The Role of Social Networking Sites in Civic Activism in Russia and Finland

21 Pages·0.172 MB·English

by  Gladarev B., Lonkila M.

This article was downloaded by: [Boris Gladarev]
On: 19 September 2012, At: 13:09
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Europe-Asia Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceas20
The Role of Social Networking Sites in
Civic Activism in Russia and Finland
Boris Gladarev a & Markku Lonkila a
a University of Tampere Centre for Independent Social Research,
St Petersburg
To cite this article: Boris Gladarev & Markku Lonkila (2012): The Role of Social Networking Sites in
Civic Activism in Russia and Finland, Europe-Asia Studies, 64:8, 1375-1394
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2012.712272
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
EUROPE-ASIASTUDIES
Vol.64,No.8,October2012,1375–1394
The Role of Social Networking Sites in Civic
Activism in Russia and Finland
BORIS GLADAREV & MARKKU LONKILA
2
1
0 Abstract
2
r
e Thisessaycomparestheroleofthesocialnetworkingsites,FacebookinFinlandandVkontaktein
b
m Russia, in organising civic activism. It is based on data collected about two successful campaigns
e
pt mobilised by local residents against urban building projects in St Petersburg and Helsinki in 2009.
e Thoughinbothcitiesthesesiteswereimportantchannelsfortransmittinginformationandorganising
S
9 and coordinating the campaigns, their role was clearly limited in terms of impartial, democratic
1
9 discussionoftheissueofcommonconcern:thesiteswereratherusedtobuildandreinforceemerging
0 collective identities and to create consensus within the movement. In contrast to the situation in
3:
1 Helsinki,Vkontaktealsohadacentralroleincreatingandmaintainingtiesbetweenformerlyisolated
at campaignsagainstbuildingprojectselsewhereinStPetersburg,therebyhelpingtobuilda‘networkof
v] grassrootsresistance’inthecity.
e
r
a
d
a
Gl
s
ri
Bo THISESSAYCOMPARESTHEROLEOFSOCIAL networksites(SNS),namelyFacebook
y [ in Finland and Vkontakte (In Contact) in Russia, in civic activism. It draws on the
d b datacollectedabouttwomovementsorganisedbylocaldwellersagainstnewbuilding
de projects at Komendantskii Prospekt 40 (KP40) in the Primorskii district of St
a
o Petersburg, and in the Kumpula district of Helsinki, in 2009. Both campaigns used
nl
w socialnetworksitesintheiractionsand,mostimportantly,bothmanagedtostopthe
o
D buildingprojects.Inparticular,thecampaignbythedwellersatKP40wasoneofthe
veryfewrecentsuccessfulactionsagainstbuildingdevelopersinStPetersburgandhas
thus served as an example for several similar movements in the city.
The data come from a detailed examination of the relevant segments of Finnish
Facebook and Russian Vkontakte that were created by users to support these
campaigns.Ourexaminationofthesesocialmediasitesaimstofindoutfirst,howand
towhatextenttheyfunctionasparticularkindsofpublicspheresofferinganarenafor
debate and discussion of issues of common concern, and second, what their role has
been in practical organising of the movement, notably in recruiting followers,
We thank Jeremy Morris, Natalia Rulyova, Vlad Strukov, Tuomas Yla¨-Anttila, the anonymous
reviewer of Europe-Asia Studies and the members of the Helsinki Research Group for Political
Sociologyseminarforusefulcommentsontheessay.TheresearchhasbeensupportedbytheAcademy
ofFinland.
ISSN0966-8136print;ISSN1465-3427online/12/081375-20ª2012UniversityofGlasgow
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2012.712272
1376 BORIS GLADAREV AND MARKKU LONKILA
coordinating action and creating and maintaining networks between actors. In
addition,weutilisethematicinterviewswithlocalactivists(conductedin2010,twoin
Helsinki and eight inSt Petersburg, each lasting on average 1.5 hours), of whichone
interview in each city focused especially on the use of social networking sites in
organising the local protests; as well as data from media debates concerning the
campaignsinthetwo cities; andthepersonal experiences oftheFinnish campaign of
one of the authors. All our informants were assured anonymity.
Thenexttwosectionsbrieflyreviewexistingscholarshipoftherelationshipbetween
social networking sites and social movements, describe the emergence of the local
movementsanddepictthenatureofthecampaignsagainstthebuildingprojectsinthe
two cities. Thetwo subsequent sections investigate the role of social networking sites
inthesecampaigns.Inbothofthesesectionswewillfirstbrieflydescribehowthelocal
dwellers’actiongroupsites—VkontakteinStPetersburgandFacebookinHelsinki—
2
1 fit into the overall repertoire of online and offline actions conducted by the local
0
2 inhabitants. Then we will describe how these sites were founded and what their
r
e practical organisation and structure was like. Finally, based on examination of the
b
m
sites,wewilladdresstwoaspectsofcivicactivism:thekindofdebatesthattookplace
e
pt on the sites concerning the various campaign-related issues, and how the sites were
e
S
9 used for practical organisation and mobilisation of the campaigns.
1
9
0
3:
1 Social networking sites and civic activism
at
v] Studies of the role of social networking sites in civic activism
e
r
a
d Although the role of information and communications technology (ICT) and the
a
Gl internetinpoliticalandcivicactivismhasbeenthesubjectofavastbodyofresearch
s literature,thisliteraturehasproducedsomewhatheterogeneousfindings.1Thisstateof
ri
Bo affairs is partly due to the dynamic and continuously changing nature of ICT. In
[
y addition, ICT and the internet consist of a great number of various technologies
b
d (Ha¨yhtio¨ 2008; Breindl 2010). Consequently, addressing the relationship of the
e
d internet to collective action runs the risk of lumping together very different
a
o applications with diverse uses and functions. In order to avoid these pitfalls, our
nl
w analysisfocusesonVkontakteandFacebook,twospecificsocialnetworkingsites,and
o
D on their use by two local social movements in Russia and Finland. We believe that
analysingempiricaldataofparticularsocialnetworkingsitesatcloserange,insteadof
addressing ‘the internet’ in general, will strengthen the analytical power of our text.
Moreover, the huge and growing popularity of both Facebook and Vkontakte
renderstheminterestingobjectsofanalysisintheirownright.Facebook,forexample,
reached500millionusersinJuly2010whichmadeitoneofthemostpopularinternet
applications worldwide (Wauters 2010).Theglobal hegemonyof Facebook conceals,
1For ICT and civic activism, see for example, van de Donk etal. (2004), McCaughey and Ayers
(2003),Dahlgren(2005),Breindl(2010)andOatesetal.(2006).Forarecentreviewofthisliterature,
see Baumgartner and Morris (2010, pp. 25–26). For the Russian internet see Schmidt etal. (2006),
Lonkila(2008),FossatoandLloyd(2008),GoroshkoandZhigalina(2008)andEtlingetal.(2010),as
wellaspublicationsinDigitalIcons:StudiesinRussian,EurasianandCentralEuropeanNewMedia
(availableat:http://www.digitalicons.org,accessed15January2011).
ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN CIVIC ACTIVISM 1377
however,importantexceptions.InadditiontoChina,Japan,SouthKoreaandBrazil,
theRussianFederationisoneofthefewcountrieswhereFacebookisnottheleading
SNSbutisclearlyinsecondplace,withonemillionusers,incomparisonwithitslocal
rivals(Barnett2010;Sweeney2010).ThemostpopularRussiansocialnetworkingsites
are Vkontakte and odnoklassniki.ru, of which the former claimed in August 2010 to
have over86 million registered users.2Vkontakte wasalso anobviouschoicefor one
oftheactivistsandourkeyinformantatKP40,whofoundedtheVkontaktegroupfor
the movement. Despite the popularity of social networking sites, until recently
relatively few studies have explicitly addressed their role in promoting activism
(Langlois et al. 2009; Bortree & Seltzer 2009; Smith et al. 2009; Baumgartner &
Morris 2010; Smuts 2010; Zhang et al. 2010; Johnson et al. 2011),3 and these studies
have produced mixed results. Smuts (2010, pp. 80–86), who investigated the role of
Facebookduringthe2008presidentialcampaignintheUSA,concludes,forexample,
2
1 thatitbothfacilitatedtheformationofpublicopinionandincludednewparticipants
0
2 inthepoliticalprocess.However,BaumgartnerandMorris(2010,p.24),whostudied
r
e the relationship between the use of social networking websites and political
b
m
engagement of young adults during the early stages of the 2008 presidential primary
e
pt season, found that despite the promise of these sites to increase political interest and
e
S
9 participation ‘among a chronically disengaged cohort’, there was little evidence to
9 1 suggest that the sites had facilitated significantly greater political knowledge,
0 engagementorparticipation.Rather,their analysisproposesthatmanyyoungadults
3:
1 used the sites to look for information that conformed to their pre-existing political
] at opinions and they were no more inclined to participate in politics than are users of
v
e other media (Baumgartner & Morris 2010, pp. 24–25). Further, Neumayer and Raffl
r
a
d (2008) argue that social software has the potential to promote grassroots activism,
a
Gl politicalinclusionandcommunitybuildingbutnotethatlocalandglobalinequalities
s may constrain this potential. Johnson et al. (2011) discovered that social networking
ri
Bo sites predicted offline and online political activities but did not boost intention to
y [ vote.4 Finally, Zhang et al. (2010) examined, among other things, reliance on social
b
d mediaandsocialnetworkingsitessuchasYouTube,FacebookandMySpacein‘civic’
e
d and ‘political’ participation. By civic participation they referred to activities that
a
o addressed community concerns through non-governmental or non-electoral means,
nl
w such as working on a community project, whereas political participation denoted
o
D activities aiming to influence the selection of elected officials or to develop or
2Duetohugecommercialinterests,theuserstatisticsshouldbeinterpretedwithcare.Accordingto
onestudyinMay2010,31%ofRussianinternetusersvisitedVkontaktedailywhilethecorresponding
figureforodnoklassniki.ruwas21%,andFacebookwas1%(Reitingpopulyarnosti2010).Vkontakte
seems thus to be the clear leader of the two, particularly in north-western Russia. For studies on
Vkontakte,seeKhveshchankaandSuter(2010)andSuleymanova(2009).
3DanahBoyd’sbibliographyonsocialnetworksitesiscomprisedof338bookchaptersandarticles
(available at: http://www.danah.org/researchBibs/sns.php, accessed 13 August 2010), of which only
slightlymorethan1%ofthe338chaptersandarticlesrelatedtocontentiousaction.
4However,oneclearfindingconcerningcivicinvolvementonsocialnetworksitesandblogsinthe
USAisthatitisthedomainofyoungpeople.Smithetal.(2009)foundintheir2008surveythatthe
respondentsunder35yearsofagerepresented28%ofallrespondents,butmadeup72%ofthosewho
madepoliticaluseofsocialnetworkingsites.
1378 BORIS GLADAREV AND MARKKU LONKILA
implement public policy. The authors found that reliance on social networking sites
was positively related to civic participation but not to political participation.
