The Technocratic Metaphor in Russian Political Discourse

The article focuses on studying metaphorical concepts in Russian political discourse that transfer phenomena from the domain of technology to politics. Using the tools of cognitive metaphor theory, the paper describes the reasons for the popularity of technocratic metaphors in political explanatory models in contemporary Russia. Techno-optimism of late Soviet culture, which influenced the formation of the modern Russian political lexicon, is identified as one of the main factors. At the same time, the anonymity of such metaphorical concepts is noted: it is extremely difficult to determine who and when proposed such terms in Russian political science. In the absence of a specific author and any control from scientific institutions, the same term can often take on opposing meanings and moral evaluations. Using “political technologies” as an example, the article demonstrates, on the one hand, the entrenchment of such metaphors in the language of political analysis and, on the other, the low level of scientific reflection surrounding these concepts. To overcome this contradiction, it is proposed to reconstruct the course of scientific discussion around this and other technocratic metaphors that have become established in the language of Russian political sciences. In the spirit of mapping controversies, it is necessary to determine whether a substantial debate about their meaning has actually taken place. Depending on the results of these investigations, it will be possible to judge whether technocratic metaphors make political reality more comprehensible or, conversely, are empty signifiers requiring broad discussion among specialists and consistent reconceptualization. Such work could make the language of Russian political science clearer and, as a result, more capable of accurately reflecting the complex political phenomena of contemporary Russia.

1. Abramov R. N. (2013) Popularization of Science in the USSR as an Element of Cultural Policy. Time Forward! Cultural Policy in the USSR. HSE. (in Russ.)

2. Baranov A. N. (2004) Metaphoric Aspects of Corruption Phenomenon. Social Sciences and Modernity, (2), pp. 70–79. (in Russ.)

3. Baranov A. N., Karaulov Y. N. (1994) Dictionary of Russian Political Metaphors. Moscow: Pomovsky and Partners. (in Russ.)

4. Vakhshtayn V. S. (2006) John Law: Sociology Between Semiotics and Topology. Russian Sociological Review, 5(1), pp. 24–29. (in Russ.)

5. Venturini T. (2018) Diving in magma: how to explore controversies using actor-network theory. Logos, 5(126), pp. 53–84. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2018-5-53-81. (in Russ.)

6. Grigoryan G. (2015) All-Union Society “Znanie” as a Communicator for the Authorities and the Scientific Community of the USSR. (in Russ.) URL:https://novznania.ru/2012/10/05/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE-%C2%AB%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%C2%BB-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC/

7. Grinberg T. E. (2012) Political technologies. Moscow: Aspect Press. (in Russ.)

8. Demidchenko V. (2015) Political technologies: nature, forms and types. Power, (12), pp. 140–142. (in Russ.)

9. Demyankov V. Z. (1994) Cognitive Linguistics as a Type of Interpretative Approach. Linguistics Issues, 4, pp. 17–33. (in Russ.)

10. Efremov I. A. (1953) On the Broad Popularization of Science. Literaturnaya Gazeta, March 24. (in Russ.) URL: https://i-efremov.ru/Publicism/LG53-24march.htm

11. Kurakin D. (2015) Trajectory, the Form of Life and the Unity of the Life Path: to Clarify the Concept of Trajectory in the Behavioral Sciences. URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2015/04/01/1096719190. (in Russ.)

12. Lakoff D., Johnson M. (2004) Metaphors We Live By. Moscow: URSS. (in Russ.) Латур Б. (2006) Надежды конструктивизма. В сборнике: Вахштайн В. С.* (ред.).

13. Latour B. (2006) Hopes of Constructivism. In Vakhshtayn V. S. (Ed.). Sociology of Things (pp. 365–389). Territoriya budushchego. EDN: TMXZDH. (in Russ.)

14. Nepogodin A. (2020) “The West Has Written Off Lukashenko” Belarus Faces Major Upheavals After the Elections. Who Is Really Preparing a Coup in the Country? URL: https://lenta.ru/articles/2020/08/07/zhannadark/

15. Law J. (2015) After Method: Mess and Social Science. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing. (in Russ.)

16. McCormack E. (1990) Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. In Arutyunova N. D., Zhourinskaya M.A (Eds). Theory of Metaphor (pp. 358–386). Moscow: Progress. (in Russ.)

17. Malkin E., Suhkov E. (2006) Political technologies. Moscow: Russkaya Panorama. (in Russ.)

18. Ortega y Gasset J. (1991) Aesthetics. Philosophy of Culture. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (in Russ.)

19. Stolyarova O. E. (2008) A. N. Whitehead’s Relational Ontology and its Constructivist Interpretation. Philosophy Issues, (12), pp. 84–103. (in Russ.)

20. Ricœur P. (1990) Living metaphor. In Arutyunova N. D., Zhourinskaya M.A (Eds). Theory of Metaphor (pp. 435–455). Moscow: Progress. (in Russ.)

21. Harman G. (2017) Networks and Assemblages: Networks and assemblages: the rebirth of things in Latour and DeLanda. Logos,27(3), pp.1–34. doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-3-1-32. (in Russ.)

22. Shchedrovitsky P. (2018) Work Program for the Series of Games “Thinking Technologies”. Materials for the Development Program of “Thinking Technologies”. CORVUS, pp. 8–14. (in Russ.) URL: https://shchedrovitskiy.com/programma-rabot-dlya-serii-igr-technologii-myishleniya/

23. Bloor D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago University Press.

24. DeLanda M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350096769

25. Harman G. (2018) Object-oriented ontology: a new theory of everything. Pelican Books.

26. Jaynes J. (1976) The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Houghton Mifflin.

27. Lakoff G. (1993) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013

28. Lakoff G. (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), pp. 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39

29. Lakoff G. (1996) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001

30. Latour B. (2004) Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), pp. 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123

31. Maier C. S. (1970) Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European Ideologies and the Vision of Industrial Productivity in the 1920s. Journal of Contemporary History, 5(2), pp. 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200947000500202

32. McMullin E. (1984) The Rational and the Social in the History of Science. In: Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn (pp. 127–163). The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7688-8_6

33. Smyth W. H. (1921) Technocracy: First, Second and Third Series; Social Universals. W. H. Smyth.

34. Stabile D. R. (1987) Veblen and the Political Economy of Technocracy: The Herald of Technological Revolution Developed an Ideology of “Scientific” Collectivism. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 46(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1987.tb01756.x