International audience in the network political space: an online mass or a global political actor?

The aim is to explore political actorness of international internet-audience, describing networks as a political phenomenon, assessing relations within the international internet-community, defining internet-audience identity, and compiling global effects of international audience' s online activities. The research based on interpreting Latour's actor-network theory, the Habermas' theory of communicative action, and the theory of the political reality construction reveals that the international audience concept is simultaneously narrower than a mass audience and broader than a language community. Our findings indicate that the international internet-audience is a specific segment of politically engaged citizens supporting, generating, and disseminating political ideas in the network space, primarily in social networks, beyond national, linguistic, and ethnic borders. This content is represented in government officials' rhetoric, media coverage, public discourse of political actors and, thus, can reach a wider audience. Consequences of online activities can be found in both network forms of political participation (liking, sharing or commenting a political post; writing political content online; signing online petitions; contacting politicians and media online; donating), and in the local and global offline activities (picketing; participating in protest marches; membership in political organizations; volunteering; partaking in “colour-coded” revolutions). Parallel to conscious attempts of constructing international audience identity for solving foreign policy challenges citizens' self-identity is formed in the global political space. Together with horizontally integrated architecture of the internet-audience and relations based on partnership and trust between its members local, multicultural, international, cosmopolitan or transnational identity is developed.

1. Alekseev A.V., Fomin I.V. “We, the defenders of nations and liberties”. How the EU populist radical right discursively constructs identities: the case of the Rassemblement National. Political science (RU). 2020, N 4, P. 128–156. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.04.07 (In Russ.)

2. Dean J. Crowds and publics. Stasis. 2017, Vol. 5, N 1, P. 220–246. (In Russ.)

3. Groys B. The politics of poetics. Moscow : Ad Marginem press, 2012, 400 p. (In Russ.)

4. Heiss R., Schmuck D., Matthes J. What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, communication & society. 2019, Vol. 22, N 10, P. 1497–1513. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1445273

5. Hwang H., Colyvas J., Drori G. The proliferation and profusion of actors in institutional theory. In: Hwang H., Colyvas J., Drori G. (eds). Agents, actors, actorhood: institutional perspectives on the nature of agency, action, and authority. Emerald publishing: research in the sociology of organizations, 2019, Vol. 58, P. 3–20.

6. Kahne J., Bowyer B. The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political communication. 2018, Vol. 35, N 3, P. 470–493. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662

7. Kalogeropoulos A., Negredo S., Picone I., Nielsen R. Who shares and comments on news: a cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social media + Society. 2017, Vol. 3, N 4, P. 1–12. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1177/2056305117735754

8. Kaveeva A.D., Saburova L.A., Jestrina Ju.Ju. Elusive trust in digital communications: what connects users in online communities? Antinomies. 2019, Vol. 19, N 4, P. 45– 65. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.24411/2686-7206-2019-00008 (In Russ.)

9. Kil'djushov O.V. Not all will be saved: the boundaries of the political community as a socio-ontological premise. Russian sociological review. 2018, Vol. 17, N 3, P. 90– 106. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2018-3-90-106 (In Russ.)

10. Kligler-Vilenchik N., de Vries M., Maier D., Stoltenberg D. Mobilization vs. demobilization discourses on social media. Political communication. 2020, P. 1–20. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1820648

11. Latour B. On actor-network theory. A few clarifications, plus more than a few complications. Logos. 2017 b, Vol. 27, N 1 (116), P. 173–200. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-173-197 (In Russ.)

12. Latour B. On recalling ANT. Logos. 2017 a, Vol. 27, N 1 (116), P. 201–216. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-201-214 (In Russ.)

13. Lee C. Multilingual resources and practices in digital communication. In: Georgakopoulou A., Spilioti T. (eds). The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication. London, New York : Routledge, 2016, P. 118–132.

14. Lipovetsky G. The era of emptiness. Essays on contemporary individualism. Saint Petersburg : Vladimir Dal', 2001, 336 p. (In Russ.)

15. Magun A.V., Mikirtumov I.B., Parhomenko A.A. Narrative and affect in the analysis of foreign policy rhetoric. Tomsk State University journal of philosophy, sociology and political science. 2020, N 57, P. 60–73. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/57/7 (In Russ.)

16. Maier F., Simsa R. How actors move from primary agency to institutional agency: A conceptual framework and empirical application. Organization. 2020, N 00(0), P. 1–22. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1177/1350508420910574

17. Maréchal N. Networked authoritarianism and the geopolitics of information: understanding Russian Internet policy. Media and communication. 2017, N 5(1), P. 29–41. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i1.808

18. Mihajlenok O.M., Nazarenko A.V. Network communities: past and future. Tomsk State University journal of philosophy, sociology and political science. 2020, N 56, P. 274–284. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/56/24 (In Russ.)

19. Moffitt В. Transnational populism? Representative claims, media and the difficulty of constructing a transnational “people”. Javnost – The Public. 2017, Vol 24, N 3, P. 409–425. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2017.1330086

20. Pyrma R.V. The influence of digital communications on political participation. Humanities and social sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2019, Vol. 9, N 4(40), P. 63–69. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2019-9-4-63-69 (In Russ.)

21. Radina N.K. Digital political mobilization of online commenters on publications about politics and international relations. Polis. Political studies. 2018, N 2, P. 115–129. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.02.09 (In Russ.)

22. Ravochkin N.N. Political and legal ideas discourse in a network society: socialphilosophical analysis (Part 2). The Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2020, Vol. 30, N 1, P. 21–25. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.35634/2412-9550-2020-30-1-21-25 (In Russ.)

23. Rjabchenko N.A., Malysheva O.P., Gnedash A.A. Presidential campaign in post-truth era: innovative digital technologies of political content management in social networks politics. Polis. Political studies. 2019, N 2, P. 92–106. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.02.07 (In Russ.)

24. Rodineliussen R. Organising the Syrian revolution – student activism through Facebook. Visual studies. 2019, Vol. 34, N 3, P. 239–251. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2019.1653790

25. Sherbinina N.G. The definition of media reality and communication in the context of the theory ot the political construction of reality. Tomsk State University journal of philosophy, sociology and political science. 2019, N 50, P. 219–232. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/50/19 (In Russ.)

26. Sokolov A.V., Palagicheva A.V. Mobilization and demobilization in a network political protest. Political science (RU). 2020, N 3, P. 266–297. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.03.12 (In Russ.)

27. Stengel F., Baumann R. Non-state actors and foreign policy. In: Thies C. (ed.). Oxford research encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis. Oxford : Oxford university press, 2017, P. 1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.456

28. Stier S., Bleier A., Lietz H., Strohmaier M. Election campaigning on social media: politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political communication. 2018, Vol. 35, N 1, P. 50–74. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728

29. Tormosheva V.S. Contemporary approaches to political space interpretation. The Bulletin of the Volga Region Institute of Administration. 2016, N 6 (57), P. 167–173. (In Russ.)

30. Tormosheva V.S. International communication in the political discourse of Jürgen Habermas: pragmatic aspect. Vlast'. 2014 a, N 10, P. 46–51. (In Russ.)

31. Tormosheva V.S. International community as an actor of political communication. Nizhny Novgorod Linguistics University Bulletin. 2014 b, N 27, P. 136–145. (In Russ.)

32. Volodenkov S.V., Artamonova Ju.D. Information capsules as a structural component of contemporary political internet communication. Tomsk State University journal of philosophy, sociology and political science. 2020, N 53, P. 188–196. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/53/20 (In Russ.)

33. Volodenkov S.V. Features of the internet as a contemporary space of political communication. PolitBook. 2018, N 3, P. 6–21. (In Russ.)