ТОЛЕРАНТНОСТЬ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО МАССМЕДИАДИСКУРСА ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИИ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ
ORCID: 0000-0002-1990-9885, Кандидат филологических наук, Доцент
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет,
ТОЛЕРАНТНОСТЬ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО МАССМЕДИАДИСКУРСА ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИИ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ
В категории «политическая толерантность» выделены ее демографические и экономические переменные. Выявлены причины интолерантности и проявлений агрессии в российских СМИ. К основным критериям, обеспечивающим толерантность политического массмедиадискурса, отнесены их творческие компоненты, находящие отражение в журналистских текстах, а именно: оригинальность выступлений автора и героев публикации, самобытность стиля текста, способы привлечения интереса и внимания аудитории. Мера реализации толерантного политического массмедиадискурса может проявляться в общих представлениях людей о политике и сатирическом осмыслении политической действительности. Автор статьи делает вывод, что уровень толерантности как состояние качества социального взаимодействия способствует или не способствует равновесному развитию общественных отношений, предоставляет площадки для обсуждений и артикуляции событий и явлений, их политического комментирования, создает широкие возможности репрезентации политических позиций, формирует общественное мнение.
Ключевые слова: журналистика, толерантность, интолерантность, политический массмедиадискурс, социальное взаимодействие.
ORCID: 0000-0002-1990-9885, PhD in Philology, Associate Professor
Saint Petersburg State University,
TOLERANCE OF THE POLITICAL MASS MEDIA DISCOURSE IN SOCIAL INTERACTION
In the “political tolerance” category, its demographic and economic variables are marked. The reasons of intolerance and aggression demonstration in the Russian mass media are established. The main criteria of tolerance in political mass media discourse are discourse’s creative components reflected in journalistic texts, namely: creativity of an author’s speeches and writings’ characters, identity of an author’s style, ways to attract audience’s interest and attention. The efficiency of the tolerant political mass media discourse realization can be seen in people’s perception of politics and their satirical judgment of the political reality. The author of the article draws a conclusion that tolerance level as a sign of quality of social interaction contributes or does not contribute to the development of public relations; it, also, provides platforms for discussions, events articulation and political commenting on the events, gives a great opportunity to represent political positions and forms the public opinion.
Keywords: journalism, tolerance, intolerance, political mass media discourse, social interaction.
Political science dictionaries say that tolerance as a characteristic of communication and self-determination refers to culture: tolerant political culture means respect for any political manifestations which do not contradict current legislation. Tolerance in politics can be considered as the result of resolution of many social contradictions on a global social level and the result of democracy development in the form of rule-of-law state .
In sociology, the concept of tolerance includes the following characteristics: forbearance to other people’s way of life, behavior, customs, feelings, opinions, ideas and beliefs; endurance to the negative emotional factors; lack or weakening of reaction to some unfavorable factor as a result of decrease of sensitivity to this factor’s effect .
The aim of this article: on modern theoretical and empirical material to study criteria, and also social, political and communicative characteristics of tolerance to analyses effects of tolerant interaction in the context of modern political mass media of a discourse.
Material and methods
Researchers of mass communication have found approaches and directions in the study of social tolerance which assist the understanding of its theoretical and practical value for communication theory and journalism practical usefulness. T. Romanova marks that tolerance is a very complex, vague and controversial concept which is considered as necessary and impossible at the same time. Being tolerant means to not only refuse from prejudice and hatred, but something much more compound: to give up the desire to eliminate, destroy someone else’s view while keeping those ideas which gave rise to this desire [3, p. 44].
The importance of T. Romanova’s study is that she has identified the difference between the concepts of tolerance and political correctness: tolerance is the content, the principle, the basis of certain social direction (tolerance implies the presence of some ideas and opinions to be followed), and political correctness is a form (including speech form) of manifestation of this social direction; political correctness can be considered one of communication features of nonconflicting verbal behavior, along with politeness and tact. Tolerance determines what to do, but it does not give instructions on how to do. On the contrary, political correctness, above all, is the “handbook” on how to implement certain idea in practice. This is the principle of tolerance that is the ideological basis of political correctness and politically correct language. Tolerance and political correctness can be taken into consideration as linguocultural phenomena and social directives. Intolerant and politically incorrect statements are always someone’s personal assessment [3, p. 44].
Tolerance in the socio-cultural, ethnic and artistic perspective was the subject of the study of I. Blokhin. He suggested considering the main principles of journalism as the criteria of professional tolerance. These principles are as follows: accuracy of the matters investigated; consideration of the facts and analysis of events in terms of certain socio-political, moral and psychological situation; solving the selectivity problem while choosing facts and events from wide range of them. According to the researcher, social tolerance or intolerance qualities show up because of the fact that journalists get to coverage of social interaction problems and act as agents of public interests groups. Tolerance as a principle of journalism should not be in conflict with other professional norms, such as honesty, objectivity and social responsibility. Tolerance assumes, first of all, respect, including self-respect and respect to the audience [4, p. 124, 125].
V. Sidorov studied the concept of tolerance in the categories of acceptable and unacceptable things. In his view, tolerance is accordance of the impact of some environmental factor unfavorable for the organism (i.e., a maximum dose of some injection which the organism is capable to deal with and absorb) to the minimum value of the body’s resistance to the effects of particular negative factor. As a consequence, in the discourse of tolerance, the leading position should be taken not by “tolerance – intolerance” antonyms, but by a completely different pair of units, such as “valid – invalid” [5, p. 89].
Y. Prokhorov connects the concept of tolerance to the possibility of wider informing of citizens about the current situations with the help of the media, and at that, he regards pluralism as an additional feature of tolerance: pluralism and tolerance complement each other if there are a variety of forces, including the field of mass information forces. Awareness is full only when personal point of view shows up on the background of other people’s standpoints which are sincerely taken into account and not ignored [6, p. 200].
However, to take a different point of view into consideration in a tolerant communication does not mean to unconditionally accept it as the way of their own thinking and behavior. Considering different standpoint in the news and analytical journalism assumes the ability to broadcast what was said in the media in the case if this viewpoint’s disclosure does not violate the law. In journalism and author’s commenting on politics, other points of view are considered, however, they mostly are brought out beyond a firm political position of the speaker, because speaker’s main objective is to demonstrate their understanding of the issue and to present the topic to the audience so that the topic would correspond to their own settings and outlook.
Such understanding of the category considered coincides with the definition of political tolerance suggested by D. Gavra and Y. Rodionova. They believe that political tolerance is the ability and willingness to accept legitimate forms of political operating for the politician who has completely different, hostile for an individual political values. Thus, an individual (supposed to be tolerant) expresses negative attitude towards another political group (party, movement), but opposes the restriction of the freedom of its political activity [7, p. 125]. The age and education were determined by scientists as significant demographic and economic units of political tolerance, whereas citizens’ income level, according to the study, has a much smaller effect on the level of their tolerance/intolerance.
D. Gavra and Y. Rodionova classified the following categories as the indicators of manifestation of politically socialized individual’s intolerance: mind set to unkind attitude, antipathy towards some group up to the ban to its participation in election campaign, to demonstrations holding or to its existence. Considering the political tolerance as one of the components of national culture, mentioned researchers noted that political tolerance means readiness to let a political opponent candidly express their opinions and fight for the power and influence. This concept is not a synonym for permissiveness; on the contrary, it is, above all, closely related to deliberate willingness to enable equal competition between political opponents within the rules established by the law. In the countries where democracy has existed for several centuries, political tolerance is one of the most important indicators of society democratization [7, p. 124].
Modern Russian journalism environment, unfortunately, is the evidence of the processes that characterize the content of the media works and the way these works function in intolerant forms of social interaction. This tendency was showed by D. Strovsky in the following way: it is the media that, like no other social institution, is able to accumulate different points of view in all the issues of everyday life, to impart some dynamics to this discussion and intensify it, to activate feedback between the discourse agents and the general audience. Meanwhile, today, the Russian media show a completely different approach. It is characterized with uncompromising viewpoints, categorical assessments, subjective character of interpretation of facts and events and other manifestations; all these in total not only block formation of public tolerance, but also create an aggressive information environment affecting millions of people. And the fact that such information is prevalent makes an unfavorable effect on these people’s state and causes distorted perception of the reality [8, p. 135].
In addition, D. Strovsky characterized the problems negatively affecting the forming of a fully developed culture of tolerance in the country’s media. To his mind, the main causes of intolerance and aggression manifestations in journalists conduct during their activities are: 1) traditional rejection of tolerance by the Russian society; 2) lack of respect for the law as the legal condition for development of social cohesion and tolerance; 3) neglect of the people forming tolerance [8, p. 136]. It is essential to admit that stated problems of tolerance development in Russia remain crucial. Their solution is in the public experience field, in stereotypes overcoming, in growth of political culture, in expanding democratization process including the media sphere.
Since the understanding of the tolerance effects is ambiguous, let us put forward central controversial and provocative characteristics of social tolerance manifested in the work of today’s mass media as the basic concept:
– deliberate distraction of the audience’s attention from the problems and contradictions of the actuality;
– an effective political dialogue and polylogue;
– imitation of political dialogue and polylogue;
– regulation of public relations or society manipulation;
– focus of authorities’ attention on an alternative political discourse, interpretation and analysis of it, with the possibility of adjusting of the official political discourse.
Tolerance between the elite and the common society representatives on the socio-psychological level can be understood as a set for a multi-level systematic interaction of members of the ruling (managing) class with the class of subordinates (controlled people). The basis of such interaction can be provided by the social communications structure. The leading role in the organizing and making tolerant social interaction possible belongs to the structures and the leaders of executive and legislative authorities on each level (federal, regional authorities, municipal authorities).
In a society, means of communication is the tool of tolerance, and leaders of a state are initiators, inspirers, organizers of social dialogue. State leaders are interested in keeping and strengthening the power by monitoring public impressions, feelings and reactions. A society needs a dialogue to be aware of social transformations and to influence the goings-on. One of the main social mechanisms that provide a tolerant social interaction is a public political discourse which can be understood as: 1) an open political debate; 2) specific or open (world, national, regional, local) political background; 3) united (global or national) sphere that ensures the operating of the political space.
The efficiency of a political discourse is defined by its reasonable and logical directives to the object of influence. Political discourse in the public administration system can lead to some result, making and execution of certain decisions. Political discourse in social interaction is a regulator of social relations, it helps to carry out public dialogue, form the audience’s mood and regulate the social development process. Ambiguity or intolerance of political discourse causes social interaction breakdown.
In crisis times, means of communication can play role of relationships arbiter and assist tolerant or intolerant social interaction. Passing over in silence, absence of response to social irritants demonstrates deep depression in journalism, its indifference to disclosure, study and public presentation of vital issues.
Humanism orientation of journalism, creativity of journalism texts and identity of authors’ style can be effective ways for the tolerance development. In this perspective, the focus should be on the study of creative works used by journalists in modern mass media and, as a result, the effects of their impact on the audience. The influence of the creative factor expressed in today’s media through the diverse manifestations of a free individual in the process of exploring and representing the reality is the emphasis of general social mood and attitudes (people’s values and the actual movement of the society towards progress and the common good).
Moral criteria of the state and development of an individual, such as the truth, conscience, compassion, mutual aid together are the key component of the achievement of artistic success in the mass media for a humanistic oriented author. S. Korkonosenko believes that these keynotes of the axiological sphere of the Russian society put in the spotlight a person who in their media work develops multidimensional immaterial, mental creation. Such free individual gains in importance for a society, because the results of this person’s creative self-development become the main resource of the social progress. Giving credit for the great traditions of humanism and existentialism in the European scientific thought, yet we have regard to the fact that just in the Russian mentality, a creative spirituality prevails over rationality. And here, personal wealth and development are less painted with individualism (which is, in fact, the transformation of rationalism, in its pragmatic version), while their confluence with collectivism and aspiration for the common good are seen more clearly [9, p. 306, 292].
Such approach enables the prospect of an appropriate work of political journalism which core is free creator who takes part in public communication processes and notes the course of social development along with the activities of social and political agents. Opportunities for creativity in today’s political journalism are diverse, and the tolerance characteristic considered is reflected in them. Tolerance or intolerance quality becomes inherent for the particular communication participant, and it reveals itself in the content of this participant’s texts through the subjective view of the political reality and comparison of the subjective view with the social actuality. Forming of a journalist’s political consciousness and political culture happens in this way, on the basis of free creativity, at the same time, the journalist correlates their view of the political processes with the public interest.
