CC BY
17
Л. Донай, М. Щеглов
ТЕХНИКА
МИФОЛОГИЗАЦИИ В ИНФОРМАЦИОННОЙ ПОЛИТИКЕ РОССИИ: К СЕМИОЗИСУ СТАТУСА «ИНОСТРАННЫЙ АГЕНТ»
Аннотация
Авторы статьи описывают семиозис термина «иностранный агент», который в последние годы прочно вошел в правовое поле современной России. Статья основана на исследованиях термина «иностранный агент» в русскоязычных статьях Н.А. Купиной и Н.Н. Соколянской. Эмпирический материал статьи состоит из анализа словосочетания «иностранный агент» в Национальном корпусе русского языка, устном корпусе данных. Ключевой гипотезой авторов является предположение, что использование термина «иностранный агент» является примером дискредитации политических оппонентов. В качестве методологической основы в статье используется дискурсивная теория гегемонии Лакло-Муффа. В качестве метода анализа выбран структуралистский семиотический анализ Р. Барта. В статье доказывается, что семиотическая конструкция термина «иностранный агент» в публичном информационном дискурсе является мифом, который используется в публично-политическом дискурсе как техника дискредитации оппозиционных организаций в России путем эксплуатации дискурсивной гегемонии холодной войны, что формирует его мифическую сущность в публичном поле российской политики сегодня. Слабые стороны мифа «иностранный агент» также описываются как пустое означающее, воплощающее в своей особенности недостижимую полноту.
L. Donaj, M. Shcheglov
TECHNIQUE OF MYTHOLOGIZATION IN THE INFORMATIONAL POLICY OF RUSSIA: TOWARDS THE SEMIOSIS OF THE «FOREIGN AGENT» STATUS
Abstract
The authors of this article describe the semiosis of the term «foreign agent», which in recent years has become firmly entrenched in the legal field of contemporary Russia. The article is based on studies of the term «foreign agent» in Russian articles of N.A. Kupina and N.N. Sokolyanskaya. The empirical material of the article is a sample of the «foreign agent» in the National Corpus of the Russian language, an oral corpus of data. The authors' key hypothesis is the assumption that the use of the term «foreign agent» is an example of discrediting political opponents. As a methodological basis, the article is based on the Laclau-Mouffe discursive theory of hegemony. R. Barthes' structuralist semiotic analysis is chosen as the method for the analysis of the term «foreign agent». The article proves that the semiotic construction of the term «foreign agent» in public information discourse is a myth which used in public political discourse as a technique for discrediting opposition organizations in Russia through the exploitation of the discursive hegemony of the Cold War, which forms its mythical essence in the public field of Russian politics today. Weaknesses of the «foreign agent» myth are also described as an empty signifier that embodies in its particularity an unattainable completeness.
Ключевые слова:
информационная политика, информационная автократия, иностранный агент, миф, семиозис, гегемонистская интервенция, дискурсивное поле.
Key words:
informational policy, informational autocracy, foreign agent, myth, semiosis, hegemonic intervention, discourse field.
In the public and legal discourse field of contemporary Russia, the phrase «foreign agent» has been actively used for almost 7 years. The latest version of the law 30.12.2020 №481-ФЗ extends the status of a «foreign agent», in addition to organizations, to individuals who carry out «on the te r-ritory of the Russian Federation in the interests of a foreign state ... political activity and (or) targeted collection of information in the field of military ... , which, when received by a foreign source, can be used against the security of the Russian Federation» [1]. This status wording is the subject of contr o-versy over its negative perceptions and connotations.
