UDC

141.4:004.5

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V353

Authors

Aleksandr M. Prilutskiy

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Prof., Head of the Department of the History of Religion and Theology, The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia (address: nab. reki Moyki 48, korp. 20, St. Petersburg, 191186, Russia).

e-mail: alpril@mail.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7013-9935

Abstract

Online materials on religious topics are actively commented on by users, resulting in the formation of a textual space of religious Internet comments. As a form of rapid response to the news, comments in the blogosphere are an important source that allows us, taking into account representativeness criteria, to analyse trends in the dynamics of the religious situation in near-real time. The authors of such comments primarily adopt the following roles: a strict adherent of religious rules; a fanatic prone to radicalism (extremism); a modernist advocating a “comfortable church”; a prayerful peacemaker calling for peace and harmony; an exposer of various (real or imaginary) vices of “church life”; a cleric making a pretence to be an expert. The communicative strategies depend on the role assumed; however, sufficient competence or even simple awareness is oftentimes not expected from a commenter. In fact, the genre of commenting does not require competence: in most cases anyone can comment on anything. The analysis of comments allows us to identify the specifics of value-based evaluative activity, including users’ religious preferences and their attempts to form public opinion. This is achieved through the use of special methods of presenting information as well as throgh the specifics and ability of a text to establish the necessary associations and images. Particular attention is paid to the strategy of creating a negative image. From the point of view of content and pragmatics, the following types of comments can be distinguished: informative, evaluative, destructive, apologetic (polemical), and manipulative. This typology of comments can be used when conducting content and intent studies of the religious blogosphere as well as analysing the dynamics of the religious situation and various processes of the religious semiosphere.

Keywords

digitalization of religion, religious blogosphere, religious Internet comment, social mythology, information technology

