66b9uk5yPH

2.Bennis, Phyllis. 2012. “Iran in the Crosshairs Again”, Red Pepper, March

2.Available online: https://www.redpepper.org.uk/iran-in-the-crosshairs- again/ [June 5, 2019].

3.Beyer, Christian. 2014. The Kabarett of the Kynics. Satirical Peace Activism in an Era of Enlightened False Consciousness? Tromsø: Munin.

Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10037/6191 [June 5, 2019].

4.Beyer, Christian, Juliane Constanze Bockwoldt, Emil Lundedal Hammar,

Holger Pötzsch (guest eds.). 2019 [forthcoming]. Nordlit 42, special issue: “Manufacturing Monsters”. Tromsø: Department of Language and

Culture, UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

5.Burnett, Mark Thornton. 2002. Constructing ‘Monsters’ in Shakespeare’s

Drama and Early Modern Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

6.Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1997. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

7.Calafell, Bernadette Marie (guest ed.). 2018. “Monstrosity”, guest section with an introduction by Bernadette Marie Calafell (94–95) and 17 articles (96–491); as part of The Popular Culture Studies Journal 6:2–3, special issue: “Monstrosity”. Chicago: Midwest Popular and American Culture

Association.

8.Chandler, Daniel, and Rod Munday. 2016 [2011]. Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9.Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. 1996. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)”, in

Monster Theory: Reading Culture, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–25.

10.——————. 2012. “The Promise of Monsters”, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, edited by Asa Simon Mittman and Peter Dendle. Farnham: Ashgate, 447–462.

11.——————. 2017. “Afterword: Monster Classroom (Seven Theses)”, in Monsters in the Classroom: Essays on Teaching What Scares Us, edited by Adam Golub and Heather Richardson Hayton. Jefferson: McFarland, 228–235.

12.Cook, Jonathan. 2017. “Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View”, CounterPunch, June 27. Available online: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations- buried-from-view/ [June 5, 2019].

13.Cromwell, David. 2019a. “Dump The Guardian”, Media Lens, February 13, updated March 3. Available online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2019/894-dump- the-guardian.html [June 5, 2019].

14.——————. 2019b. “Life or Death—Corporate Media or Honest

60

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2019/904-life-or- death-corporate-media-or-honest-media.html [June 5, 2019].

15.Cromwell, David, and David Edwards. 2019. “‘We Don’t Do

Propaganda’”, Media Lens, February 27, updated Mars 1. Available online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert- archive/2019/896-we-don-t-do-propaganda.html [June 5, 2019].

16.Doucet, Lyse. 2018. “Syria and the CNN Effect: What Role Does the

Media Play in Policy-Making?”, Dædalus—Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 147:1, 141–157.

17.Edwards, David. 2019a. “Venezuela Blitz Part 1: Tyrants Don’t Have Free Elections”, Media Lens, February 5, updated February 7. Available online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert- archive/2019/892-venezuela-blitz-part-1-tyrants-don-t-have-free- elections.html [June 5, 2019].

18.——————. 2019b. “Venezuela Blitz Part 2: Press Freedom, Sanctions and Oil”, Media Lens, February 7, updated February 8. Available online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert- archive/2019/893-venezuela-blitz-part-2-press-freedom-sanctions-and- oil.html [June 5, 2019].

19.Edwards, David, and David Cromwell. 2018a. “Propaganda Blitz: A

New Media Lens Book and an Urgent Appeal for Support”, Media Lens, September 19. Available online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/880- propaganda-blitz-new-media-lens-book-and-an-urgent-appeal-for- support.html [June 5, 2019].

20.——————. 2018b. Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality. With a foreword by John Pilger. London: Pluto Press.

21.Emersberger, Joe. 2019. “Facts Don’t Interfere with Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President”, FAIR—Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, February 12. Available online: https://fair.org/home/facts- dont-interfere-with-propaganda-blitz-against-venezuelas-elected- president/ [June 5, 2019].

22.Emmeche, Claus. 2016. “The Borderology of Interdisciplinarity: A Case of Love and Friendship”, in Mapping Frontier Research in the Humanities, edited by Claus Emmeche, David Budtz Pedersen, and Frederik Stjernfelt. London/Oxford: Bloomsbury, 77–96.