Thesefindingssuggestthatmoreresearchisneededtospellouttheactualimpactof
social networking sites on enhancing civic activism and participation. On the one
hand, these sites seem to be quick and easy means to bring up and debate issues of
commonconcernandtomobilisejointaction,evenontheglobalscale(Neumayer&
Raffl2008).Ontheotherhand,theeaseofparticipationhasraisedquestionsaboutthe
depth of the commitment of ‘cyberactivists’. Moreover, both linguistic barriers and
social, political and global inequalities cast doubt on the image of the internet as a
homogeneousglobalspacewhereeveryonecanbeconnectedwitheveryoneregardless
oftheconstraintsofphysicalspace(Rohozinski1999;Lonkila2008).Finally,though
social networking sites may have the potential to enhance activism, other uses are
actuallymuchmorepopular.AsDanahBoydhascommented(2008,pp.114–15),on
2
1 social networking sites ‘exchanging gossip is far more common than voting’.
0
2 Many of the studies reviewed above draw from survey data and seek to establish
r
e causal, law-like relationships between SNS use and political engagement, often in
b
m
relationtoelectionresultsintheUSA.Thoughimportant,theytelluslittleaboutthe
e
pt processesthroughwhichthesesitesbenefitemerginggrassrootslevelsocialmovements
e
S
9 inreallife, whichistheaimofthe currentstudy. Whenanalysingactual examplesof
9 1 socialmedia,suchasFacebookandVkontakte,onehastotakeintoaccountthatthey
0 not only imply a particular view of sociability but also constrain and mould
3:
1 interactioninspecificways.Facebook,forexample,hasbeenbuiltupontheideaofa
] at personal network formed around each Facebook user who may be linked both to
v
e otherusersaswellastoothernodesinandoutsidethesystem.Mejias(2010)remarks
r
a
d that this ‘nodocentrism’ and the ‘privatised sociality’ may have contradictory effects:
a
Gl for example, the increased user freedom to navigate in the social networking sites is
s conditioned by the corporate determination of how to develop the system, and the
ri
Bo diversity of voices is countered by the homogenisation of platforms.
[
y
b
ed Social networking sites as arenas and tools for social movements
d
a
o Our theoretical approach draws on the discussions regarding the public sphere and
nl
w socialmovements,whichweconsiderasmutuallyconstitutive:movementsare,onthe
o
D onehand,dependentonthepublicspheretofurthertheircausesandwinsupporters;
on the other, they are also central actors in bringing new issues to public discussion.
Thisintrinsicconnectionisemphasisedby,amongotherauthors,TuomasYla¨-Anttila
(2005), according to whom social movements played a central role in the very
formation of the national public spheres:
Notonlyhavesocialmovementscontributedtotheprocesseswhereissuesareraisedtothe
publicagenda,buttheveryideasandinstitutionsofpublicdebatehaveevolvedinthecourseof
politicalconflictsandthroughcollectiveactioninsocialmovements.(Yla¨-Anttila2005,p.425)
In terms of our actual empirical data, the social networking sites founded by the
movement activists in Russia and Finland may be considered as particular kinds of
publicsphereswherepeoplecoulddebateissuesofcommonconcern.Inaddition,these
ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN CIVIC ACTIVISM 1379
siteswerealsoimportantintermsofactuallyorganisingandmobilisingthemovements.
Therefore,wedefinethesetwoaspects,orinfactfunctions,byusingthemetaphorsof
arenas and tools for civic activism. The public sphere function considers the social
networkingsitesasarenasfordebatingthegoalsandstrategiesofjointaction,whereas
the organising function emphasises the role of these sites as tools for mobilising
emergingsocialmovements.Intermsofthefirstfunction,thepreconditionsforanideal
Habermasianpublicdebateshoulddisregardthestatusofdiscussants,addressissuesof
commonconcern,andbydefinitionshouldnotexcludeanyperson.5Inourempirical
analysis we focus on the first point by asking to what extent debates in the social
networkingsitesinthetwocitiesstrovetoreachconsensusbasedonthebestarguments
insteadofsocialstatusandtowhatextenttheywereconductedfreeofdomination.
Research suggests, however, that in real situations, and particularly in internet
debates, the abovementioned ideal preconditions rarely exist. Dahlgren (2005, pp.
