Exploration of discourse power in non-mainstream groups reveals significant ideological impacts on adolescents, suggesting a need for regulatory frameworks.
Against the background of the socialist core values leading the development of Chinese society, society as a whole has shown a vigorous and upward trend. At the same time, however, it has been noticed that there is a small group of young people whose way of thinking and acting expresses deviation from and resistance to the “mainstream”, and who are characterized as “non-mainstream”. This project studies this kind of youth non-mainstream group with strong spontaneity, fervor and impulsiveness, and examines the discourse space between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” groups and the ideological differences behind them from the three dimensions of space, time and value. The study examines the discourse space between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” groups, and the ideological differences behind them. Through analyzing the generation and operation process of discourse power in digital media, we systematically explore the internal mechanism of discourse power of non-mainstream groups, and provide a theoretical basis for the regulation of discourse power of non-mainstream groups in digital media environment. Then, through questionnaires, the current situation of non-mainstream behaviors of teenagers was investigated in the field from the dimensions of life and interaction. The research found that 94.97% of the adolescents believe that digital media play a relatively important role in influencing the spread of non-mainstream culture, and the Pearson coefficient of the two is 0.637, which is moderately correlated, indicating that the two are closely connected. The diversified types and nature of non-mainstream cultural forms determine that they have a double-edged effect on the mainstream ideology, however, the negative energy of the current non-mainstream groups is greater than the positive energy, which is worth to be criticized and improved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: