Conflict potential of network discourse in multiethnic regions of the North Caucasus: research methodology

The article discusses the current methodology for studying the potential for conflict in network discourse in multiethnic regions of the North Caucasus. The verbal sphere, previously considered as a derivative of the real relations of various subjects, acquires independent significance in the information society. Targeted influence on human consciousness is realized through the targeted use of verbal and nonverbal means and techniques aimed at demarcation, splitting and conflict mobilization. The significance of studying the potential for conflict in the network discourse of multi-ethnic regions of the North Caucasus is determined, first of all, by the possibility of using them to further reduce the risks of ethno-confessional conflict in the regions of the North Caucasus and prevent radicalism among youth. The study of confrontation and radicalization of online content, forecasting potential conflicts, identifying motivational factors of conflict genesis in multi-ethnic regions may be in demand within the framework of the work of government bodies related to ensuring national security, countering terrorism, radicalism and extremism.

1. Bredikhin SN. Strategic modeling of network crisis communication. Current problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2022;3:183-195.

2. Brockmeyer J, Harre R. Narrative: problems and promises of one alternative paradigm. Questions of Philosophy. 2000;3:29-42.

3. Gladilin AV. “Hate speech” in traditional and new media. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2013;21(312):144-153.

4. Ezhova EN. On the issue of manifestations of extremism in media discourse about the North Caucasus: experience of linguistic examinations of conflict-prone texts. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and literature. 2018;15(2):209-219.

5. Zhurchenko EB. The category of tolerance from a sociological perspective. Theory and practice of social development. 2013;12:31-35.

6. Kubyakin EO. Youth extremism in the context of globalization of the information and communication environment of public life: dissertation of doctor of soc. sciences. Krasnodar, 2012. 351 p.

7. Leontyeva TV, Shchetinina AV. Dictionary of current vocabulary of unity and enmity in the Russian language of the early 21st century. Ekaterinburg; 2021. 424 p.

8. Mozgovoy VE. Information extremism in the conditions of sociocommunicative transformations of Russian society: dissertation of cand. sociol. sciences. Krasnodar, 2015. 144 p.

9. Morozova EV, Miroshnichenko IV, Ryabchenko NA. Frontier of the network society. World Economy and International Relations. 2016;60(2):83-97.

10. Naybet T, Roda K. Virtual social spaces: approaches, practices, prospects. Sociological Yearbook 2009. M.: RAS; 2009. P. 301–307.

11. Popova OV. Political online communication of youth of Russian megacities. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2021;3(2):28-54.

12. Popova OV, Suslov SI. Network analysis of political Internet communities: from formalized to “unobservable” groups. Political science. 2021;1:160-182.

13. Samarkina IV. Political picture of the world of VKontakte communities: experience in analyzing the subjective space of politics in a network society. Political examination: POLITEX. 2021;17(1):87-102.

14. Skovorodnikov AP. On the need to differentiate the concepts of “rhetorical device”, “stylistic figure”, “speech tactics”, “speech genres” in the practice of terminological lexicography. Rhetoric - Linguistics. Smolensk: SGPU; 2004. P. 5- 11.

15. Solovyova NV. Discursive and stylistic approach to the study of tolerance (based on the texts of scientific discussions). Bulletin of ChelSU. 2012;2(256):103-106.

16. Fomicheva YaA. Model of the associative-verbal field of the category “hate speech”. Humanitarian Research. History and philology. 2023;10:79-92.

17. Fomicheva YaA, Shustova SV. Hate speech as a communicative category. Theoretical and applied linguistics. 2023;9(4):147-156.

18. The language of hostility and the language of consent in the sociocultural context of our time: a collective monograph. Ed. by IT Vepreva, NA Kupina, OA Mikhailova. Ekaterinburg; 2006. 560 p.

19. Aguilera-Carnerero C, Azeez AH. Islamonausea, not Islamophobia’: the Many Faces of Cyber Hate Speech. Journal of Arab & Muslim media research. 2016;9(1):21-40.

20. Alexanian EA. Les innovations du style narrative du XXe siècle. Available from: http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/05_1/alexanian16.htm [Accessed 31 January 2024].

21. Benesch S. Words as Weapons. World Policy Journal. 2012;29(1):7-12.

22. Boromisza-Habashi D. Speaking Hatefully: Culture, Communication, and Political Action in Hungary. Pennsylvania, 2013. 160 p.

23. Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I. Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 1996. 594 p.

24. Daniels J. Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era. Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008. P. 129-154.

25. Dijk van Teun. Discourse as structure and process. London: Sage; 1997. 368 p.

26. Haupt CE. Regulating hate speech – damned if you do and damned if you don’t: lessons learned from comparing the German and U.S. approaches. Boston University International Journal. 2005; Vol. 23. P. 299-335.

27. Kinney TA. Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell; 2008.

28. Mazid B.-E. M. Hate Speak in Contemporary Arabic Discourse. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2012. 170 p.

29. Mullen B, Leader TI. Linguistic factors: Antilocutions, ethnonyms, ethnophaulisms, and other varieties of hate speech. On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport. Wiley/Blackwell. P. 192-208.

30. Mullen B, Rice DR. Ethnophaulisms and Exclusion: The Behavioral Consequences of Cognitive Representation of Ethnic Immigrant Groups. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2003;29(8):1056-1067.

31. Mullen B, Rozell D, Johnson C. Ethnophaulisms for ethnic immigrant groups: the contributions of group size and familiarity. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2001;31(3):231-246.

32. Ramdev R, Nambiar SD, Bhattacharya D. Sentiment, Politics, Censorship: The State of Hurt. SAGE; 2015. 323 p.

33. Richter A. One Step Beyond Hate Speech. The Content and Context of Hate Speech. Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press; 2012. P. 290-305.

34. Waldron J. The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press; 2012. 264 p.