Self-representation of social sphere organizations on VKontakte: routinization and loss of authenticity
Research Article
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project 23-18-00093, https://rscf.ru/en/project/24-18-00261/
How to Cite
Terashkevich I.S. Self-representation of social sphere organizations on VKontakte: routinization and loss of authenticity. Science. Culture. Society. 2025. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 71-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/nko.2025.31.1.6 (in Russ.).
Abstract
The article presents a study of communicative practices of social sphere organisations in VKontakte after the adoption of the law on state publics. On the material of a qualitative study of communities in the city of Pechory (Pskov region) the key trends of changes in the self-representation of local communities in the digital space are revealed. The study was conducted in the paradigm of digital anthropology with the support of D. Miller and M. Madiana's theory of polymedia and K. Tagg and A. Lyons' concept of polymedia repertoire. For the empirical study, three communities in a small regional city were selected, their posts were chronologically analysed, and a series of semi-structured interviews with the administrators of these communities were conducted. Particular attention was paid to the influence of unified centralised, top-down requirements on content creation practices and the consequences of this standardisation. The contradiction between the declared goal of creating publics as open communication channels and the actual result in the form of formal fulfilment of requirements through the publication of standardised, emasculated texts that broadcast the daily routine inside and outside the organisation, which often does not resonate with the audience, has been revealed. At the same time, authentic ways of creating original content based on the creativity of administrators are being displaced, despite their greater effectiveness in engaging audiences. There are consequences of the tendency to involve ordinary employees without special skills in administration, which increases their workload while reducing user engagement, as well as accelerating the processes of algorithmicisation and formalisation of content.
Keywords:
digitalization, digital anthropology, polymedia, gospablik, local online communities, digital communication
References
1. Vasilenko I. A. Altai krai local government communities in "VKontakte": experience of analysis. PR v izmenyayushchemsya mire: regional'nyi aspect. 2023;(28):17–25. (In Russ.).
2. Fedorovskikh A. A., Khusainova M. M. State publics as a tool for transforming the culture of information and communication interaction between authorities and society. In: Kerimov A. A. (ed.) Culture and nature of political power: theory and practice: coll. of scientific works. Ekaterinburg: UrGPU; 2023. P. 299–303. (In Russ.).
3. Filatova O. G. Electronic interaction between authorities and citizens in the ecosystem of state communications: study of regional specifics. In: Malyshev A. A. (ed.) Media in the modern world: coll. of materials in 2 vol. (St. Petersburg, 28 June – 01 July 2023). Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: ‘Mediapapir’; 2023. P. 260–261. (In Russ.).
4. Ivanov D. V. Critical theory of digitalization: algorithmic rationality domination and authenticity revolt. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2023;26(3):7–35. (In Russ.). DOI 10.31119/jssa.2023.26.3.1.
5. Nikitina A. S., Zerchaninova T. E. Information openness of the state in the context of digital transformation: a sociological analysis. Vlast’. 2023;31(1):148–156. (In Russ.). DOI 10.31171/vlast.v31i1.9479.
6. Skokova A. N. Involvement of the population in the processes of digital communication with regional authorities: assessment of residents of the Kursk region. LegaL Science. 2023;(4):97–102. (In Russ.).
7. Panfilov G. O., Chugunov A. V. Centralization of the system of e-participation in the Russian Federation: expert interviews data. Administrative Consulting. 2024;(5):253-264. (In Russ.). DOI 10.22394/1726-1139-2024-5-253-264.
8. Bluteau J. M. Legitimising digital anthropology through immersive cohabitation: Becoming an observing participant in a blended digital landscape. Ethnography. 2019;22(2):267–285. DOI 10.1177/1466138119881165.
9. Miller D. Digital anthropology. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. 2018. DOI 10.29164/18digital.
10. Madianou M. Smartphones as polymedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2014;19(3):667–680. DOI 10.1111/jcc4.12069.
11. Costa E. Affordances-in-practice: an ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 2018;20(10):3641–3656. DOI 10.1177/1461444818756290.
12. Acedera K. A., Yeoh B. S. ‘Making time’: Long-distance marriages and the temporalities of the transnational family. Current Sociology. 2019;67(2):250–272. DOI 10.1177/0011392118792927.
13. Madianou M. Ambient co-presence: transnational family practices in polymedia environments. Global networks. 2016;16(2):183–201. DOI 10.1111/glob.12105.
14. Madianou M. Polymedia and ethnography: understanding the social in social media. Social Media + Society. 2015;1(1). DOI 10.1177/2056305115578675.
15. Madianou M., Miller D. Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2013;16(2):169–187. DOI 10.1177/1367877912452486.
16. Tagg C., Lyons A. Polymedia repertoires of networked individuals: a day-in-the-life approach. Pragmatics and Society. 2021;12(5):725–755. DOI 10.1075/ps.20051.tag. EDN IBXLQW.
17. Kusters A. [et al.]. Beyond languages, beyond modalities: transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism. 2017;14(3):219–232. DOI 10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651.
18. Pink S. [et al.]. Digital ethnography: principles and practice. New Delhi: SAGE Publ.; 2015. ISBN 978-1473902381.
19. Swidler A. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review. 1986;51(2):273–286. DOI 10.2307/2095521.
2. Fedorovskikh A. A., Khusainova M. M. State publics as a tool for transforming the culture of information and communication interaction between authorities and society. In: Kerimov A. A. (ed.) Culture and nature of political power: theory and practice: coll. of scientific works. Ekaterinburg: UrGPU; 2023. P. 299–303. (In Russ.).
3. Filatova O. G. Electronic interaction between authorities and citizens in the ecosystem of state communications: study of regional specifics. In: Malyshev A. A. (ed.) Media in the modern world: coll. of materials in 2 vol. (St. Petersburg, 28 June – 01 July 2023). Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: ‘Mediapapir’; 2023. P. 260–261. (In Russ.).
4. Ivanov D. V. Critical theory of digitalization: algorithmic rationality domination and authenticity revolt. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2023;26(3):7–35. (In Russ.). DOI 10.31119/jssa.2023.26.3.1.
5. Nikitina A. S., Zerchaninova T. E. Information openness of the state in the context of digital transformation: a sociological analysis. Vlast’. 2023;31(1):148–156. (In Russ.). DOI 10.31171/vlast.v31i1.9479.
6. Skokova A. N. Involvement of the population in the processes of digital communication with regional authorities: assessment of residents of the Kursk region. LegaL Science. 2023;(4):97–102. (In Russ.).
7. Panfilov G. O., Chugunov A. V. Centralization of the system of e-participation in the Russian Federation: expert interviews data. Administrative Consulting. 2024;(5):253-264. (In Russ.). DOI 10.22394/1726-1139-2024-5-253-264.
8. Bluteau J. M. Legitimising digital anthropology through immersive cohabitation: Becoming an observing participant in a blended digital landscape. Ethnography. 2019;22(2):267–285. DOI 10.1177/1466138119881165.
9. Miller D. Digital anthropology. In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. 2018. DOI 10.29164/18digital.
10. Madianou M. Smartphones as polymedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2014;19(3):667–680. DOI 10.1111/jcc4.12069.
11. Costa E. Affordances-in-practice: an ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 2018;20(10):3641–3656. DOI 10.1177/1461444818756290.
12. Acedera K. A., Yeoh B. S. ‘Making time’: Long-distance marriages and the temporalities of the transnational family. Current Sociology. 2019;67(2):250–272. DOI 10.1177/0011392118792927.
13. Madianou M. Ambient co-presence: transnational family practices in polymedia environments. Global networks. 2016;16(2):183–201. DOI 10.1111/glob.12105.
14. Madianou M. Polymedia and ethnography: understanding the social in social media. Social Media + Society. 2015;1(1). DOI 10.1177/2056305115578675.
15. Madianou M., Miller D. Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2013;16(2):169–187. DOI 10.1177/1367877912452486.
16. Tagg C., Lyons A. Polymedia repertoires of networked individuals: a day-in-the-life approach. Pragmatics and Society. 2021;12(5):725–755. DOI 10.1075/ps.20051.tag. EDN IBXLQW.
17. Kusters A. [et al.]. Beyond languages, beyond modalities: transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism. 2017;14(3):219–232. DOI 10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651.
18. Pink S. [et al.]. Digital ethnography: principles and practice. New Delhi: SAGE Publ.; 2015. ISBN 978-1473902381.
19. Swidler A. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review. 1986;51(2):273–286. DOI 10.2307/2095521.
Article
Received: 23.10.2024
Accepted: 28.03.2025
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Terashkevich, I. S. (2025). Self-representation of social sphere organizations on VKontakte: routinization and loss of authenticity. Science. Culture. Society, 31(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.19181/nko.2025.31.1.6
Section
Management in a digital transformation
1.jpg)
