to identify the relationship between the level
of communicative tension and certain values. As an empirical basis for the study, we chose messages (posts)
published in the online communities of feminists and anonymous users (in the context of their relationship to Islam).
The research methods were case-study and critical discourse analysis (at the level of research foundation),
non-formalized content analysis, text mining and correlation analysis (at the level of data collection and data
processing). At the general theoretical level, an attempt was made to combine the positivist and interpretative
paradigms. The study of two cases revealed the dynamics of the transition from the cultivation of phobias to the
spread of communicative aggression. It shows how the digitalization of communications affects the polarization of cultural, symbolic and sociopolitical differences and promotes the integration of the individual into the network
community. Various scenarios were identified according to which the spread of communicative aggression
occurs. For example, in radical feminist communities, aggression occurs when the values of freedom, life and
health are threatened. In the case of Islam, aggression is caused by tolerance as a value, as well as a threat to
the law, family and freedom. Based on the results of the analysis of each case, recommendations are presented
to reduce the level of communicative tension, which consist in avoiding specific value triggers, transforming the
media image of network communities and building communication strategies with a more even appeal to all
values, and not only to terminal ones. Thus, communities with integration occurs solely by spreading aggressive
communications will be forced to turn to other strategies to implement full-fledged activities. |
| References |
1. Sidorov, V. A. Fluid media artifacts: new foundations for symbolic dominance. Humanitarian vector, no. 1,
pp. 153–159, 2021. (In Rus.)
2. Kin, D. Democracy and the media decadence. М: Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, 2015. (In Rus.)
3. Hate Speech in Asia and Europe: Beyond Hate and Fear (1st ed.). UK: Routledge, 2020. (In Engl.)
4. Koukoutsaki-Monnier, A., Seoane, A. Hate speech on the Internet. Publictionnnaire, 2019. Web.
10.06.2021. http://publictionnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/discours-de-haine-sur-linternet/ (In Fr.)
5. Morozova, А. А. Social network: on the question of user safety. Symbol: problematic field of media
education, 2017. Web. 10.06.2021. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsialnaya-set-k-voprosu-o-bezopasnosti-
polzovatelya/viewer. (In Rus.)
6. Steensen, S., Grøndahl, L. A., Benestad, H. Y., Kjos, F. B. What Does Digital Journalism Studies Look
Like? Digital Journalism, no. 3. pp. 320–342, 2019. (In Engl.)
7. Steensen, S., Ahva, L. Theories of journalism in a digital age: An exploration and introduction.
Journalism Practice, no. 1, 2015. Web. 10.06.2021. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17512786.201
4.928454?needAccess=true. (In Engl.)
8. Pichugina, O. A. Transmedia storytelling in the communicative space of the metropolis. Communicology,
no. 4, pp. 225–238, 2016. (In Rus.)
9. Zhilavkaya, I. V. Personal media behavior. Making sense. Electronic Scientific Journal “Mediascope”,
no. 2, 2011. Web. 10.06.2021. http://www.mediascope.ru/node/786. (In Rus.)
10. Zinchia, A. B. Media behavior as a social phenomenon and sociological concept. Science and Education:
a New Dimension. Humanities and Social Sciences, no. 3, pp. 52–56, 2015. (In Rus.)
11. Van Deyk, Т. Discourse and Power: Representing Dominance in Language and Communication. М.:
Librokom, 2015. (In Rus.)
12. Fairclough, N. Critical Language Awareness. UK: Routhledge, 2014. (In Engl.)
13. Cukerman, E. Re-wire. Digital cosmopolitans in the communication age. М: Ad Marginem Press. 2015.
(In Rus.)
14. Sidorov, V. A., Kurushkin, S. V. Media behavior of network societies in liquid modernity. Tourism: Studies
& Practices (UERN), no. 1, 2021. Web. 13.06.2021. http://natal.uern.br/periodicos/index.php/RTEP/article/
view/2960/2559. (In Rus.)
15. Shipilov, A. V. Opposition “friends and foes” in the social sciences. Ed. by Belobrovceva, I. Z., Danilevskij,
A. A., Docenko, S. N., The paradigm “ours” – “strangers” in the cultures of Estonia of the twentieth century:
collection of articles. M: FLINTA: Nauka, 2019: 34–58. (In Rus.) |