23.Erle, Sibylle, Pat Beckley, and Helen Hendry (guest eds.). 2020 [forthcoming]. Nature—International Journal of Science 152:[tba], special issue: “Monsters: Interdisciplinary Explorations of Monstrosity”.

New York/Heidelberg/Basingstoke: Palgrave Communications; Springer Nature.

24.Fisk, Robert. 2019. “The Evidence We Were Never Meant to See About the Douma ‘Gas’ Attack: The OPCW Has Opened the Door to Ridicule,

61

When the Simple Truth Would Have Been Enough”, The Independent, May 23. Available online: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma- syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory- russia-a8927116.html [June 5, 2019].

25.Harcup, Tony. 2014. Oxford Dictionary of Journalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.Hellstrand, Ingvil, Line Henriksen, Siv Frøydis Berg, and Christian Beyer. 2019. “Why the Monster and Why Now?”, Monster Talks podcast series, January 23. Recorded at the panel discussion “Monster Talks”,

Haunted Humanity, November 30, 2018. Stavanger: The Monster

Network. Available online: https://themonsternetwork.com/2019/01/23/monster-talks-1-why-the- monster-and-why-now/ [June 5, 2019].

27.Hellstrand, Ingvil, Line Henriksen, Aino-Kaisa Koistinen, Donna McCormack, and Sara Orning (guest eds.). 2018. Somatechnics 8:2, special issue: “Promises of Monsters”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

28.Henriksen, Line, Morten Hillgaard Bülow, and Erika Kvistad (guest eds.). 2017. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning 26:2–3, special issue: “Monstrous Encounters: Nordic Perspectives on Monsters and the Monstrous”.

Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.

29.Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. 2002 [1988]. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Reprint edition with a new introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.

30.Hersh, Seymour M. 2004. “Torture at Abu Ghraib: American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis. How Far Up Does the Responsibility Go?”, The New Yorker (online April 30; print May 10). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib [June 5, 2019].

31.——————. 2005. “The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon Can Now

Do in Secret”, The New Yorker (online January 16; print January 24). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/01/24/the- coming-wars [June 5, 2019].

32.——————. 2006. “The Iran Plans: Would President Bush Go to War to Stop Tehran from Getting the Bomb?”, The New Yorker (online April 9; print April 17). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/17/the-iran-plans [June 5, 2019].

33.——————. 2007. “Shifting Targets: The Administration’s Plan for Iran”, The New Yorker (online October 1; print October 8). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/10/08/shifting-targets [June 5, 2019].

62

34.——————. 2008. “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration Steps up Its Secret Moves Against Iran”, The New Yorker

(online June 29; print July 7). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/07/preparing-the- battlefield [June 5, 2019].

35.——————. 2009. “Syria Calling: The Obama Administration’s Chance to Engage in a Middle East Peace”, The New Yorker (online May 29; print June 4). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/06/syria-calling [June 5, 2019].

36.——————. 2010. “Direct Quotes: Bashar Assad”, The New Yorker

(online February 10; not in print). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/direct-quotes-bashar-assad [June 5, 2019].

37.——————. 2011. “Iran and the Bomb: How Real is the Nuclear Threat?”, The New Yorker (online May 30; print June 6). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/06/06/iran-and-the- bomb-seymour-m-hersh [June 5, 2019].

38.——————. 2012. “Our Men in Iran?”, The New Yorker (online April 5; not in print). Available online: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/our-men-in-iran [June 5, 2019].

39.——————. 2013. “Whose Sarin?” [manuscript rejected by The New Yorker and Washington Post], London Review of Books 35:24 (online December 8; print December 19), 9–12.

40.——————. 2014. “The Red Line and the Rat Line: [Obama,] Erdoğan, and the Syrian Rebels”, London Review of Books 36:8 (online April 7; print April 17), 21–24.

41.——————. 2015. “The Killing of Osama bin Laden”, London Review of Books 37:10 (online May 10; print May 21), 3–12.

42.——————. 2016. “Military to Military”, London Review of Books

38:1 (online December 22, 2015; print January 7), 11–14.

43.——————. 2017. “Trump’s Red Line” [manuscript rejected by

London Review of Books], Welt am Sonntag, June 25. Available online: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red- Line.html [June 5, 2019].

