Human meaning-making becomes particularly dramatic at times of social or biological calamities. COVID-19 appeared in the winter of 2020 and had an immense catalytic influence on peoples' lives worldwide. New coronavirus was a new object for many people and they needed the challenge to make sense of it. The meaning of new coronavirus influenceed an individual’s self-positioning in relation to the new threat in the context of related developments. This manuscript reveals the diversity in mediating new coronavirus among discussants representing the same ethnocultural community. Taking the perspective of cultural psychology of semiotic dynamics, we assume that people would make sense of the new coronavirus sourcing semiotic resources from the socio-cultural context; however, simultaneously it is argued that there are no hegemonic ways of reacting to COVID-19. Individuals are considered not passive recipients of external guidance but rather proactive agents whose interpretants serve as regulators of internal and hetero dialogues. Through our exploration, we identified the variety of semiotic techniques which are used by individuals whilst making sense of new signs and developments through various ways of their schematisation and pleromatization. The online-ethnographic research approach was taken to explore various forms of COVID-19 mediation.
ColeM. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
3.
DheerR. J. S.EgriC. P.TreviñoL. J. (2021). A cross-cultural exploratory analysis of pandemic growth: The case of COVID-19. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(9), 1871–1892. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00455-w
GamsakhurdiaV. L. (2018). Adaptation in a dialogical perspective—from acculturation to proculturation. Culture & Psychology, 24(4), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X18791977
6.
GamsakhurdiaV. L. (2019a). Constructive urge for self-presentation-mediating between the past and the future. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 53(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9466-2
7.
GamsakhurdiaV. L. (2019b). Proculturation: Self-reconstruction by making “fusion cocktails” of alien and familiar meanings. Culture & Psychology, 25(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19829020
8.
GamsakhurdiaV. L. (2019c). Proculturation: Self-reconstruction by making “fusion cocktails” of alien and familiar meanings. Culture & Psychology, 25(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19829020
GamsakhurdiaV. L. (2020b). Semiotic construction of the self in multicultural societies: A theory of proculturation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429201240
GamsakhurdiaV. L. (2022). Semiotic dynamics of intercultural communication and its meaning for self-construction: Theory of proculturation. In: A theory of proculturation (pp. 63–89). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06301-5_5
13.
GillespieA. (2008). Social representations, alternative representations and semantic barriers. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(4), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00376.x
14.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
JosephsI. E.ValsinerJ.SurganS. E. (1999). The process of meaning construction: Dissecting the flow of semiotic activity. In: Action & self-development: Theory and research through the life span (pp. 257–282). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204802.n9
17.
KumarR. (2021). Impact of societal culture on Covid-19 morbidity and mortality across countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(7), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211025100
18.
MihalitsD. S.CodenottiM. (2020). The conceptual tragedy in studying defense mechanisms. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(2), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09515-6
19.
ObeyesekereG. (1990). The work of culture: Symbolic transformation in psychoanalysis and anthropology. University of Chicago Press.
TripathiR.SinhaY. (2009). The ways of “being” and “becoming” human. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(4), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-009-9106-y
26.
TripathiR. C.LeviatanU. (2003). Individualism and collectivism: In search of a product or process?Culture and Psychology, 9(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X03009001005
27.
ValsinerJ. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology. In: Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9788132108504
28.
ValsinerJ. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. Sage Publications Ltd.
29.
ValsinerJ. (2020). Methodology without the method. In: Handbook of integrative developmental science (pp. 139–161). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018599-5
30.
VygotskyL. S. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. In van der VeerR.ValsinerJ.ProutT. (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Basil Blackwell.
31.
ZittounT. (2007). Dynamics of interiority: Ruptures and transitions in the self development (Vol. 3, Issue 8, pp. 187–214). Information Age Publishing (IAP). http://doc.rero.ch/record/12864
32.
ZittounT. (2018). Symbolic resources and imagination in the dynamics of life. In: The cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 178–204). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662229.011
