Study of mass consciousnessand its dynamics in sociologic research


  • S. V. Khobta Luhansk Taras Shevchenko university
Keywords: mass consciousness, public opinion, touchpoint analysis, agent-based model, opinions dynamics, mass consciousness and dynamics, survey research of mass consciousness, military conflict in Eastern Ukraine

Abstract

The article is dedicated to analysis of the approaches used to study mass consciousness and the methods of their dynamics research. The two following approaches are reviewed: aggregative and group. The author shows that the study of the dynamics of mass consciousness in the modern day science is performed via computer modeling applying agent-oriented models and mass surveys of public opinion. Special attention is given to the concept of mass consciousness according to B. Grushin, where the mass consciousness is analyzed as a complex phenomenon according to its structure and the formation process. It is further analyzed what this particular concept is able to provide for the mass consciousness studies in the times of crises, similar to the situation of the military conflict at the East. It is then proven that the dialectic approach should be used as the basis for the mass consciousness studies adjusted for the interaction dynamics between the individual and collective, spontaneous and the institutionalized inside the collective consciousness. The mass consciousness is a complex structural formation, both heterogeneous and syncretical. Inside this structure one must distinguish between the layers that differ in depth and mobility and pay attention to its various conditions. The layers represent different worldviews, where, depending on the situation, scientific, religious or mystical images of the world can be actualized along with their ideological, moral and aesthetic precepts. These can cross, merge or coexist without contradicting each other and get actualized to a different extent. Besides the aforementioned the mass consciousness serves as a carrier of different kinds of deep, hard to change formations, such as «historical/collective memory», memlexes as well as superficial, most actualized forms, such as mems. It has «public/formal», socially accepted, and «private/real» levels that manifest themselves, in particular, in the forms of doublethink. In the conditions of military conflict all of this is getting complicated by the social mimicry. The states of mass consciousness are – public opinion and public attitude. In order to perform analysis of the interactions of spontaneous and institutional signal types inside the mass consciousness one can use the instruments of TouchPoint analysis applied in marketing.