2
1 156–57) remarks on how the procedures of open discussion may result in ‘rationalist
0
2 bias’.Thisbiasneglects,forexample,affective,poetic,humorousandironicmodesof
r
e communication, and downplays the power relations built in to the communicative
b
m
situations. Moreover, it forgets that in cases of extra-parliamentary politics the
e
pt political discussion may, instead of consensus, strive for political mobilisation and
e
S
9 buildingofcollectiveidentity.Manyofthese‘biases’wereindeeddetectedinourstudy
9 1 of the debates conducted in Vkontakte and Facebook.
0 The second function focuses on the role of Vkontakte in St Petersburg and
3:
1 Facebook in Helsinki in organising the movement; in other words, in recruiting
] at followers, coordinating activities and building networks, both within the movement
v
e and between the movement and the outside world. Though related and sometimes
r
a
d overlappingwiththepublicsphereaspectofsocialnetworkingsites,intheremaining
a
Gl partoftheessaytheseorganisingfunctionswillbedistinguishedanalyticallyfromthe
s publicdebatingabouttheaimsandstrategiesofthemovement.Thistwo-folddivision
ri
Bo structurestheempiricalanalysisofthesectionsinvestigatingtheroleofVkontakteand
[
y Facebook in organising protests in St Petersburg and Helsinki.
b
d
e
d
a
o Campaigns against building projects in St Petersburg and Helsinki
nl
w
o ‘No to the building of a new block of flats in the park at Komendantskii Prospekt 40’
D
TheStPetersburgdwellers’campaigndatesbackto2004whenthecityadministration
granted permission to the Russian building company Severnyi Gorod (SG, Northern
City) to build a new block of flats in a small park already surrounded by several
massiveblocksofflatsatthecornerofKomendantskiiProspektandShavrovaStreet
in the Primorskii city district.
This provoked strong and consistent resistance amongst local dwellers against
uplotnitel’nayazastroika (fill-in construction),6 which turned into open conflicts in
5FortheongoingdebateontheHabermasianviewofthepublicspheresee,forexample,Calhoun
(1992)andSmuts(2010).
6The term ‘uplotnitel’nayazastroika’ refers to the practice of constructing new buildings in old
quarterswithalreadyexistinginfrastructure,whichisprofitablebutmayleadtotheoverburdeningand
1380 BORIS GLADAREV AND MARKKU LONKILA
2007, 2008 and 2009. This resistance—including physical confrontations between the
builders and residents who were blocking the building machinery’s access to the
park—ledtothefailureofthetwofirstattemptstostartbuildingatKP40.However,
SGtookthecasetocourtandgotpermissiontocontinuebuildingon27March2009.
Thelastandmostviolentphaseoftheconflictbeganatnineo’clockinthemorning
on1October2009,whenSGlaunchedamilitary-styleoperationatKP40inorderto
build a fence around the park and restart building. A total of 33 lorries loaded with
concrete fence-plates drove to the small park from different directions, unloaded the
plates,andthebuildersstartedtoerectthefence.Theywereguardedbythestaffofa
privatesecuritycompanywhokeptthefuriousdwellersfromstoppingtheoperation.
Once the fence was completed, the builders started cutting the trees, which had been
planted by the local residents at their own initiative and cost.
Thesame eveningthe angryresidentsdecidedto establish around-the-clock guard
2
1 in the park. They also came up with the idea of naming the emerging movement
0
2 Komendantskii Pyatachok (Komendant’s Plot) after Nevskii pyatachok—a piece of
r
e land on the banks of the Neva river which had been heroically defended by the Red
b
m
ArmyagainstNaziinvasion.Thedwellersbrokethelockonthefencegate,enteredthe
e
pt parkarea,anddecidedthatfourwomenwouldstayintheparkovernightinorderto
e
S
9 prevent the company from continuing construction. At four o’clock in the morning,
9 1 theprivateguardsstartedtoremovethewomenfromthearea,buttheiryellingwoke
0 upnearbydwellerswhostartedphoningthemedia,politiciansandthepolice.Acrowd
3:
1 gathered at the park, and media attention and politicians forced the company to
] at suspend construction.
