Article Information


Nikolay Rudenkoa (E-mail:

Andrey Bekreevb

aThe Sociological Institute of the RAS — Branch of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; European University at Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Russia

bIndependent researcher; Saint Petersburg, Russia

Citation: Rudenko N., Bekreev A. (2018) Rossiyskoye programmnoye obespecheniye: diskursivnoye konstruirovaniye tekhnologicheskoy politiki v diskurse ofitsial'nykh lits [Russian software: discursive strategies for the framing of the technology policy in the discourse of the official authorities]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 21(4): 203–223 (in Russian).

Abstract. In the article we consider the discursive shaping of the notion “Russian software” in 2014–2017 in the discourse of the Russian official authorities. For the analysis we draw upon the approach of M. Foucault and post-Foucauldian scholars. The approach allows one to investigate the process of discursive shaping and constructing of the certain notion through the dialectics of problematization-solving a problem. Secondly, it pays attention to the concrete (bureaucratic) practices and technologies, which are deployed for implementation of articulated discourses for control the conduct of different actors. We deploy critical discourse analysis methodology and, particularly, notion of discursive strategies, to elicit implicit patterns of meanings that underlie suggestions of Russian official authorities who make and transform notion of Russian software products. In the case of Russian software we distinguish four main discursive strategies: the security (the Russian software as benign for Russian governmental and commercial spheres), the geopolitics (the Russian software as non-western software, at least non-American, as the continuing of the geopolitical interests of Russia), the protectionism (the Russian software as unpopular to the comparison of the foreign software, which needs to be supported by the financial and administrative measures), the efficiency (the Russian software as a generic and that is ruled by the common market laws). In the end of the article we shows as with the course of time after the legal shaping of the notion and after the creation of the Russian software registry the role of the Government is increasing, the hard measured excelled the soft, the range of controllable actors is evolving, the technical expertise is closing as well as the whole process of assessment of the Russian software, and, finally, the discursive strategies of protectionism and the security are prevalent.

Keywords: Russian software, governmentality, discursive strategies, Russian officials, Russian software registry, technological policy.



Bardhan A., Kroll C. (2006) Competitiveness and an emerging sector: The Russian software industry and its global linkages. Industry and Innovation, 13(1): 69–95.

Beteva N.V. (2011) Vvedenie v problematiku upravleniteta [Introduction to the topic of Governmentality]. Gramota, 8: 32–34 (in Russian).

Biagioli M., Lepinay V. (eds.) (2019) From Russia with Codes: programming migrations in Post-Soviet times. Durham: Duke University Press (forthcoming).

Breznitz D. (2007) Industrial R&D as a national policy: Horizontal technology policies and industry-state co-evolution in the growth of the Israeli software industry. Research Policy, 36 (9): 1465–1482.

Carvalho A. (2005) Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: Discursive strategies in the British media. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(1): 1–29.

Dean M. (2016) Pravitel'nost': vlast' i pravlenie v sovremennykh obshchestvakh [Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society.] Moscow: Izdatel'skiy dom “Delo”, RANKhiGS (in Russian).

Fasold R. W. (1990) The sociolinguistics of language. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

Foucault M. (2003) Pravitel'stvennost' (ideya gosudarstvennogo interesa i ee genezis) [The governmentality (idea of the state interest and its genesis)]. Logos, 39(4–5): 4–22 (in Russian).

Gaaze K.B. (2016) Rukopisnoe pis'mo kak praktika rossijskoj pravitel'nosti [Handwriting as a Practice of Russian Governmentality]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power], 28(4): 104–131 (in Russian).

Garrido M.V. (2015) Contesting a biopolitics of information and communications: The importance of truth and sousveillance after Snowden. Surveillance & Society, 13(2): 153–167.

Grundey M., Heeks R. (1998) Romania's hardware and software industry: Building IT policy and capabilities in a transitional economy. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester [] (accessed: 22.07.2018).

Gurin O. (2016) Praktika primeneniya postanovleniya Pravitel'stva RF ot 16.11.2015 № 1236: peredovaya liniya importozameshcheniya [The practice of implementation of the Government decree of Russia from 16.11.2015 № 1236: the avangard of the import substitution]. Auktsionnyy Vestnik [Auction Bulletin], 303(08.253): 1–2 (in Russian).

Gurinskaya A.L. (2014) Neoliberal'naja ugolovnaja politika: bezopasnost', privatizacija i rol' gosudarstva [Neo-liberal criminal policy: security, privatization and the role of the state]. Teorii i problemy politicheskih issledovanij [Theories and problems of political studies], 1–2: 13–39 (in Russian).

Henman P. (2010) Social Policy and Information Communication Technologies. In: Martin J., Hawkins L. (eds.) Information Communication Technologies for Human Services Education and Delivery: Concepts and Cases. USA: Information Science Reference: 215–229.

Jaworski A., Coupland N. (eds.) (1999) The Discourse Reader. London; New York: Routledge.

Kani M., Motohashi K. (2011) Does pro-patent policy spur innovation? A case of software industry in Japan. In: Technology Management Conference (ITMC). San Jose, California USA: IEEE International: 739–744.

Khestanov R. (2009) Liberal'noe pravitel'stvo: tekhnologii upravlenija [Liberal government: management technologies]. Pushkin, 3: 129–138 (in Russian).

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte A., Emmanuel B. (2018) From sovereign IT governance to liberal IT governmentality? A Foucauldian analogy. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(3): 326–346.

McKee K. (2009) Post-Foucauldian governmentality: What does it offer critical social policy analysis? Critical social policy, 29(3): 465–486.

Meyer M., Wodak R. (2009) Critical discourse analysis: history, agenda, theory and methodology. In: Meyer M., Wodak R. (eds.) Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications: 1–33.

Mishra S., Chin A.G. (2008) Assessing the Impact of Governmental Regulations on the IT Industry: A Neo Institutional Theory Perspective. In: Subramanian R. (ed.) Computer Security, Privacy and Politics: Current Issues, Challenges and Solutions. USA: IRM Press: 36–54.

Rose N. (2008) Upravlenie “razvitymi” liberal'nymi demokratiyami [“Governing „Advanced” Liberal Democracies”] Logos, 69(6): 191–216 (in Russian).

Rudnev J.V. (2015) Dva tela Foucault (ocherk sovremennogo sostojanija Foucault Studies) [Two bodies of Foucault (an outline of the current state of Foucault Studies)]. Zhurnal politicheskoy filosofii i sotsiologii politiki “Politiya. Analiz. Khronika. Prognoz” [Journal of Political Philosophy and Sociology of Politics “Politia. Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast], 79(4): 48–68 (in Russian).

Schware R. (1987) Software industry development in the Third World: Policy guidelines, institutional options, and constraints. World Development, 15(10–11): 1249–1267.

Tao Z. (2010) On fiscal policies for improving the independent innovation ability of IT industry in China. In: Future Information Technology and Management Engineering (FITME). Leicestershire, United Kingdom, IEEE International: 342–344.