In the article «Ideologeme «Foreign Agent»: Three Days in July 2012» («Идеологема «Иностранный агент»: три дня в июле 2012 год») N.A. Kupina made a historical and linguistic analysis of this term, and proved the ideological negative connotation of the phrase. In 2018, in the scientific journal «Bulletin of the North-Eastern State University» («Вестник СевероВосточного государственного университета») in the article ««Foreign agent» in the mirror of linguistics» (««Иностранный агент» в зеркале лингвистики»), an attempt was made to prove the presence of negative connotations in the subjective perception of this legal term also through a historical and linguistic analysis, but the authors of both articles did not analyzed the structure of this term, paying attention to the connotative meaning. In addition, the analysis was carried out exclusively from the standpoint of linguistics, without any political science methodology. A full-fledged structural analysis of this phrase from the standpoint of semiotics and political science has not been made. Consequently, the authors of the article aim to describe the semiosis of the term «foreign agent». To do this, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: firstly, to build a semiotic structure of this term; secondly, to determine the connotative meaning of the phrase; thirdly, to outline the role of this term in the discursive field of Russian politics.
The authors of this article proceed from the hypothesis that the semiot-ic construction «foreign agent» in public discourse is a myth used in public political discourse as a technique for discrediting opposition organizations.
The methodological basis of the article is the Laclau - Mouffe discursive theory of hegemony. The main method of analysis is the structuralist semiotic analysis of Roland Barthes.
Semantics of «foreign agent»
From the standpoint of semiotics, the term «foreign agent» in the legal field represents a system of signifier, signified and sign. However, in the field of public discourse, the term is supplemented by a secondary semiotic chain. In order to see this process, it is necessary to deconstruct the first level of the semiotic scheme.
The word combination «foreign agent» at the first level («language-object») can be decomposed as follows: «foreign agent» as a form of words -the combination of an adjective and a noun represents the signifier (denotative meaning); the signified (connotative meaning) will be the normative content, the definition of this phrase as an individual or legal entity carrying out political activities and (or) collecting information in the interests of a foreign source against the security of the Russian Federation. Then, under the sign in this system, we mean the following: «a foreign agent as a person carrying out p o-litical activities in the interests of a foreign source against the security of Russia». As Roland Barthes rightly noted, this three-term system will clearly manifest itself when we move to the second level of the semiotic chain.
Language «A» Signifier A Signified A
Myth «B» Sign A (meaning) SIGNIFIER B (form) SIGNIFIED B (concept)
SIGN B (signification)
For a simplified understanding of the second semiotic chain, the authors will use Barthes' terminology, in which «Sign A» will be called the meaning, «Significant B» - the form, «Signified B» - the concept, and «Sign B» - the signification.
Thus, during the transition of «Sign A» into «Signifying B», the tran s-formation of meaning into form in the secondary semiotic system takes
place. The former meaning of «a foreign agent as a person carrying out poli t-ical activities in the interests of a foreign source against the security of Russia» is being emasculated, practically losing any connection with the legal definition. However, the form does not completely replace the meaning: there is still a subtle meaning, which is most often expressed in the fact that the term «foreign agent» is an official definition that is used by the state in its legal apparatus and is expressed in the corresponding law. As Barthes emphasized, the form is not a symbol of the concept, since the form is too visual [3, p. 117].
Having become a form, «Signifier B» must be filled with new history, new definition, new intentions. In other words, the concept should make up for lost circumstances and knowledge in form. There must be a deformation of meaning into a concept. Moreover, the concept itself is not a literal knowledge of reality; it reflects only the perception of reality, formed from vague associations [3, p. 118]. Thus, the purified «foreign agent as a person carrying out political activities in the interests of a foreign source against the security of Russia» is filled with concepts formed from a series of associ a-tions of meaning and form, the discursive context of the message and historical memory. In this case, the concept will be «spy», «traitor», «the Other», «enemy». The authors will consider how the process of filling the concept with these categories takes place below, in the second part of the article.
When we have an idea of the content of form and concept, we can now imagine the signification. In order for us to represent it, it is necessary to read this myth from the position that Barthes calls dynamic. In other words, we must see the signifier of myth as an inseparable link between meaning and form [3, p. 127]. In this case, the term «foreign agent» is already filled with «espionage», «betrayal», «alienity», «hostility». For us, as readers of the myth, the «foreign agent» includes the remnants of a legal definition, and historical memory, and subjective perception. This also confirms the legal uncertainty and ambiguity of the law on foreign agents [14, p. 113-114]. Applying the terminology of Roland Barthes, we can say that there is a state of struggle of languages: juridical and legal and public everyday [4, p. 536]. Such an approach is very close to the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe. The positions of these languages in the communicative space are in an unequal position: the legal definition does not correspond completely to the mythical signification. With its media, publicity, the meaning of the myth acts
from the position of a visible strong language system, as previously noted, subordinating the form to its own concept.
