Diskursiivinen antropomorfismi Putinin puheessa lainsäätäjien neuvostolle

Kirjoittajat

• Mirko Demasi Leeds Beckett University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1112-8141
• Liliia Bespala Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6127-369X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70483/kp.160778

Avainsanat:

Diskursiivinen psykologia, poliittinen kommunikointi, rauhan psykologia, Venäjä, rauhantutkimus

Abstrakti

Esitämme tapaustutkimuksen Vladimir Putinin puheesta Venäjän lainsäätäjien neuvostolle vuonna 2023 esimerkkinä diskursiivisen psykologian lisäarvosta rauhan- ja konfliktintutkimukselle. Antropomorfismia, eli valtioiden kuvaamista henkilöinä, on hyödynnetty aiemminkin teoreettisena välineenä politiikan ilmiöiden ymmärtämisessä. Diskursiivinen psykologia omaksuu lähestymistavan, jossa kieli ymmärretään sosiaalisen ja poliittisen toiminnan ensisijaiseksi areenaksi ja jossa psykologisesti latautunut diskurssi on tämän toiminnan väline ja keino. Tästä syystä diskursiivinen psykologia soveltuu erityisen hyvin tarkastelemaan, miten ja mihin tarkoitukseen valtioita antropomorfisoidaan tietyssä tässä-ja-nyt -kontekstissa. Analyysi osoittaa kolme Putinin puheessaan käyttämää diskursiivista toimintoa personoidun Venäjän rakentamiseksi: nämä ovat 1) Venäjän moraalinen luonne, 2) orientaatiot deonttiseen auktoriteettiin ja 3) demokratiaa koskeva diskurssi ei-demokraattisessa valtiossa. Sotaa oikeuttava eliittispoliittinen diskurssi on osa väkivallan jatkumoa. Esittelemämme kolme diskursiivista toimintoa osoittavat tukeutumisen diskursiivisen antropomorfismin muotoon: valtioista puhutaan ikään kuin ne olisivat ihmisiä. Tämä antaa Putinille diskursiiviset ja retoriset keinot oikeuttaa sota. Päätämme artikkelin keskusteluun diskursiivisen psykologian ja antropomorfismin implikaatioista ja tulevan tutkimuksen suuntaviivoista.

Lähdeviitteet

Augoustinos, Martha & Danielle Every (2007): ”The language of “race” and prejudice: A discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X0730007

Bergmann, Jörg R. (1998): ”Introduction: Morality in discourse”. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683594

Billig, Michael (1991): Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. Sage Publications.

Billig, Michael (1996): Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2. painos). Cambridge University Press.

Billig, Michael (1999): Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge University Press.

Billig, Michael (2002): ”Henri Tajfel’s ‘Cognitive aspects of prejudice’ and the psychology of bigotry”. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760060165

Billig, Michael, Susan Condor, Derek Edwards, Mike Gane, David Middleton & Alan Radley (1988): Ideological dilemmas – A social psychology of everyday thinking. SAGE Publications.

Billig, Michael & Cristina Marinho (2017): The politics and rhetoric of commemoration: How the Portuguese parliament celebrates the 1974 revolution. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Bowker, Natilene I. & Keith Tuffin (2007): ”Understanding positive subjectivities made possible online for disabled people”. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 63–71.

Bull, Peter & Anita Fetzer (2006): ”Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews”. Text & Talk, 26(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002

Cap, Piotr (2023): ”Narratives of geopolitical representation in the discourse of the Russia–Ukraine war”. Journal of Pragmatics, 218, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.10.008

Chiluwa, Innocent (2024): ”Investigating the language of conflict and peace in critical discourse studies”. Critical Discourse Studies, 22(5), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2024.2331160

Chiluwa, Innocent & Jurate Ruzaite (2025): ”Analysing the language of political conflict: A study of war rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky”. Critical Discourse Studies, 22(5), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2024.2331186

Chiu, Leo (2023): ”EXPLAINED: Who are Russia’s allies? A list of countries supporting the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine”. Kyiv Post, 23.10.2023. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/13208, 27.3.2025.

Condor, Susan, Cristian Tileagă & Michael Billig (2013): ”Political rhetoric”. Teoksessa: L. Huddy, D. O. Sears & J. S. Levy (toim.) The Oxford handbook of political psychology, 2. painos. Oxford University Press, 262–297.

