Constructing political Narratives as a tool of political discourse for the development of ideological concepts and ideologies: problems of theory and practice

Poroshkov Mikhail Mikhailovich ORCID: 0000-0002-2445-0669 Postgraduate student of the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Politics, Faculty of Political Science, St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, nab. Universitetskaya, 7-9 mikhail.poroshkov@yandex.ru

Introduction

The struggle for power and the harmonization of public relations are the main content of politics and take place in the space of political discourse, which, as a dynamic system, is constantly changing and transforming ^[1]. Depending on the political situation, on the socio-economic level of development of the state and society, on the existing social demand for solving certain urgent problems, political discourse constantly turns to ideologies and ideological concepts in search of a value basis that will facilitate political decision-making, formulation of a specific action program and its implementation. That is why the study and testing of tools that allow political discourse to respond in a timely and adequate manner to problems arising in the state and society and to reveal the content of a particular ideology and ideological concepts do not lose their relevance as a direction of theoretical and practice-oriented research ^{[2, pp. 196-197]}.

The purpose of this article is to study the political narrative as an effective tool for the dissemination and illustration of ideological concepts and ideologies and to identify the features of constructing a political narrative based on the history of a particular state and its iconic political figures. To do this, it is necessary to turn to the concept of political discourse, identify the causes of the crisis of ideologies and ideological concepts and substantiate the potential of the political narrative as a mechanism for enriching political discourse and the development of ideologies and ideological concepts. The appeal to the case of the choice between F. E. Dzerzhinsky and A. Nevsky for the installation of the monument in Moscow made it possible to analyze the features of the formation of a political narrative and its influence on political decision-making. The case reveals contradictions in the values of political actors, which are fixed in the political narrative and illustrate the content of ideological concepts.

1. The embeddedness of ideological concepts in political discourse. The problem of the crisis of ideological concepts and ways to solve it

Political discourse as "any speech formations whose content relates to the sphere of politics" ^{[3, p. 23]} is a widespread social practice that mediates numerous political opinions, beliefs and actions, one way or another related to the struggle for political power and the defense of one's political interests ^[4]. The construction of political discourse is a form of conveying meanings and must meet a number of requirements: to be understandable and relatively consistent; to express exactly those ideas that come from the ideological position of a political actor; to have the necessary degree of universality so as not to be limited to solving a specific local problem, but to answer a whole range of issues of concern to voters and to increase the public capital of a political actor ^{[5, p.67]}.

Typical types of events that shape political discourse are:

1) election campaigns of various levels;

2) program speech and press conferences of the president;

3) adoption of a resonant bill by the parliament;

4) installation or dismantling of iconic architectural objects, (for example, monuments);

5) voting within the framework of information platforms (websites, television projects, etc.), the process or result of which is actively discussed in social networks and in the media;

6) information, economic and military conflicts in the international arena;

7) round dates of historical events and other single events that become the subject of discussion ^{[6, p. 7-16]}.

Political discourse consists of many elements, one of which is ideological concepts.Morphological analysis of ideologies, proposed and developed by Michael Frieden, divides the ideological concept into three parts: the core, the adjacent part and the periphery ^[7]. The core is described as a collection of ideas and meanings. The adjacent part is responsible for the dissemination of ideology and is directly embedded in political discourse. The related part includes program documents, slogans and slogans that allow you to convey to the audience the main meaning of the ideological concept and justify calls to follow this particular party, movement, political figure. At the level of the periphery, ideology acquires specific forms of action, including, for example, censorship.

The core of ideological concepts is relatively stable, while the adjacent part is the most mobile and changeable. It is the adjacent part that allows political actors to promote their political platform and convey to the electorate the core of ideological concepts. The focus on the widespread dissemination of the core of ideological concepts and the desire for brevity and clarity often leads to a loss of terminological accuracy and clarity regarding ideas and ideologies, which blurs the already disparate and contradictory postmodern categorical apparatus ^[8],[9]. The reasons for such deformation of both ideological concepts and political discourse are connected with the crisis of the forms of dissemination and explanation of ideologies and ideological concepts, the declining ability to attract voters to electoral precincts and, moreover, to state the features of the position of a political actor in a reasoned and consistent manner ^{[10, p.19]}.

It should be noted that in general, both in the world and in Russia, there is a crisis of ideological concepts, expressed in the inability of the so-called "big" ideologies (Marxism, liberalism, conservatism) to answer topical issues of political discourse, and "small" ones (anarchism, feminism, environmentalism, etc.) to claim the role of political dominants in the long term ^{[10, p. 4-5]}. Postmodern critical attitude to strict categories, postulating that the subject is able to answer the question himself, what is the essence of a concept, including those that form the core of an ideological concept (for example, the ideas of freedom, progress, individual rights), reduces the likelihood of effectively communicating the ideological position to citizens to a minimum ^[6]. The current situation forces us to look for and test various forms of work with the ideological concept and, especially, with its adjacent part.An option for overcoming the crisis of ideological concepts and enriching political discourse is to turn to political narratives that help to convey the provisions of a particular ideology and ideological concept to more people and make ideology closer and clearer to the average citizen, moving from the abstract level of reflections and speculative constructions to concrete plots and examples from the history of the country.

2. Signs of a political narrative and features of its construction

E.I. Sheigal was able to unite various approaches to determining the essence of the narrative ^[11], researching political scandals. Sheigal proposed to understand the political narrative as a set of diverse political texts (leaflet, slogan, rally speech, party program, analytical article in a newspaper, TV interview, etc.), thematically concentrated around a certain political event ^[3].

The identification of the distinctive features of the narrative was also facilitated by J. Pince, who considered the narrative as "a representation of at least two real or fictional events or situations in a temporal order" ^{[12, p.4]}. Pince emphasizes that the construction of a narrative is characterized by the use of several sources of information, the combination of which leads to an impact on the political consciousness of citizens. Such an approach to the essence of the narrative allows us to take into account the diversity of opinions on a given topic, use a wide range of tools to address various associations of citizens, test and measure the effectiveness of a particular type of message. Formally, the political actors involved in the narrative remain sources of an allegedly "subjective" position, which preserves the space for political maneuver. The most successful formulations that have received a response among citizens can be used in subsequent narratives with similar themes.

In connection with the special form of narrative narration, it is also necessary to note its explanatory nature: "the narrative does not just state events, but makes them understandable, systematizes cause-and–effect relationships" ^{[13, p. 1]}. The narrative is a relatively short form of presentation, but, unlike a slogan and a leaflet, the narrative is not only able to identify the basic system of values of the author, but also to give its justification, outline the plot and ways to dilute the inherent political conflict. In addition, being one of the tools of political discourse, having its own characteristics that distinguish it from simpler forms of working with public opinion, the narrative tends to mythologize, because it is designed to tell a story with a plot that not only expresses an ideological position in relation to certain issues and problems, but also conveys it to a fairly easy-to-read form ^{[14, p. 100-101]}. That is why for political actors working with ideological concepts, the narrative tool becomes an effective means of influencing the political consciousness and behavior of citizens.

One of the options for constructing a political narrative as a tool for explaining and spreading ideologies and ideological concepts is an appeal to the history of a particular state, to the events of past decades or centuries and to the images or actions of real historical figures. In such narratives, a ready-made plot is used to convey the desired meaning, which took place in a distant historical retrospective or is currently unfolding, but is associated with events and historical figures that have well-established connotations in the minds of citizens. The demolition, replacement or installation of a monument, the renaming of streets and avenues in honor of a political figure, as well as the release of a film, a series (less often a book) about certain events or historical figures is one of the main reasons that encourage political actors to use historical narratives to illustrate ideological concepts and substantiate political positions.

Political actors construct the image of a historical figure and fix this image in the narrative, emphasizing individual statements and actions that, according to their idea, express adherence to certain ideas and ideologies. Controversial or negative facts and even direct speech are either hushed up or distorted to preserve the desired image. Receiving such a supporter in the person of a well-known historical figure, political actors can also turn to established structures already laid down by mass culture (cinema, fiction, etc.) in the political consciousness of citizens to promote their own ideas and meanings. For example, mentioning the already mythologized Marshal Zhukov, who insists on the need to constantly modernize the armed forces, can be much more effective than mentioning a political actor who utters the same theses, but lives and works in modern Russia.

The use of the current historical situation and informational reasons for constructing political narratives is not only a mechanism for switching the attention of voters from one political problem to another, but also a means of communication with the political audience of competitors, since the widest possible audience is involved in the space of political discourse, and not only supporters of one part of the ideological spectrum. Moreover, well-known images are able to involve in the discourse an unpoliticized part of citizens who are not ready to discuss differences in political parties, but, for example, do not want to rename the street where they live, or install a monument to a historical figure with a controversial reputation.

The development of narrative as a tool for working with political discourse and the use of historical figures in it is mandatory for any political actor aimed at promoting and spreading ideology and ideological concepts. The political narrative makes it possible to clothe already established values and meanings in new, interesting and understandable stories for voters and increase their level of involvement. The use of well-known images from the recent or distant past in the narrative has become a generally accepted social practice.

3. The case of the choice between F.E. Dzerzhinsky and A. Nevsky for the installation of the monument in Moscow

Consideration of a specific case about the choice between F.E. Dzerzhinsky and A. Nevsky for the installation of a monument in Moscow will allow us to analyze what advantages and disadvantages the use of political narratives in real political practice carries. Within the framework of the case, the narrative will be considered as a system implemented at three levels:

1. "Demonstration, a series of events, characters, documents, artifacts, forming a factual base.

2. Aggregation of these facts into chronological and causal connections that form the basis of the plot.

3. Interpretation of this whole, reflection on it, revealing the direction of the development process towards the final as the "assemblage point" of the narrative, revealing the meaning and sometimes the intent of what was happening" ^{[5, p. 5].}

The factual base of the case about the voting related to the installation of a monument to either Dzerzhinsky or Nevsky in Moscow consisted of several events affecting various time periods.

Firstly, the process of the proposed re-installation of the monument to Dzerzhinsky was initiated by the public organization "Officers of Russia", which wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General's Office with a request to assess the legality of the demolition of the monument to Dzerzhinsky on Lubyanka Square in August 1991. Voting on this issue was also panicked on the portal "Active Citizen". On December 17, 2020, a response was received in which the dismantling was declared illegal, since the necessary documents of the subordinate bodies of that period were missing. The vote was postponed to the last days of February 2021, and then canceled altogether by the decision of the Mayor of Moscow on the 26th of 2021.

Secondly, the act of demolishing the Dzerzhinsky monument is a political gesture from the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had no direct technological or urban planning necessity unrelated to politics.

Thirdly, the key figures of F. E. Dzerzhinsky and A. Nevsky, whose biographies were used in narratives, were put up for voting against each other. It should be noted that the direct actions of historical figures can be used to create a narrative by various political forces, but some elements of biography are difficult to imagine in the opposite light.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky (1877-1926) was a well–known political and statesman, during the Russian Empire he was repeatedly tried for political articles, participated in the organization of the October armed uprising. From 1917 until the end of his life he held various civil and military posts, led the troops, managed the Cheka, was engaged in the organization of railway communication, the fight against child homelessness, and was also an active member of the Bolshevik Party ^[16]. Various localities, regions and infrastructure facilities are named after him.

Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky – political and military figure, Prince of Novgorod (1236-1240, 1241-1252, 1257-1259), Grand Duke of Kiev (1249-1263), Grand Duke of Vladimir (1252-1263), commander, saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is known for his confrontation with the Germans, Swedes and Lithuanians; one of his successful battles later became known as the "Ice Battle" ^[17]. It also has numerous topographic mentions in various localities.