In other cases, when the mental work on the correlation of interests of the individual and society is not carried out and interconnection and interdependence between them is not set, tolerance level in the free creation process decreases to the indicators of openly demonstrated hatred and tendency to the destruction of a different point of view. Chiefly, it happens verbally, for example, there is a plenty of abusive words in the comments on the politicians’ actions in the Internet; and in other social circumstances, intolerance appears not only verbally but also physically with an assault, fighting or killing. These extreme manifestations of a conflict, unfortunately, have become real phenomena of today’s social and political actuality. Journalism and mass media form the political media culture of communication space participants and social and political players, as well as they show the patterns of political behavior to the audience, and it all is due to their work and participation of public opinion leaders, political and economic elite’s representatives, civil society in their work.
Cognitive analysis. The media work shows that the main criteria for a tolerant political discourse in the media are the creative components reflected in the journalism texts, such as: creativity of an author and a work’s characters, identity of an author’s style and ways to draw attention and interest of the audience. These ways are vitality, or even sensationalism, irony and sarcasm, plot, composition and dramatic characteristics of a text.
Following statements of people about politics and authorities can serve as examples of tolerant political discourse realization: “I have still kept the old habit of not talking about authorities. I think it’s okay as long as we sit here, talk and have the opportunity to travel abroad and share our thoughts at least in the Internet” [10, p. 2]. The power in the original mythology is represented by court. Born and nourished by gods, people, also, need care and their relationships imply regulation from the top-down. To judge people means to give each of them their own place, to determine an area and frames for everyone. This is the power of the court (authorities). It is not the ruler who needs power but the commanded people themselves. The power is a reward and blessing not for the leaders but for the people. The motif when someone is called for assuming power on the assumption that the future ruler assumes it reasoning from mercy and indulgence to the future subjects is widespread in the mythology [11, p. 29-30].
Political discourse can acquire ironic and humorous forms towards state political leaders. The fact that irony can be used as a journalistic method and is included in the public communication in general contributes to the understanding and tolerant social interaction between people and authority. A text can be neutral, and in a neutral text, the function of irony is performed by the facts reflected in a journalist’s work in some special way. On the contrary, the wicked humor (sarcasm) disorganizes public political interaction. The irony in political communication is a sign of acceptance of the government, and sarcasm, as a rule, contains a sign of its disapproval, expressed in impolite, often, insulting or even slanderous interpretation of actual or potential actions of the officials.
Satirical political texts may be of more moderate character and so acquire attributes of feuilleton, a work criticizing just certain drawbacks. It is supposed that the drawbacks in the criticism feuilletons can be eliminated by the criticized individuals on their own. Vague boundaries between a lampoon and a feuilleton are a feature of political satire. Often, authors of satirical works turn from discussion of particular political issue (political irony) to discussion of personal qualities: advantages, disadvantages of political opponents’ appearance which results in a direct insult to the certain individual. Words with a strong negative emotional coloring are used in the text. Ethics of communication in a public political discourse is often not respected.
V. Dem’yankov notes that deriding of the opponent in political debate is one of the ways to destroy them. In general, according to many theorists (e.g., Henri Bergson), laughing is a sign of subconscious desire to humiliate the opponent, and thus to regulate, improve their behavior. This idea has been deliberately used in political debate ever since the Roman Empire time. This is confirmed by Cicero’s diatribes in which even not related to the politics intimate characteristics of the opponent are ridiculed. Deriding is in between ethical and improper conduct. Public considers offensive humor as suitable only in the most crucial period, and normally, it is inappropriate [12, p. 32].
Entry into a political dialogue does not mean its certain success. The responsibility for the information given to the society rests with politicians, state officials, journalists and experts. Public discourse can be canceled, paused and can lead to some unexpected results, regardless of the purpose of political interaction members initiating and participating in it. An extent of social interaction tolerance depends on the success or failure of the dialogue. In the Western democracy, the regulation of free information flow on the basis of informational and political pluralism stabilizes and strengthens the democratic system of a state. The implementation of the pluralism concept in Russia is a quite difficult task, mainly, for the lack of experience and development of democratic traditions. The approach of informational pluralism enables widespread use of methods of political struggle between different participants of political interaction (paradigm: interaction considered from various points of view). Information and communication pluralism allows to strengthen visible part of political discussions, but does not mean weakness of political will of state institutions concerned with making decisions in favor of not certain participants but the whole society in order to ensure the sustainability of their own functioning and self-preservation.
