Crisis and conflict communication in the political sphere: general and special

Enikeeva Ekaterina ORCID: 0000-0001-5887-5086 Assistant, Department of Social and Political Sciences, The Bonch-Bruevich Saint Petersburg State University of Telecommunications 193232, Russia, Saint Petersburg, 22 Bolshevikov Ave., room 1, room 331/1 enikeeva_em@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The socio-cultural changes that are taking place in modern society significantly increase the relevance of the problem of conflict communication. The sharp aggravation of social, political, economic and other contradictions, which became possible as a result of the digitalization of society and the emergence of large-scale platforms for communication, led to the manifestation of "crisis consciousness" ^[34,37]. Crisis consciousness is characterized by a sense of crisis, uncertainty, and uncertainty about the future. This can be caused by various factors, including economic problems, political instability, ethnic tensions, and other circumstances. Crisis consciousness can lead to a pessimistic worldview, a feeling of helplessness and loss of hope for a better future. It may also be associated with a low level of trust in the authorities and institutions of society. This condition can have a significant impact on people's behavior and decisions, as well as on the social and political situation in the country. Work on overcoming crisis consciousness is important to ensure the stability and development of society.

Within the framework of communication theory, which is being developed taking into account the challenges faced by modern civilization, it is proposed to create a new "ontology" of the world and develop new research paradigms. In connection with these processes, the explication and description of the essence of such social phenomena as "crisis communications" and "conflict communications" in the context of digitalization are becoming relevant for the possibility of applying these concepts to various spheres of modern public life.

The purpose of this article is to identify the general and special characteristics of crisis and conflict communications in the political sphere. Based on the set goal, the following tasks were identified:

-To analyze the ratio of the categories "risk", "crisis", "conflict".

-To identify common characteristics of crisis and conflict communications in the political sphere.

-To identify the features of crisis and conflict communications in the field of political relations.

Many well-known foreign and domestic thinkers were engaged in the study and development of concepts of crises and conflicts, among them are: G. Hegel and his concept of conflict as the driving force of action, E. Husserl and his view on the crisis of European sciences, P. Sorokin, who considered the crisis state to be the process of building a new value system, O. Spengler and his concept "the crisis of culture", R. Guenon and his work "The Crisis of the modern World", the classic of foreign conflictology L. Kozer ^[19] and many others. The problem of conflicts and crises is also actively studied by modern Russian researchers, such as: A.N. Chumikov ^[40,41,42], O.V. Mikhailov ^[23], Pustovalova E.V. ^[33], Tishkevich E.V. ^[38], Yakovleva Yu.N. ^[45], Vildanov I.E. ^[11], Ignatieva M.V. ^[18], Panin I.S. ^[29], Ovcharov A.O. and Ovcharova T.N. ^[28] and others. Political conflicts and crises were considered in their research by: Achkasova V.A. ^[3], Glukhova A.V. ^[13,14], Soloviev A.I. ^[36], Lebedeva M.M. ^[23], Petrenko O.V. ^[30,31], Rasskazov L.D. and Badmaeva M.V. ^[34], Golub O.Yu. ^[15,16] and others . Risks in various fields, including political ones, were studied by: Belyaev S.O. ^[6], Borodina M.K. and Rybakova S.V. ^[7], Nechkin D.A. ^[26], Fedorova M.Yu. ^[39] and others.

Key concepts: crisis

Turning directly to the consideration of key concepts, it is worth noting that the variety of approaches to definition, as well as the interdisciplinary nature of these phenomena, do not allow us to give an unambiguous interpretation of terms for all spheres of public life.

The theory of anti-crisis communications contains the concept of "crisis", which has various interpretations. As Y.N. Yakovleva notes, the concept of crisis defies a simple definition ^[45]. In dictionary editions ^[22,44], a crisis is a turning point affecting the course of events, an unstable situation leading to drastic changes. If we turn to researchers specializing in anti-crisis communications, K. Roudoufort, author of the book "Managing and Making decisions in a crisis situation", defines a crisis as an accumulation of potential factors by an organization that can disrupt the work of the organization, as well as affect the interests of individuals ^[1]. A.N. Chumikov, describing the phenomenon of crisis, concludes that the crisis has several manifestations: This is the termination of a normal process; an unforeseen event that endangers the stability of a certain structure; a sudden serious incident that can damage or even destroy a reputation ^[42]. At the same time, the researcher notes that a crisis in a number of situations can be classified as a conflict.

One of the modern views on the crisis, from the point of view of law, was presented by M.V. Ignatieva, who defined this social phenomenon as "a situation in which existing rules of conduct become impossible to implement and there are contradictions between the norms of various branches of law, a conflict of values, a decrease in the effectiveness of legal regulation of public relations and the protection of citizens' rights, public distrust and lack of desire to apply the law to protect their interests" ^[18].

In the latest scientific literature dating back to the turn of the 2010s - 2020s, the concept of "crisis" in relation to the social sphere is considered as a phenomenon leading to the destruction of the social structure, exacerbation of contradictions between social groups ^[28], or is associated with the rupture of social ties. I.E. Wildanov proposed defining a social crisis through social ties: "as a process of extreme aggravation of contradictions in society, a sharp increase in a critical mass of conflicts to a point followed by a rupture of social ties" ^[11].

The socio-economic approach to the definition of crisis interprets this concept as "a strong aggravation of disagreements in the socio-economic system (enterprise), which threatens the company's activities in the environment" ^[21].

Recently, political crises have become especially relevant. It should be noted that in modern research (2020-2023), the term "political crisis" is most often not defined, since the subject of research is the crisis phenomenon itself, and not its conceptual interpretation. When reviewing earlier works, several approaches to the definition of political crises can be identified. Thus, in the theory of international relations ^[31], crisis is considered as one of the stages of conflict ^[23].

In political science, crisis is often identified through such a qualitative characteristic as instability ^[30]. A political crisis is understood as an acute intensification of contradictions in political relations that arise due to instability and instability, which can lead to serious changes in the structure of power, society or the political system as a whole. The result of a crisis can be a social catastrophe, the death or destruction of the system, as well as positive changes and system updates.

Thus, the concept of "crisis" is considered in various subject areas covering various spheres of society: economic, social, political, psychological, etc.

Key concepts: conflict

Similar approaches are applicable to the definition of the term "conflict". Many Russian experts in their works share the approaches of the classics of conflictology R. Darenfort ^[5] and L. Kozer ^[19], however, modern researchers ^{[3, 14]} note the limitations of classical approaches in relation to the political processes taking place in the 21st century, which is confirmed by the severity of the discussion regarding the content of this category. Thus, P. Bourdieu ^[8] proposed a socio-political concept in which conflict is a more complex phenomenon caused by a special social space. Common among the various approaches to the essence of conflict is understanding it as a clash, confrontation, struggle, etc., that is, as a phenomenon of a negative nature, however, it can have a positive potential. The causes of conflicts are various contradictions – in goals, attitudes and interests ^{[43, 32]}, unequal distribution of resources (capital), including power ^{[19, 24, 9]}, as well as other determinants ^{[2, 30]}. Representatives of the sociological approach place special emphasis on the strong social tension that accompanies conflict ^[38], which is also typical for the political sphere.

In political sciences, a political conflict appears as a type of political process characterized by a sharp confrontation, a clash of political forces caused by the opposition of their political interests, values and views ^[32]. In a number of studies, political conflicts are interpreted as a confrontation between political actors – individuals, groups, movements, and states over power and resources ^[24]. The most successful definition, according to V.A. Achkasova ^[3], was given in the Dictionary of Political Science, where political conflict is understood as a clash of political actors in their mutual desire to realize their interests and goals related primarily to the achievement of power or its redistribution, as well as a change in their political status in society..

In modern society, the Soviet paradigm of state power as a body ensuring a "balance of interests" has been replaced by an understanding of the political sphere as a conflict-prone environment ^{[17, 3, 14]}. According to the team of authors Glukhova A.V., Kolba A.I. and Sokolov A.V. ^[13], basing their view on the research of Solovyov A.I. ^[36], the very nature of power becomes a source of structural conflict between the state and society. In this regard, theses about the possibility of regulating and managing political conflicts are well-established in scientific discourse ^[41].

