 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||
 |
Texte | ||||||||||
| Peter Kovalenko (2005): Structural dynamics of the public sphere in post-soviet Russia. Online political forums as an alternative public-private space. Abstract of the PhD research
Excerpts from an e-mail discussion Abstract In order to analyze the role and functions of online discursive practices a working model of the process(-es) taking place online is necessary. Only sound theoretical framework can provide such a working theoretical model. I have chosen the theoretical approaches of Jürgen Habermas and Hanna Arendt for this purpose. An ideal model of public space is being constructed. The requirements for the public sphere are defined. It is being further argued, that this framework cannot be fully used in regard to post-Soviet Russian discursive practices. The role of the authoritarian state and inertia of citizens limit and distort the model of public deliberation. The theoretical views of Voronkov and Rittersporn are used to explain the emergence of public-private sphere in the former Soviet union and Post-Soviet Russia as a phenomenon of alternative public sphere. Such cultural artefacts as samizdat and “evil voices” radio stations are being analyzed. It is being argued that discursive practices of the participants of the computer network Fidonet has been the continuation of the practices of the Soviet intelligentsia in semi-public kitchens and workshops (masterskie). Logically, it is being argued that these practices of these small technically advanced audiences have been partially incorporated into the mass audience of the Internet. However, an attempt to reveal the full picture of the post-2001 Runet is being made. It is argued that in addition to the older generation of Internet users, who were mostly male, mid-age, technical intelligentsia with higher than average income there are new audiences emerging. These include white-collar workers and managers, who have unlimited access to the Internet at work, civil servants (‘chinovniki’) and recent emigrants, who reside now in such countries as Israel, Germany and the US, etc. These professionally and ethnically diverse groups of people reflect their opinions on current political events in a number of forums, mainly news portals with an opportunity of discussion boards. Another important component of online discussions are Russian-speaking residents of former-USSR republics. Political events in their countries with involvement of Russia (the Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan) bring them to Russian online discussion forums. Therefore, the growing importance of online political forums as a place for ‘virtual political battles’ in Russia facing “Problem 2008” becomes a social phenomena of growing social importance. Another aspect touched in the work is the development of e-democracy and e-government in Russia. Incorporation of deliberative practices in system of governance is set as one of the goals of “E-Russia” Federal programme. At the same time, little is done to prescribe concrete mechanisms of functioning of such electronic discussion tools. In empirical part of the research an attempt to provide
description of the online forums as social artefact is being made. The
author has conducted 52 in-depth interviews with active participants
of political forums of The choice of these two cases can be also explained by the differences in the format and type of media. Izvestia.ru is the electronic version of one of the oldest in Russia newspapers, which is being positioned on the market as a newspaper for “provincial intelligentsia”, as where RBC.ru is rapidly growing holding which started its popularity within generally economically active people at the time of the economic default in 1998. (it was the only reliable source of swinging exchange rate at that time). It is being argued that the differences in audiences (old soviet intelligentsia and emigrants in Izvestia and white-collar workers and managers at RBC.ru) will be reflected in discursive practices. Invitations to participate in the research were sent personally to the provided e-mail addresses. All interviews have been conducted online via real-time communicators, either ICQ or Mail.ru Agent. Each interview lasted from 25 to 40 minutes. Analysis of the interviews provide insights into the nature and role of online forums. As a result a new models of online political communication can be constructed. Results As a result of the research two basic models of communication can be drawn. The first model of communication, represented at the Izvestia.ru, demonstrates discursive practices of people who were socialized in the USSR but now live in the West. They bear cultural heritage of the soviet intelligentsia of the 60s-70s, with the tradition of public-private kitchen talks, which were based on the discussion of the samizdat literature and “evil voices” radio independent news. For these people the Internet communication is a continuation of the tradition of discussion as an alternative to official public sphere. They see online discussion platform as a continuation of the intelligentsia discursive practices in kitchens, smoking rooms (kurilki) of the research institutes where “eloquence and the art of argumentation” were the cornerstones of building respect from the other participants. They demonstrate their intellectual capacity, analytical skills, take time in preparing posts, conduct search for facts and data. The analysis of style of posts shows that the stylistically they are rooted in scientific speech, reports, scientific discussions. According to moderator of the Izvestia.ru, about 40% of participants live abroad. Therefore, the general purpose of the communication is recreational. They “do this also because they miss Russian language and culture and for them it is one of the few opportunities to have a conversation with informed, educated people, who will understand them”. From the theoretical point of view this type of communication cannot be called public sphere because it does not pursue the promoted goal of public opinion formation. Despite the fact that participants proclaim their deep interest in the subject, they reveal in interviews that they do not believe that anything can be done as a result of the discussion. Thus, the habermasian model is distorted because the participants see that they “KGB sergeant cannot find compromise with a bookkeeper for New York city”. Another model of communication, represented at RBC.ru forum can be called “white-collar talk”. Agents of this model are mostly white-collar workers and managers who use the Internet as communication tool at leisure time at their workplace. The reasons for communication here are very clear: commentaries on the articles, opinion-sharing with peers, professional contacts and feeling of community. These people are generally younger, with higher income, with many entrepreneurs. These people have been socialized in post-Soviet Russia, thus politics for them is a concrete action rather than discussion of what should be done and “who is guilty?” They have access to power mechanisms, understand “which strings to pull” and see the Internet as a cheap and accessible medium for communication, maybe, “organization of the protest actions”, like the protest action on the 19 of May 2005. They are skeptical about the possibility of implementation of the Internet discussion practices into the legislative process. There are several social factors that influence the models of online political communication. The first is the most important - geographical location of people. We can divide all interviewees into two major categories. Residents of Russia and those, who live abroad. For residents of Russia it is alternative sphere where they can find “variety of opinions and interesting people”. They want their opinion to be heard by unlimited number of people, accept the fact that their posts can be read and monitored by state officials. For those, who live abroad internet political communication is the rare opportunity to speak their native language professionally, enjoy conversations with educated ex-patriots. They perceive both recreational and political purpose. They share that they “want to enlighten their ex-co-citizens”, “demonstrate them, that the other options for their country exists”. The discussion is mainly focused on the role and status of Russian Federation in the modern world politics, importance of democracy for economic development and politics in former countries of the Soviet Union. Those living abroad have limited access to Russian news
and reality, mostly read online news sources. Their reasons for participation
in the online forums are: to change public opinion, fight narrow-mindedness,
nationalism and xenophobia. They also enjoy communication in their mother
tongue. They are less suspicious about the anonymous character of communication.
The final conclusion is that the functioning interactive mechanisms of online discussion of politics should be incorporated into the “Electronic Russia” federal program. As this program is still in the making till 2010, it is necessary to include technological means of incorporation of online voices into the public sphere. It should be done in two ways – by monitoring of the ongoing online forums and creation of online mechanisms of discussion. With the growth of the Internet audience political component of the Runet will be growing too. In the presidential campaign of 2008 the Internet could possibly be used to organize alternative political forces to withstand the administrative resources of the presidential apparatus. ___________________________ Excerpts from an e-mail discussion with the author:
Russian Cyberspace:
I see a certain contradiction in your argumentation when you characterize
the activity of Russian emigrants in the forums as mostly recreational
while later on you describe their motives as clearly political ones
(to "enlighten" their "ex-co-citizens"). Russian Cyberspace:
I do not really understand your conclusion that elements of online
discussion should be added to the e-Russia programme in order to stimulate
political discussions with regard to the presidential elections of 2008.
Electronic Russia as a state funded programme characterized by a hierarchic
thinking for me seems to be rather a simulation of public sphere?
|
|||||||||||
with the author
