Communicative Technologies of Constructing Political Reality

Anton Burchak

doi:10.31861/mediaforum.2026.18.344-358

Authors

Anton Burchak Oles Honchar Dnipro National University Author https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1902-1880

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31861/mediaforum.2026.18.344-358

Keywords:

communication, political power, political technologies, technological approach, legitimation, political reality construction

Abstract

The article aims to conceptualize communicative technologies as a systemic mechanism for constructing political reality and to identify their structural components, functional logic, and effectiveness within a technological approach to political processes.

The study is based on a technological approach that interprets political processes as systems of strategically organized instruments of influence. It integrates interdisciplinary insights from political communication, sociology, and cognitive psychology to analyze mechanisms of symbolic impact, meaning production, and audience perception.

The research demonstrates that communicative technologies constitute a coherent, institutionally organized system of symbolic practices that enable the production, reproduction, and transformation of political reality through the management of meanings, images, and collective representations. Their defining feature is resource efficiency, achieved by substituting coercion with symbolic influence, leveraging cognitive and cultural structures of audiences, and ensuring the self-reproduction of constructed meanings.

The study identifies and systematizes key communicative technologies, including a representative promise, political positioning, visual legitimation, nonverbal signaling, solidarization, mobilization of expectations, selective visibility (agenda-setting), emotional resonance, construction of representative roles, and semantic naturalization. Each technology performs a specific function within an integrated system of influence, contributing to legitimacy, mobilization, and stabilization of political power.

Communicative technologies are not auxiliary tools but fundamental mechanisms of political power, shaping political reality as a dynamic symbolic construct. Their effectiveness lies in the integration of cognitive, emotional, and symbolic dimensions of influence. However, their application entails inherent risks, including manipulation, simplification of complex political processes, affective polarization, and erosion of trust.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Anton Burchak , Oles Honchar Dnipro National University

Ph.D. Student of the Department of Political Science, Sociology and Public Administration

References

1. Alrufaiey, H. S., and A. A. Alrikabi. 2024. “A Pragmatic Analysis of Effective Political Communication from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective.” Arab World English Journal 15 (1): 91–116. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol15no1.7.

2. Banga, B. 2023. “Political Communication and Promotion through Cinema.” In Recent Trends in Business and Management, 76–87. Ghaziabad. https://www.empyrealpublishinghouse.com/pdf/recent-trends-in-business-and-management.pdf.

3. Barthes, R. 2012. Mythologies. Translated by Richard Howard and Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.

4. Bennett, W. Lance. 2012. News: The Politics of Illusion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

5. Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.

6. Bjola, C., and I. Manor. 2024. “Introduction: Understanding Digital Diplomacy – The Grammar Rules and Patterns of Digital Disruption.” In The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy, edited by Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor. New York: Oxford University Press.

7. Boulianne, S., and A. O. Larsson. 2024. “Comparative Digital Political Communication: Comparisons Across Countries, Platforms, and Time.” Social Science Computer Review 42 (5): 1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241258763.

8. Bulat, B., and M. Hilbert. 2024. “A Dynamical Systems Approach to Bots and Online Political Communication.” https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.18652.

9. Cheek, R. 2022. “Making a Case for Political Technical Communication (Pxtc).” Technical Communication Quarterly 32 (2): 121–133. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10572252.2022.2079726.

10. Coles, S. M., and D. Lane. 2023. “Race and Ethnicity as Foundational Forces in Political Communication: Special Issue Introduction.” Political Communication 40 (4): 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2229780.

11. Donges, P. 2022. “Digitalisierung der politischen Kommunikation.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 74 (Suppl. 1): 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-022-00834-7.

12. Edelman, M. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

13. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

14. Hamrak, B., G. Simonovits, and F. Szucs. 2024. “Equilibrium Communication in Political Scandals.” European Journal of Political Economy 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102580.

15. Helfert, D. L. 2018. Political Communication in Action: From Theory to Practice. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

16. Holmes, M. 2024. “Digital Diplomacy: Projection and Retrieval of Images and Identities.” In The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy, edited by Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor. New York: Oxford University Press.

17. Hovland, C. I., A. A. Lumsdaine, and F. D. Sheffield. 1949. Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

18. Jowett, G. S., and V. O’Donnell. 2014. Propaganda & Persuasion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

19. Kholisoh, N. 2023. “The Role of Spin Doctor in Political Communications to Win the Most Votes.” Jurnal Komunikasi Ikatan Sarjana Komunikasi Indonesia 8 (1): 157–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.25008/jkiski.v8i1.832.

20. Kim, J., and H. Rojas. 2024. “How Does Political Communication Relate to Perceived Extremity of Partisans and Their Divides?” Communication Studies 76 (1): 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2024.2392909.

21. Lakoff, G. 2004. Don't think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate: the essential guide for progressives. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

22. Lasswell, H. D. 1948. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.” In The Communication of Ideas, edited by L. Bryson, 37–51. New York.

23. Lazarsfeld, P. F., B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet. 1968. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

24. Lippmann, W. 1998. Public Opinion. New Brunswick; London: Transaction Publishers.

25. Lipschultz, J. H. 2023. Social Media and Political Communication. New York; London: Routledge.

26. McCombs, M. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.

27. McCombs, M., and D. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187.

28. Mitchell, W. J. T. 2005. What Do Pictures Want? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

29. Mooney, C. 2012. The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

30. Perloff, R. M. 2014. The Dynamics of Political Communication: Media and Politics in a Digital Age. New York: Routledge.

31. Pitkin, H. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

32. Entman, R. M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

33. Saward, M. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34. Schwartz, T. 1974. The Responsive Chord. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

35. Song, S., and M. Ai. 2024. “How Citizen Communication Mediation Model Works in Taiwan.” Journal of Asian and African Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177 /00219096241228771

36. Vysotskyi, O. 2023. “National Security Technologies in the Domestic and Foreign Policy of the State.” Scientific and Theoretical Almanac Grani 26 (3): 126–133. https://doi.org/10.15421/172358.

37. Vysotskyi, O., and D. Pavlov. 2025. “How to Spot the Elephant? The Technological Approach as a Methodological Foundation for the Study of Political Propaganda.” Political Life: 70–82. https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2025.2.8.

38. Westen, D. 2007. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: PublicAffairs.

39. Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.