Digital Vigilantism: Behavioral Patterns and Value Orientations | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
Digital Vigilantism: Behavioral Patterns and Value Orientations
Vol. 22 (2021) No. 2, Public Politics
Vol. 22 (2021) No. 2
Public Politics

Digital Vigilantism: Behavioral Patterns and Value Orientations

Volkova A.V.
St. Petersburg State University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-3687-5728
.
St. Petersburg State University
ORCID ID 0000-0003-1260-2124
Martyanov D.S.
St. Petersburg State University
ORCID ID 0000-0001-7755-8086
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-22-2-37-52
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-22-2-37-52

How to Cite Array

Volkova A.V., Лукьянова Г.В., Martyanov D.S. (2021) Digital Vigilantism: Behavioral Patterns and Value Orientations. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 22 (2), pp. 37-52. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-22-2-37-52 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2021-06-11
Accepted Date 2021-06-26
Published Date 2021-12-09

Copyright (c) 2021 Анна Владимировна Волкова, Галина Владимировна Лукьянова, Денис Сергеевич Мартьянов

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of digital vigilantism (digital vigilance) as a form of electronic civic participation in the context of the challenges of modern public administration. Digital Vigilantism is an interdisciplinary problem, which is confirmed by numerous foreign studies, but for Russia the term is new. Political science analysis allows the authors to identify the dual character of vigilantism, which is a reaction to the ineffectiveness of State institutions in the face of digital transformations and purports to be an auxiliary informal institution. On the other hand, vigilant communities can challenge the State’s monopoly on legal violence and provoke deviant behavior online. The novelty of the study also includes the role of digital vigilantism in shaping public values in the context of the risk of capturing a network civil society. The authors focused their attention on typical discursive practices of institutional (managed) vigilantism among the well-known Russian vigilant movements. Within the framework of the study, a network analysis of four communities of Russian social network VKontakte was carried out: “StopKham”, “Lion Is Against”, “Piggies Are Against” and “AntiDealer”. On the basis of the analysis of virtual communities audiences’ subscriptions, the circle of interests of “typical vigilant” is highlighted, and the inference on non-political character of movements is deduced. However, aggressive network initiatives claiming leadership in shaping public values pose threats to the sustainable and dynamic development of civil society in the public sphere through the promotion of the “non-civil” character of public activity, thereby leveling off efforts to create a common digital environment of trust.

Keywords

digital vigilantism, digital public policy, civic participation, social media, public values

Acknowledgements

The study (research) was carried out with the financial support of RFFR-EISI with the frameworks of the scientific project 21-011-31445 “Digital vigilantism and the practice of creating public values: hijacking network civil society?”.

