This article explores communication in political symbolization and its implications for discourse analysis.
In the article, communication, considered in the context of political symbolization, is reflected as being carried out in various (and through various) speech situations. Communication is not only a process of unfolding, but also a constituent element of content and politics, i.e. political symbolization develops (in the dialectical sense) in communicative interaction, synthesizing new meanings. The practical symbolic vision of communication shows that the individual-collective/agent-structure relationship is not an "objective" systemic property of politics. Consistency itself is constructed as a mechanism of communicative practices that arise as an interaction of actors and artifacts in the space of joint activity. The author focuses on narratives as structured sets of speech situations that can have written and visual manifestations, which makes it possible to trace the emergence, spread and use of the meanings of political communication. Political narratives can go beyond fixed linguistic forms, acquiring symbolic interpretation as the formation of new ways of contextual communication. The emphasis on context shows the limitations of discourse analysis for understanding political communications. The context "does not fit" into discourse analysis as such, requiring serious analytical assumptions that either critically reduce the accuracy of discourse analysis or unacceptably simplify the content of the context. The fundamental feature of communication in the context of politics is that political reality simultaneously consists of (and is realized through) interactive processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Глеб Мусихин (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: