TY - GEN

T1 - Inside cumulative crises: Types of consensus and users’ deliberative roles in discussion outbursts around brands

AU - Бодрунова, Светлана Сергеевна

AU - Родичева, Алёна Алексеевна

AU - Блеканов, Иван Станиславович

AU - Yasin, Zaeem

AU - Ashraf, Abida

N1 - Bodrunova, S.S., Rodicheva, A., Blekanov, I.S., Yasin, Z., Ashraf, A. (2026). Inside Cumulative Crises: Types of Consensus and Users’ Deliberative Roles in Discussion Outbursts Around Brands. In: Chaudri, J., Mahalle, P.N., Perumal, T., Joshi, A. (eds) ICT for Intelligent Systems. ICTIS 2025. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 1519. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-8901-9_10

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - Cumulative crises online, when user commenting bursts out as a reaction to what publics see as an improper deed, can hit any public entity, including brands. Inside such a crisis, both cumulative and micro-deliberative patterns of opinion and consensus formation may be traced. Taking into account both the classic deliberation theory and the conceptual framework of cumulative deliberation, we delineate four possible types of consensus within heated user discussions. We also hypothesize that users’ deliberative roles may include those of neutralization and catalyzation of consensus. Taking the Vkusvill retail chain crisis of 2021 as a case, we show that, in discussions polarized due to values polarization, consensus does not form in an agonistic way; consensus may only form in a cumulative way (probably one-sided) and in forms supporting exclusion, rather than inclusion of the Other. Moreover, users who try to play the roles of consensus catalyzers only add to disagreement, just as consensus neutralizers. This poses a question on the forms in which polarized cumulative crises may at all come to harmonization of views and agonistic modes of public consensus.

AB - Cumulative crises online, when user commenting bursts out as a reaction to what publics see as an improper deed, can hit any public entity, including brands. Inside such a crisis, both cumulative and micro-deliberative patterns of opinion and consensus formation may be traced. Taking into account both the classic deliberation theory and the conceptual framework of cumulative deliberation, we delineate four possible types of consensus within heated user discussions. We also hypothesize that users’ deliberative roles may include those of neutralization and catalyzation of consensus. Taking the Vkusvill retail chain crisis of 2021 as a case, we show that, in discussions polarized due to values polarization, consensus does not form in an agonistic way; consensus may only form in a cumulative way (probably one-sided) and in forms supporting exclusion, rather than inclusion of the Other. Moreover, users who try to play the roles of consensus catalyzers only add to disagreement, just as consensus neutralizers. This poses a question on the forms in which polarized cumulative crises may at all come to harmonization of views and agonistic modes of public consensus.

KW - Agonistic public sphere

KW - Brand crisis

KW - Consensus

KW - Cumulative crisis

KW - Cumulative deliberation

KW - Online discussion

KW - Opinion polarization

KW - Social media

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/b2769499-b121-3f7f-a74b-6603ff28934d/

U2 - 10.1007/978-981-96-8901-9_10

DO - 10.1007/978-981-96-8901-9_10

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-981-96-8900-2

VL - vol 1519

T3 - Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems

SP - 101

EP - 113

BT - ICT for Intelligent Systems. ICTIS 2025. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems

PB - Springer Nature

CY - Singapore

Y2 - 4 April 2025 through 6 April 2025

ER -