Author: Felix I. Sharkov
Communicology. 2017. Vol.5. No.4
Sharkov Felix Izosimovich, Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Prof., honoured worker of arts. the scientist of Russia, head. the Department of public relations and media policy Department of the Ranepa, rector of atiso, President of the International Academy of Communicology (IAC), academician of RAEN, chief editor of “Communicology/ Сommunicology (Russia)». Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: sharkov_felix@mail.ru.
Abstract. In Russian discourse, provocation, as a rule, is a negatively perceived phenomenon. According to the authors of the essays, it is necessary to distinguish between positive and negative forms of provocation. It all depends on the researcher and the situation, which he enjoys. The authors depart from a purely negative interpretation of a provocation and reveals some of its positive meanings in the social sphere: liberation from dogma and other forms of pressure. However, when the object of the provocation is a serious danger to others, any form of it (positive or negative) can be seen as a “lesser evil”.
Assessment of any provocation is not a statement of fact and value judgment, which is based on the idea of a society of the norm. Discusses the features of provocation in various spheres and levels of life of the human community, as well as forms of their manifestations, focusing on the communicative provocation.
Keywords: provocation, communicative provocation, the provocation in communication theories, communicative component of provocation, provocative behavior, provocative activity, communication technology is provoking
Text: PDF
For citation: Felix I. Sharkov. Communicative provocation or a provocation in communication theory (reflections on the communicative component of provocation). Communicology. Vol.5. No. 4. P. 167-177 DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2017-5-4-167-177
References
1. Glukhova A.V. Political provocation: nature, context, variety. «Provocation: the scope of kommunicating manifestation.» M.: Rusyns, 2016. (In Russ.).
2. Dmitriev A.V., Sychev A. A. Provocation: sociophilosophical essays/ M.: CSEM, 2017. 336 p. (In Russ.).
3. Dmitriev A.V., Sychev A. A. Scandal. Sociophilosophical essays. M.: Cspem, 2014. 323 p. (In Russ.).
4. Dubrovskiy D. I. Deception. Philosophical-psychological analysis. Revised edition. M.: “Canon+” ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 2010. 336. (In Russ.).
5. Issers, O. S. 2009. Strategy of verbal provocation in a public dialogue //Russian language in a scientific light. M. No. 2 (18). P. 93. (In Russ.).
6. Kravchenko, S. A., Sociology of risk and security. M.: Yurayt, 2016. P. 198. (In Russ.).
7. Malyshkina I. G. 2012. The method of provocation in studies of interaction between audience and mass media. //Youth and media. Ecology of media space: Sat. materials II International scientific-practical conference «Youth and media. Ecology of media space». Moscow, on 27-29 November 2012]. I. V. Zhilavskaya. S. I. M. Avgustevich: RIC MGGU. M. A. Sholokhov. 496 p. (In Russ.).
8. Morozova E. A. Humanitarian technologies as a provocation of social communication. (In Russ.).
9. Nazarova E. A. Provocation in mass communication //Provocation: the scope of the communicative manifestation. M.:RUSYNS. P. 73, 89. (In Russ.).
10. Nazarova E. A. A provocation in the media and their perception of the youth audience// Communicology. 2017. Volume 5. No. 3. S. 159-167. (In Russ.).
11. The scientific community. 2015. M. No. 1. P.14-15. (In Russ.).
12. Pashentsev E. N. Provocation as an element of strategic communication of the USA: the experience of Ukraine // State management. Electronic Bulletin. Issue No. 44. 2014. P.149. (In Russ.).
13. Rubinstein, S. P. Fundamentals of General psychology. M. Р. 580. (In Russ.).
14. Transcript of the presence of N. With. Khrushchev at the exhibition of avant-garde artists in the Arena (AP RF. F. 52. Op. 1. D. 329. L. 85-111..Glukhova A.V. 2016.Political provocation: nature, context, variety. “Provocation: the scope of kom-municating manifestation.” M.: Rusyns, 1946. (In Russ.).
