Abstract
The research applies a method of sources analysis that draws upon a qualitative comparative study of three speeches delivered by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin during his annual news conferences. It aims to solve the problems: how was political gnosis changing in Putin’s statements over the subsequent 2014–2016 meetings? And how was Putin triggering off a performative potential of presumably non-gnostic elements of discourse to enhance political gnosis? It identifies the drift from authoritarian to totalitarian and democratic gnosis and recognizes a moderate extent of the intensity of political gnosis. The article contributes to political sociology by creating and testing the empirical effectiveness of a research tool for measuring the types and intensity of political gnosis, and distinguishing between political diagnosis and gnosis.
Highlights
Introduction and Methodological Assumptions for theResearchRecent works have revealed the limitations of Juan Linz’s research tool for measuring ideology, mentality, and Weltanschauung as defining properties of totalitarianism and authoritarianism and studying variations between democratic and non-democratic political thinking (Miley, 2011)
Linz’s critics reflected no homogeneous criteria for a distinction between ideology and mentality, their incomparability arising from the absence of shared essential features that would take on various values depending on a type of a regime (Miley, 2015; Fagerholm, 2016), imprecisely determined semantic fields (Barceló, 2017), leaving aside democracy, normative assessment of totalitarianism as the worst system, and empirical ineffectiveness in comparative studies (Miley, 2011, p. 34)
A wording is coded as democratic gnosis when satisfies the criteria for political gnosis and refers to democratic values and institutions (Martin, 1997), totalitarian – the country, state, Russia, statehood, and authoritarian – the nation, Russian, and people
Summary
Recent works have revealed the limitations of Juan Linz’s research tool for measuring ideology, mentality, and Weltanschauung as defining properties of totalitarianism and authoritarianism and studying variations between democratic and non-democratic political thinking (Miley, 2011). The objectives of the article are to formulate a research tool for measuring the types and intensity of political gnosis and distinguishing between political diagnosis and gnosis, apply it to examine to what extent political gnosis in Vladimir Putin’s statements was democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian and how intense it was. A wording is coded as democratic gnosis when satisfies the criteria for political gnosis and refers to democratic values (liberty, freedom, equalities, justice, human rights, civil rights) and institutions (universal franchise on a one-person, one-vote basis, regular and contested voting operating at two distinct levels of parliament and general elections, and majority rule) (Martin, 1997), totalitarian – the country, state, Russia, statehood, and authoritarian – the nation, Russian, and people. The words sharing semantic fields with the mentioned categories have a status of indicators equal to them (e.g., Russia and Russian Federation)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
