2408-9338Research result. Sociology and Management2408-933810.18413/2408-9338-2019-5-3-0-11790SOCIOLOGY OF CULTURE AND SPIRITUAL LIFECommunication in a closed information spaceCommunication in a closed information spaceShuneykoAlexander AlfredovichShuneykoAlexander Alfredovicha-shuneyko@yandex.ruChibisovaOlga VladimirovnaChibisovaOlga Vladimirovnaolgachibisova@yandex.ru20195300

Communication history and modernity includes a large number of various practices that can be perceived as closed communication systems, which include a set of actions used in a particular area and with specific targets. All of them can be divided into successful and unsuccessful. Successful are such communicative practices that are used for a long time in various states, social environments and ideological contexts. They include a wide range of different communicative actions and demonstrate verifiable effectiveness, which manifests itself through the invariable achievement of clearly verbalized tasks. Communication within Freemasonry is undoubtedly among these practices. This communicative practice has existed for at least three hundred years and, judging by archival materials, essentially has not changed, remaining as regulated and mandatory as it was centuries ago and continuing to attract and retain new adepts. In the article, this communicative practice is analyzed in relation to modern Freemasonry. The result of the analysis is the description of the structure of the practice and the identification of the totality of the communicative actions used in it. Both are useful not only as an element of the history of communication, but also as a tool, the potential use of which, according to the authors, is wide and varied. A closed space deforms communication. It is capable of generating positive and negative communicative effects. Their manifestations are associated with the ritualization of the information transmission and the emergence of centripetal forces that ensure the collective’s attention on certain topics. Information for citation: Shuneyko, A.A., Chibisova, O. V. (2019), “Communication in a closed information space”, Research Result. Sociology and management, 5(3),3-19. DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2019-5-3-0-1

Communication history and modernity includes a large number of various practices that can be perceived as closed communication systems, which include a set of actions used in a particular area and with specific targets. All of them can be divided into successful and unsuccessful. Successful are such communicative practices that are used for a long time in various states, social environments and ideological contexts. They include a wide range of different communicative actions and demonstrate verifiable effectiveness, which manifests itself through the invariable achievement of clearly verbalized tasks. Communication within Freemasonry is undoubtedly among these practices. This communicative practice has existed for at least three hundred years and, judging by archival materials, essentially has not changed, remaining as regulated and mandatory as it was centuries ago and continuing to attract and retain new adepts. In the article, this communicative practice is analyzed in relation to modern Freemasonry. The result of the analysis is the description of the structure of the practice and the identification of the totality of the communicative actions used in it. Both are useful not only as an element of the history of communication, but also as a tool, the potential use of which, according to the authors, is wide and varied. A closed space deforms communication. It is capable of generating positive and negative communicative effects. Their manifestations are associated with the ritualization of the information transmission and the emergence of centripetal forces that ensure the collective’s attention on certain topics. Information for citation: Shuneyko, A.A., Chibisova, O. V. (2019), “Communication in a closed information space”, Research Result. Sociology and management, 5(3),3-19. DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2019-5-3-0-1

communicationinformationFreemasonryclosed spacecommunicative actionscommunicationinformationFreemasonryclosed spacecommunicative actionsСписок литературыAndrienko, A. S. (2007), Manipulation of consciousness in modern totalitarian sects [Online], available at: http://www.tds.net.ru/index (Accessed 25 June 2019). (In Russian).Vysotskaya, A. L. (2010), “The study of the communication process in mythological consciousness”, Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation, Ivanovo State University, Ivanovo, Russia. (In Russian).Radina, N. K. (2016), “The social-psychological phenomenon of ‘closeness’ of M. Yu. Kondratieff: from a ‘closed group’ to a ‘closed society’”, Social Psychology and Society, 7 (1), 45-58.(In Russian).Shuneyko, A. A. and Chibisova, O. V. (2019), “Non-egocentricity as a characteristic of Masonic texts”, Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 73-84. (In Russian).Bale, J. M. (2007), “Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics”, Patterns of Prejudice, 41 (1), 45-60.Bond, M. and Danezis, G. (2007), “The Dining Freemasons (Security Protocols for Secret Societies)”, in Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Malcolm,J. A. and Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols, Springer, Berlin, Germany.Bradley, R. T. (2011), “Communication of collective identity in secret social groups: Hypothesis of a holographic signature of member affiliation”, Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 3 (3), 198-224.Carr, H. (1946), An Examination of the Early Masonic Catechisms, Bros. Johnson, Wykes & Paine, Leicester, UK.Clawson, M. A. (2014), Constructing Brotherhood: Class, Gender, and Fraternalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.Duncan, M. (2018), Duncan’s Masonic Ritual and Monitor, Dick & Fitzgerald, New York, USA.Ellis, S. and Ter Haar, G. (2004), Worlds of Power: Religious Thought and Political Practice in Africa, Hurst & Company, London, UK.Ganascia, J. G. (2010), “The generalized sousveillance society”, Social Science Information, 49 (3), 1-19.Gunn, J. (2007), “The Two Rhetorics of Freemasonry, or, on the Function & Necessity of Masonic Secrecy”, Heredom, 15, 1-34.Hutchinson, W. (1775), The Spirit of masonry in moral and elucidatory lectures, J. Wilkie andW. Goldsmith, London, UK.Jones, R. (2013), A Practical Handbook to Masonic Communication, Lulu.com, 322 р.Kaplan, D. (2014), “The Architecture of Collective Intimacy: Masonic Friendships as a Model for Collective Attachments”, American Anthropologist, 116 (1), 81-93.Mahmud, L. (2013), “The profane ethnographer: Fieldwork with a secretive organisation”, in Garsten, C. and Nyqvist, A. (eds), Organizational Anthropology, Pluto press, New York, USA.Oliver, G. (1823), The Antiquities of Free-masonry: Comprising Illustration of the Five Grand Periods of Masonry, G. & W.B. Whittaker, London, UK.Parker, M. (2016), “Secret Societies: Intimations of Organization”, Organization Studies, 37 (1), 99-113.Prichard, S. (1730), Masonry Dissected, London [Online], available at: http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonry_dissected.htm (Accessed 25 June 2019).Stohl, C. and Stohl, M. (2011), Secret Agencies: The Communicative Constitution of a Clandestine Organization [Online], available at: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/21/0170840611410839 (Accessed 25 June 2019).Robison, J. J. (1798), Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried On in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies, Collected from Good Authorities, Philadelphia, USA. Shuneyko, A. A. and Chibisova, O. V. (2016), “Closed topics in linguocultures: identity in the form of diversity”, Science Journal of VolSU. Linguistics, 15 (4), 197-206.Tabbert, M. A. (2006), American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities, New York University Press, New York, USA.Webster, N. H. (2008), Secret Societies and Subversive Movements [Online], available at: http://iamthewitness.com/books/Nesta.H.Webster/Secret.Societies.and.Subversive.Movements.htm (Accessed 25 June 2019).