Principal differences between the image of the state in socio-political and socio-cultural discourse


  • A. O. Pocelujko Institute of sociology NAS of Ukraine
Keywords: discourse, social and political discourse, social and cultural discourse, the image of the state

Abstract

The article is devoted to the relationship between the characteristics of structuring the image of the state in socio­political and socio­cultural discourse. In the author’s understanding of discourse can be defined as a rational and communicative process in which any statements of position (thought, idea, concept, etc.) can be criticized restrictions subject to the availability of any claim to the establishment of communicative dominant influence in society, and dissemination and artificial imposition on specific socio­cultural space of society symbolic forms. Discourse intention is to develop a real or artificial social consensus on the various issues of the political, social and cultural lives. This, of course, a certain «ideal model» discourse as such, the content of which is adjusted and specified in its subtypes, including ­ in political and socio­cultural discourse. In the author proposed program of empirical research in discourse (both socio­political and socio­cultural) by understand makrotekst created political entities, scientific and media market to perform social communication functions vaccination (vnedrinnya, implantation) in public consciousness of certain social representations which to some extent reflect the model (scheme) image structuring society in accordance with the ideological principles of paradigmatic versions ethnic history.

References

1. Burde, P. Sotsiologiya politiki: Per. s fr. (Sociology of Politics). – M.: Nauka, 1993. – 342р.
2. Karasik V.I. O tipah diskursa (About types of discourse). Access: http://rus­lang.isu.ru/education/discipline/philology/disrurs/material/material2/
3. Fuko, M. Arheologiya znaniya (The Archaeology of Knowledge). – Kiev :Nika­Tsentr, 1996. ­ 208 р.
4. Habermas, Yu. Demokratiya.Razum. Nravstvennost (Democracy. Reason.Morality). –M.:Respublika, 2001. –256 р.
5. Shevchenko A.Yu. Diskurs­analiz politicheskih media­tekstov. (Political discourse analysis of media texts)// Politicheskie issledovaniya (Polis).2002, № 6.
6. Shnirelman V.A. Voynyi pamyati. Mifyi, identichnost i politika v Zakavkaze (War memories. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia).­ M.: Pamyat, 2003.­ 592 р.
7. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press/ Berkeley: University of California Press. 1984.
8. Giddens A. Modernity and Self­Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age: Polity Press. 1992.
9. Hardy, C., Phillips, N. & Clegg, S. R. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and man­agement studies: A study of the production of the research «subject». Human Relations.54, 3­32.
10. Parker, I. & Burman, E. (1993). Against discursive imperialism.empiricism and constructionism: Thirty­two problems with discourse analysts. In E. Burman & I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytic research (pp. 155­172). London: Routledge.
11. Woodilla, J. (1998). Workplace communions: Тhе text of organizing. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy & С. Oswick (Eds.).Discourse and organization (pp. 31­50). London: Sage.
Published
2015-07-17
How to Cite
Pocelujko, A. (2015). Principal differences between the image of the state in socio-political and socio-cultural discourse. Grani, 18(9), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.15421/1715178
Section
SOCIOLOGY