v
e Thisinvasionstartedamonth-longcampaign,duringwhichthedwellerscontinued
r
a
d the round-the-clock guard in the park and contacted local and national politicians,
a
Gl city administration, online and offline media and various NGOs. Their action
s repertoire combined Soviet-era forms of resistance—such as writing zhaloby
ri
Bo (complaints) and organising a subbotnik (a Soviet-era tradition of voluntary work in
[
y which good citizens were expected to participate) to plant new trees in place of the
b
d onescutdownbythebuilder—withthemostmodernformsofprotestsuchascreating
e
d an action group in Vkontakte.
a
o The movement at KP40 was supported by several NGOs and social movements in
nl
w the city, such as Dvizhenie Grazhdanskikh Initsiativ (DGI, Movement of Citizens’
o
D Initiatives),theecologicalexpertorganisationEKOM,ZelenayaVolna(GreenWave)
and themovements DoloiUplotnitel’nuyuZastroiku (Down with Fill-inConstruction)
and ZhivoiGorod(Living City). ThelocalCommunists (Kommunisticheskaya Partiya
RossiiskoiFederatsiya)andJustRussia(SpravedlivayaRossiya)politiciansalsostarted
tointerveneandthemassmedia—includingthemediaallegedlyundertheinfluenceof
the city administration—turned against SG. Vice-governor Alexander Vakhmistrov
interrupted construction and finally, on 3 November 2010, Governor Valentina
Matvienkoannouncedthecancellationofthebuildingpermitandorderedthefenceto
be removed.
break-up of the old infrastructure. The new buildings are often erected very close to the ones
constructedearlierandtheconstructionoftenbreakstechnicalandecologicalstandards.Thispractice
becameespeciallypopularinStPetersburginthe1990sand2000s.
ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN CIVIC ACTIVISM 1381
‘No to the new street in Kumpula valley’
In April 2009, 500–1,000 dwellers gathered in the green valley of the Helsinki city
district Kumpula to protest against the city board’s decision to build a new road
throughoneofthebiggestparksandrecreationareasineasternHelsinki.Thisevent,
calledLaaksonvaltaus(theOccupationoftheValley),receivedalotofpublicityinthe
localandnationalmediaandwasmobilisedthrough,amongothermeans,interaction
on Facebook. City politicians and national and local media were invited to the
occupation of the valley, and it was professionally hosted by two women activists,
both residents of Kumpula, who during the demonstration interviewed the city
governmentmembers inpublic inahumorousand non-confrontationalmanner.The
new roadwasforabuslinethatwasmeanttoimprovethepublictrafficconnections
between the Helsinki University Campus of Natural Sciences and the neighbouring
InstituteofArtsandDesignwiththeHelsinkiUniversityofTechnology.Theproject
2
1 wassupportedbytheleadershipoftheUniversityandtheDepartmentofMeteorology
0
2 at the Kumpula campus, and resisted by, among others, the inhabitants of the
r
e Kumpula city district.
b
m
Whenthenewsofthestreetconstructionplanreachedthelocalresidents,ameeting
e
pt was held by the inhabitants in Kyla¨tila (Village Space), an apartment rented to the
e
S
9 local Village Space Association. This NGO was run by dwellers and it organised
9 1 severalactivitiesinKumpula,suchasachildren’sdaycareclub,artandhobbygroups,
0 andtheyearlyVillageCarnivalwhicheachspringturnedthewholecitydistrictintoa
3:
1 huge music festival.
] at In addition to the Occupation of the Valley, the Kumpula campaign contained,
v
e much as at KP40, a wide action repertoire: the dwellers contacted and lobbied local
r
a
d politicians and media and city administration, proposed alternative routes for the
a
Gl planned bus line and wrote complaints. Because of the dwellers’ resistance and
s growing publicity, the construction plan for the new street was interrupted by the
ri
Bo decision of the city government on 14 April 2009.