References

1. Ashin, G. K., 1971. Doktrina «massovogo obshhestva». Politizdat, Moscow, 191 (in Russian).
2. Bernays, E., 1961. Crystallizing Public Opinion, Liveright Publishing Corporation N.Y., 219.
3. Grushin, B.A., 1987. Massovoe soznanie: Opyt opredelenija i problemy issledovanija, Politizdat, Moscow, 368 (in Russian).
4. Gudkov, L., 2015. Struktura i funkcii rossijskogo antiamerikanizma: faza mobilizacii 2012–2015 goda. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mnenija. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii 3–4(121), 15–44 (in Russian).
5. Hegselmann, R., Krause, U., 2002. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artifical Societies and Social Simulation 5(3). Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3/2.html.
6. Hirscher, T., 2014. Consensus formation in the Deffuant model. University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, 27.
7. How to Identify Your Customer Touchpoints, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/identify-customer-touchpoints/.
8. Kononov, I. F., 2016. Sociologiya v umovax kryzy i vijny: problema metodologichnoyi spromozhnosti. Visn. Lugansk. Nacional. Univ. im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Ser. Sociol. 5(302), 5–54 (in Ukrainian).
9. Kononov, I.F., 2013. Vy`bory`: gra elit na poli suspil`ny`x opinij. Visn. Lugansk. Nacional. Univ. im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Ser. Sociol. 11(270), 5–46 (in Ukrainian).
10. Kosova, L., 2015. Pro oprosy i massovoe soznanie. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mnenija. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii 3–4(121), 160–167 (in Russian).
11. Krapivenskij, S. Social’naja filosofija (in Russian). Retrieved from http://eurasialand.ru/txt/sotsio/menu.htm.
12. Kulikov I. Sluhi pobedjat «zombojashhik». Problemy angazhirovannoj podachi informacii televideniem cherez prizmu sociologii (in Russian). Retrieved from https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2011/03/02_a_3543037.shtml.
13. Lebon, G., 1995. Psihologija narodov i mass. Maket, SPb., 311 (in Russian).
14. Levinson, A., Goncharov S., 2015. Vojna vmesto budushhego – vyhod dlja anomicheskogo soznanija. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mnenija. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii 3–4(121), 45-66 (in Russian).
15. Lobanova A. S. Social`na mimikriya v umovax kry`zy` ta gibry`dnoyi vijny`: poshuk empiry`chny`x pokazny`kiv. Visn. Lugansk. Nacional. Univ. im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Ser. Sociol. 5(320), 5–46 (in Ukrainian).
16. Naumenko, T.V., 2015. Massovaja kommunikacija kak global’nyj process: Uchebnik. Izdatel’skij dom «NAUChNAJa BIBLIOTEKA», Moscow, 396 (in Russian).
17. Nojel-Nojman, Je., 1996. Obshhestvennoe mnenie. Otkrytie spirali molchanija. Per. s nem. Obshh. red. i predisl. Mansurova N.S. Progress-Akademija, Ves’ Mir, M. 352 (in Russian).
18. Ossovskyj, V., 2002. Poling versus sociologichne doslidzhennya gromadskoyi opiniyi. Sociol.: teoriya, metody`, markety`ng 4, 207–215 (in Ukrainian).
19. Poltorak, V. A., 2000. Sociologija obshhestvennogo mnenija. Centr «Sociopolis», Kiev; Dnepropetr, 264 (in Russian).
20. Polulyax, Yu., 2016. Mempleksy` okupovanoyi real`nosti. Visn. Lugansk. Nacional. Univ. im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Ser. Sociol. 5(302), 163–192 (in Ukrainian).
21. Pressa i obshhestvennoe mnenie, 1986. Pod red. V.S. Korobejnikova. Nauka, Moscow, 204 (in Russian).
22. Press-relizy i otchety KMIS (in Ukrainian). Retrieved from www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=rus&cat=reports
23. Prifrontovye goroda Ukrainy pod vlijaniem rossijskoj propagandy. Antikrizisnyj Media-Centra, dlja «Hvilі» (in Russian). Retrieved from http://hvylya.net/analytics/politics/prifrontovyie-goroda-ukrainyi-pod-vliyaniem-rossiyskoy-propagandyi.html
24. Rezul’tativnost’ rossijskoj propagandy v Har’kovskoj i Odesskoj oblastjah obespokoila sociologov, 2015 (in Russian). Retrieved from http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/rezultativnost-rossiyskoy-propagandy-v-harkovskoy-i-odesskoy-oblastyah-obespokoila-sociologov-170829_.html.
25. Spengler, C., Wirt, W. 2009. Maximising the impact of marketing and sales activities. IO new management 3. Retrieved from http://www.accelerom.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2009_io-new-management_Maximising-the-impact-of-marketing-and-sales-activities.pdf//.
26. Susskaja, O., 2010. Metamorfozy materializma v interpretacijah obshhestvennogo mnenija. Sociologija: teorija, metody, marketing 3, 217 – 222 (in Russian).
27. TNS Online Track: povna versiya zvitu za lypen 2016r. (in Ukrainian). Retrieved from https://tns-ua.com/news/tns-online-track-povna-versiya-zvitu-za-lipen-2016r
28. Ukraine’s media war. Battle of the memes, 2015. The Economist March 14. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21646280-russia-has-shown-its-mastery-propaganda-war-ukraine-struggling-catch-up-battle-web.
29. Virt, L., 2005, Konsensus i massovaja kommunikacija. [Selected works]. INION, Moscow, 209–235 (in Russian).
30. Vodak, R, 2006. Vzaimosvjaz «diskurs – obshhestvo»: kognitivnyj podhod k kriticheskomu diskurs-analizu. [Sovremennaja politicheskaja lingvistika]. Ekaterinburg, 123–136 (in Russian).
31. Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.P., 2001. Interacting agents and Continuous Opinions Dynamics. Retrieved from www.lps.ens.fr/~weisbuch/contopidyn/contopidyn.html.
Published
2017-01-26
How to Cite
Khobta, S. (2017). Study of mass consciousnessand its dynamics in sociologic research. Grani, 19(10), 78-85. https://doi.org/10.15421/1716109
Section
Статті