Key concepts: risk

Currently, the concept of "risk", which relates to both crisis and conflict phenomena, is extremely important for consideration. Among the approaches to the definition of risk can be identified: economic, ontological, social, political.

Risk in the ontological sense is the possibility of future events or phenomena that have not yet occurred. At the same time, the epistemological essence of risk describes the possibility of events and phenomena that already exist, but which we do not yet know about ^[27].

In the social sphere, risk can be defined as socially significant dangers of a public nature, individual protection from which is practically impossible. In addition, social risk may be referred to as the possibility of a socially unfavorable situation requiring the introduction of a system of state support for citizens (allowances, benefits, pensions, etc.) ^[39].

The concept of risk is most often used in the field of economics. The economic approach defines risk as the probability of losses, losses, shortfall of planned income, profits ^[6]; uncertainty of financial results in the future ^[7].

A.A. Kondratieva and V.N. Votyakova formulated this concept as follows: "Risk is an action (deed, deed) performed under conditions of choice (in a situation of choice in the hope of a happy outcome), when in case of failure there is a possibility (degree of danger) to be in a worse position than before the choice (than in case of non-fulfillment of this action)" ^[20].

Considering risks in the political sphere, researcher D.A. Nechkina showed that various interpretations of the concept of "political risk" range from assessing specific risks for international companies as a result of the activities of the host country's government to studying the overall set of non-economic risks associated with the socio-political environment in the state ^[26].

Thus, "crisis", "conflict" and "risk" are complex interdisciplinary concepts that do not have an unambiguous interpretation ^[29]. When trying to correlate "crisis" and "conflict", several points of view arise: crisis is a turning point, and conflict is characterized by a process of interaction; crisis precedes conflict (V.A. Barsamov ^[4] and O.A. Ryzhov ^[35]), crisis and conflict are synonymous concepts ^{[29, 10]}. In the work of these authors, conflict refers to special forms of interaction between people, groups, or associations that arise when their interests, views, or positions are incompatible. Crisis is a more general term describing a state of extreme aggravation of contradictions in society and a sharp increase in a critical mass of conflicts, the consequences of which can destabilize society, disrupt the system or even destroy it, while the conflict focuses on contradictions and disagreements between the parties. In this case, "conflict" and "crisis" are increasing stages of negative phenomena, where conflict as a stage precedes the stage of crisis. Moreover, "crisis" as a broader concept can exist without the stage of "conflict", for example, during natural disasters that cannot be controlled by humans. The risk in the work will be considered as an action performed under conditions of choice and having the possibility of worsening the situation in case of failure. In this sense, the concept of "risk" turns out to be an intermediate link between different stages of a crisis or conflict situation, since choosing an action to resolve a conflict/crisis is also a risk that can lead to an escalation of these phenomena.

In relation to the political sphere, these concepts are narrowed. A political crisis is a situation in the political system of a society, which is characterized by the deepening and aggravation of conflicts, as well as a sharp increase in political tension, which can lead to irreparable consequences. In this context, political conflicts are presented as a special interaction of political actors (individuals, groups, movements, state structures, states, etc.), arising on the basis of the desire to realize their interests and goals, including the struggle for power and resources. This approach will allow us to consider political conflicts in a broader sense, including between society and political structures. Political risk will be understood as the likelihood of undesirable consequences of political and other decisions related to political events that may cause some kind of damage to their participants in the realization of their interests.

Crisis and conflict communication in the political sphere

This correlation of concepts allows us to conclude that it is necessary to define two important types of communication: conflict and crisis. As noted earlier, in a number of studies, conflict and crisis are equated to each other, which means that one type of communication acts as tools, techniques and methods for monitoring and regulating a crisis or conflict situation. In the scientific field, the theory of crisis communications is the most developed, which until recently was dominant in conflict discourse. However, in 2021, A.N. Chumikov identified conflict communications in the media sphere as a subject of separate study ^[40]. This new vision forces us to focus on the topic of distinguishing crisis and conflict communications in the media field and beyond.