As already indicated above, the concept in myth is formed by association, context, historical memory. Revealing the mechanism of association requires from us not only a historical-linguistic (i.e. contextual), but also an ontological analysis of the term.
Linguistic ontology. The word «foreign» («иностранный») in Russian consists of two roots: «ин» and «стран». The first root is associated with the common Slavic word «other» («иной)», the semantics of which is interpreted in terms of «other», «dissimilar» [10]. Let us dwell on this semantic defin i-tion, since it is one of the key ones. «Other» or «Иной» in philosophy is associated with the projection of the «I» on the «Other» or with the antagonism «I / Other». Any of these traditions, in one way or another, confirms the presence of tension between these concepts, since by their ontological nature they are opposed: there is «I» and «non-I» (how similar «non-I» was to «I»). As rightly emphasized by D.A. Alekseeva, reducing «the relationship of» I «and» Other «to the relationship of identities means to recognize the impossibility of meeting with the» Other «, violating the order of meaning:» Other «is deprived of otherness» [2, p. 16] and notes the radical difference between the «Other» and the «I».
In conjunction with the root of «стран» (country, state), we get the semantic meaning «a country that is not mine» or «another country». T he tension indicated above occurs in view of the context of the use of the term «foreign agent»: this person is present in «my» country and not in another country, i.e. the «other» is present in the «I», makes penetration, interve n-tion in the «I» without consent, without permission and approval. In this case, the term is endowed with negative connotations from the standpoint of the «foreign agent» ontology.
To study the context of the use of the word «agent» in public discourse, we will consider the list of the use of this word in the «National Corpus of the Russian Language», putting parameters on the search in the oral corpus [15]. The most common use of the word «agent» is in the meaning of «spy» («шпион»), «intelligence officer» («разведчик»); then, by a wide margin, there are «intermediaries» (e.g. «PR-agent», «construction-agent», «banks-agents») and «actor» (e.g. «the agent is the solar wind»). Moreover, the use of the meaning «spy» and «scout» occurs often both in the topic of
politics and the public sphere, and in private life. As a result, the contextual understanding of «agent» in public discourse (and even in private) will most often be perceived precisely in the meaning of «spy», «intelligence officer». So, semantically, we get the meaning of «foreign spy» or «foreign intelligence officer».
Soviet-period stabilization of the term. The negative connotation of this term was proved in the articles of N.A. Kupina and N.N. Sokolyanskaya, in which the definitions of the term «foreign agent» and «foreign spy» in Russian dictionaries were studied. After analyzing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language, a legal encyclopedic dictionary, as well as the president's speeches and the text of the law itself, N.A. Kupina noted the ineradicability of Soviet ideological associations, as well as the historical memory «an agent is a spy, and therefore an enemy» in the term «fo reign agent» [9, p. 46]. This indicates incomplete compliance with the herm e-neutic requirements of the law, since «ideological marking is stronger than functional-stylistic» [9, p. 47]. N.N. Sokolyanskaya studied the history of the term «agent» in the Russian language through academic legal and linguistic dictionaries of interpretation and synonyms, collections of «walking» words, fiction and also noted the negative connotation of the phrase «foreign agent» [17, p. 28]. The author sees the reason for this in the ambiguity of the word «agent», derivational and semantic connections with «subversive work», synonymy with «informant», «snitch», «spy» and the connecting semantics «foreign» [17, p. 29].
