Communities, discursive practices and behavioral patterns of digital vigilantism in Russia: Politico-axiological approach

Tatyana A. Kulakova; Anna V. Volkova

doi:10.21638/spbu17.2022.106

Authors

Tatyana A. Kulakova St Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
Anna V. Volkova St Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.106

Abstract

This article studies vigilantism, a specific form of civic activity whose history can be traced back to the nineteenth century and which in the era of digitalization has acquired new characteristics. Digital vigilantism, as a well-established social phenomenon not only in world practice, but also in Russia, needs an analysis of its structure, goals, motivations, and interests and values of members of various communities to determine trends and changes in civil society in the context of digital transformations. Digital vigilantes seeking to regulate ideas about the “normality” of behavior, using interactions in social networks that are aggressive and even bordering on extremist, claim to be a significant actor for public policy. Legitimizing an alternative system for identifying violators, criminals, victims and punishments (by increasing the number of likes), they not only seek to co-opt the initiative to form public values, but often ignore and replace governmental structures. At the same time, they increasingly turn out to be not nameless avengers, but rather individuals seeking to declare themselves and achieve through creating the conflict not only their own goals, but also a certain popularity or “network power”, which is well monetized. The authors analyze behavioral patterns of the most famous communities — “Lev Protiv” (Lion Against), “StopHam” (StopBoor), “Hrushi protiv” (Piggies Against), and “AntiDealer” — and their activities in the VKontakte social network and on YouTube to typologize Russian vigilantism. The possibility of interaction with such movements (both online and offline formats) is not excluded for the system of public power, if a framework (procedures, rules) can be established for them that determines their auxiliary functions (notification, informing, propaganda). The proliferation of vigilante movements and their demonstration of direct violence is a significant indicator of the inefficiency of the public administration system, a decrease in the level of legitimacy and support for its institutions, and indicates an increased risk of loss of state governability.

Keywords:

digital vigilantism, public policy, public values, citizen participation, social networks, discursive practices, conflicts, uncivil society

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References

Smorgunov, L.V. (2019), Institutionalization of governability and the problem of veillance in the space of digital communications, Iuzhno-rossiiskii zhurnal sotsial’nykh nauk, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 62–75. (In Russian)

Danilov, A.N. (2020), Return of the dictatorship: a new reading of modernity, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 105–115, https://doi.org/10.21638/ spbu17.2020.109. (In Russian)

Sunami, A.N. and Trufanov, G.A. (2021), Hostility discourse on account in mediasphere and risk reflection frame, Konfliktologiia, no. 4, pp. 43–57. (In Russian).

Smith, N.R. (2019), Contradictions of democracy: Vigilantism and rights in post-apartheid South Africa, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lund, C. (2006), Twilight institutions: Public authority and local politics in Africa, Development and Change, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 685–705.

Arrobi, M.Z. (2018), Vigilantism as ‘Twilight Institution’: Islamic Vigilante Groups and the State in Post-Suharto Yogyakarta, PCD Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 213–237. https://doi.org/10.22146/pcd.35215

Nivette, A.E. (2016), Institutional ineffectiveness, illegitimacy, and public support for vigilantism in Latin America, Criminology, no. 54, pp. 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12099

Moncada, E. (2017), Varieties of vigilantism: conceptual discord, meaning and strategies, Global Crime, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 403–423.

Johnston, L. (1996), What Is Vigilantism?, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 220–236.

Phillips, B. (2017), Inequality and the Emergence of Vigilante Organizations: The Case of Mexican Autodefensas, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1358–1389. https://doi. org/10.1177/0010414016666863

Kyei, J.R.K.O. and Berckmoes, L.H. (2021), Political Vigilante Groups in Ghana: Violence or Democracy?, Africa Spectrum, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002039720970957

Schuberth, M. (2013), Challenging the weak states hypothesis: Vigilantism in South Africa and Brazil, Journal of Peace, Conflict & Development, no. 20, pp. 38–51.

Asif, M. and Weenink, D. (2019), Vigilante rituals theory: A cultural explanation of vigilante violence, European Journal of Criminology, vol. 19, iss. 2, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819887518

Ward, M. (2020), Walls and Cows: Social Media, Vigilante Vantage, and Political Discourse, Social Media + Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1–4.

Bateson, R. (2021), The Politics of Vigilantism, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 923– 955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020957692

Trottier, D. (2016), Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility, Philosophy & Technology, vol. 30, iss. 1, pp. 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4.

Trottier, D. (2019), Denunciation and doxing: towards a conceptual model of digital vigilantism, Global Crime, vol. 21, no. 3–4, pp. 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2019.1591952

Chang, L.Y C. and Poon, R. (2017), Internet Vigilantism: Attitudes and Experiences of University Students Toward Cyber Crowdsourcing in Hong Kong, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, vol. 61, no. 16, pp. 912–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16639037

Douglas, D. (2016), Doxing: A Conceptual Analysis, Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp.199–210.

Skoric, M.M., Wong, K.H., Chua, J.P.E., Yeo P.J. and Liew, M.A. (2010), Online shaming in the Asian context: Community empowerment or civic vigilantism?, Surveillance and Society, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 181–199.

Dunsby R.M. and Howes L.M. (2019), The NEW adventures of the digital vigilante! Facebook* users’ views on online naming and shaming, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 41–59.

Mclure, H. (2000), The wild, wild web: The mythic American west and the electronic frontier, The Western Historical Quarterly, no. 31, pp. 457–476.

Meagher, K. (2007), Hijacking civil society: The inside story of the Bakassi Boys vigilante group of south-eastern Nigeria, Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 89–115.

Tilly, C. (2003), The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Volkova, A.V. and Lukyanova, G.V. (2020), Communication strategies of digital vigilantes: in search of justice, Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar, ComSDS, pp. 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/ComSDS49898.2020.9101239

Kulakova, T.A. and Kuznetsov, N.V. (2014), Manageability: mechanisms of ideological coordination of the modern Russian State, Konfliktologiia, no. 4, pp. 160–177. (In Russian)

Petrova, N.P. and Petrova, A.A. (2021), Violence as a mechanism of constituting social reality, Konfliktologiia, no. 2, pp. 172–179. (In Russian)

Kulakova, T.A. and Volkova, A.V. (2019), Ethical dimensions of anticorruption policy, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 336–348.