Verbalization of the Myth-Image of Russia’s President V. Putin as a Man of Many Faces (Newsweek, 2000 – 2007)
Who is he, Vladimir Putin?
Russia’s Mystery Man (Jan. 2002, p. 30).
The basic concepts of political mass-media discourse are POWER and a POLITICIAN. The key figure of discourse about any country is its leader. In the period of V. Putin’s presidency he is in the focus of mass media attention; his statements, information about his relations with other political figures in Russia and foreign countries, his actions, facts of his biography and political activities are thoroughly selected, evaluated and commented on. Newspapers or magazines give readers their own interpretation of a political leader, constructing a certain image of a real person. Newsweek magazine, an international weekly, creates a many-sided image of Vladimir Putin. Some of the aspects of this image, are subjected to the analysis in this article.
The aim of my presentation is to analyze language realization of the political image of Russia’s President V. Putin in Newsweek magazine, the image which, as the research shows, has a visible mythological touch. The material of the investigation covers the period from 2000 to 2007.
A myth is a way of interpreting phenomena which are ambiguous, problematic, not quite clear. Myths help people to be oriented in heaps of facts and ideas. Myths combine reality and fiction, illusions, on the one hand, and make things simpler, devoid of nuances, less vague, on the other.
A myth about a political figure is a specific adaptation of reality for political purposes. A political myth makes the real world of politics simpler and more understandable. Political myths are “half-the truth or half-a lie” [1: 136].
A political myth, to my mind, does not appear as a result of somebody’s intention to distort the real state of things. It is rather a proof of authors’ (makers of the myth) inability to perceive an object in all the variety of its aspects and manifestations than somebody’s conscious wish to delude people. The image of an object as a whole essence disappears, it is replaced by one trait or a set of some vivid traits which are often repeated in order to be printed in the reader’s or listener’s mind.
On the eve of the new millennium Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President, announces his resignation. His replacement is a man about whom almost nothing is known. He is referred to as a career KGB officer named Vladimir Putin (Febr. 5, 2001, p. 12), a faceless former KGB operative, a textbook example of the anonymous apparatchik (Jan., 2000, pp. 30, 34).
The metaphors emphasize the unexpected front running of “ex-spy” Vladimir Putin who won the game of musical chairs (Jan. 10, 2000, p. 53): Boris Yeltsin plucked Putin out of utter obscurity (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 30); …catapulting Putin to presidency (Febr. 16, 2004, p. 4); …terrorist attacks helped to propel Putin into power (Jan. 26, 2004, p. 25).
Some commentaries, often rather contradictory are made on his biography and his character: “Tough, disciplined, a decent, but not brilliant student, no star either academically or professionally, “nobody” - on the one hand, and “well-educated, competent basically, smart, a member of the KGB elite crew of superspies” – on the other.
Three tendencies are observed are observed in the process of depicting the beginning of V. Putin’s career as President. He is represented as:
a puppet: Berezovsky had a role in putting Putin where he is today (Apr. 10, 2000, p. 27); Boris Yeltsin tapped an ec – KYB man as his successor (Jan. 10, 2000, p. 54);
a strong guy: Vladimir Putin… has ridden a vicious war (Jan. 10, 200, p. 51);
a reticent person: He proved himself to be a loyal and highly effective manager, becoming ‘the gray cardinal” of the St. Petersburg government… (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 33); How did Vladimir Putin get here? In spy novels, and perhaps in the fevered imagination of some Western governments now, he would be a “sleeper”: an agent put in place by an all-powerful security service, ready to be on at just the right moment (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 32).
The description of Vladimir Putin's biography and political activities is based on real facts but something irrational is involved into the description too. Putin appears to be carried along by destiny. He is Destiny’s own man, the man in whose life an occasion plays a very important role. His sudden rise seems strange: Vladimir Putin’s rise to the think of the Russian Presidency has been so swift and so unexpected, that Washington and the rest of the world have been caught flat-footed (March 27, 2000, p.16).
