As a part of the EUSP's 7th annual conference "VDNKh", a mini-conference titled "Civil Society in Russia and the Contemporary World: Social Movements, Institutions, and Moods" took place frpm November 7th-9th. A number of major researchers from Russia, Europe, and the US presented at the conference.
The conference began with presentations by the dean of the EUSP Department of Political Science and Sociology Artemy Magun, a representative of the Laboratory of Public Sociology (PS. Lab) Oleg Zhuravlev, and an associate at the Center for European Studies at the EUSP Elena Belokurova. In his presentation Zhuravlev noted that the sociology of social movements is poorly represented in the Russian academic field, and that the aim of the laboratory that he represents is to rectify the situation and to establish stronger ties between science and civic activism. Belokurova expressed that aside from studying protests and protest groups and initiatives it is essential to devote attention to other sections of civil society—to non-governmental organizations and social movements. Magun gave a report on the meaning of civil society and how its meaning has transformed in Western thought in the past 200 years.
1. Civil Society and Social Movements: Nature, Origins, and Sources
George Mason University professor Jack Goldstone showed in “1848, 2013, and the Rising Global Middle Class” that 1848 was a year of “unsuccessful” and “interrupted” revolutions in Europe, and that the events of 1968 in Europe and the US, 2011 in Arab countries and 2013 in Russia, Turkey, and Brasil cannot be defined as revolutions: in distinction from 1848, the last three instances of uprising did not demand the overthrow of authoritarian political regimes or changes in the social order, but fought mainly for the expansion of civil constitutional rights under the existing system. Only the events of the “Arab Spring” compare with the character of 1848. However, as Goldstone noted, it’s still too early to make a final assessment. The uprisings of 2013 are a result of the growth of the middle class and the general public’s greater access to education in developing countries. These movements, however, have remained within cities and are not national in scale.
Karin Kleman from the Smol’ny Institute at SPBGU gave a report titled “Grassroots Mobilization in Russia: Embeddedness in Daily Life and the ‘Rise in Generality’” in which she illuminated the practice of forming grassroots civil initiatives, relying in particular on the experience of activists in Kaliningrad. She ascribes the first significant organized civil protests to 2005, when discontent broke out against monetization reforms. However, citizens involved in those events did not take any part in the protests of the last two years.
Artemy Magun presented his report “Civil Society and Populism in Recent Russian Protests” in which he laid out the history of civil society in Russia. The first non-governmental organizations of the 1970s and 1980s engaged mainly in criticizing the political structure of the USSR. The boom in (self)-organization came during Perestroika and was founded on a “negative revolution”: forced privatization, the fragmentation of interests and collapse of social ties, and atomization in the 1990s. Since the beginning of the 2000s the state has carried out a deliberate de-politicization of civil society in Russia.
However, another tendency has been observed simultaneously: the growth of an urban, educated class and an increase in non-material labor, as well as an increase in the number of local protesters.
Since 2008 there have been flare-ups of semi-spontaneous political action such as the “March of the Dissenters” or the nationalist rally on Manezh Square in December of 2010, and state involvement in a propaganda campaign promoting civic and moral values. All of this, ultimately, created the basis for the protests in the winter of 2011.
2. State and Social Movements in Comparative Perspective
NIU VShE professor Aleksandr Filippov gave a report titled “Police and Politics: Civil Society and the Neoliberal State,” in which he discussed the understanding of “police” and “police state.” There is the sphere of the political—the sphere of continuous conflict within the sovereign (the people) between different communities, while at the same time the police and policing organizations bring about a leveling of conflict, complete homogenization or the sovereign, and unification. In a police state the need for political debate is absent, as its main goal is safety, prosperity, and welfare.
Kyvanch Atak, PhD student at the European University in Florence, presented his report “Precarious Against the ‘Looters’: An Inquiry Into Policing and the Gezi Protests,” in which he illuminated the milestone summer protests in Istanbul over the destruction of Gezi Park.
Margarita Zavadskaya gave a report titled “Between the Ballot and the Street: Which Authoritarian Regimes do the Elections Subvert?” in which she analyzed elections in authoritarian regimes and found that acting governments do not win in every case despite their anti-democratic nature and the possibility of fraud. Her analysis of elections for 1990-2011 also shows that the majority of the regimes she studied were not challenged by post-election protests. Every case of emergent protest must be considered separately in order to determine what influence (if any) elections had on the protests. Violence on the part of the regime cannot prevent or provoke protests, but can transfer them to a peaceful course. The probability of protest is determined by type of authoritarian regime (civil, monarchic, or military), and the least number of instances falls under military regimes. But instances of violent or non-violent protest are roughly equal under each type.
Irina Soboleva from the Higher School of Economics gave a report titled “The Effect of Protests on Political Engagement in Authoritarian Regimes (Evidence from Russia).” Soboleva’s main idea is that political involvement is enhanced through participation in protests. This, however, only applies to those who were already involved at the time of the protest. Growth of involvement is only possible during election cycles. The strengthening of core movements and others—activists and “neutrals”—comes only after the end of protests. Framing any collective action as policy becomes the only way to retain activists.
Andrei Semenov (Tyumen State University) and Olesya Lobanova (Perm State University) gave a report titled “How People and Organizations Demand Change: The Research of Protest Actions’ Repertoire in Tyumen,” which presented a panorama of protest actions in 2011 in Russia’s regional areas and showed what composed the repertoire of action: from traditional rallies and picketing to new forms of speech such as flash mobs and street parties. In particular, representatives of the Communist Party often resort to traditional means of expressing political positions, while nationalists use more “creative” approaches such a street protests.
3. Social Movements: The Logic of Development
In her report “Eventful Democratizations: How Movements Change Relations,” Donatella della Porta presented a model of three modes of temporality in the process of political change: teleological (events are explained through abstract historical categories such as industrialization and urbanization), experimental (events are explained through a comparison of historical paths—revolutionary vs. non-revolutionary, democratic vs. non-democratic), and event-triggered (events themselves are recognized as forces capable of influencing the historical process). An event-triggered temporality sparks citizens’ understanding of class interests, forms a counter elite, increases levels of subjectivity and produces the perception of “no alternative” among movement participants. Together, these factors determine the basis for protests to ensure democratization.
Ivan Klimov from the Higher School of Economics presented a report “The Movement of Civil Observers,” in which he discussed the specifics and results of his research on the movement of civil observers.
Oleg Zhuravlev, Natalya Saveleva and Svetlana Erpyleva from the Laboratory of Public Sociology presented their project “Solidarity Against Individualism: New Social Movements in Russia.” They discussed how the key moment in the formation of a group (movement) is the experience of collective action. In contemporary Russia social movements are in crisis because of the dominance of the “depoliticized personality.” Analysis of protests in recent years has shown that participants consider collective action to be voluntary, an obligation they can withdraw from at any time, and that regular collective action threatens personal freedom. Group activity becomes the sum of individual decisions rather than a holistic process, which ultimately leads to frustration and the collapse of the movement.
Olga Usacheva, a representative from the Institute of Sociology RAN presented a report titled “Volunteer Networks Under Disaster Conditions in Russia.” Usacheva explained the motivations of volunteers through two factors: 1) mistrust of power and, consequently, the necessity of self-organization. 2) the moral aspect. Catastrophes effect society on a number of parameters: 1) a gain in experience of collective civic action; 2) the accumulation of social capital by participants and the formation of a broad platform of solidarity; 3) the practice of cooperation between parts of civil society, and 4) the emergence of trust of volunteers in the community.
4. Identities and Emotions in Social Movements
Amsterdam University professor Bert Klandermans presented his report “Identity Politics and Politicized Identities: Identification and Protest.” Klandermans defined the politicization of identity as the condition of readiness to participate in political action. Politicization is a process: it begins with a consciousness of complaints and grievances, followed by members of the movement making demands and fighting for the satisfaction of these demands. The stronger the sense of identification with the organization, then the more likely there will be action taken on behalf of the group. Collective politicized identity increases readiness for action, and action, in turn, strengthens collective identity.
Maxim Alyukov from the Laboratory of Public Sociology presented his report “Infrastructure of Political Participation and Affect.” Alyukov discussed the role of emotion in political action through examples of a number of local communities. Emotions such as anger, agreement, or disagreement are both the goal of social movements as well as the trigger (the fuel).
In his report “The Cognitive and Emotional Space of Protest: Russia 2011-2013,” Mikhail Gabovich from the Einstein Forum in Berlin presented a database of protest slogans from Russia’s regional areas. Under consideration was the case of Chelyabinsk and the “emotional explosion” that accompanied Putin’s rise to power and subsequent protests against the falsification of election results. Gabovich’s analysis showed that both pro-Putin and anti-Putin movements use approximately the same set of emotions in their agitation: from fear, to the future and hope.
Ilya Matveev, Natalya Saveleva and Oleg Zhuravlev from the Laboratory of Public Sociology presented their report “Cultural Consumption and Protest.” According to their research a “new middle class” has appeared in Russia over the past decade, which has in many ways defined the new protest movements. Of course, this is not the only or even primary subject of the movements, and there exist and have existed many other identities and reasons for discontent. However, before the appearance of this class, these discontents were not articulated. New social positions have been formed in whose framework cultural and economic capital have been synchronized: the intellectual elite earned money, and those who had money were particularly invested in education. The formation of this new class helped to destigmatize protest.
5. Social Movements and the Public Sphere
Anna Zhelnina from the Higher School of Economics presented “The Angry Urban Crowd: Urban Space and Mobilization in Russian Cities After the 2011-2012 Election.”
Dilyara Baleeva, Oleg Zhuravlev and Natalya Saveleva presented their report “Networks of Political Activists: Public vs. Private.” Their research showed that friendship networks within the protest movement play a more significant role than ideology or identity. Historically in Russia the private sphere (privacy) did not form as in the Western conception, and as a result it is seen as counter-public, ending in “the kitchen” and extremely de-politicized. The boundary between the private and the public has been “broken” from the beginning.
Elena Belokurova and Angelina Davydova gave a report titled “Russian NGOs Between Local and Global Agenda.” In the 1990s non-governmental organizations were the most significant part of Russian civil society. They consisted for the most part of older soviet dissidents and a new generation of civil activists that were formed during Perestroika and after. Their main source of funding came from Europe and the US. In recent years the state has actively attacked the non-governmental sector, which can be seen in particular in legislation on foreign agents. In the global context Russia is a glaring exception: if in other countries NGOs talk about exploitation and violations of rights of certain categories of citizens in a troubled way, in Russia they discuss only Russia.
Nikolai Sarkisyan