communicologyКоммуникологияCommunicology2311-30652311-3332МАК10.21453/2311-3065-2024-12-3-29-41communicology-451Research ArticleМЕДИАКОММУНИКАЦИИ И ЖУРНАЛИСТИКА (ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ)MEDIACOMMUNICATIONS AND JOURNALISM (POLITICAL SCIENCE)Политическая коммуникация с позиций идеационного поворота: когнитивная репрезентация идеи Шанхайской Организации Сотрудничества (статья на английском языке)Political communication from the standpoint of ideational turn: cognitive representation of the idea of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (in English)https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5313-1114ВалюлинаЕ. В.ValulinaЕ. V.

Валюлина Екатерина Владимировна – к. филол. н., доцент кафедры медиакоммуникаций, технологий рекламы и связей с общественностью, Институт гуманитарных наук

656049, Алтайский край, г. Барнаул, пр-т Ленина, 61

Valulina Ekaterina Vladimirovna – CandSc (Philol.), associate professor at the Department of Media Communications, Advertising Technologies and Public Relations, Institute of Humanities

656049, Altai Territory, Barnaul, Lenin ave, 61

serev@ya.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2478-5669ХалинаН. В.HalinaN. V.

Халина Наталья Васильевна – д. филол. н., профессор кафедры медиакоммуникаций, технологий рекламы и связей с общественностью, Институт гуманитарных наук

656049, Алтайский край, г. Барнаул, пр-т Ленина, 61

Halina Natalia Vasilyevna – DSc (Philol.), Professor of the Department of Media Communications, Advertising Technologies and Public Relations, Institute of Humanities

656049, Altai Territory, Barnaul, Lenin ave, 61

nkhalina@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3005-7863ИльиныхА. В.IlyinykhA. V.

Ильиных Алина Валентиновна – преподаватель кафедры медиакоммуникаций, технологий рекламы и связей с общественностью, Институт гуманитарных наук

656049, Алтайский край, г. Барнаул, пр-т Ленина, 61

Ilyinykh Alina Valentinovna – lecturer at the Department of Media Communications, Advertising Technologies and Public Relations, Institute of Humanities

656049, Altai Territory, Barnaul, Lenin ave, 61

rouze18@mail.ruАлтайский государственный университетРоссияAltai State UniversityRussian Federation2024041020241232941Copyright © Валюлина Е.В., Халина Н.В., Ильиных А.В., 20242024Валюлина Е.В., Халина Н.В., Ильиных А.В.Valulina Е.V., Halina N.V., Ilyinykh A.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.communicology.ru/jour/article/view/451

В статье рассматривается специфика политической когниции как структурного элемента политической коммуникации. Основная задача исследования – выявить в условиях идеационного поворота характеристики политико-медийной оси Шанхайской организации сотрудничества, смоделированные в научно-медийных публикациях и обусловленные различной логикой и политическими когнициями авторов. Медиатизация современного политического дискурса позволяет рассматривать идеологию как потенциальную возможность, создающую основания через реконтекстуализацию символики институционального прошлого упорядочивать институциональное настоящее. Приоритетной в понимании идеологии признается позиция аргентинского социолога, антрополога и семиотика, профессор коммуникационных наук Университета Сан-Андреса Элисио Верона. Наиболее продуктивной в плане представления и описания множественности взаимодействия между участниками политической коммуникации, сбалансирования коммуникации политических когниций полагается критическая лингвистика. В процессе концептуального моделирования используются элементы политический анализа, основывающегося на обращении к идеям как причинно-следственным переменным. Исследование осуществляется с учетом значимости причинно-конститутивных логик, при этом приоритетной логикой коммуникации признается каузальная логика, с ориентацией на идею как фокусную точку. Идея сотрудничества, моделирующая институциональные функции ШОС, рассматривается через когнитивные презентации в научно-медийных источниках, для интерпретации которых используется терминологический и понятийный аппарат русского конструктивизма.