Nothing in Putin’s background gave any indication that he was headed for Power in Moscow (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 33). A working class son of a Leningrad factory worker, a retired officer of the KGB. But in 1996 he took a job that changed his fate trajectory. Pavel Borodin, who managed the Kremlin’s property hired Putin with his, KGB background and experience abroad as a deputy. The move to Borodin’s office would be fateful for Putin’s career, the move that changed everything (Jan. 17, 2000, pp. 33-34).
The main virtues of Man of Destiny are loyalty and hard work: “It is better to be hanged for loyalty”, he (V. Putin) said, “than to be rewarded for betrayal” (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 33). Hard work, unswerving loyalty and a basic competence have served him well. Better, indeed, than anyone could have expected (Jan. 17, 2000, p.31). His efforts are rewarded: Putin is the Russian Everyman made good-sort of a Soviet Horatio Alger3: plucky Vladimir, who… joins the KGB, works hard and ends up being president of his country (March, 27, 2000, p. 17). Putin’s membership in the KGB emphasizes the fact of his aloofness; his strange uprisal to the heights of power in the epoch of severe criticism of Soviet ideals and institutes seems mysterious.
Though at the first glance he is no better than others, but Destiny has chosen Him: “For better or worse…he has become the man of the moment precisely, because of who he is (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 31).
Destiny’s own man is an enigmatic personality. At the very beginning of his presidency myths are building around him: Who is he, Vladimir Putin? Russia’s Mystery Man (Jan. 2000, p. 30).
The central question is straightforward: Is Vladimir Putin… a democrat, a trustworthy custodian of Russia’s newly won civil liberties? Or is he… a true believer in the ways of the secret police? (Jan. 10, 2000, p. 54).
Summing up this feeling of uncertainty the magazine gives the opinion of an independent political analyst, Pavel Felgenhower: Nobody knows where Putin will take this country… Perhaps in a circle (Oct. 13, 2003, p. 35).
An image is a mental reflection of the object in one’s consciousness, an idea marked by individual perception and individual reaction to reality.
V. Putin’s image and Russia’s political life are interpreted by the magazine Newsweek through the prism of liberal values, such as individualism (individual rights of humans), a minimal role of state in economic and social spheres, social freedom’s, the proclaimed pluralism and openness of society.
Doubts about Putin’s liberalism are strong enough even at the beginning of his career: Vladimir Putin insists he is a democrat, but his KGB past is rising questions inside Russia and around the world (Jan. 10, 2000, p. 54). Attention of journalists is riveted to President’s words about one of the corner-stones of liberalism-freedom: “Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, the right to private property – these basic principles of a civilized society will be protected”, he (Putin) said. But creating the effect of a split personality, a person with different individualities the authors of the article (Yevgenia Albats and Bill Powell) express their concern referring to President’s past, polarizing the present and the past: Those were the right words; but at the same time there is no doubt that Vladimir Putin is proud of this past (Jan. 10, 2000, p. 54). Principles of democracy and V. Putin’s former service seem to become antagonistic, contradictory things: Vladimir Putin insists he is a democrat. But his KGB past is rising questions inside Russia and round the world. (Jan. 10, 2000, p. 54).4
However, some of Putin’s actions produce a favorable impression on liberally-oriented journalists: Putin has managed to ensure a climate of fiscal and macroeconomic stability… (July 8, 2002, p. 20). President Putin has said repeatedly that Russian foreign policy should unsentimentally follow the money, obeying the dictates of Russian commercial interests rather than the ideological or geopolitical principles that once applied (Sept. 2, 2002, p. 18).
But gradually, the myth of Russia’s Mystery Man is moving towards the pole of the so-called “black myth” when the hero is depicted in the negative. Nevertheless, the mainstream of articles about V. Putin is a contrasting representation of the President. We may speak here about the strategy of contrast realized in different lexical and syntactical means based on contrast, such as antonymy, antithesis, oxymoron. Antonomy is a semantic polarity and an antonyms are names of are names of contradictory or contrary notions:
a) “I’d been under the impression that Putin was a strong leader… But now I’ve come to the conclusion that he is weak “(May 9, 2005, p. 40).
b) “Putin is a changed man”, says one close advisor: “He’s lost his decisiveness. It seems like he is in a quiet panic” (Febr. 28, 2005, p. 24).
