Разногласие в политическом онлайн-разговоре на примере американских обсуждений второго импичмента Д. Трампа в социальных сетях
In the theory of deliberative democracy proposed by J. Habermas, it is assumed that the result of deliberation is the achievement of consensus among citizens. However, this condition is not observed in American online discussions on the topic of the second impeachment of D. Trump on Facebook. Except expressing citizen’s agreement with positions of others, there is often a disagreement which can have various forms of expression and vectors of influence on the overall deliberative process. Therefore, in this paper, the task is to analyze the disagreement between participants of online political conversation and its forms on the example of discussions about the second impeachment of D. Trump on Facebook. For this purpose, content analysis is used as it allows to explore the positions of citizens, their interactivity, disagreement, its forms in the categories of justification and civility/incivility. The empirical material is presented by eight online discussions of four American media outlets, divided by political affiliation to the party: liberal and conservative ones. The article makes a theoretical and methodological contribution to the deliberative studies and requires a rethinking of the Habermasian deliberative theory, paying attention to the practical aspect of the deliberative process. The paper concludes that 1) there is no general consensus on the issue being discussed by citizens; 2) there are disagreements in American online discussions on the example of the second impeachment of D. Trump, but their quantity is small; 3) they can be characterized mainly as civil and justified, rather than uncivil and unjustified.