The article examines the specifics of political cognition as a structural element of political communication. The main task of the study is to identify, in the conditions of an ideational turn, the characteristics of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization political and media axis, modeled in scientific and media publications and conditioned by different logic and political cognitions of the authors. The mediatization of modern political discourse makes it possible to consider ideology as a potential opportunity that creates grounds for organizing the institutional present through the symbolism recontextualization of the institutional past. The Argentine sociologist, anthropologist and semiotic, Professor of Communication Sciences at the University of San Andres, Elisio Verona’s position is recognized as a priority in understanding ideology. Critical linguistics is considered to be the most productive in terms of representing and describing the multiplicity of interaction between participants in political communication, balancing communication of political cognitions. In the conceptual modeling process, elements of political analysis are used, based on the appeal to ideas as causal variables. The research is carried out taking into account the importance of causal-constitutive logics, while causal logic is recognized as the priority logic of communication, with an orientation towards the idea as a focal point. The authors consider the idea of cooperation, which models the SCO’s institutional functions, through cognitive presentations in scientific and media sources, and ground its interpretation on the terminological and conceptual apparatus of Russian constructivism.

политическая коммуникацияидеационный поворотмедиадискурскритическая лингвистикаполитическая когницияШанхайская организация сотрудничестваpolitical communicationideational turnSCO media discoursecritical linguisticspolitical cognitionReferencesАноприенко А.Я. (1999). От вычислений к пониманию: когнитивное компьютерное моделирование и опыт его практического применения на примере решения проблемы Фестского диска // Информатика, кибернетика и вычислительная техника (ИКВТ-99). Сборник научных трудов ДонГТУ. Донецк: ДонГТУ. C. 36-47.Anoprienko A.Y. (1999). From computation to understanding: cognitive computer modeling and the experience of its practical application in the case of solving the Phaistos disc problem. In: Computer science, cybernetics and computer engineering (IKVT-99). Collection of scientific papers of DonSTU. Donetsk: DonSTU. C. 36-47 (in Rus.).Водак Р. (2011). Критическая лингвистика и критический анализ дискурса // Политическая лингвистика. Т. 4. №. 38. С. 286-291.Bevir M., Rhodes R. (2003). Interpretating British governmence. London: Routledge.Равочкин Н.Н. (2022). Идеационный поворот и осмысление детерминационного значения идей в институциональных исследованиях (часть 2) // Контекст и рефлексия: философия о мире и человеке. Т. 11. № 2А. С. 205-231.Blumler J.G. (2015). Core theories of political communication: Foundational and freshly minted. Communication Theory. Vol. 25. No. 4. P. 426-438.Сморгунов Л.В. (2009). Сравнительная политология в поисках новых методологических ориентации: значат ли что-либо идеи для объяснения политики? // Полис. Политические исследования. № 1. С. 118-129.Blyth M. (2001). The transformation of the Swedish model: Economic ideas, distributional conflict, and institutional change. World Politics. Vol. 54. No. 1. P. 1-26.Халина Н.В., Валюлина Е.В. (2020). Культура и политический дискурс «ШОС»: семантический комментарий к идеологеме «сотрудничество» и философеме «Шанхайский дух» // Культура и текст. Т. 42. №. 3. С. 194-204.Blyth M. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Халина Н.В., Валюлина Е.В., Сяо Д. (2023). Региональная стратегия онтологической безопасности «ШОС»: концептуальное продвижение медиабренда (на материале китайских СМИ) // PR и реклама в изменяющемся мире: региональный аспект. № 28. С. 33-42.Brock B.L. et al. (2005). Making sense of political ideology: The power of language in democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Чичерин А.Н. (2019). Конструктивизм воскрешения. Декларации, конструэмы, поэзия, мемуары. Исследования и комментарии. СПб: Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге.Campbell J.L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 377-409.Bevir M., Rhodes R. (2003). Interpretating British governmence. London: Routledge.Carver T. (2002). Discourse analysis and the ‘Linguistic Turn’. European Political Science. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 50-53.Blumler J.G. (2015). Core theories of political communication: Foundational and freshly minted. Communication Theory. Vol. 25. No. 4. P. 426-438.Castells M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Blyth M. (2001). The transformation of the Swedish model: Economic ideas, distributional conflict, and institutional change. World Politics. Vol. 54. No. 1. P. 1-26.Chicherin A.N. (2019). Constructivism of resurrection. Declarations, constructs, poetry, memoirs. Research and comments. St. Petersburg : Publishing House of the European University in St. Petersburg (in Rus.).Blyth M. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Fairclough N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity press.Brock B.L. et al. (2005). Making sense of political ideology: The power of language in democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Finlayson A. (2004). Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 528-549.Campbell J.L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 377-409.Foley M. (1994). Ideas that shape politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Carver T. (2002). Discourse analysis and the ‘Linguistic Turn’. European Political Science. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 50-53.Foucault M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.Castells M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Foucault M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.Fairclough N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity press.Gofas A., Hay C. (2008). The ideas debate in international and European Studies: Towards a cartography and critical assessment. Barcelona: IBEI Working Papers.Finlayson A. (2004). Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 528-549.Goldstein J., Keohane R.O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Foley M. (1994). Ideas that shape politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Gurevitch M., Coleman S., Blumler J.G. (2009). Political communication –old and new media relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 625. No. 1. P. 164-181.Foucault M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.Hajer M. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy making. European Political Science. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 61-65.Foucault M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.Halliday M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Gofas A., Hay C. (2008). The ideas debate in international and European Studies: Towards a cartography and critical assessment. Barcelona: IBEI Working Papers.Hay C. (2002). Political analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave.Goldstein J., Keohane R.O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Hurdley R., Dicks B. (2011). In-between practice: working in the ‘thirdspace’ of sensory and multimodal methodology. Qualitative Research. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 277-292.Gurevitch M., Coleman S., Blumler J.G. (2009). Political communication –old and new media relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 625. No. 1. P. 164-181.Khalina N.V., Valyulina E.V. (2020). Culture and political discourse of the «SCO»: semantic commentary on the ideologema «cooperation» and the philosophema «Shanghai Spirit». Culture and Text. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 194-204 (in Rus.).Hajer M. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy making. European Political Science. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 61-65.Khalina N.V., Valyulina E.V. Deng S. (2023). The SCO regional ontological security strategy: Conceptual promotion of the SCO media brand (based on the material of the Chinese media). PR and Advertising in a Changing World: Regional Aspect. No. 28. P. 33-42 (in Rus.).Halliday M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Kissas A. (2018). Making sense of political ideology in mediatized political communication: A discourse analytic perspective. Journal of Language and Politics. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 386-404.Hay C. (2002). Political analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave.Kress G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routlege.Hurdley R., Dicks B. (2011). In-between practice: working in the ‘thirdspace’ of sensory and multimodal methodology. Qualitative Research. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 277-292.Kuivalainen S., Niemelä M. (2010). From universalism to selectivism: the ideational turn of the anti-poverty policies in Finland. Journal of European Social Policy. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 263-276.Kissas A. (2018). Making sense of political ideology in mediatized political communication: A discourse analytic perspective. Journal of Language and Politics. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 386-404.Ravochkin N.N. (2022). The ideational turn and the understanding of the determinative meaning of ideas in institutional studies (part 2). Context and Reflection: Philosophy of the World and Human Being. Vol. 11. No. (2А). P. 205-231 (in Rus.).Kress G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routlege.Smorgunov L.V. (2009). Comparative political science in search of new methodological orientations: do ideas mean anything for explaining politics? Polis. Political Studies. No. 1. P. 118-129 (in Rus.).Kuivalainen S., Niemelä M. (2010). From universalism to selectivism: the ideational turn of the anti-poverty policies in Finland. Journal of European Social Policy. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 263-276.Torfing J. (2002). Discourse analysis and the post-structuralism of Laclau and Mouffe. European Political Science. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 54-57.Torfing J. (2002). Discourse analysis and the post-structuralism of Laclau and Mouffe. European Political Science. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 54-57.Van Dijk T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 249-283.Van Dijk T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 249-283.Van Dijk T.A. (2003). Political discourse and political cognition. In: Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Van Dijk T.A. (2003). Political discourse and political cognition. In: Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Van Leeuwen T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routlegde.Van Leeuwen T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routlegde.Verón E. (1971). Ideology and communication of mass: the seeding of political violence. In: Language and social communication. Buenos Aires: New Vision (in Fr.).Verón E. (1971). Ideology and communication of mass: the seeding of political violence. In: Language and social communication. Buenos Aires: New Vision (in Fr.).Wodak R. (2011). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Political Linguistics. Vol. 4. No. 38. С. 286. P. 286-291 (in Rus.).Wodak R. (2011). The irrationality of power. In: Communication Yearbook 12. New York: Routledge.Wodak R. (2011). The irrationality of power. In: Communication Yearbook 12. New York: Routledge.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.