Authors
Oleg Kashirskikh1; 1 George Washington University, United States Discussion
Despite the main focus of the contemporary literature is on a broader consumerism/neoliberalism-based identity of everyday culture, this research draws attention to the political field and namely political discourse. To what extent do the participants draw on consumerism-based frames of reference in their definitions and discussions of politics? The originally capitalistic neoliberal mindset is manifested in the Postsocialism differently (Shevchenko 2018; Verdery 2003). The relationship between consumerism und political identity in postsocialism seems to be deeper than in capitalism (Fehérváry 2009, 428). Consumption-based identifications weaken civic identity. The approach I am using draws on Laclau and Bourdieu, who consider the power struggle to be a discursive undertaking. In line with this, my aim is to reveal the existence of appropriate symbols for reaching discursive totality in order to acquire the power. I ask whether the public sphere in Russian political discourse has its own signifiers that would allow for the symbolic assessment and perception of communication and deliberation as meaningful components of politics. Can we observe this discourse in regards to the signifiers that represent the public domain in Russian politics? If there is a lack of necessary signifiers in the political language (symbolic poverty), then the discourse space could become uniform and stagnant due to absence of diverse viewpoints. In this situation, it is possible that discourse of neoliberalism might become dominant, turning Russians into “producers of capitalism but consumers of democracy” (De Certeau 1984). The rhetoric of postsocialist neoliberalism aims to depreciate the political conditions needed for formation of political self. Consequently, the self-confidence is determined in businesslike and functional way by materializing public sphere. I argue that being apolitical, conflict-free und de-antagonized the consumerism-based Russian political discourse reduce internal political differences and homogenize political language. Consequently, the lack of internal political differentiation between the interests of citizens and those of the Russian state allows the authoritarian metanarrative to dominate when any criticism on Russian government politics is interpreted as a “the criticism against Russia” and against “Russian citizens”. 