[
y
b
ed The role of Vkontakte in organising protests in St Petersburg
d
a
o ThisandthefollowingsectionwilldescribeindetailtheroleoftheFinnishsegmentof
nl
w Facebook and the Russian Vkontakte in organising campaigns in the two cities. The
o
D first subsection describes briefly the overlapping forms of online and offline activism,
the history of the founding and the structure of the local movements’ websites. The
secondsubsectioninvestigatesthenatureofthedebateconductedonthesewebsites—
in other words, the ‘public sphere function’ of the sites. The third subsection focuses
onthreeaspectsofthewebsites’rolesinorganisingthecampaigns,namelymobilising,
coordinating and networking the movement.
Founding and structure of the Vkontakte website
DuringthecampaignatKP40,onlineandofflineactionswerecombinedinwayswhich
question the division between the ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ worlds. In addition to and
overlappingwiththeface-to-facegatheringsandinformaldiscussionsinthecourtyard
or staircase, and over the phone, the local dwellers wrote hundreds of conventional
1382 BORIS GLADAREV AND MARKKU LONKILA
letters to every possible authority including the presidential and city administration
and local and national politicians, reminiscent of the Soviet-era tradition of writing
official complaints. Simultaneously ‘computer-savvy’ activists searched for informa-
tion at the city administration websites, information portals and news websites,
sending emails and posting updates in Vkontakte about the events of the ongoing
battle in the park.
The Vkontakte group Net stroitel’stvu doma v skvere na Komendantskom prospekte
(No to the Building of a Block of Flats in the Park at KP40)7 was founded at the
beginningofthethirdandmostseverewaveofconflictinOctober2009byGalina,a
local resident in her thirties whohad been involved in the campaign from the outset.
As an experienced user, shedecided tofounda groupfor thedwellers’ movementon
Vkontakte after having received an anxious phone call from a friend who witnessed
thecuttingofthetreesintheparkthroughherapartmentwindow.Whileestablishing
2
1 thegroupGalinafoundoutaboutanalreadyexistingVkontaktegroupindefenceof
0
2 the park. She contacted the founders and the two groups were joined.
r
e PriortoandsimultaneouslywiththeVkontaktegroup,theeventsatKP40hadbeen
b
m discussedinlocalmediaandonwebsites,suchasthelocale-newspaperFontanka8and
e
pt the website called Little One9 founded for communication among St Petersburg
e
S
9 parents.Asamotherofsmallchildren,Galinahadparticipatedinthediscussionson
9 1 the Little One site and informed the other discussants of KP40’s newly established
0 Vkontakte group.
3:
1 InAugust2010,anothergroupfocusingontheeventsatKP40wasalsoinvolvedin
] at Vkontakte. The group Spasem skver vmeste! (Let Us Save the Park Together!)10 had
v
e 244 participants and its photo archive documented the invasion of SG at KP40.
r
a
d However, the founder of the group did not disclose any personal information about
a
Gl himself,andatacloserglancethegroupwalldoesnotcontaindebaterelevanttothe
s movementbutisratherfilledwithspammessages.Hence,inthisessaywefocusonthe
ri
Bo group‘NototheBuildingofaBlockofFlatsintheParkatKP40’foundedbyalocal
[
y activist whom we interviewed in May 2010 (see subsequent sections of this essay).