Conley, Robin (2013): ”Living with the decision that someone will die: Linguistic distance and empathy in jurors’ death penalty decisions”. Language in Society, 42(5), 503–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451300064X

Demasi, Mirko A. (2019): ”Facts as social action in political debates about Great Britain and the European Union”. Political Psychology, 40(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12496

Demasi, Mirko A. (2020): ”Post-truth politics and discursive psychology”. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(9), e12556. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12556

Demasi, MirkoA. (2023): ”Accountability in the Russo-Ukrainian war: Vladimir Putin versus NATO”. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 29(3), 257–265. http://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000653

Demasi, Mirko A. (tulossa): ”Fatherland or motherland? The discursive (re)drawing of Ukraine’s boundaries”. Teoksessa: R. Sambaraju & S. Goodman (toim.) The international handbook of discursive psychology: Applications for social justice. Routledge.

Edelman, Murray (1977): Political language – Words that succeed and policies that fail. Academic Press.

Edwards, Derek (2006): ”Discourse, cognition and social practices: The rich surface of language and social interaction”. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059551

Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter (1992): Discursive psychology. Sage Publications.

Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter (2005): ”Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions”. Teoksessa: H. te Molder & J. Potter (toim.) Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press, 241–259.

Fairclough, Norman (2000). New labour, new language? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203131657

Finlayson, Alan (2007): ”From beliefs to arguments: Interpretive methodology and rhetorical political analysis”. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9, 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2007.00269.x

Foucart, Renaud (2024): ”Russia has become so economically isolated that China could order the end of war in Ukraine”. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/russia-has-become-so-economically-isolated-that-china-could-order-the-end-of-war-in-ukraine-232951, 27.3.2025.

Gibson, Stephen (2018a): Discourse, peace, and conflict: Discursive psychology perspectives. Springer.

Gibson, Stephen (2018b): ”Concluding remarks: Developing a critical discursive peace psychology”. Teoksessa: S. Gibson (toim.) Discourse, peace, and conflict: Discursive psychology perspectives. Springer, 323–330.

Gibson, Stephen (2018c): ”Discursive psychology and peace psychology”. Teoksessa: S. Gibson (toim.) Discourse, peace, and conflict: Discursive psychology perspectives. Springer, 1–25.

Goodman, Simon (2017): ”How to conduct a psychological discourse analysis”. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 9(2), 142–153.

Hodges, Adam (2007): ”The political economy of truth in the ‘war on terror’ discourse: Competing visions of an Iraq/al Qaeda connection”. Social Semiotics, 17(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330601124627

House, Juliane, Dániel Z. Kádár, Fengguang Liu & Yulong Song (2023): ”Aggression in diplomatic notes – A pragmatic analysis of a Chinese-American conflict in times of colonisation”. Text & Talk, 43(6), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0036

Hunt, Alexander R. & Mirko A. Demasi (2024): ”’Which would be more democratic? Allowing them the opportunity to change their mind or pressing on regardless’: A discursive psychological study of arguments for and against calls for a second Brexit referendum”. Discourse & Society, 36(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265241257629

Kádár, Dániel Z., Juliane House, Tadej Todorović, Tomaž Onič, David Hazemali, Katja Plemenitaš & Donathan Brown (2024): ”The language of diplomatic mediation – A case study of an emergency meeting in the wake of the Yugoslav wars”. Language & Communication, 96, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2024.02.004

Kazantsev, Andrei, Svetlana Medvedeva & Ivan Safranchuk (2021): ”Between Russia and China: Central Asia in Greater Eurasia”. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 12(1), 57–71.

Kuusisto, Riikka (1998): ”Framing the wars in the Gulf and in Bosnia: The rhetorical definitions of the Western power leaders in action”. Journal of Peace Research, 35(5), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343398035005004

Kuusisto, Riikka (2025): ”Armoton viidakko vai lasten leikkiä? Kansainvälisen politiikan sotaisat ja rauhanomaiset metaforat”. Kosmopolis, 55(3), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.70483/kp.176205

Lakoff, Robin (2000): The language war. University of California Press.

Leech, Geoffrey (2014): The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001

Lemke, J. L. (päiväämätön): Violence and language: The signs that hurt. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.2/Language.htm, 26.4.2020.

Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Locke, Abigail & Kirsty Budds (2020): ”Applying critical discursive psychology to health psychology research: A practical guide”. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 8(1), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2020.1792307

Lubensky, Sophia (2013): Russian-English dictionary of idioms (uud. painos). Yale University Press.

Marsh, Amy, Stephen Gibson & Mirko A. Demasi (2026/ilmestyy): ”Change through time: A methodological framework for longitudinal discursive research”. Qualitative Psychology.

McVittie, Chris & Rahul Sambaraju (2018): ”Constructing peace and violence in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”. Teoksessa: S. Gibson (toim.) Discourse, peace, and conflict: Discursive psychology perspectives. Springer, 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_6

Mearsheimer, John J. (2022): ”The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war”. Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, 21, 12–27.

