Hibridinė komunikacija politikoje

LTKnyga skirta komunikacinio judesio politikos turinyje suvokimui. Tai bandymas suprasti reiškinį pačiam esant sudėtine to reiškinio dalimi ir suvokiant, kad reiškinys kinta greičiau nei imi susigaudyti jo kaitos logikoje. Viskas juda ir kinta. Modernios politikos supratimo poreikis reikalauja aiškintis, tirti institucijas, politikos reiškinius bei asmenis politikoje ne kaip tiesioginius tyrimo objektus, bet kaip komunikacinius vaizdinius, dirgiklius, pretekstus, komunikacines akcijas ar naują politikos erdvę formuojančią komunikacinę terpę. Bandoma paliesti prezidentizmą (Grybauskaitės pavyzdys yra tiesiog kaip pretekstas, konkretus atvejis, kuris mums vis dar yra politiškai įdomus) politinėje Lietuvos sistemoje tik kaip atskirą komunikacinių procesų, aprėpusių ir politinį lauką, atvejį. Daug svarbiau čia bus parodyti pačios politinės komunikacijos buvimą kitokia nei mes įpratę ją matyti ir aiškinti. Todėl pagrindiniu herojumi čia bus ne prezidentė, politinės partijos ar institutai, o moderni, hibridiškai pakitusi politikų bei politinių institucijų ir organizacijų politinė komunikacija kaip naujas reiškinys mūsų gyvenime. Šiandien politiniai procesai tarsi praranda nusistovėjusį, teorijomis aiškiai apibrėžtą politikos suvokimą. Tai, kas vakar buvo normalu ir suprantama, šiandien arba neveikia, arba, dar blogiau, trukdo progresui. [...]. [Iš Įvado]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Politika; Galia; Mediatizacija; Hibridinė komunikacija; Autoritarinis mąstymas; Demokratija; Politinės partijos; Prezidentai; Žiniasklaida; Politics; Power; Mediatization; Hybrid communication; Authoritarian thinking; Democracy; Political parties; Presidents; Media.

ENIt is always difficult to explain modern-day transformations that occur in practically all fields of our lives, and which are evidently seldom clearly comprehensible. Therefore, they are incorrectly identified and described in old terms, judged using null heuristic construction research tools from the previous era. The character of the change could be described as a stream of global social change, when deep alterations are not yet identified or comprehended, but old social structures are incapable of being adequate for the changing reality. A need to analyse the new political communication phenomena arises. This is linked with the vicissitude of the informational-communicational instrumentation in a medium of changing old and new political subjects. New, truly hybrid political subjects, having various purposes, functions and goals, and having political and non-political structural links, become new, qualitatively different political structures. Hybridity in politics and communication presents itself as an expression of new abilities after a shift in the object’s institutional or organizational setup. However, it is not an artificial amalgam of new abilities, but a qualitatively explicit expression of different abilities with a logic of its conception and existence, specific abilities and autonomy. The term "hybrid", in its primary meaning, is the formation or self-formation of a biological organism through crossbreeding of genetically different parental forms. In political communication, hybridity means "cross-breeding" of various communicational codes and forms, which easily shift from one discursive level to the other, and in such way form new communicational and political links, and consecutively, new political communication subjects with new, nontypical communicational abilities and forms, often identified not with communication but with politics, and vice-versa.Any communication, as a function or process, is a technology, and foremost, a technology of social intercourse. Communication technologies create and support a respective communicational medium; meanwhile technological communication design forms the design of specific understanding. The cause of this is that communicational link configurations in politics are not just a network of information and information organization, but also an expression system of social networks, politics and power. By judging a person or structures communication design, we can assess its political orientation. In this case, hybridity, rather than being a co-existence of the aformentioned, is a fact that an objective starts to dominate. An objective of circumventing conveyance (maybe even by conscious avoiding), avoiding interaction, not demonstrating political power and ignoring the potential of interaction, to control attention and organize communication mechanisms which would divert the attention of the individual and the masses to a desired direction - i.e., prevent the attention from dwindling or independently orienting towards objects both mental and material. The basis of hybrid communication is not content (the condition of conveyance) but a psychological reaction to communicational stimuli. Therefore, the foundation of power is the conquest of the audiences attention, rather than the conquest of political positions. Here, the resource of attention is practically the primary element of political power. Hybridity in political communication manifests itself through shifting communicational forms - i.e., the variety of narrative and discourse stylistics increases, expression code streams intertwine and shift. It is related to an inconsistent merger of various communication forms, as well as the coalescence of their verbal and non-verbal codes, speech styles and rhetoric tools.It is determined by a new and unifying linguistic mechanism, or in other words, a digitaloperational dominant of communication processes. Changes provoke new institutional, procedural and technological communication stream effects. Network-related political communities that have clearly expressed synergetic characteristics begin to form. During this transitional period, the problem of identity loss and the fixation of this phenomenon encompasses practically all spheres of societal existence, it becomes relevant even while it itself is not yet comprehended as a problem, as a condition that hides the potential of new strategies in its solution. Self-identification gains a new procedural and situational character that is not always noticed, therefore the statement of self-identification is often perceived dramatically. In politics, it leads to value turbulence, when correct (i.e., common), traditionally clear politics loses the outline, the functioning of usual political structures appears ineffective and passive, and prognostic thinking loses its meaning. Society flounders and starts to reach intuitively for a stable surface where a vision of stability, willpower executed purposefully and consciously, is demonstrated. It is obvious that we are in a certain transitional period, when we must adjust those political, social and cultural states which do not give us hope for longer periods and are not clearly comprehended. We sink into a medium of hybrid states. Therefore, hybridity inevitably becomes a new communicative and political reality, which naturally is not final or stagnant. It is a medium of dynamic change, which qualitatively forms yet newer communicational and political states, which we can identify as hybrid, not conforming to understandable and usual, ideal, political and communication process comprehension types. [...]. [Extract, p. 137-140]