References

  1. Anderson, D. M. (2001). Vigilantes, Violence and the Politics of Public Order in Kenya. African Affairs, 101(405), 531–555.
  2. Arellano, L. (2012). Vigilantes and Lynch Mobs: Narratives of Community and Nation. Temple University Press.
  3. Arrobi, M. Z. (2018). Vigilantism as ‘Twilight Institution’: Islamic Vigilante Groups and the State in Post-Suharto Yogyakarta. PCD Journal, 6(2), 213–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/pcd.35215.
  4. Bateson, R. (2021). The Politics of Vigilantism. Comparative Political Studies, 54(6), 923–955. DOI: 10.1177/0010414020957692
  5. Brighenti, A. (2007). Visibility: A Category for the Social Sciences. Current Sociology, 55(3), 323–342.
  6. Burrows, W. (1976). Vigilante. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  7. Chang, LYC, 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, 61(16), 912–932. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16639037
  8. Chernobrovkin, I. P., Shevelev, V. N. (2014). Vigilantizm v konfliktah mestnyh zhitelej i etnicheskih migrantov: upravlencheskij podhod [Vigilantism in The Conflicts of Local People and Ethnic Migrants: A Management Approach]. Social’no-gumanitarnye znaniya [Social and humanitarian knowledge], 11, 83–87.
  9. Dennis, K. (2008). Keeping a Close Watch — The Rise of Self-Surveillance and the Threat of Digital Exposure. Sociological Review, 56(3), 347–357.
  10. Douglas, D. (2016). Doxing: A Conceptual Analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(3), 199–210.
  11. Fuchs, C. (2015). Social Media and the Public Sphere. TripleC: Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 57–101.
  12. Helmke, G., Levitsky, S. (2004). “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda”. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740.
  13. Lund, C. (2006). Twilight Institutions: Public Authority and Local Politics in Africa. Development and Change, 37(4), 685–705.
  14. Mclure, H. (2000). The Wild, Wild Web: The Mythic American West and the Electronic Frontier. The Western Historical Quarterly, 31, 457–476.
  15. Meagher, K. (2007). Hijacking Civil Society: The Inside Story of the Bakassi Boys Vigilante Group of South-Eastern Nigeria. Journal of Modern African Studies, 45(1), 89–115.
  16. Miroshnichenko, I. V., Morozova, E. V. (2017). Setevaya publichnaya politika: kontury’ predmetnogo polya [Network Public Policy: Outlines of Subject Field]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 2, 82–102
  17. Miroshnichenko, I. V., Ryabchenko, N. A., Yachmennik, K. V. (2017). “Novy’ye” setevy’ye aktory’ razvitiya lokal`noy politiki v usloviyaxkh sovremennoy Rossii [“New Network Actors of Local Policy in Contemporary Russia]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Politologiya [Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science], 1, 150–163.
  18. Nivette, A. E. (2016). Institutional Ineffectiveness, Illegitimacy, and Public Support for Vigilantism in Latin America. Criminology, 54, 142–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745–9125.12099.
  19. Obert, J., Mattiacci, E. (2018). Keeping Vigil: The Emergence of Vigilance Committees in Pre-Civil War America. Perspectives on Politics, 16(3), 600–661.
  20. Rosenbaum, H. J., Sederburg, P. C. (1974). Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence. Comparative Politics, 6(4), 541–570.
  21. Schuberth, M. (2013). Challenging the Weak States Hypothesis: Vigilantism in South Africa and Brazil. Journal of Peace, Conflict & Development, 20, 38–51.
  22. Shukan, I. (2019). Defending Ukraine at the Rear of the Armed Conflict in Donbas: Wartime Vigilantism in Odessa (2014–2018). Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, 3, 71–104.
  23. Simonova, I. A., Porozov, R. Y. (2019) Molodezhnyy vandalizm kak vigilantizm: rossiyskaya spetsifika “strategii bditel’nosti” [Youth Vandalism as Vigilantism: Russian Specificity of “Vigilance Strategies”]. Evrazijskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Eurasian Law Journal], 10, 467–469.
  24. Skoric, M. M., Wong, K.H., Chua, J.P.E. et al. (2010). Online Shaming in the Asian Context: Community Empowerment or Civic Vigilantism? Surveillance and Society, 8(2), 181–199.
  25. Smith, N. R. (2019). Contradictions of Democracy: Vigilantism and Rights in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Oxford University Press.
  26. Smorgunov, L.V. (2020). Instituty dostupnosti cifrovykh platform [Digital Platform Accessibility Institutions]. Yuzhno-rossijskiy zhurnal social’nyh nauk [South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences], 21(3), 6–19.
  27. Stan, L. (2011). Vigilante Justice in Post-communist Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(4), 319–327.
  28. Tanner, S., Campana A. (2019). “Watchful citizens” and Digital Vigilantism: A Case Study of the far Right in Quebec. Global Crime, 21(3–4). DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2019.1609177.
  29. Trottier, D. (2017). Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55–72.
  30. Trottier, D. (2019) Denunciation and Doxing: Towards a Conceptual Model of Digital Vigilantism. Global Crime, 21(1), 1–17 DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2019.1591952
  31. Trottier, D. (2018). Revisiting Privacy in Public Spaces in the Context of Digital Vigilantism. Surveillance, Privacy and Public Space. Taylor and Francis.
  32. Volkova, А., Lukyanova, G. (2020). Communication Strategies of Digital Vigilantes: in Search of Justice. IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar (ComSDS). DOI: 10.1109/ComSDS49898.2020.9101239
  33. Wilkinson, D. L., Chauncey, C. B., Regina, M. L. (2009). Youth Violence Crime or Self-help? Marginalized Urban Males’ Perspectives on the Limited Efficacy of the Criminal Justice System to Stop Youth Violence. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623, 25–38.
  34. Zizumbo-Colunga, D. (2017). Community, Authorities, and Support for Vigilantism: Experimental Evidence. Political Behavior, 39(4), 989–1015.