politicalscienceВестник РГГУ. Серия “Политология. История. Международные отношения.”RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations"2073-6339Издательский центр Российского государственного гуманитарного университета10.28995/2073-6339-2023-3-95-107politicalscience-496Research ArticleПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ РИСКИ: МИРОВОЙ ОПЫТ И РОССИЙСКАЯ СПЕЦИФИКАPOLITICAL RISKS: GLOBAL EXPERIENCE AND RUSSIAN SPECIFICSТехнологии риск-рецепции как инструмент политического влияния в международных отношенияхRisk-reception technologies as a tool of political influence in international relationsПодшибякинаТ. А.PodshibyakinaT. A.

Татьяна А. Подшибякина, доктор политических наук, доцент,

344006, Ростов-на-Дону, ул. Большая Садовая, д. 105

Tatiana A. Podshibyakina, Dr. of Sci. (Political Science), associate professor,

105, Bolshaya Sadovaya St., Rostov-on-Don, 344006

tan5@bk.ruЮжный федеральный университетРоссияSouthern Federal UniversityRussian Federation2023191020230395107Copyright © Подшибякина Т.А., 20232023Подшибякина Т.А.Podshibyakina T.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://politicalscience.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/496

Статья посвящена анализу проблемы управления рисками в сфере мировой политики, значимость которой возрастает в условиях современного геополитического кризиса. Целью исследования является рассмотрение проблемы восприятия рисков в политической перспективе; обоснование применения когнитивно-нарратологического подхода к ее исследованию; описание технологий риск-рецепции как механизма формирования одного из видов стратегических нарративов; оценка перспектив применения некоторых технологий манипулирования восприятием рисков в сфере международных отношений. Проведен анализ научных публикаций по проблемам восприятия риска, выделен ряд междисциплинарных направлений, представляющих ценность для политической науки. Обосновано применение когнитивно-нарратологической методологии и концепции стратегических нарративов при исследовании проблем восприятия риска. Операционализация концепций управления восприятием рисков в практике международной коммуникации осуществлена на примере технологий стратегического планирования корпорации RAND – американского аналитического центра по изучению глобальной политики. Приведено описание принципов действия технологий риск-рецепции (технологий управления восприятием рисков), показано, что механизм их применения включает воздействие на когницию «восприятия», или «рецепции». На примере одного из видов стратегических нарративов дана оценка перспектив применения некоторых технологий манипулирования восприятием рисков в сфере международных отношений.

The article is about analyzing the issue of risk management in the sphere of world politics, the importance of which is increasing in the conditions of the modern geopolitical crisis. The purpose of the study is to consider the issue of risk perception in a political perspective; substantiation of the application of the cognitive-narratological approach to its study; description of risk-reception technologies as a mechanism for the formation of one of the types of strategic narratives; assessment of the prospects for the use of certain technologies for manipulating the perception of risks in the field of international relations. The analysis of scientific publications on the issues of risk perception is carried out, a number of interdisciplinary areas of value for political science are identified. The application of cognitive-narratological methodology and the concept of strategic narratives in the study of risk perception issues issubstantiated. The operationalization of risk perception management concepts in the practice of international communication is carried out using the example of strategic planning technologies of the RAND Corporation, an American analytical center for the study of global politics. The principles of risk reception technologies (risk perception management technologies) are described, it is shown that the mechanism of their application includes the impact on the cognition of “perception” or “reception”. By the example of one of the types of strategic narratives, an assessment of the prospects for the use of certain technologies for manipulating risk perception in the field of international relations is given.

политические рискивосприятие рисковтехнологии риск-рецепциикогнитивно-нарратологическая методологиястратегические нарративыpolitical risksrisk perceptionrisk reception technologiescognitive-narratological methodologystrategic narrativesReferencesЛуман 2013 – Луман Н. Риск и опасность // Отечественные записки. 2013. № 2. С. 19–51.Boholm, A. (1998). “Comparative studies of risk perception. A review of 20 years of research”, Journal of risk research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 135–163.Boholm 1998 – Boholm A. Comparative studies of risk perception. A review of 20 years of research // Journal of risk research. 1998. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 135–163.Charap S. and Priebe, M. (2023), Avoiding a Long War, available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html (Accessed 29 Jan. 2023).Charap, Priebe 2023 – Charap S., Priebe M. Avoiding a Long War. URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html (дата обращения 29.01.2023).Coleman, C.L. (1993), “The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments”, Communication Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 611–628.Coleman 1993 – Coleman C.L. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments // Communication Research. 1993. Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 611–628.Dobbins, J., Cohen, R.S., et al. (2019), Overextending and unbalancing Russia. Assessing the impact of cost-imposing options, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html (Accessed 29 Jan. 2023).Dobbins, Cohen 2019 – Dobbins, J., Cohen R.S. et al. Overextending and unbalancing Russia. Assessing the impact of cost-imposing options. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html (дата обращения 29.01.2023).Eder, J. (2003), “Narratology and cognitive reception theories”, in Kindt, T. and Müller, H.-H. (eds.), What is narratology? Questions and answers regarding the status of a theory, De Gruyer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 277–301.Eder 2003 – Eder J. Narratology and cognitive reception theories // What is narratology? Questions and answers regarding the status of a theory / Ed. by T. Kind, H.- H. Müller. Berlin: De Gruyer, 2003. P. 277–301.Gerunov, A. (2022), “Risk in digital assets”, in Risk analysis for the digital age, Springer, pp. 81–114.Gerunov 2022 – Gerunov A. Risk in digital assets // Risk analysis for the digital age. Springer, 2022. P. 81–114.Hao, J., Li, J. and Wu, D. (2023), “Bibliometric analysis of risk science from 1996 to 2021. Insights and implications”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 26, no. 5, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2176914 (Accessed 2 Apr. 2023).Hao, Li, Wu 2023 – Hao J., Li J., Wu D. Bibliometric analysis of risk science from 1996 to 2021. Insights and implications // Journal of Risk Research. 2023. Vol. 26. No. 5. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2176914 (дата обращения 02.04.2023).Luhman, N. (2013), “Risk and peril”, Otechestvennye zapiski, no. 2, pp. 19–51.Lundberg, Willis 2019 – Lundberg R., Willis H.H. Examining the effectiveness of risk elicitations. Comparing a deliberative risk ranking to a nationally representative survey on homeland security risk // Journal of Risk Research. 2019. Vol. 22. No. 12. P. 1546–1560.Lundberg, R. and Willis, H.H. (2019), “Examining the effectiveness of risk elicitations. Comparing a deliberative risk ranking to a nationally representative survey on homeland security risk”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1546–1560.McComas 2006 – McComas K.A. Defining moments in risk communication research. 1996–2005 // Journal of Health Communication. 2006. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 75–91.McComas, K.A. (2006), “Defining moments in risk communication research. 1996–2005”, Journal of Health Communication, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 75–91.Miskimmon, Roselle, O’Loughlin 2013 – Miskimmon A., Roselle L., O’Loughlin B. Strategic narratives. Communication power and the New World Order. New York: Routledge. 2013. 224 p.Miskimmon, A., Roselle, L. and O’Loughlin, B. (2013), Strategic Narratives: Communication power and the New World Order, Routledge, New York, USA.Oh, Paek, Hove 2015 – Oh S.H., Paek H.J., Hove T. Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics, genre-specific media effects, and risk perceptions. The case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea //Asian Journal of Communication. 2015. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 14–32.Oh, S.H., Paek, H.J. and Hove, T. (2015), “Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics, genre-specific media effects, and risk perceptions. The case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea”, Asian Journal of Communication, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 14–32.Paek, Hove 2017 – Paek H.J., Hove T. Risk perceptions and risk characteristics. 29 March 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.283 (дата обращения 29.03.2023).Paek, H.J. and Hove, T. (2017), Risk perceptions and risk characteristics, available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.283 (Accessed 29 Mar.2023).Perko, Thijssen, Turcanu, Van Gorp 2014 – Perko T., Thijssen P., Turcanu C., Van Gorp B. Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages. Nuclear emergency communication // Journal of Risk Research. 2014. Vol. 17. No. 9. P. 1207–1232.Perko, T., Thijssen, P., Turcanu, C. and Van Gorp, B. (2014), “Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages. Nuclear emergency communication”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1207–1232.Renn 2006 – Renn O. Risk communication – consumers between information and irritation // Journal of Risk Research. 2006. Vol. 9. No. 8. P. 833–849.Renn, O. (2006), “Risk communication – consumers between information and irritation”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 833–849.Rohrmann, Renn 2000 – Rohrmann B., Renn O. Risk perception research. An introduction // Cross-cultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies. Amsterdam: Manuscript for Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. P. 11–53.Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O. (2000), “Risk perception research. An introduction”, Crosscultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies, Manuscript for Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 11–53.Slovic 1987 – Slovic P. Perception of risk // Science. 1987. Vol. 236. No. 4799. P. 280–285.Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of risk”, Science, vol. 236, no. 4799, pp. 280–285.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.