b
d On 22 August 2010, the Vkontakte group still contained 89 of the original
e
d participantswhohadnumberedaround100.InadditiontoGalina,thereweretwoother
a
o organisers,oneofwhomwasalsoanactivistinMovementofCitizens’Initiatives(DGI),
nl
w whichplayedanimportantroleinsupporting,advisingandenablingnetworkingamong
o
D the dwellers during the entire campaign. In addition, the group’s Vkontakte website
contained permanent links to four ‘friendly groups’ within Vkontakte. Three of these
links connected the campaign at KP40 with similar ones in Lopukhinskii Park,11 the
park on Ivan Fomin Street, and with a group protecting the historical heritage of St
Petersburg.Thephotoarchiveofthewebsitecomprisedseveralphotosofthestruggle
againstthebuildersandprivateguardsintheparkandtwovideoclipsfromthelocalTV
newsaboutthenewbillconcerninggreenareasofthecity.Thediscussiononthegroup
7Seehttp://vkontakte.ru/club12101017,accessed17December2011.
8Seewww.fontanka.ru,accessed19June2012.
9Seewww.littleone.ru,accessed19June2012.
10Seehttp://vkontakte.ru/club12156583,accessed17December2011.
11TheURLsofthesegroupsarehttp://vkontakte.ru/club15902308,http://vkontakte.ru/club8731757
andhttp://vkontakte.ru/club3924910,respectively;sitesaccessed17December2011.
ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN CIVIC ACTIVISM 1383
wallcontained94postings.Thefirstofthem,dated3October2009,informedtheuserof
thefoundingoftheVkontaktegroupZasokhranenieistoricheskogonaslediiaPitera(For
theConservationoftheHistoricalHeritageofPiter).12Amongtheotherpostingswere,
for example, children’s drawings of thepark, announcements of meetings, supporting
voices by activists from other similar groups and references to the media debate
concerning KP40. The last relevant posting on the group wall, from 29 June 2010,
remindedreadersabouttheongoingcampaignagainsttheconstructioninLopukhinskii
Parkwhichwas,similarlytoKP40,atargetforaNorthernCitybuildingproject.The
discussionforumofthegroupcontained10thematic‘threads’whichwillbedealtwithat
theendofthenextsubsection.
The public sphere function: informing and debating
2
1 In both the cities, the SNS sites were used, in addition to other online and offline
0
2 means, to inform activists about the issues relevant to the campaign. The founder of
r
e theStPetersburgVkontaktegroupemphasisedtheroleoftheinternetingeneraltoget
b
m
quick access to information and news and transmit them to other activists:
e
pt
e
S
9 We monitored the sites of the city parliament (zakonodatel’noe sobranie), ecological
1 organisation EKOM and our St Petersburg internet publication Fontanka.ru where
9
0 information is being published about these kinds of issues. The same with television: we
13: managedtowatchallbroadcastsimmediately.13
at
]
v
e Her words were confirmed by scrutiny of the Vkontakte group wall and discussion
r
a
d forums which, for example, were used to refer to the traditional and internet media
a
Gl news about the campaign in real time:
s
ri
Bo Just a while ago on the Fifth Channel, the programme ‘Peterburg hour’ showed how the
y [ privateguardsofthebuildingcompanyarecarryingtentsandpeopleoutofthepark....14
b
d There are very useful comments on the Fontanka blog/46613.html on Komendantskii
e
d Prospekt40,goandreadit!Wehavetostartablog.15
a
o
nl
w
o
D In addition to reporting on the mass media coverage to the group members, the
Vkontaktewallalsoinformedreadersabouttheactsanddecisionsoftheconstruction
company, city administration or other relevant actors in the conflict, including
the stand taken by the ‘environmental prosecution authority’ (prirodookhrannaya
prokuratora) in St Petersburg:
TheenvironmentalprosecutionauthorityofStPetersburgisagainstthebuildinginthepark.
Theemployeesofthismonitoringorganreactedtothescandalouseventswhichhaveemerged
12Seehttp://vk.com/club3924910,accessed19June2010.
13Author’sinterviewwithGalina,May2010.
145October2009,availableat:http://vkontakte.ru/wall-12101017,accessed17December2011.
1513October2009,availableat:http://vkontakte.ru/wall-12101017,accessed17December2011.