Communicology. 2017. Vol.5. No.4
Sharkov Felix Izosimovich, Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Prof., honoured worker of arts. the scientist of Russia, head. the Department of public relations and media policy Department of the Ranepa, rector of atiso, President of the International Academy of Communicology (IAC), academician of RAEN, chief editor of “Communicology/ Сommunicology (Russia)». Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: sharkov_felix@mail.ru.
Abstract. In Russian discourse, provocation, as a rule, is a negatively perceived phenomenon. According to the authors of the essays, it is necessary to distinguish between positive and negative forms of provocation. It all depends on the researcher and the situation, which he enjoys. The authors depart from a purely negative interpretation of a provocation and reveals some of its positive meanings in the social sphere: liberation from dogma and other forms of pressure. However, when the object of the provocation is a serious danger to others, any form of it (positive or negative) can be seen as a “lesser evil”.
Assessment of any provocation is not a statement of fact and value judgment, which is based on the idea of a society of the norm. Discusses the features of provocation in various spheres and levels of life of the human community, as well as forms of their manifestations, focusing on the communicative provocation.
Keywords: provocation, communicative provocation, the provocation in communication theories, communicative component of provocation, provocative behavior, provocative activity, communication technology is provoking
Text: PDF
For citation: Felix I. Sharkov. Communicative provocation or a provocation in communication theory (reflections on the communicative component of provocation). Communicology. Vol.5. No. 4. P. 167-177 DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2017-5-4-167-177
References
1. Glukhova A.V. Political provocation: nature, context, variety. «Provocation: the scope of kommunicating manifestation.» M.: Rusyns, 2016. (In Russ.).
2. Dmitriev A.V., Sychev A. A. Provocation: sociophilosophical essays/ M.: CSEM, 2017. 336 p. (In Russ.).
3. Dmitriev A.V., Sychev A. A. Scandal. Sociophilosophical essays. M.: Cspem, 2014. 323 p. (In Russ.).
4. Dubrovskiy D. I. Deception. Philosophical-psychological analysis. Revised edition. M.: “Canon+” ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 2010. 336. (In Russ.).
5. Issers, O. S. 2009. Strategy of verbal provocation in a public dialogue //Russian language in a scientific light. M. No. 2 (18). P. 93. (In Russ.).
6. Kravchenko, S. A., Sociology of risk and security. M.: Yurayt, 2016. P. 198. (In Russ.).
7. Malyshkina I. G. 2012. The method of provocation in studies of interaction between audience and mass media. //Youth and media. Ecology of media space: Sat. materials II International scientific-practical conference «Youth and media. Ecology of media space». Moscow, on 27-29 November 2012]. I. V. Zhilavskaya. S. I. M. Avgustevich: RIC MGGU. M. A. Sholokhov. 496 p. (In Russ.).
8. Morozova E. A. Humanitarian technologies as a provocation of social communication. (In Russ.).
9. Nazarova E. A. Provocation in mass communication //Provocation: the scope of the communicative manifestation. M.:RUSYNS. P. 73, 89. (In Russ.).
10. Nazarova E. A. A provocation in the media and their perception of the youth audience// Communicology. 2017. Volume 5. No. 3. S. 159-167. (In Russ.).
11. The scientific community. 2015. M. No. 1. P.14-15. (In Russ.).
12. Pashentsev E. N. Provocation as an element of strategic communication of the USA: the experience of Ukraine // State management. Electronic Bulletin. Issue No. 44. 2014. P.149. (In Russ.).
13. Rubinstein, S. P. Fundamentals of General psychology. M. Р. 580. (In Russ.).
14. Transcript of the presence of N. With. Khrushchev at the exhibition of avant-garde artists in the Arena (AP RF. F. 52. Op. 1. D. 329. L. 85-111..Glukhova A.V. 2016.Political provocation: nature, context, variety. “Provocation: the scope of kom-municating manifestation.” M.: Rusyns, 1946. (In Russ.).