References

1. Aymalova Yu.A. YouTube kak kanal vliyaniya na obshchestvennoe mnenie [YouTube as a Channel of Influence on Public Opinion]. Vestnik nauki, 2022, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 10–23.
2. Kovalenko V.D. Mediatization of Orthodoxy as a Research Field. Concept Philos. Relig. Cult., 2023, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 76–97 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2023-4-28-76-97
3. Luchenko K.V. Internet i religioznye kommunikatsii v Rossii [The Internet and Religious Communication in Russia]. Mediaskop, 2008, no. 1, pp. 3–10.
4. Luchenko K.V. Religiya kak tematicheskiy segment internet-televeshchaniya [Religion as a Thematic Segment of Internet Telecasting]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 10: Zhurnalistika, 2009, no. 4, pp. 104–108.
5. Prilutskiy A.M., Lebedev V.Yu. Semantika i semiotika mifologizirovannogo informatsionnogo skandala [Semantics and Semiotics of the Mythologized Information Scandal]. St. Petersburg, 2021. 159 p.
6. Prilutsky A.M. Apological Commentary in the Internet Discourse of the “Tzar-Schemetropolite Zosimas”. Trudy kafedry bogosloviya Sankt-Peterburgskoy Dukhovnoy Akademii, 2023, no. 3, pp. 106–117 (in Russ.).
7. Ul’yanova M.A. Osnovnye osobennosti Internet-bloga i kommentariya k blogu [Main Features of an Internet Blog and Blog Commentary]. Nauchnye trudy Kaluzhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni K.E. Tsiolkovskogo. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki [Proceedings of Kaluga State University named after K.E. Tsiolkovski. Series: Humanities]. Kaluga, 2015, pp. 358–362.
8. Guk O.A., Kul’cheyko I.S. Sotsial’nye seti kak instrument vzaimodeystviya s klientami i prodvizheniya tovarov i uslug [Social Networks as a Tool for Interacting with Customers and Promoting Goods and Services]. MediaVektor, 2023, no. 7, pp. 21–25.
9. Gorobets A.F. Emotivnaya sostavlyayushchaya komp’yuternogo diskursa na materiale publikatsiy stranitsy feysbuka Natali Shtutsman i Yutub kanala Moskovskogo filarmonicheskogo obshchestva [Emotive Constituent of Computer Discourse Based on the Materials of Nathalie Stutzmann’s Official Facebook Page and Moscow Philharmonic Society Channel on YouTube]. Rusistika bez granits, 2023, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 7–15.
10. Ul’yanova M.A., Vasil’ev L.G. Leksicheskie sredstva vyrazheniya emotivnosti v sportivnom bloge i kommentarii [Lexical Means of Emotiveness Expression in Sport Blog and Comment]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Ser.: Istoriya i filologiya, 2016, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 117–127.
11. Nikulich Yu.V. Risk-Generating Aspect of Public History in Digital Environment (on the Example of Russian Video Blogging in the 2020s. Digit. Sociol., 2023, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 11–20 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2023-6-3-11-20
12. Balakhonskaya L.V., Bykov I.A. Verbal Aggression in Political Blogs: A Case of the “Echo of Moscow”. Vestn. St. Petersburg Univ. Lang. Lit., 2018, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 492–506 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2018.313
13. Krutova I.N. Emotivno-diskursivnoe prostranstvo “kommentariya” k publitsisticheskomu blogu [Emotive- Discursive Space of the “Comments” to Publicistic Blog]. Gumanitarnye issledovaniya, 2019, no. 1, pp. 32–36.
14. Dakhalaeva E.Ch. Internet-kommentariy i internet-otzyv: parametry zhanrovogo razgranicheniya [The Internet Commentary and the Internet Opinion: The Parameters of the Genres Differentiation]. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2014, no. 6. Available at: https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=16222 (accessed: 20 May 2024).
15. Korableva G.B., Kul’minskaya A.V. Internet-diskussii kak instrument formirovaniya obshchestvennogo mneniya [Internet Discussions as a Tool for Public Opinion Conformation]. Diskussiya, 2011, no. 9, pp. 143–148.
16. Shlyakhovoy D.A. Kommunikativnye strategii i sposoby vyrazheniya yazykovoy lichnosti blogera (na materiale nemetskoy voennoy blogosfery) [Communication Strategies and Ways of Expressing the Linguistic Personality of a Blogger (Based on German Military Blogosphere)]. Filologiya i chelovek, 2019, no. 3, pp. 41–54. https://doi.org/10.14258/filichel(2019)3-04
17. Pashchenko M.A. Otsenochnyy potentsial mifologicheskoy leksiki v russkoyazychnykh tekstakh obshchestvenno-politicheskoy tematiki [Evaluative Potential of Mythological Vocabulary in Russian-Language Texts on Socio-Political Topics]. Interpretatsiya teksta: lingvisticheskiy, literaturovedcheskiy i metodicheskiy aspekty [Text Interpretation: Linguistic, Literary and Methodological Aspects]. Chita, 2018, pp. 80–83.
18. Glazkova S.N. Rechevoe samorazoblachenie v feyk-rolikakh [Verbal Self-Exposure in Fake Videos]. Nauka XXI veka: problemy, poiski, resheniya [Science of the 21st Century: Problems, Search, Solutions]. Chelyabinsk, 2022, pp. 208–218.
19. Zhafyarova M.N. About Practical Approaches to the Formation of Digital Ethics of a Modern Teacher in Social Networks. Tsennosti i smysly, 2022, no. 6, pp. 136–151 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2071-6427-2022-6-136-151
20. Devnina G.S. Role of Social Myth in Russia’s Internal Political Crises: A Social and Philosophical Analysis. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, 2017, no. 4, pp. 61–69. https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2227-6564.2017.4.61
21. El’chaninov A., Ern V., Florenskiy P. Istoriya religii [History of Religion]. Moscow, 2004. 256 p.
22. Luk’yanov G.I., Mitrofanov A.A. Sovremennye sotsial’nye mify v deyatel’nosti sotsial’nogo sub”ekta [Modern Social Myths in Activity of a Social Subject]. Ekonomicheskie i gumanitarnye issledovaniya regionov, 2017, no. 6, pp. 85–88.
23. Egorova M.A. Otsenochnyy kommentariy v sotsial’nykh setyakh (na materiale kommentariev k novostnym postam) [Evaluative Comments in Social Networks (Based on Comments to News Posts)]. Sovremennaya filologiya: teoriya i praktika [Modern Philology: Theory and Practice]. Moscow, 2013, pp. 112–117.