The media-cultural context played a significant role in the formation and stabilization of negative connotations in the image of a foreign spy in the Soviet period: the entire film industry, all media were state-owned, so the state order could not help but influence the creative process. It follows from this that all published literary works, all films in one way or another contained an ideological load that formed a citizen of the country loyal to the government. The history of the relationship between the socialist and capitalist blocs during the Cold War has a large number of spy scandals, secret operations and myths about the subversive activities of foreign agents in different parts of the world. On their background, propaganda actions were formed, aimed at shaping the image of the enemy. Spy novels, movies and posters were designed to maintain the psychological stress that existed in society [20, p. 66]. For example, propaganda posters often used the plot
that the spy is always nerdy, and that people may not suspect that the interlocutor is a spy. As a consequence, it was also actively postulated not to spread gossip and chatter and to be always attentive and vigilant.
Of particular importance in media culture was given to such constructive signs as: physiological characteristics, behavior, clothing, language. For example, in Soviet films about Western spies classified in the diplomatic service, the roles of spy-diplomats were played by Baltic actors: «Western» a p-pearance and accent were used by Soviet directors to create and fill images of the Western world [20, p. 68].
In the propaganda the image of a foreign spy in the USSR was often presented with the use of zoomorphic metaphors. This was especially common for the period of 1920-1950-s. In the analysis of Soviet propaganda D. Weiss deduced the parameters of the classification of animals. Among them we are interested in: ontological status (real-life animals / mythological), habitat (land, water, air), attitude towards humans (wild / domestic animals, useful / pests), emotional attitude (admiration / contempt, affection / disgust, hope / fear), attitude towards other animals (predator / prey), political axiology (friend / enemy) [19, p. 424]. The image of a spy was characterized by an enemy political axiology, a desire to arouse contempt and disgust. At the same time, D. Weiss also notes that in the menagerie of the camp of the image of enemies there was a fairly wide variety: animals (wolves, tigers, monkeys), domestic animals (dogs, pigs, chickens, sheep), reptiles (snakes, spiders, drones, fleas, flies, toads), fish (sharks, octopuses), birds (vultures). For example, in the propaganda of the period of the Great Patriotic War, German soldiers were portrayed as pigs, which appealed to Russian everyday speech, in which this animal has connotations of uncleanliness, rudeness and impudent behavior, ingratitude [19, p. 431].
Also, characteristic is the use of a double zoomorphic image, which appeals to the secrecy of spies. For example, in the famous Soviet poster, the enemy is hiding under the innocent image of a sheep, when his «real» zo o-morphic essence is a wild wolf.
These material-visual techniques, as well as the dominance of spy novels and films in which heroes fight against enemy agents, helped to stabilize the concept of a spy and an agent as an enemy, since the terms scout («разведчик») were more used in relation to friendly characters.
Thus, the concept of the myth «foreign agent» deforms the previous meaning of the term, emasculating its legal definition and filling it with negative intentions, the history of the Cold War, spy-mania and notions of «traitors» and «enemies».
«Foreign agent» in the contemporary Russian discourse field of politics
This part will present the role of the term «foreign agent» in Russian po l-itics through the prism of constructing a discourse around the above phrase. To do this, it is necessary to indicate step by step the main points of this political project through the prism of the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe.
Creation of the discourse «foreign agent». Any political is a discursive operation. Discourse creation is an articulation operation - any practice that establishes a relationship between elements in such a way that their essence changes with the change in the given practice [11, p. 105]. The studied example of the mythologization of the term «foreign agent» can be presented as an articulation of the connotations of the Soviet period and the current policy of the state in Russia, as a result of which the discourse of «foreign agent» is formed.
The main actor who initiated the formation of a new quality of this discourse was the state. As we have shown above, this phrase is closely related to the period of the Cold War spy mania, when such phrases were actively used in propaganda and even in the literature of the USSR. During the Soviet period, it was possible to form a solid hegemony of the meaning of this phrase, associated with the hostile actions of the capitalist countries.