Intolerance, the reverse side of tolerance, is a result of a psychological reaction; it is a specific response of the communication member to the critical, unsolved, “frozen” problems of social interaction. Any physical violence is a priori intolerant. Intolerant behavior of an individual causes a response intolerant behavior of another interaction party. Intolerance reaction occurs in the situations when the conflicting parties exhausted other interaction means, first of all, consensus and negotiation ones which are implemented through public communication and discussions.
The aspects of the study of tolerance as a complex moral, psychological and political phenomenon remain significant to the scientific understanding. In the humanities knowledge field, set of tolerance problems is of an interdisciplinary character. Not only content characteristic of tolerant ethnic, social and political behavior and interaction studied by researchers is important, but also the overall effect of processes and events described in the media.
In democracy, a society’s common interests are produced in mutually agreed free and legitimate actions of the authorities and citizens. These actions are carried out with the constant operation of public institutions and political parties that act within the existing legislation and treat each other in a tolerant manner. An efficient way of social development is maximum cooperation of all social and political forces evincing interests in different spheres of society life. Public discourse of the essential topics in the media, selection and centralization of ideas with the aim of solving crucial issues help the authorities to effectively respond to the society’s requests and needs and to carry out public management.
Democracy implies social key decisions making, especially in providing political diversity and unlimited personality development. In this process, mass media plays a significant role of the public mood maintenance assistant and gives the information to the government about the most vital problems that require immediate resolutions. Adequately responding to the publicly raised questions, the authorities can take account of the results of social interaction and make efficient decisions with the view of continuous and sustainable development of society and the state. In this case, the decisions have public and state significance, are recognized on different levels of institution development, and the procedure for the adoption of specific solutions and ways to implement them are in the powers of the authorities.
Список литературы / References
- Толерантность. Словарь по политологии. – Ростов-на-Дону: РГУ, 2001. – 285 с.
- Толерантность. Социология: Энциклопедия. – Минск: Книжный дом, 2003. – 1312 с.
- Романова Т.В. Толерантность и политкорректность: аналитический обзор современного состояния проблемы (лингвистический аспект) // Политическая лингвистика. – 2015. – №2 (52). – С. 39-49.
- Блохин И.Н. Толерантность как принцип журналистской деятельности // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Сер. 9. Филология. Востоковедение. Журналистика. – 2008. – Вып. 3. – Ч. I. – С. 120-126.
- Сидоров В.А. Толерантность: «образ действий» в политической культуре журналиста // Толерантность. Журналистика, политика, культура: материалы межфакультетского теоретического семинара, 18 ноября 2002 года. – Санкт-Петербург: СПбГУ, 2003. – С. 87-102.
- Прохоров Е.П. Введение в теорию журналистики. – Москва: Аспект Пресс, 2011. – 352 с.
- Гавра Д.П., Родионова Е.В. Социальные характеристики политической толерантности взрослого населения Санкт-Петербурга (по данным эмпирического исследования) // Толерантность. Журналистика, политика, культура: материалы межфакультетского теоретического семинара, 18 ноября 2002 года. – Санкт-Петербург: СПбГУ, 2003. – С. 123-144.
- Стровский Д.Л. Социальный диалог в журналистике как условие формирования ее толерантности // Дискурс-ПИ. – 2003. – Вып. №1. – Т. 3. – С. 135-136.
- Корконосенко С.Г., Кудрявцева М.Е., Слуцкий П.А. Свобода личности в массовой коммуникации. – Санкт-Петербург: СПбГЭТУ, Новый век, 2010. – 308 с.
- Рябко В. БГ: «Бог всегда в нас»: Интервью с музыкантом Борисом Гребенщиковым // Gaudeamus. – 2008. – № 2. – 16 января.
- Сапронов П.А. Власть как культурно-историческая реальность // Вода живая: Санкт-Петербургский церковный вестник. – 2007. – № 5. – С. 28-31.
