LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

The economy of social blackmail as a system of moral regulation of consumption in Ukrainian society in the context of the war

stmm. 2026 (3): 23-44

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2026.03.023

Full text:

MARHARYTA SHYROKOVA, PhD in Sociology, Associate Professor at the Department of Social Structures and Social Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (60, Volodymyrska St., Kyiv, 01601)

shyrokova@knu.ua

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0055-4460

SCOPUS ID: 59241615300

OLEG MAZURYK, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Professor, Acting Head of the Department of Social Structures and Social Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (60, Volodymyrska St., Kyiv, 01601)

olegmazuryk@knu.ua

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4531-7023

SCOPUS ID: 57219385851

Thе article is devoted to theoretical analysis and conceptualisation of the ‘economy of social blackmail’ — a specific form of moral regulation of consumption that has taken root in Ukrainian society amidst a full-scale armed invasion. By this term, the authors mean a reproducible system of informal normative pressure, within which consumer practices become the basis for moral judgement, stigmatisation and demands for public justification under the threat of shame or reputational loss. The proposed concept captures the specificity of a wartime society in which moral legitimacy becomes a scarce resource distributed through mechanisms of public condemnation and symbolic exclusion. The theoretical framework of the study is formed at the intersection of E. Thompson’s concept of the moral economy, I. Goffman’s theories of stigma and impression management, M. Foucault’s disciplinary power, as well as T. Veblen and P. Bourdieu’s theories of conspicuous consumption and symbolic distinction. The proposed cyclical model of moral regulation of consumption describes the mechanism of social blackmail as a self-reproducing control cycle. The model encompasses seven sequential phases — from initial moral sensitivity to normative crystallisation and the institutionalisation of sanctions. The empirical validation of the conceptual model was carried out using the method of netnographic observation of public discourse on the Facebook, Instagram and Threads platforms for the years 2024–2026. Based on the analysis of case studies, five operational mechanisms have been identified: the semiotic moralisation of expenditure, amplifying shaming through digital visibility, the asymmetric standard of the public figure, the demand for demonstrative solidarity and compensatory charity, as well as class redefinition and symbolic exclusion. It has been demonstrated that the ‘economy of social blackmail’ is not a spontaneous emotional reaction, but a regular and systemic product of the interaction between collective trauma, digital publicity, and the logic of social control through shame. The findings contribute to the understanding of normative regulation mechanisms in societies experiencing armed conflict and open directions for further empirical investigation of this phenomenon.

Keywords: demonstrative solidarity, discursive response, experience of war, economics of social blackmail, moral regulation, netnographic analysis, normative regulation, symbolic exclusion, shame, social control, consumption, Ukrainian society

References:

  1. Altman, S. (2021). Are boycotts, shunning, and shaming corrupt? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(4), 987-1011. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab015

  2. Arli, D., Leo, C., & Tjiptono, F. (2016). Investigating the impact of guilt and shame proneness on consumer ethics: A cross-national study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12183

  3. Arneson, R.J. (2007). Shame, stigma, and disgust in the decent society. The Journal of Ethics, 11, 31-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-006-9007-y

  4. Benedict, R. (2019). Patterns of Culture. New York: Routledge. [Orig. 1934] https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429054419

  5. Boström, M. (2021). Social relations and everyday consumption rituals: Barriers or prerequisites for sustainability transformation? Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 723464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.723464

  6. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  7. Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. (1996). The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. London: Routledge.

  8. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

  9. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

  10. Grappi, S., Bergianti, F., Gabrielli, V., & Baghi, I. (2024). The effect of message framing on young adult consumers' sustainable fashion consumption: The role of anticipated emotions and perceived ethicality. Journal of Business Research, 170, 114341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114341

  11. Hirsch, F. (1976). Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674497900

  12. Jedicke, E.M., Arnold, C., & Lindenmeier, J. (2025). The dynamics of consumer boycott intention: Examining the roles of moral reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and self-congruence. Journal of Business Research, 189, 115127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115127

  13. Kozinets, R.V. (2020). Netnography: The Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001430-2

  14. Kranzbühler, A.-M. & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2023). The effect of meat-shaming on meat eaters' emotions and intentions to adapt behavior. Food Quality and Preference, 107, 104831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104831

  15. Lallas, D. (2023). Consumer sovereignty and the Greek economic crisis: (Dis)continuity of consumer sovereignty repertoires. Journal of Consumer Culture, 23(2), 271-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405221086073

  16. Liddell, H. (2019). Social Control and Social Change. London: Scientific e-Resources.

  17. Ronson, J. (2015). So You've Been Publicly Shamed. New York: Riverhead Books.

  18. Scheff, T.J. (2000). Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00089

  19. Thompson, E.P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present, 50(1), 76-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/50.1.76

  20. Turner, J.H. (2007). Human Emotions: A Sociological Theory. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961278

