The article analyzes the discourse of global politics as “text” and “language” of its content and features along with its components. The work is based on the ideas of R. Barthes, M. Foucault and T. Van Dijk on the discourse concerning global politics. Discourse as “language” of global politics is considered to create certain apprehension about the phenomenon in both aspects: scientific and casual. Moreover, it contains all the necessary information. This discourse is shaped through the structure of global politics “language”, its social context and cognitive schemas of individuals who perceive information about global politics, their “superstructures” in other words. S. Huntington marks that languages of former imperialistic powers (e. g., English, Chinese, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian ones) are the most significant for formation of the “global” discourse of “World Politics”. The discourse of global politics is based on separate texts which exist as autonomous objects. The philosophers, historians, culturologists, political scientists and representatives of other social and humanitarian sciences describe those and other texts about “Global Politics” as the product of certain subjects (individuals) created under special social conditions and in a certain cultural and historical situation. In the broad sense, the discourse of global politics appears to be implemented in stereotypical vision of global public opinion and its sources such as global media and communication. This discourse, in the narrow sense, is the reflection of global politics in the context of scientific and philosophical discourses about it. The discourses are aimed at investigation through social and humanitarian methods, philosophy, as well as realizing, exploring, and understanding of its essence. According to the terminology by R. Barthes, there are such kinds of elements of the global politics discourse as its reflexive consecutive interpretation of “meta” global policy which, in its turn, can be defined as an artificial symbolic description of an object: 1) scientific, 2) philosophical, 3) ideological (mythological) discourses. All those types of the “meta-language” discourse are similar and interconnected, but not identical. Each of those types of discourse is built according to its “genre” by usual standard procedure, “superstructure” (according to the terminology of T. Van Dijk).
1. Arutyunova N. D. Disku [Elektronniy resurs] / N. D. Arutyunova // Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar onlayn. – Rezhim dostupu: http://www.lingvisticheskiy-slovar.ru/description/diskurs/168; 2. Bart R. Izbrannyie rabotyi: Semiotika: Poetika / Rolan Bart. — M.: Progress, 1989. – 616 s.; 3. Vdovina T. V. Diskurs-analiz: metodologicheskie osnovaniya i perspektivyi primeneniya v sotsiologicheskih issledovaniyah: Avtoref. dis. .. k. sotsiol. n.: 22.00.01 / Vdovina Tatyana Vitalevna. – M.: RUDN, 2012. – Rezhim dostupu: http://www.dissercat.com/content/diskurs-analiz-metodologicheskie-osnova... 4. Hnatiuk M. M. Mizhnarodnyi aktor ta politychna subiektnist u dyskursi realistskoho i liberalnoho pidkhodiv / M. M. Hnatiuk // Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Politychni nauky. – 2014. – T. 160. – S. 44-48; 5. Gololobov I. V. Teoriya politicheskogo diskursa Ernesto Laklau / I. V. Gololobov // Antropologiya, menshinstva, multikulturalizm. – 2003. – Vyip. 3. – S. 129-136; 6. Demyankov V. Z. Tekst i diskurs kak terminyi i kak slova obyidennogo yazyika / V. Z. Demyankov // Yazyik, kultura, obschestvo: IV Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. (Moskva, 27–30 sentyabrya 2007 g.): Plenar. dokl. – M.: Mosk. In-t inostr. yazyikov, 2007. – S. 86-95; 7. Kasavin I. T. Diskurs-analiz i ego primenenie v psihologii / I. T. Kasavin // Voprosyi psihologii – 2007. – # 6. – S. 97-119; 8. Kibrik A. FAQ: Diskurs: 7 faktov ob odnom iz tsentralnyih ponyatiy sovremennoy lingvisticheskoy teorii [Elektronniy resurs] / Andrey Kibrik. – Rezhim dostupu: http://www.postnauka.ru/faq/10456; 9. Kosolapov N. A. Mirovaya politika kak yavlenie i predmet nauki (k diskussii na stranitsah «POLISa» i «Mezhdunarodnyih protsessov») / Kosolapov N. A. // POLIS. – 2005. – #6. – S. 92-109; 10. Kukartsev O. V. Pidkhody do rozuminnia hlobalnoho upravlinnia / O. V. Kukartsev // Naukovi pratsi ChDU im. P. Mohyly. – Ser.: Politolohiia. – 2013. – T. 212. – Vyp. 200. – S. 131-135; 11. Lebedeva M. M. Mirovaya politika: Uchebn. / M. M. Lebedeva. – 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. – M.: Aspekt Press, 2007. – 365 s.; 12. Maksymchuk O. L. Politychnyi dyskurs [Elektronnyi resurs] / O. L. Maksymchuk // Mova i kultura. 2010. – C. 71-75. – Rezhym dostupu: http://www.eprints.zu.edu.ua/6987/1/00molpdo.pdf; 13. Mirovaya politika: teoriya, metodologiya, prikladnoy analiz / Otv. red. A. A. Kokoshin, A. D. Bogaturov. – M.: KomKniga, 2005. – 430 s.; 14. Morgun O. M. Kriticheskiy diskurs-analiz v metodologii politicheskoy nauki / O. M. Morgun // Politicheskaya lingvistika. – 2011. – #3 (37). – S. 122-128; 15. Pavlova E. K. Garmonizatsiya globalnogo politicheskogo diskursa na signifikativnom urovne (na primere diskursa SShA i Rossii): Avtoref. dis. d. filol. n.: 10.02.20 / Pavlova Elena Kasimovna. – M., 2013. – 38 s.; 16. Peskov D. N. Mirovaya politika ili beg na meste / D. N. Peskov // POLIS. – 2005. – #1. – C. 156-160; 17. Poda T. A. Zmina dyskursu svitovoi polityky u postmodernii perspektyvi: Avtoref. dys. ... k. filos. n.: 09.00.03 / T. A. Poda. – K.: Nats. aviats. un-t., 2011. – 19 c.; 18. Romaniuk A. B. Analiz doslidzhen politychnoho dyskursu / A. B. Romaniuk, A. V. Zaiats // Visn. Nats. Un-tu «Lvivska Politekhnika»: Informatsiini systemy ta merezhi. – 2012. – № 743. – S. 200-209; 19. Sovremennyie mezhdunarodnyie otnosheniya i mirovaya politika / A. V. Torkunov, I. G. Tyulin, A. Yu. Melvil [i dr.]. – M.: Prosveschenie, 2004. – 991 c.; 20. Fedorova L. O. Filosofskyi dyskurs ta prahmatychni problemy yoho perekladu / Fedorova L. O., Yanko Iu. V. // Studia philologica. – 2012. – Vyp. 1. – S. 117-119; 21. Hantington S. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy / Hantington S. – M: AST, 2003. – 603 c.