Power Legitimacy: Towards the Creation of an Operational Model

The legitimacy of power is difficult to assess and predict, so the author of the article sets himself the task of formulating an operational model for describing the legitimacy of power and suggests using a discursive approach to the analysis of political processes. The use of discursive methods allows using not only sociological surveys but also to find cheaper and more effective methods of analysing opinions and ideas. The development of such a model will open the way to the formation of a tool for assessing the level of legitimacy of power and forecasting crises of legitimacy in a particular state. Turning to the discursive dimension of the description of legitimacy allows us to designate specific variables and to describe and evaluate them. As the main methodological concept, the author suggests using idealised cognitive models in the terminology of J. Lakoff (frames, figurative-schematic structures, metaphors and metonyms). Further, based on the traditions of studying the legitimacy of power in political and social science, as well as applying a discursive approach, the author formulates an operational model of legitimation consisting of three main elements: institutional order, leaders and elites, historical and cultural traditions. The formulation of the primary hypothesis is based on the assumption that the coincidence of the models of legitimation of power formulated by political leaders and perceived by the population will contribute to increased support for the authorities. The ability to approach the formation of tools for assessing and predicting crises of legitimacy can be useful both for describing and forecasting domestic policy and for evaluating the political risks of investments and cooperation with other countries.

legitimacy, discourse, power, metaphor, frame, model, crisis, revolution

1. Tilly Ch. From mobilisation to revolution. Moscow: HSE; 2019. (In Russ.).

2. Eisenstadt Sh. Revolution and transformation of societies. Comparative study of civilisations. Moscow: Aspect Press; 1999. (In Russ.).

3. Skocpol Th. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.

4. Rozov N. S., Pustovoit Yu.A., Filippov S. I., Tsygankov V.V. Revolutionary waves of the second half of the twentieth century: the relationship of geopolitics, violence, and legitimacy. Polis. 2019;(2):24–40. (In Russ.).

5. Schultz E. E. To the question about the classification of revolutions. Polity. 2018;2(89):137–155. (In Russ.).

6. Chimiris E. S. Revolution. Experience of cognitive understanding of the concept. Polity. 2008;(1):126–141. (In Russ.).

7. Levi-Strauss K. Primitive thinking. Moscow: TERRA-Book club; Republic; 1999. (In Russ.).

8. Levi-Strauss K. Sad tropics. Moscow: ACT Publishing House; 1999. (In Russ.).

9. Fraser J. J. The Golden bough: a Study of magic and religion. Moscow: Eksmo; 2006. (In Russ.).

10. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action. London, Harvard University Press; 1965.

11. Hirschman A. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge; 1970.

12. Hegtvedt K.A., Johnson C. Power and Justice: Toward an Understanding of Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):376–399.

13. Hechter M. Legitimacy in the Modern World. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):279–288.

14. Durkheim E. On the division of social labour. Moscow: Canon; 1996. (In Russ.).

15. Horne C. A Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):400–415.

16. Tyler T. R. A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7449571_Psychological_Perspectives_on_Legitimacy_and_Legitimation.

17. Tyler T.R. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006;(57):375–400.

18. Coicaud J. M. Legitimacy and Politics. A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge; 1997.

19. Rothstein B. Creating Political Legitimacy. Electoral Democracy Versus Quality of Government. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):311–330.

20. Barker R. Legitimating Identities. The Self-Presentation of Rulers and Subjects. Cambridge; 2001.

21. Bourdieu P. Sociology of social space. Moscow: Aleteia; 2007. (In Russ.).

22. Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality: a treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Moscow: Medium; 1995. (In Russ.).

23. Shmerlina I.A. “Social form”: contours of the concept. Polity. 2019;3(94):6–27. (In Russ.).

24. Lakoff J. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what language categories tell us about thinking. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture; 2004. (In Russ.).

25. Minsky M. Frames for knowledge representation. Moscow: Energiya; 1979. (In Russ.).

26. van Dyck T. Language. Knowledge. Communication. Moscow: Progress; 1989. (In Russ.).

27. Hoffman I. Analysis of frames: essays on the organisation of everyday experience. Moscow: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2003. (In Russ.).

28. Langakker R. U. Theoretical grammar. Moscow: INION of the USSR Academy of Sciences; 1992. (In Russ.).

29. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors that we live by. Moscow: URSS; 2004. (In Russ.).

30. Arutyunova N. D. Metaphor and discourse. Metaphor theory. Moscow: Progress; 1990. (In Russ.).

31. Blakar R. M. Language as a tool of social power. Language and modelling of social interaction. Collection of articles. Moscow: Progress; 1987. (In Russ.).

32. Leeuwen T.V. Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Discourse & Communication. 2007;1(1):91–112.