Today we can observe an attempt to rehabilitate this term, an attempt to re-establish discursive hegemony through the exploitation of the connotations of the Soviet period. To this end, the state took several steps at once to «revive» the hegemony. Firstly, this term has received legal force, legality: it has become a household name in federal law. Secondly, with this change, it was given state support, political strength: it was endowed with legitimacy. Thirdly, the phrase turned out to be at the center of the public: it became a rumor for almost every media consumer.
Discourse informational environment. The important conditions for maintaining the state hegemony of the «foreign agent» discourse are two factors - the presence and reproduction of negative connotations of the term in the Soviet period and the discursive environment - a limited (or closed)
informational discourse field. By this the authors mean the information policy of a non-democratic state, where the political elite seeks to retain power by non-democratic institutions and methods, including state control of the largest television and Internet media.
According to the classification of Guriev and Treisman, Russia can be attributed to the states of information autocracies. Informational autocracies establish limited public discourse i.e. block access to the discussion to some of its participants, as well as to information. The technique of propaganda in information autocracies is subordinated to the goals of excluding organizations and individuals opposing the regime from the public space, as well as maintaining the status quo of the regime. In informational autocracies, the media become an instrument of non-democratic government for publishing and popularizing government decisions and have practically no influence on political decisions [18, p. 181]. Instead of terrorizing or instilling ideology in the population, rulers remain in power by making citizens believe they are competent and patriotic [7, p. 101]. Moreover, the tactic of the media is not selling truthful information, but satisfying emotions, such as national pride and a sense of security, a sense of national unity [18, p. 180]. To do this, the state has the tools to control any individual media, including changing the ownership of an organization, putting pressure on businesses that own media or buying advertising, or looking for a legal excuse to stop publishing or broadcasting if the media acquires unwanted powers [16, p. 9]. This control can be carried out by direct government intervention, but the most common tactic is cooptation and to attract loyal shareholders to key media companies, which, together with the risks of loss of benefits and harsh legal sanctions, strengthens self-censorship [18, p. 166].
The political myth, consisting of symbols, is used to clarify and justify specific power practices [13, p. 9]. The main function of the «foreign agent» discourse in Russian informational policy is to discredit unwanted opponents with negative connotations of the concept. The limited information environment created by the hybrid mode contributes to the mythologization of the term, since prejudices are formed under the conditions of restricting the presentation of information, persons and interests [5, p. 21]. It is also worth noting that the law itself imposes restrictions on the activities of persons and organizations recognized as «foreign agents» related to transactional burea u-
cratic costs, expressed in particular in the application for inclusion in the list of individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent [1].
Weaknesses of the «foreign agent» discourse. Nevertheless, the very structure of this discourse contains a threat to its hegemony. According to Laclau and Mouffe, any discursive hegemony has a counter-hegemony because any discourse is antagonistic. In fact, the term «foreign agent» is an empty signifier that embodies in its particularity an unattainable completeness [12, pp. 70-71]. The flexibility and variability of the associativity of the concept allow us to say that the consequences of the practice of using the «foreign agent» status will depend on the social actors that influence the a r-ticulation of this term. [8, p. 2529]. Today, the former Soviet connotations fill this meaning with a negative connotation, but the risk of losing this hegemony is great. It is related to the practice of using this term, which may diverge from the previous connotation: each subsequent «foreign agent» who does not look like a foreign spy requires more and more resources to maintain the negative connotation of the term. Moreover, there is a clear risk that this concept may become so overloaded with meanings that it will not make sense in itself: it will become «empty» precisely because it is too «overflowing». Nowadays linguists note the melioration of this term in youth discourse, as well as the consideration of this term as a modern euphemistic analogue of the «enemy of the people» [6, p. 210]. In addition, we shall not forget about the possibilities of creating your own media channels on the Internet, which allows you to undermine the state's monopoly on information, and therefore destroy the connotations of the Soviet period.
Research into the term «foreign agent» has shown that its semiotic structure represents a double semiotic chain which is typical for a myth. This means that in formal legal discourse the signified «foreign agent» will corr e-spond to its legitimate definition as a single semiotic system, but in public discourse the term represents a myth filled with the concept associated with negative intentions, the history of the Cold War, and notions of «spies».