Oprisko, Robert & Kristopher Kaliher (2014): ”The state as a person? Anthropomorphic personification vs. concrete durational being”. Journal of International and Global Studies, 6(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.62608/2158-0669.1212

Ostermann, Falk (2018): Security, defense discourse and identity in NATO and Europe: How France changed foreign policy. Routledge.

Ozhegov, Sergei Ivanovic & Natalia IUlevna Shvedova (1995): Tolkovyĭ slovarʹ russkogo i͡azyka: 72 500 slov i 7 500 frazeologicheskikh vyrazheniĭ (2. painos). Az.

Plamadeala, Cristina & Cristian Tileagă (2021): ”The moral career of a suspected legionary: Psychological language in the securitate archives”. East European Politics and Societies, 36(4), 1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254211025603

Potter, Jonathan (1996): Representing reality – Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage Publications.

Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell (1987): Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage Publications.

Potter, Jonathan & Derek Edwards (2001): ”Discursive social psychology”. Teoksessa: W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (toim.) The new handbook of language and social psychology. Wiley, 103–118.

Putin, Vladimir (2024): On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Bauer World Press.

Pynnöniemi, Katri & Kati Parppei (2022): ”Sotaretoriikka Venäjällä: Uhka- ja uhrinarratiivit Venäjän hyökkäyssodan selitysmalleina”. Kosmopolis, 54(4), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.70483/kp.122122

Pyykkö, Riitta (2002): ”Who is ‘us’ in Russian political discourse”. Teoksessa: A. Duszak (toim.) Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.14pyy

Skarżyńska, Krystyna (2002): ”We and they in Polish political discourse: A psychological approach”. Teoksessa: A. Duszak (toim.) Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.15ska

Smits, Yannick (2023). A discursive analytical approach to understanding target audiences: How NATO can improve its actor-centric analysis. Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep51694

Somers, John, Philippa Carr, Mirko A. Demasi & Shani Burke (2023): ”Toilet talk: (Trans)gendered negotiation of public spaces”. Teoksessa: E. Tseliou, C. Demuth, E. Georgaca & B. Gough (toim.) The Routledge international handbook of innovative qualitative psychological research. Routledge.

Stevanovic, Melisa (2018): ”Social deontics: A nano‐level approach to human power play”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12175

Stevanovic, Melisa (2021): ”Deontic authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and compliance”. Discourse Studies, 23(5), 670–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211016821

Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä (2012): ”Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide”. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260

Tileagă, Cristian (2007): ”Ideologies of moral exclusion: A critical discursive reframing of depersonalization, delegitimization and dehumanization”. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X186894

Tileagă, Cristian (2009): ”The social organization of representations of history: The textual accomplishment of coming to terms with the past”. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X349487

Tileagă, Cristian (2010): ”Cautious morality: Public accountability, moral order and accounting for a conflict of interesting”. Discourse Studies, 12, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356501

Tileagă, Cristian (2013): Political psychology – Critical perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Tileagă, Cristian (2018): Representing communism after the fall: Discourse, memory, and historical redress. Palgrave Macmillan.

Turowetz, Jason & Douglas W. Maynard (2010): ”Morality in the social interactional and discursive world of everyday life”. Teoksessa: S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (toim.) Handbook of the sociology of morality. Springer, 503–526.

Uttamchandani, Suraj & Jessica Nina Lester (2020): ”A discursive psychology study of epistemic primacy in an LGBTQ+ youth group’s textual educational materials”. Discourse, Context & Media, 33, 100362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100362

van Dijk, Teun A. (2006): ”Ideology and discourse analysis”. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908

Wendt, Alexander (2004): ”The state as person in international theory”. Review of International Studies, 30(2), 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210504006084

Wetherell, Margaret (1998): ”Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue”. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005

Wetherell, Margaret & Jonathan Potter (1992): Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Columbia University Press.

The Economist (2023): ”Who are Russia’s supporters?”. The Economist, 31.3.2023. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/03/31/who-are-russias-supporters, 27.3.2025.

Wolff, Stefan & Tetyana Malyarenko (2023): ”Ukraine war: What China gains from acting as peacemaker”. The Conversation, 28.4.2023. https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-china-gains-from-acting-as-peacemaker-204629, 27.3.2025.

Zavershinskaia, Polina (2024): ”State’s legitimisation of violence through strategic narration: How the Kremlin justified the Russian invasion of Ukraine”. The International Spectator, 59(2), 18–36. https://doi.org/

10.1080/03932729.2024.2327492