The plot of the political narratives about Dzerzhinsky and Nevsky was formed during the confrontation of the parties: those who supported the demolition of the monument, and those who were going to restore the monument in its former place. We will designate the participants of the confrontation according to the common cliche "liberals" and "siloviki", the main criterion for distinguishing which is the attitude to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The first assess it as inevitable and rather positive, and the second – as a catastrophe and loss. Such a disposition gives a classic "friend-foe" dichotomy (the concept of "friend-enemy") ^[18], when opposite assessments of the same facts, legality and legitimacy are constructed. The development of the plot, in full accordance with the canon of such stories, is based on the unconditional rightness of "their own", on attracting authorities to their side, on appeals to the truths, principles and values shared in these communities. It should be noted that initially, when assessing the legality of the demolition of the Dzerzhinsky monument, the option of installing another monument or installing a monument to another historical figure was absent and was added during the confrontation, which can be considered as a successful move by opponents of the restoration of the Dzerzhinsky monument.

Taking into account the peculiarities of the political narrative as a tool for the formation of political discourse, we will single out the "narrators" of each side of the confrontation. The main narrators of the "siloviki" were the public organization "Officers of Russia" and the Communist Party. The Liberals' side was represented by Alexey Venediktov (editor-in-chief of the Echo of Moscow radio station) and the Russian Orthodox Church. The role of "judges", a neutral party in this confrontation, was played by the official authorities, in this case, the administration of the city of Moscow in the person of Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, who represented the interests of the federal level rather than the regional one, otherwise signs of a struggle between these levels would appear in the public field, as already happened in the 2000s. The representative of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov also distanced himself from any comments on this topic, addressing the question to local authorities ^[19]. The observers and unwitting participants were the residents of the city, who were attracted to vote in the course of the development of history.

As part of the case study, the interpretation of the narrative was based on the disclosure of structural elements of the text that carry a certain functional load ^[20]:

1) a summary for the listener of the essence of the events that took place, which will be discussed;

2) orientation of the listener regarding time, place, situation, participants of events;

3) transmission of a sequence of events;

4) assessment of the significance and meaning of actions, expression of the narrator's attitude to events and actions;

5) resolution of the situation (what happened in the end);

6) code: return to the present time.

Such a functional interpretation of the narrative made it possible to identify the ideological concepts on which each of the sides of the confrontation was based. According to the content of classical ideologies, the following key differences can be identified related to the evaluation of the monument in terms of the main contradictions in values:

1) attitude to the values of justice and/or democracy;

2) the juxtaposition of collective and individual;

3) the opposition of security and the concept of rights and freedoms.

Let's look at each of the contradictions in values in more detail:

1) attitude to the values of justice and/or democracy. The side of the "siloviki" appealed to the concept of "restoration", which implies that the current state of things is unfair and requires immediate correction, because it contradicts the natural or correct order of things from the point of view of the initiator. It is important to note that this position is addressed not so much to the voters as to the authorities: "For a long time we have been consistently dealing with the issue of restoring the Dzerzhinsky monument to its historical rightful place – on Lubyanka Square in Moscow. We have repeatedly stated that the demolition of the monument was an act of vandalism and illegal. There is not a single legitimate document for the demolition of the monument" ^[21].

For the "liberals", the issue of justice is inferior to the concept of "democracy" or the free will of citizens. The change of the political system, according to the supporters of the "liberals", was fixed by referendums and elections of the period when the new government supported or, at least, did not interfere with the process of dismantling the monument. Restoring it in its former place will mean a loss for this side, therefore, the issue should immediately be transferred to the voting channel so that citizens choose the historical figure they want to see on the pedestal: "Muscovites should make a decision about a person who can be immortalized by installing a monument on Lubyanka Square in the capital. We offer the portal "Active Citizen" as a mechanism for solving the fate of Lubyanka Square. This is a very important and sensitive issue, it is necessary to take into account the opinion of citizens" ^[22].

