The Boundaries of Russian Identity Analysis of the Concept of Russkiy Mir in Contemporary Russian Online Media
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i1.2004Keywords:
Russian identity, Russkiy Mir concept, Russian online readerAbstract
This article set out to present selected outcomes of my research on the concept of “russkiy mir” in contemporary ethnocentric online Russian media. Perspectives for further analysis were also presented. The analytical methodology involved a semantic and cultural analysis of a dataset from a cognitive and anthropological viewpoint including elements of critical discourse
analysis. The concept of “russkiy mir” in the ethnocentric discourse investigated in this article was based on an idea of forming a supranational Russian civilization. This community would unite all Russians, the Russian diaspora and all those learning Russia, and declaring the attachment to Russian culture. Proponents of this discourse assume that “russkiy mir” will have a geopolitical dimension, imperial pretenses and will transgress state borders, and claiming for itself a transcontinental realm. A nationality dimension is also supposed to be an important aspect according to the discourse participants. The main ethnos is to be that of the Russian nation, around which other ethnoses will congregate. The Orthodox religion is supposed to be an important co-constituent of “russkiy mir”.
Plum Analytics
References
Alexander, J. (2010). Znaczenia społeczne. Studia z socjologii kulturowej. Kraków: Nomos.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on The origin and spread of nationalism. London, New York: Verso.
Boldyrev, N. (2002). Struktura i printsipy formirovaniya otsenochnykh kategoriy. In S lyubov’yu k yazyku: sb. nauch. tr. Мoskva-Voronezh, 103-114.
Boldyrev, N. (2010). Yazykovaya otsenka v kontekste poznavatel’nykh protsessov. In Ye. S. Kubryakova, V. Z. Dem’yankov, A. G. Kochkareva (Eds.), Non multum, sed multa: nemnogo o mnogom: u kognitivnykh istokov sovremennoy terminologii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov v chest’ V. F. Novodranovoy. Moskva: Avtorskaya akademiya, 47-56. Retrieved from http://boldyrev.ralk.info/dir/material/208.pdf.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Translated by Gino Raymond & Matthew Anderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chlebda, W. (2011). Szkice do językowego obrazu pamięci. Pamięć jako wartość. Etnolingwistyka, 23, 83-98.
Czyżewski, M., Kowalski, S., & Piotrowski, A. (Eds.). (2010). Rytualny chaos. Studium dyskursu publicznego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Dębska, H. (2014). Od władzy normatywnej do władzy symbolicznej. Podejście Pierre’a Bourdieu. In J. Czapska, M. Dudek, M. Stępień (Eds.), Wielowymiarowość prawa, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 388-400. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/7533880/Od_w%C5%82adzy_normatywnej_do_w%C5%82adzy_symbolicznej._Podej%C5%9Bcie_Pierrea_Bourdieu.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dugin, A. (2014). Svyatyye zhandarmy Yevropy. Retrieved from http://www.4pera.ru/news/analytics/svyatye_zhandarmy_evropy/.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Eds.), Discourse as Social Interaction, (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Gajda, S. (2007). Tożsamość a język. In Jan Mazur, Agata Małyska, Katarzyna Sobol (Eds.) Człowiek wobec wyzwań współczesności. Upadek wartości czy walka o wartość (pp. 37-45). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Girnth, H. (1996). Texte im politischen Diskurs. Ein Vorschlag zur diskursorientierten Beschreibung von Textsorten. Muttersprache, 106(1), 66-80.
Kłoskowska, A. (2005). Kultury narodowe u korzeni. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kremlin. (2013). Vstrecha s uchastnikami Arkhiyereyskogo sobora. Retrieved from http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/17409.
Kumięga, Ł. (2013). Co z tym dyskursem? Academia, 2(34). Retrieved from http://www.naukaonline.pl/nasze-teksty/nauki-humanistyczne/item/2-co-z-tymdyskursem.
Kunce, A. (2010). Czy narracja o granicy kulturowej może zmieniać świat więzi? Anthropos?, 14-15, 40-51. Retrieved from http://www.anthropos.us.edu.pl/anthropos8/texty/kunce.htm.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laskowska, E. (2010). Style dyskursu publicznego. In Barbara Bogołębska, Monika Worsowicz (Eds.). Opublikowano w: Styl, dyskurs, media. Łódź.
Malakhov, V. (2004). Etnizatsiya fenomena migratsii v publichnom diskurse i institutakh. Kosmopolis, 1(7), 56-69.
Malinkin, A. N. (2001). Novaya rossiyskaya identichnost’: Issledovaniye po sotsiologii znaniya. Retrieved from http://www.nationalism.org/library/science/nationalism/malinkin/malinkin-sj-2001.htm.
Nye, J. (1991). Bound to lead: the changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.
Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: the means to success in world politics. New York: PublicAffair.
Reisigl, M. (2007). Discrimination in Discourse. In Helga Kotthoff, Helen Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Communication (pp. 365-394). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
RLN. (2009). Russkaya Tserkov’ kak osnova Russkogo mira, Russkiy mir kak osnova Vselenskoy Tserkvi. Retrieved from http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2009/04/16/russkaya_cerkov_kak_osnova_russkogo_mira_russkij_mir_kak_osnova_vselenskoj_cerkvi/.
Stepanov, J. S. (1997). Konstanty: Slovar’ russkoy kul’tury. Opyt issledovaniya. Moskva: Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kul’tury”.
Tabakowska, E. (1995). Gramatyka i obrazowanie. Wprowadzenie do językoznawstwa kognitywnego. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249-283.
Warnke, I., & Spitzmüller, J. (2008). Methoden und Methodologie der Diskurslinguistik. In Dies. (Hg.), Methoden der Diskurslinguistik.
Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Wodak, R. (2008). Dyskurs pupulistyczny: retoryka wykluczenia a gatunki języka pisanego. In
A. Duszak (Ed.), Krytyczna analiza dyskursu. Interdyscyplinarne podejście do komunikacji społecznej (pp. 185-214). Kraków: Universitas.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)