  21. Veblen, T. (2007). The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Orig. 1899]

Received 03.06.2026

Accepted for publication after review 05.07.2026

The economy of social blackmail as a system of moral regulation of consumption in Ukrainian society in the context of the war

stmm. 2026 (3): 23-44

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2026.03.023

Full text:

MARHARYTA SHYROKOVA, PhD in Sociology, Associate Professor at the Department of Social Structures and Social Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (60, Volodymyrska St., Kyiv, 01601)

shyrokova@knu.ua

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0055-4460

SCOPUS ID: 59241615300

OLEG MAZURYK, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Professor, Acting Head of the Department of Social Structures and Social Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (60, Volodymyrska St., Kyiv, 01601)

olegmazuryk@knu.ua

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4531-7023

SCOPUS ID: 57219385851

Thе article is devoted to theoretical analysis and conceptualisation of the ‘economy of social blackmail’ — a specific form of moral regulation of consumption that has taken root in Ukrainian society amidst a full-scale armed invasion. By this term, the authors mean a reproducible system of informal normative pressure, within which consumer practices become the basis for moral judgement, stigmatisation and demands for public justification under the threat of shame or reputational loss. The proposed concept captures the specificity of a wartime society in which moral legitimacy becomes a scarce resource distributed through mechanisms of public condemnation and symbolic exclusion. The theoretical framework of the study is formed at the intersection of E. Thompson’s concept of the moral economy, I. Goffman’s theories of stigma and impression management, M. Foucault’s disciplinary power, as well as T. Veblen and P. Bourdieu’s theories of conspicuous consumption and symbolic distinction. The proposed cyclical model of moral regulation of consumption describes the mechanism of social blackmail as a self-reproducing control cycle. The model encompasses seven sequential phases — from initial moral sensitivity to normative crystallisation and the institutionalisation of sanctions. The empirical validation of the conceptual model was carried out using the method of netnographic observation of public discourse on the Facebook, Instagram and Threads platforms for the years 2024–2026. Based on the analysis of case studies, five operational mechanisms have been identified: the semiotic moralisation of expenditure, amplifying shaming through digital visibility, the asymmetric standard of the public figure, the demand for demonstrative solidarity and compensatory charity, as well as class redefinition and symbolic exclusion. It has been demonstrated that the ‘economy of social blackmail’ is not a spontaneous emotional reaction, but a regular and systemic product of the interaction between collective trauma, digital publicity, and the logic of social control through shame. The findings contribute to the understanding of normative regulation mechanisms in societies experiencing armed conflict and open directions for further empirical investigation of this phenomenon.

Keywords: demonstrative solidarity, discursive response, experience of war, economics of social blackmail, moral regulation, netnographic analysis, normative regulation, symbolic exclusion, shame, social control, consumption, Ukrainian society

References:

  1. Altman, S. (2021). Are boycotts, shunning, and shaming corrupt? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 41(4), 987-1011. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab015

  2. Arli, D., Leo, C., & Tjiptono, F. (2016). Investigating the impact of guilt and shame proneness on consumer ethics: A cross-national study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12183

  3. Arneson, R.J. (2007). Shame, stigma, and disgust in the decent society. The Journal of Ethics, 11, 31-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-006-9007-y

  4. Benedict, R. (2019). Patterns of Culture. New York: Routledge. [Orig. 1934] https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429054419

  5. Boström, M. (2021). Social relations and everyday consumption rituals: Barriers or prerequisites for sustainability transformation? Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 723464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.723464

  6. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  7. Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. (1996). The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. London: Routledge.

  8. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

  9. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

  10. Grappi, S., Bergianti, F., Gabrielli, V., & Baghi, I. (2024). The effect of message framing on young adult consumers' sustainable fashion consumption: The role of anticipated emotions and perceived ethicality. Journal of Business Research, 170, 114341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114341

  11. Hirsch, F. (1976). Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674497900

  12. Jedicke, E.M., Arnold, C., & Lindenmeier, J. (2025). The dynamics of consumer boycott intention: Examining the roles of moral reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and self-congruence. Journal of Business Research, 189, 115127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115127

  13. Kozinets, R.V. (2020). Netnography: The Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001430-2

  14. Kranzbühler, A.-M. & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2023). The effect of meat-shaming on meat eaters' emotions and intentions to adapt behavior. Food Quality and Preference, 107, 104831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104831

  15. Lallas, D. (2023). Consumer sovereignty and the Greek economic crisis: (Dis)continuity of consumer sovereignty repertoires. Journal of Consumer Culture, 23(2), 271-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405221086073

  16. Liddell, H. (2019). Social Control and Social Change. London: Scientific e-Resources.

  17. Ronson, J. (2015). So You've Been Publicly Shamed. New York: Riverhead Books.

  18. Scheff, T.J. (2000). Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00089

  19. Thompson, E.P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present, 50(1), 76-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/50.1.76

  20. Turner, J.H. (2007). Human Emotions: A Sociological Theory. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961278

  21. Veblen, T. (2007). The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Orig. 1899]

Received 03.06.2026

Accepted for publication after review 05.07.2026

LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

} } } } }