Antithesis is relative opposition which arises out of the context:
a) Will he be remembered as an antidemocrat or a national savior? (July 8, 2004, p. 16).
b) Vladimir Putin is a man of many faces. Publicly, he is the people’s defender cracking down on corruption. Behind the scenes, he plays hard-nosed politics (June 19, 2006, p. 48).
c) Vladimir Putin is steering Russia back towards… a hybrid of Russia’s ancient autocratic past and its globalizing future (Dec. 2000 – Febr. 2001, p. 36).
d) Putin is a conqueror and a spent force (June 19, 2006, p. 49).
Antithesis is often signaled by the introductory connectives “but”, “yet”: No more Mr. Nice Guy. Vladimir Putin slaps down hapless Belarus. But eventually the hard-fisted Russian President will find that the name of this game is blowback (March 16, 2007, p. 21). The Russia president may be no democrat. But he is a reformer (Aug. 2, 2004, p. 30).
A very vivid example of the clash of two meanings is given in the case of oxymoron. “O X Y M O R O N is a combination of two words, mostly an adjective and a noun, in which the two clash, being opposite in sense” [2: 162]: Putin’s second term will be characterized by what might be called “liberal authoritarianism”, or perhaps “authoritarian liberalization” (March 15, 2004, p. 28). Lexical expressive means are based on interaction of dictionary and contextual meanings. Contrary concepts surrounding V. Putin are reflected in a) epithets, b) metaphors, c) metonymy (contiguity of meaning), d) simile, e) metaphtonomy (combination of metaphor and metonymy):
a) To keep all Russia’s clans happy, Putin has to play a careful balancing act (July 17, 2006, p. 18). Teflon leader: despite the death rate toll Putin… remains extremely popular (Nov. 11, 2002, p.19).
b) He (Putin)… has turned the screws on the free thinkers (May 13, 2002, p. 17).
c) The Many Faces Of Putin (Febr. 28, 2005, p.p. 22-23).
d) He is almost like a good German (May 13, 2002, p. 17).
e) Putin’s True Colors (Dec. 2000 – Febr. 2001, p. 36).
Very different precedent names which serve as a peculiar aura revealing V. Putin’s nature, actions, ideas are contradictory too, for ex.: Mikhail Kutuzov, the Russian Great General, who drove Napoleon out of Moscow in 1812 and former American President Richard Nixon:
a) He (Putin) is, much of the nation seems to hope, their modern-day Kutuzov (Jan. 17, 2000, p. 34).
b) … the American politician Putin has come to resemble is Richard Nixon. Prowling the White House corridors, isolated and increasingly paranoid (Febr. 28, 2005, p. 22).
Using various means of contrast the authors of Newsweek construct a political liberal myth about Russia and its leader. The authors’ description of Vladimir Putin’s image is done through emphasizing the most semiotically loaded elements of political discourse: power, political organization of society, the role of Russia in the world. The result of this interpretation is actualization of the mental scheme “ambiguity, contradictoriness” verbalized in various linguistic and stylistic means creating V. Putin’s image as a myth about the man of many faces. This myth varies aksiologically, though it is marked by the shift to the negative pole (black myth).
Thus, after several years of V. Putin’s presidency, the question about Russia’s Mystery Man remains open: Who is he, Vladimir Putin?
REFERENCES
Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса. – М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис», 2004. – 326 с.
Galperin I.R. Stylistics. M. – Moscow Vyssaya Skola, 1981. – 334 p.
Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. – Longman Group UK Limited, 1992. – 1528 p.
АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье проводится анализ лингвистических и стилистических средств создания мифологического образа политического лидера - президента России Владимира Владимировича Путина как «человека со многими лицами» в либеральном дискурсе журнала Ньюсуик (2000 – 2007 гг.). Основные коммуникативная стратегия – контраст – формирующая мифологический образ В.В. Путина, реализуется в использовании антонимии, антитезы, оксюморона, лексических выразительных средств и прецедентных имен.
|