The negative connotations of the concept of myth is based on the associative series, which is formed both in the ontology of the term «foreign agent» (forming the idea of «the Other in I»), and in the context of the use of the words «agent» and «foreign agent» in public information discourse.
The formation of the «foreign agent» myth is an example of discrediting political opponents through the establishment of hegemony in political
discourse by endowing state legality with the law of a term that rose from the Soviet period, which formed its mythical essence in the public field of Russian politics today. The functionality of this discourse has also changed towards targeted repressions aimed at intimidating and discrediting political actors in the image. The main conditions for maintaining the state hegemony of this discourse are - the limitation of the public information space to opposition organizations and individuals, as well as the preservation of negative connotations of the Soviet period.
References
1. O merakh vozdeistviya na lits, prichastnykh k narusheniyam osnovopolagayushchikh prav i svobod cheloveka, prav i svobod grazhdan Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Federal'nyi zakon ot 28.12.2012. №272. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_139994/db1ec1027895904 4da8a5c31b9fc00cc944f0b12 / (accessed 20.04.2021).
2. Alekseeva D.A. Conceptualizing the Other in Ontology: dissertation abstract: 09.00.01. MSU M.V. Lomonosov. Moscow, 2005.
3. Barthes R. Mythologies. NY., USA: The Noonday Press.
4. Barthes R. Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics. Moscow: Publishing group «Progress», «Univers», 1994.
5. Chernikh A.I. Media and democracy. St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga, 2011.
6. Evstigneeva M.E. On the generational aspect of modern political discourse // Sovremennoye pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye. 2021. №5.
7. Guriev S., Treisman D. Informational Autocrats // The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2019. Vol. 33, №4(Fall 2019).
8. Huvila I. The Politics of Boundary Objects: Hegemonic Interventions and the Making of a Document // Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2011. №62(12).
9. Kupina N.A. Ideologeme «Foreign Agent»: three days in July 2012 // Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2012. №3.
10. Krylov G.A. Etymological online dictionary. URL: https://lexicography.online/etymology/krylov/%D0%B8/%D0%B8%D0%BD%D 0%BE%D0%B9 (дата обращения 20.04.2021).
11. Laclau E., Mouffe C. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.). London: Verso, 2001.
12. Laclau E. On populist reason. London: Verso, 2005.
13. Lasswell H.D. Language of Politics // ed. H.D. Lasswell, N. Leites, etc. NY., US: G.W. Stewart Publisher Inc,. 1949.
14. Lutsenko E.S. Category «Non-Profit Organization Performing the Functions of a Foreign Agent» in Russian legislation // Science and Education: Farming and Economy; Entrepreneurship; Law and Governance. 2018. №2(93).
15. National corpus of the Russian language. URL: https://processing.ruscorpora.ru/search.xml?lang=ru&sort=i_grtagging&lex1=% D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82&g = i_doc&dpp = 10&spp=50&text =lexgramm&kwsz=5&sem-
mod1=sem&level1=0&p=4&mode=spoken&parent1=0&sr=1&spd = 10&nodia=1 &out=normal accessed 20.04.2021).
16. Petrov N., Lipman M. & Hale H.E. Three dilemmas of hybrid regime governance: Russia from Putin to Putin // Post-Soviet Affairs. 2014. №30:1.
17. Sokolyanskaya N.N. «Foreign agent» in the mirror of linguistics // Vestnik Severo-Vostochnogo universiteta. 2018. №29.
18. Treisman D. The new autocracy: Information, Politics, and Policy in Putin's Russia. Washington, D.C., US: The Brookings Institution, 2018.
19. Weiss D. Slavistische Linguistik. Tiere in der Sowjetpropaganda: verbale und graphische Stereotypen // ed. T. Berger, J. Raecke, T. Reuther. München, 2006.
20. Zobnina E.S. «I changed names, I changed cities»: the image of a spy in Soviet popular culture during the Ottepel' // Second Winter School in Humanities Informatics. Collection of abstracts. Kaliningrad: Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, 2018.