Crisis communication as a field of scientific knowledge originates in works on crisis management.

One of the definitions of crisis communications often used in research was proposed by D.P. Gavra: it is a set of information and communication measures aimed at minimizing damage to the image of an organization in a crisis ^[12].

Considering crisis communications in the political sphere, it can be noted that the strategic objectives of the state as an actor of communication are expanding, in addition to anticipating reputational and image attacks, there is a need to control the information field, ideologically substantiate their decisions ^[16], and competently counter opposition forces. Such expansion is justified by the large-scale risks posed by crises in the political sphere, ranging from social tension and political instability to a complete change of power and the establishment of a new political regime, which is observed in the modern world (the coup in Guinea in 2021, the military coup in Burkina Faso in 2022, etc.).

Unlike crisis communication, conflict communication is aimed at solving smaller-scale situations. It is easier to localize a conflict than a crisis, especially at the nascent stage. Conflict communication in the political sphere sets one of its goals to resolve the conflict, find compromises and establish effective interaction between the parties, while crisis communication aims to minimize the risks and damage that may result from the crisis. Crisis communication works with negative impacts ^[15], while conflict communication can work in a more neutral direction and even increase the effectiveness of further interaction. Another difference is the audience. Crisis communications are aimed at a wide audience, including the press, the public, authorities, and other stakeholders, while conflict communications are most often focused on the parties involved in a particular conflict.

Among the common technologies for reducing social tension during political conflict and crisis, the following principles of communicative interaction between the state and society can be distinguished: information openness, rapid information exchange between actors, and the use of a wide range of communication channels. However, in a crisis situation, it is necessary to provide the widest possible coverage of events, including through the use of all available sources. In a conflict situation, one communication platform may be enough to resolve the situation, but it is important to note that monitoring the pre-conflict state is necessary on all possible resources.

A common feature of forecasting and preventing conflict and crisis situations is the constant monitoring of information posted on various social media, in the media and other Internet resources in order to identify problem areas, relevant requests from citizens or negatively colored content and neutralize it ^[15].

Thus, the concepts of "crisis", "conflict" and "risk" are complex multidisciplinary terms. In different studies, one can find different understandings of the relationship between these concepts: synonyms; cause-effect relationship in the form of successive stages; process – moment, etc. The proposed article is based on the relationship between "conflict" and "crisis" as phases that increase in their negative consequences, accompanied by an increase in risks that can accelerate the process of transition from one stage to another. Between "conflict" and "crisis" there are chains of conflict and crisis communications that pursue goals in accordance with the scale of these phenomena.

This correlation of concepts suggests that communications during the transition of conflicts into crises, as well as within these phenomena, are different, i.e. conflict communications are used at the conflict stage, designed primarily to resolve the situation and prevent it from entering the crisis stage, however, the ineffective use of certain conflict technologies can lead to risk. the transition of the conflict to the crisis phase, where crisis communication technologies are already being used. It is necessary to clarify that conflict communication can be used in a situation of latent conflict to identify contradictions, find the most optimal ways to neutralize the impending conflict of interests, if possible, or predict ways to resolve the conflict at a later stage.

Based on the nature of political conflict as a social phenomenon, the following common feature can be identified with a political crisis: depending on its scale, the conflict can have a significant impact on the entire society, including those groups of people who did not consider themselves involved in political life. However, a feature of crisis situations in the political sphere is the possibility of the most serious consequences, such as the disorganization of public institutions, the destabilization of society, a drop in economic activity, a deterioration in the standard of living of the population, a change in the political system, a transition to armed confrontation, etc. Crisis and conflict phenomena may contain similar "symptoms", among the "symptoms" of which can be to highlight the accumulated dissatisfaction of society, which creates tension and contributes to a faster transition from conflict to crisis in the absence of control or actions to prevent a crisis situation.

The results of the study indicate that the anti-crisis management system in the political sphere should be reviewed, where it is important to clearly define the boundaries of crisis or conflict communications, since the choice of technologies and tools will depend on this. Digitalization is becoming a communication platform in which conflicts acquire new features that require the development of more effective communication management technologies.