44.——————. 2018. Reporter: A Memoir. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

45.——————. 2019. “The Vice President’s Men”, London Review of Books 41:2 (online January 16; print January 24), 9–12.

46.Johnson, Adam. 2019. “Western Media Fall in Lockstep for Cheap Trump/Rubio Venezuela Aid PR Stunt”, FAIR—Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, February 12. Available online: https://fair.org/home/western-media- fall-in-lockstep-for-cheap-trump-rubio-venezuela-aid-pr-stunt/ [June 5, 2019].

63

47.Knorr Cetina, Karin D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, with a preface by

Rom Harré. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

48.Koenig-Woodyard, Chris, Shalini Nanayakkara, and Yashvi Khatri (guest eds.). 2018. University of Toronto Press Quarterly 87:1, special issue:

“Monster Studies”. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

49.Kuhn, Thomas. 1970 [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second, enlarged edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

50.Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986 [1979]. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. With an introduction by Jonas Salk and a new postscript and index by the authors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

51.Lippmann, Walter. 2004 [1922]. Public Opinion. Reprint edition. Mineola/New York: Dover Publications.

52.Lynch, Jake, and Annabel McGoldrick. 2005. Peace Journalism. Stroud: Hawthorn Press.

53.Merz, Martina. 2005. “Knowledge Construction”, in Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia, edited by Sal Restivo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 249–254.

54.Methi, Jan Selmer, Andrei Sergeev, Małgorzata Bieńkowska, and Basia

Nikiforova (eds.). 2019. Borderology: Cross-Disciplinary Insights from the Border Zone. [Along the Green Belt.] Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

55.Paradiso-Michau, Michael R. (guest ed.). 2017. Listening—Journal of Communication Ethics, Religion, and Culture 52:3, special issue:

“Listening to Our Monsters”. Pittsburgh: Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Duquesne University.

56.Pedro-Caranana, Joan, Daniel Broudy, Jeffery Klaehn (eds.). 2018. The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness. London: University of Westminster Press.

57.Petley, Julian (guest ed.). 2000. “Manufacturing Monsters”, guest section with contributions by Stanley Cohen (36–43), Noam Chomsky (44–48), Edward Said (49–53), Jeremy Harding (54–58), Lala Meredith-Vula (59– 63), Tahir Abbas (64–68), Roy Greenslade (70–75), Andrzej Oseka (76– 77), Irena Maryniak (78–82), and Robert Willoughby (83–85); as part of

Index on Censorship 29:5, special issue: “Manufacturing Monsters”.

Margate: Thanet Press; Sage Journals.

58.Pilger, John. 2018. “‘Hold the Front Page: The Reporters Are Missing’”,

Media Lens, September 20. Available online: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/881-guest- media-alert-by-john-pilger-hold-the-front-page-the-reporters-are- missing.html [June 5, 2019].

64

59.Reinke de Buitrago, Sybille (ed.). 2012. Portraying the Other in International Relations: Cases of Othering, Their Dynamics and the Potential for Transformation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

60.Restivo, Sal. 2005. “Introduction: Science, Technology, and Society”, in

Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia, edited by Sal Restivo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ix–xv.

61.Rossvær, Viggo. 1998. Ruinlandskap og modernitet: Hverdagsbilder og randsoneerfaringer fra et nord-norsk fiskevær. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag.

62.——————. 2007. “What is Borderology?”, in Challenges of Globalisation and Regionalisation: Proceedings I from the Conference

‘Regional Northern Identity: From Past to Future’ at Petrozavodsk State

University, Petrozavodsk 2006, edited by Lars Elenius and Christer

Karlsson. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology Press, 17–30.

63.Rossvær, Viggo, and Andrei Sergeev (eds.). 2015. Philosophy in the Border Zone. [Through the Eyes of Russian and Norwegian Participants.] Stamsund: Orkana Akademisk.

64.Schimanski, Johan, and Stephen Frank Wolfe (eds.). 2007. Border Poetics De-Limited. Han[n]over: Wehrhahn.

65.—————— (guest eds.). 2009. Nordlit 24, special issue: “Cultural Production and Negotiation of Borders”. Tromsø: Department of Culture and Literature, University of Tromsø.