2) the juxtaposition of the collective and the individual. One of the key points of rejection of the figure of Dzerzhinsky in the eyes of the "liberals" is that he was part of the system, which is clearly evident from his biography. In full accordance with the ideologies of the socialist concept, Dzerzhinsky received his powers not by birthright, but by rising in the service within a certain system of power relations; he worked there "wherever the Motherland calls" and was a member of the party. In addition, the name of the representative of the side of the "siloviki" clearly indicates a collective, and not an individual – "Officers of Russia". They defend the interests of a large group of the population, which has professional and historical-continuity significance, which is the cornerstone for any ideology.

In contrast, Alexander Nevsky received his status as a prince by right of birth, and his achievements can be presented as individual decisions, especially against the background of a relatively "faceless" environment, because none of the voters will name the prince's associates, because the events took place almost 8 centuries ago. Within the framework of the liberal ideological concept, the value of the very possibility of individual actions is higher than any collective result, therefore, all other things being equal, the choice between a party member and the ruler, although not of a country, but of a principality, is obvious.

3) the opposition of security and the concept of rights and freedoms. The political narrative about Dzerzhinsky in its general historical context is part of a broader narrative – the narrative of the Soviet project. From the point of view of the "siloviki", this period of Russia's history is the peak of power, because it is filled with military and technological victories that put the USSR in the position of a superpower. The well-known events of the period of repression of the late 1930s, in which Dzerzhinsky, by the way, did not participate for natural reasons, are considered as a tragedy, but to a certain extent justified, since it took place during the interwar period. There is a clear priority of the security of the State and citizens as a whole over the rights and freedoms of individual repressed, even if they suffered by mistake of the punitive system of the state.

"Liberals" in this case get a double reason to oppose the installation of a monument to such a political figure as F.E. Dzerzhinsky. Firstly, he was a Soviet man, the builder of a new state that contradicts liberal values. Secondly, Dzerzhinsky led the Cheka, and this is the future of the NKVD and the KGB, which (in the eyes of the "liberals") is an expression of the violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens. Alexander Nevsky, although he was not noticed in defending the rights and freedoms of citizens, but he is not the founder of a secret and/or repressive service, and all his actions infringing on rights can be attributed to distant times.

The case of the choice between F. E. Dzerzhinsky and A. Nevsky for the installation of a monument in Moscow shows that political actors turn to the history of Russia and to the images of historical figures to explain and confirm their position. The study of the case made it possible to trace how the political narrative as a form of conveying meaning, values and political positions on topical social issues becomes an effective mechanism for influencing the topics of political discourse and updating the provisions of ideological concepts.

Conclusion

Political discourse presents a wide range of opportunities for political actors aimed at gaining and retaining political power and defending their political interests. The appeal to ideological concepts formed within the framework of political discourse requires the choice of the most acceptable and understandable tools that help to reach a wide range of voters and attract them to their side. One of these tools is a political narrative, which allows using examples from the history of a particular state to make the provisions of ideological concepts more understandable and closer to political reality. The construction of a political narrative based on references to the events of the past decades or centuries and to the images or actions of real historical figures is a political technology that takes into account both the strengths and weaknesses of narrative as a form of influence on political consciousness.

The case of the choice between F. E. Dzerzhinsky and A. Nevsky for the installation of the monument in Moscow allowed us to trace how political narratives about these historical figures were constructed. The functional interpretation of the narrative helped to identify the ideological concepts on which the positions of each side of the confrontation were based and to analyze the key differences in assessment. The disposition of "friend and foe" manifested itself in the formation of diametrically opposed positions among "siloviki" and "liberals" regarding issues of justice and/or democracy, the relationship between collective and individual, security and freedom. The case confirms the potential of the political narrative as an instrument of political discourse capable of illustrating the positions of ideological concepts and having a significant impact on the political situation in the state.