Theory and practice of digital political culture: The views of the French school of communicativistics

Widespread introduction of digital technologies into political communication practices has led to the emergence of a new phenomenon — digital political culture, — which not only has attracted the attention of academic community, but has literally burst into modern electoral processes in developed countries. In terms of systemic and comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon the works of the French school of communicativistics are of particular interest. The first section of the paper thoroughly examines the key research questions, approaches and assertions that form the substantive core of the French school. The authors note that French researchers generally share the view that digital technologies have not had a revolutionary impact on political communications; rather they have complemented the existing social practices. However, this caution about new technologies does not impede their active integration into the political processes of the Fifth Republic. In the second section, through the analysis of a number of electoral campaigns, the authors examine the practical aspects of formation of digital political culture in France. The authors refer to the findings of French experts who conclude that despite the importance of Big Data technologies for establishing communication with the electorate, their use is not a simple or linear process and does not guarantee automatic success. The third section analyzes modern digital communication strategies in electoral processes in France on the example of the 2017 presidential elections. Special attention is paid to the electoral campaigns of E. Macron and J.-L. Melenchon. The authors conclude that in full accordance with the provisions of the French school of communicativistics the specifics of interpersonal communication, party interaction and traditions, as well as other factors related to the etymology of culture and sociology of the organization retain their significance even with the introduction of digital technologies. Moreover, the latter could have considerable communication effects in politics only if they match with the existing culture and evolve along with it. 

1. Delov V.V., Yurkovich F. 2017. Frantsiya 2017: k novomu elektoral’nomu konstruktu? [France 2017: Towards a new electoral construct?]. In: Krivonosov A.D. (ed.). Rossiiskaya piarologiya-4. Trendy i draivery: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov v chest’ professora L.V. Minaevoi [Russian PR-4. Trends and drivers: Collection of scientific papers in honor of Professor L.V. Minaeva]. Saint-Petersburg, Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta Publ., pp. 48–57. (In Russ.)

2. Lebedeva T.Yu. 1999. Pablik rileishnz. Korporativnaya i politicheskaya rezhissura: modeli, sistema tsennostei, kanaly SMK [Public relations. Corporate and political directing: Models, value system, media channels]. Moscow, Moscow University Press. (In Russ.)

3. Barthes R. 1957. Mythologies. Paris, Seuil.

4. Boiry Ph.A. 1989. Les relations publiques ou la stratégie de la confiance. Paris, Eyrolles.

5. Crozier M., Friedberg E. 1977. L’acteur et le système: Les contraintes de l’action collective. Paris, Seuil.

6. Debrey R. 1993. L’etat séducteur: Les révolutions médiologiques du pouvoir. Paris, Gallimard.

7. Doueihi M. 2013. Qu’est-ce que le numérique? Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

8. Eyries A. 2021. La communication politique 3.0? La politique a l’épreuve du numérique. Dijon, Éditions Universitaires de Dijon.

9. Gerstle J. 1992. La communication politique. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

10. Gerstle J., Piar C. 2020. La communication politique. Paris, Armand Colin.

11. Habermas J. 1986. L’espace public: Archéologie de la publicité comme dimension constitutive de la société bourgeoise. Paris, Payot.

12. Iyengar Sh. 2011. Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York, W.W. Norton & Co.

13. Lafrance J.-P. 2013. La civilisation du Clic. La vie moderne sous l’emprise des nouveaux médias. Paris, L’Harmattan.

14. Maarek Ph. 2007. Communication politique et marketing de l’homme politique. Paris, LexisNexis.

15. Maarek Ph. 1992. Communication politique et publique. Communication et marketing de l’homme politique. Paris, Litec.

16. Matra L. 1971. Relations publiques et management. Texte de la Conférence à l’lnstitut de Sociologie de l’Université de Bruxelles. Bruxelles.

17. Mercier А. 2004. Pour la communication politique. Hermès, La Revue, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 70–76. DOI: 10.4267/2042/9426.

18. Morozov E. 2014. Pour tout résoudre, cliquez ici: L’abberation du solutionnisme technologique. Limoges, Fyp.

19. Salleron L. 1956. L’automation. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

20. Seguela J., Saussez T. 2007. La prise de l’Elysée: Les campagnes présidentielles de la Ve République. Paris, Plon.

21. Theviot A. 2019. Big Data électoral. Dis-moi qui tu es, je te dirai pour qui voter. Lormont, Le Bord de l’Eau.

22. Tixier-Guichard R., Chaize D. 1993. Les dircoms. A quoi sert la communication? Paris, Seuil.

23. Wolton D. 1997. Penser la communication. Paris, Flammarion.