66.—————— (guest eds.). 2010. Journal of Borderlands Studies 25:1, special issue: “Cultural Production and Negotiation of Borders”. Tempe:

Association for Borderlands Studies.

67.—————— (eds.). 2019 [2017]. Border Aesthetics: Concepts and Intersections. Reprint edition. New York/Oxford: Berghahn.

68.Sergeev, Andrei. 2016. Thinking and Language: A Metaphysical Junction. [A Collection of Philosophical Essays.] Murmansk: Murmansk Publishing House.

69.Walzer, Michael. 2000 [1977]. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Reprint edition. New York: Basic Books.

70.Whittaker von Hofsten, Helène, and Linda Hamrin Nesby (guest eds.). 2006. Nordlit 19, special issue: “Grenser”. Tromsø: Department of Culture and Literature, University of Tromsø.

71.Williams, Michael C. 2003. “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics”, International Studies Quarterly 47:4, 511– 531.

72.Wolfe, Stephen Frank (guest ed.). 2014. Nordlit 31, special issue:

“Border Work/Border Aesthetics”. Tromsø: Department of Language and

Culture, UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

73.Žižek, Slavoj. 1989. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.

65

УДК 316.7 ББК 60.56

E.V. Philippova

Murmansk Arctic State University Murmansk, Russia

THE “WE – THEY” DICHOTOMY IN THE RUSSIAN

PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS

Abstract. The article is a review of materials on the problem of actualizing the image of the enemy in the Russian public consciousness, carried out on the basis of studying: a) scientific and analytical publications; b) opinion polls data; c) social media discourse. The anthropological-psychological and concrete historical reasons for this phenomenon are considered.

Key words: public consciousness, the “We – They”dichotomy, negative identification, the image of the Other, the image of the enemy.

Е.В. Филиппова

ФГБОУ ВО «Мурманский арктический государственный университет» г. Мурманск, Россия

ДИХОТОМИЯ «МЫ-ОНИ» В РОССИЙСКОМ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОМ СОЗНАНИИ

Аннотация. Статья представляет собой обзор материалов по проблеме актуализации образа врага в российском общественном сознании, осуществленный на основе изучения: а) научных и аналитических публикаций; б) данных опросов общественного мнения; в) Интернет-дискурса в социальных медиа. Рассматриваются антрополого-психологические и конкретно-исторические причины данного явления.

Ключевые слова: общественное сознание, дихотомия «Мы – Они», негативная идентификация, образ Другого, образ врага.

Russia’s relations with the West in general and Russian-American relations, in particular, are going through a difficult period. For a number of reasons, and above all, in connection with the conflict in Ukraine, relations have worsened and, in the opinion of many analysts, reached the level of the new Cold War, which affected public opinion in two countries as well as in the global community.

Both in Russia and in America, increased people's fear of the threat of military confrontation, which could result in a nuclear war, mutual hostility reached its highest level in the last two decades – most Americans consider Russia to be number 1 enemy, Russians give a similar assessment to America. Public opinion in the United States accuses Russia of annexing Crimea, an

66

offensive against democracy, civil rights and freedoms of citizens, and supporting dictatorial, anti-democratic regimes in the world.

In Russian public opinion, ideas that the US is to blame for the crisis in Ukraine are common, but this is only the beginning of the attack on Russia in order to isolate the country, undermine its economy, and seize the territory and resources. A special feature of the anti-American sentiment in Russia over the past years is the accusation of the United States of supporting the opposition forces in Russia in order to undermine the existing system. A new trend of Russian mass sentiments is that the country has risen from its knees, pursues an independent foreign policy, relying on the superiority of traditional Russian moral values as opposed to the deadlocking decaying Western culture.1

The image of the enemy. So in the Russian public consciousness in recent years, the "image of the enemy" has been actualized.

Factors affecting public consciousness can be divided into discursive (official propaganda; unofficial ideologies & social movements; everyday discourse), institutional (socio-economical situation; political regime), and those of mentality (expectations, stereotypes, attitudes).

