What to do? Part 2

Before moving further to answering the basic question posed in the title, it is necessary to assess in more detail the current situation in the country. I will focus in this article on the issue of public opinion. You will now understand why.

The term "public opinion" has two uses. One is used to denote the results of sociological research, with the help of which it is found out what different people in the country think about all sorts of problems, events, and persons. This is very important to know. The authorities can measure their actions against such information or justify them. People need this for orientation in social space, to compare their beliefs with the opinions of others.

Another use of the term "public opinion" is generated by the practical action of social groups united by a common "opinion". We will call it “active public opinion.” We encounter it, for example, when we say: “Public opinion condemns such behavior.” This phrase concentrates, firstly, on certain socially approved norms that govern people’s behavior (in addition to laws). And, secondly, it assumes the existence of a certain group that is able to express its unified position, influence, condemn, punish (“impose sanctions,” experts say); and it is more or less clear to everyone what kind of group this is.

The most interesting thing is that the two forms of “public opinion” do not necessarily coincide. “Active public opinion” may express the position of a minority. It acquires this opportunity by relying on additional resources: government policy, circumstances, specific events, fashionable ideological trends, trends in the media, popular leaders, its own mobilization capabilities, combinations of these and other circumstances.

Here is a very relevant illustration. There are quite a few people in Russia who, in “public opinion” surveys, express agreement with a position like “they’ve come in large numbers here” (in relation to migrants and other categories of “others”). Depending on the nuances of the wording of questions and the context of the questionnaire, uncontrollable by sociologists, the proportion of such respondents can range from 20 to 60 percent. But for the overwhelming majority of citizens, this attitude is combined with others that block the aggressive manifestation of xenophobia. But there are no more than 5-7 percent of aggressive chauvinists in Russia. No more people are ready to vote for parties that preach the ideas of aggressive chauvinism. By the way, this is much less than in some prosperous European countries.

But we unanimously and without hesitation attribute aggressive chauvinism to almost the entire Russian society. What's the matter?

We see, feel, hear that representatives of that same 5-7 percent, that same aggressive chauvinistic minority, dominate the information space. Both we and the authorities begin to feel that they constitute “public opinion” in the second, active sense. This feeling is absolutely correct. But we must understand that their activity is stimulated by the actions, rhetoric, and interests of the current Russian authorities; the conformist position of the leading media controlled by the authorities; the passivity of the majority, which does not accept aggressive xenophobia. As a result, such a minority begins to feel this time as their own. It wakes up, becomes active, and begins to expand its presence in the information space. They are the ones who call Ekho Moskvy, Svoboda, make noise on the Internet, etc. Thus, they create the effect of a majority in our country, being a minority (the rallies on November 4 showed this). They shape “public opinion” in its active sense.

And, on the contrary, the majority (I emphasize - the majority!) of sane people, among whom you, the readers, feel this time as a stranger. This gives rise to pessimism, passivity, and apathy.

The same mythical concept of “public opinion” seriously affects politicians and parties. Considering it necessary to adapt to “public opinion,” they choose a short-term, and therefore ineffective, strategy of least resistance. They conform to the myth, not the reality. Instead of creating their own myths - new, productive, mobilizing - they follow the lead of others, old, extremely inadequate, dead-end for serious political forces. As a result, we see how parties, being political entities, try, for example, to imitate human rights organizations, but are fantastically inferior to the latter in effectiveness (lack of experience, political role, and public distrust of parties interfere). Others, based on an inadequate idea of ​​society, move away from political struggle, postponing it until “better times,” or conformistically adapt to the authorities, calling it sober pragmatism (“Well, what should we do if our society is like this?!”).

Mythical ideas about society and “public opinion” also influence power. Weak power is like a river - it flows where it can create a channel for itself with less effort. Using information about “public opinion,” she also directs her actions to where she thinks she expects to find the greatest mutual understanding. And if the ideas “have come in large numbers!” seem dominant to her, then her actions adapt to these ideas. And then such actions by the authorities strengthen this myth, the activity of xenophobes and your sadness, readers. A vicious circle is forming that needs to be broken. The question is - how?

To answer it, we will need to discuss one more topic related to “public opinion,” or more precisely, another misconception regarding it. “Public opinion” in the first of the above senses (the prevalence in society of certain ideas, assessments, opinions, etc.) is usually thought of as something passively homogeneous, totally subject to information influence. Meanwhile, this is not so.

People, of course, perceive the information delivered to them through the media. But, besides this, they communicate with each other, including on topics that are exaggerated in the media. Both from the point of view of information perception and from the point of view of communication, people are not the same. Knowledge on certain issues and the need to obtain it are always distributed unevenly. People differ in some characteristic that can be called “social intelligence.” Citizens with high social intelligence, say - in the field of politics - are those who are interested in politics; not only passively consume political information, but actively seek it if they feel there is a shortage; make it the subject of everyday communication with their own kind; can generate an independent political position; They often show their own political activity of various kinds (from calling the radio to attending rallies).

If a change in political opinions occurs in a society, it always begins in a group with high social intelligence, and then spreads further to the rest. This happens in two ways - in the process of everyday communication and through the influence of people with high social intelligence on the general information field through the media, parties, authorities, etc.

Thus, “public opinion” in the country is influenced by approximately five percent of potential consumers of information with high social intelligence. We must understand that among them there are people with different political positions. Social intelligence is a non-political category, just like height or eye color. Moreover, among a group of citizens with high social intelligence, the proportions of representatives of different political positions are approximately the same as in society as a whole. But the “public opinion” of the entire population is changed by those from this five percent group who are more active at the moment - who enter into communication more lively and demonstrate greater confidence in their rightness, who are more willing to call the radio and go to rallies, etc., thereby influencing most on the media and power.

Boundless propaganda, reminiscent of carpet bombing, with the help of, say, federal television channels has little effect on our five percent. They prefer sources of information that are more specialized and, from their point of view, reliable. This propaganda, of course, shapes the opinions of others. But this is a passive and unstable opinion, which easily crumbles when the content of propaganda changes, or when circumstances arise that clearly indicate to everyone the contradictions between life and propaganda, or when the activity of some group within the five percent of people with high social intelligence sharply increases.

Now we can draw a conclusion from what has been said. It concerns the direction of the efforts of the first phase of the "citizens' revolution." It should be aimed at changing the atmosphere in that part of the information space that employs the five percent of people with high social intelligence. We are not able to influence the policy of federal television channels. But this is not necessary. The task is to reverse “active public opinion” so that you and I can again feel the present time as our own. And this is a very real task. It can be solved by ordinary citizens on their own. We will discuss how in the next article.