- Демьянков В.З. Политический дискурс как предмет политологической филологии // Политическая наука. Политический дискурс: История и современные исследования. – 2002. – № 3. – С. 32-43.
Список литературы на английском языке / References in English
- Slovar’ po politologii [The dictionary on political science]. – Rostov-na-Donu: RGU, 2001. – 285 p. [in Russian].
- Sociologiya: Enciklopediya [Sociology: Encyclopedia]. – Minsk: Knizhnyj dom, 2003. – 1312 p. [in Russian].
- Romanova T.V. Tolerantnost’ i politkorrektnost’: analiticheskij obzor sovremennogo sostoyaniya problemy (lingvisticheskij aspekt) [Tolerance and political correctness: analytical review of the current state of the problem (linguistic aspect)]. // Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics]. – 2015. – №2 (52). – P. 39-49. [in Russian].
- Blohin I.N. Tolerantnost’ kak princip zhurnalistskoj deyatel’nosti [Tolerance as principle of journalistic activity]. // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 9. Filologiya. Vostokovedenie. Zhurnalistika [Vestnik of St. Petersburg State University. Series 9. Philology. Asian Studies. Journalism]. – 2008. – Vyp. 3. – Ch. I. – P. 120-126. [in Russian].
- Sidorov V.A. Tolerantnost’: “obraz dejstvij” v politicheskoj kul’ture zhurnalista [Tolerance: “line of action” in political culture of the journalist]. // Tolerantnost’. Zhurnalistika, politika, kul’tura: materialy mezhfakul’tetskogo teoreticheskogo seminara. 18 noyabrya 2002 goda [Tolerance. Journalism, policy, culture: materials of an interfaculty theoretical seminar. November 18, 2002]. – Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGU. – 2003. – P. 87-102. [in Russian].
- Prohorov E.P. Vvedenie v teoriyu zhurnalistiki [Introduction to the theory of journalism]. – Moskva: Aspekt Press, 2011. – 352 p. [in Russian].
- Gavra D.P., Rodionova E.V. Social’nye harakteristiki politicheskoj tolerantnosti vzroslogo naseleniya Sankt-Peterburga (po dannym ehmpiricheskogo issledovaniya) [Social characteristics of political tolerance of adult population of St. Petersburg (according to empirical research)]. // Tolerantnost’. Zhurnalistika, politika, kul’tura: materialy mezhfakul’tetskogo teoreticheskogo seminara. 18 noyabrya 2002 goda [Tolerance. Journalism, policy, culture: materials of an interfaculty theoretical seminar. November 18, 2002]. – Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGU. – 2003. – P. 123-144. [in Russian].
- Strovskij D.L. Social’nyj dialog v zhurnalistike kak uslovie formirovaniya ee tolerantnosti [Social dialogue in journalism as a condition of formation of its tolerance]. // Diskurs-PI [Discourse PI]. – 2003. – Vyp. №1. – T. 3. – P. 135-136. [in Russian].
- Korkonosenko S.G., Kudryavceva M.E., Sluckij P.A. Svoboda lichnosti v massovoj kommunikacii [Personal freedomin mass communication]. – Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGETU, Novyj vek, 2010. – 308 p. [in Russian].
- Ryabko V. BG: “Bog vsegda v nas”: Interv’yu s muzykantom Borisom Grebenshchikovym [BG: “God always in us”: Interview to the musician Boris Grebenshchikov]. // Gaudeamus. – 2008. – № 2. – 16 yanvarya. [in Russian].
- Sapronov P.A. Vlast’ kak kul’turno-istoricheskaya real’nost’ [Power as cultural and historical reality]. // Voda zhivaya: Sankt-Peterburgskij cerkovnyj vestnik [Water of life: St. Petersburg church vestnik]. – 2007. – № 5. – P. 28-31. [in Russian].
- Dem’yankov V.Z. Politicheskij diskurs kak predmet politologicheskoj filologii [Political discourse as subject of politological philology]. // Politicheskaya nauka. Politicheskij diskurs: Istoriya i sovremennye issledovaniya [Politicalscience. Political discourse: History and modern researches]. – 2002. – № 3. – P. 32-43. [in Russian].