It would be a great simplification to believe that the activation of the enemy’s role in public opinion is solely the result of propaganda and ideological manipulation. Any propaganda can be effective only if it relies on certain expectations and demands of the mass consciousness, if it is adequate to the already existing ideas, stereotypes of understanding of what is happening, mythological structures. To introduce something completely new in the mass consciousness is almost impossible. Therefore, the growing importance of ideas about the enemy is always a derivative of efforts and movements from two sides

– interested and relatively rationalized interpretations of the ruling elites and amorphous, heterogeneous mass views, explanations, beliefs, traditional elements of identification.

The identity of any society is based on two foundations – the first one is constituted by the senses, or values, around which society unites, the second is the image of the "other" in relation to which society is self-determined. The binary "We –They" opposition is the subjective side of any actually existing community of people. The way to divide social reality according to this principle is fundamental for any social relations, starting with the archaic. The "We – They" distinction is part of the mythological world view, one of the primary dualities, such as chaos – cosmos, light – darkness, etc.

The "We – They" dichotomy is the result of the processes of categorization, identification and stereotyping. The binary type of categorization sets those pole points within which there are gradations. The concept of "They"

1 For more information about Russian-American relations in public opinion in Russia and the United States, see in A. Popov [8].

67

Figure 1. The basic dichotomy in ideas about the social world

can appear both in terms of comparison ("other", "strange", "foreign"), and in terms of opposition ("alien", "enemy").

Familiar or friend is the one close and associated with us, solidary with us. Marginal is located on the border of two communities. The Other may be: unusual, beyond the norm (Strange); out of our ways, beyond our native culture (Foreign); inappropriate to us, unfamiliar, unknown, inaccessible to understanding (Alien); hostile, threatening (Enemy).

The oldest social categorization system – the "We-They" opposition is a cultural universal, inherent in the self-consciousness of any type of community, plays a decisive role in its consolidation, has powerful mobilizing potential and is fundamental to uncover the specifics of any culture. Self-determination in terms of "We – They," the parameters of "our own" and "of the others" are the core of national identity. This is a function of attitude towards language, territory, past, values.

At different stages of historical development, the "images of others" formed in the collective consciousness perform various functions. The mechanism of transforming the "image of the other" into the "image of the enemy" should be considered in a broad historical context of the mutual

68

perception of countries and peoples and in the context of a specific historical situation. Actualizing the image of the enemy means that society is beginning to experience strong social tensions, the sources of which are difficult to identify and rationalize. In an alarming and unclear situation, archaic integrative mechanisms begin to come to life, forcing people to feel their closeness and solidarity in the face of real or perceived collective dangers.

The years 2013-2018 in Russia are characterized by precisely a large number of events that critically increased the degree of social tension. Despite certain positive changes in the economy and the standard of living in recent years, the gap between the poor and the rich strata continues to grow, while an increase in mutual hostility is also observed; uncontrolled internal and external migration made inter-ethnic relations more stressful; in the situation of arbitrariness of the authorities, corruption, prohibitive laws and political persecution; there is no "nationwide idea" capable of uniting the country and reducing social tensions.

External challenges also have a stimulating effect on the actualization of the image of the enemy in Russian society. The external crisis of Russia is manifested in the position of open confrontation and exchange of sanctions with numerous countries, and loyal relations with some states considered "Friends of Russia" were also lost.

A significant increase in social tension among Russians made it possible to apply the concept of an "external enemy" with goals to direct the negative emotions that people experience in the direction needed for the government, to prevent citizens from accusing the political elite of wrong actions, to suppress internal opposition, raise a sense of patriotism in society and the level of support of the national leader. This is how the decaying structure of identity is being restored. Obviously, the Russian people have significant historical experience of predominantly negative mobilization and self-identification. 1 Countries and peoples, international organizations and religious movements, political opponents and individuals are declared or even "appointed" as enemies. External "enemies" periodically change – one hostile state is replaced by another, but they all represent the opposite of what is dear to "us" and seek to destroy "our" core values.

In general, identification through the image of the enemy is characterized by negative expectation (destructive intentions against us are attributed to all actions of the enemy); thinking on the principle of "zero-sum games" (what is good for the enemy, is bad for us, and vice versa); an explanation of any adverse circumstances by the intrigues of hostile forces.

The data of opinion polls illustrate the actualization of ideas about the growing external threat.

1 The concepts of "negative mobilization" and "negative identification" to describe Russian society were proposed by L. Gudkov (2005), see [3].

69