Political conflict interactions of urban communities: network aspects

The article deals with the problems of network interactions of urban communities in the context of political conflicts. The theoretical foundations of the study are developed in line with the theory of political networks. In particular, the concept of “heterarchies” is used to describe interactions in the course of conflicts between hierarchical and network structures. The explanatory model proposed by the authors is also focused on the components of the network approach, revealing the mechanisms and ways of shaping the political agenda and making decisions using the potential of political networks. In addition, an analysis of the impact of network interactions on the development of urban communities was carried out. The empirical component of the article is based on the results of research conducted by the authors in three large regional centers of the Russian Federation in 2019-2020. The 2019 study was conducted in the format of semi-structured expert interviews with leaders of urban communities in Voronezh, Krasnodar and Yaroslavl. In 2020, an expert survey was conducted in the same cities. In total, 34 experts were interviewed, representing urban communities, authorities, research centers, business structures, etc. Based on the results of the research, conclusions were drawn about the empowerment of urban communities to participate in decision-making at the municipal level within the framework of network relations, as well as the prevalence of a constructive approach to interactions with opponents in political conflict processes. At the same time, limiting their influence on decision-making processes to the role of the “attentive public”, which is observed at the present time, can contribute to the expansion of destructive, in particular, protest forms of political activity.

1. Bennett L., Segerberg A. The logic of connective action. Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge : Cambridge university press, 2013, 256 р.

2. Bitušíková A. Urban activism in Central and Eastern Europe: a theoretical framework. Slovensky Narodopis. 2015, N 63 (4), Р. 326–338.

3. Brady H., Verba S., Schlozman K.L. Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. American political science review. 1995, Vol. 89, N 2, Р. 271–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2082425

4. Burt R.S. Brokerage and closure. An introduction to social capital. Oxford : Oxford university press, 2005, 279 р.

5. Castells M. The power of communication. Moscow : Higher School of Economics, 2017, 591 p. (In Russ.)

6. Cho J., Shah D.V., McLeod J.M., McLeod D.M., Scholl R.M., Gotlieb M.R. Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication theory. 2009, Vol. 19, N 1, Р. 66–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x

7. Crumley C. Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Archeological papers of the American anthropological association. 1995, Vol. 6, N 1, Р. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.1995.6.1.1

8. Dahrendorf R. Out of utopia. Moscow : Praxis, 2002, 536 p. (In Russ.)

9. Diani M. Social movement networks virtual and real. Information, communication and society. 2000, Vol. 3, N 3, Р. 386–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180051033333

10. Domaradzka A. Urban social movements and the right to the city: an introduction to the special issue on urban mobilization. Voluntas: International journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations. 2018, Vol. 29, N 4, Р. 607–620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0030-y

11. Drury J., Reicher S., Stott C. Transforming the boundaries of collective identity: from the “local” anti-road campaign to “global” resistance? Social movement studies. 2003, Vol. 2, N 2, Р. 191–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1474283032000139779

12. Florea I., Gagyi A., Jacobsson K. A field of contention: evidence from housing struggles in Bucharest and Budapest. Voluntas: International journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations. 2018, Vol 29, N 4, Р. 929–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9954-5

13. Gandaloeva M.T., Miroshnichenko I.V., Morozova E.V., Plotichkina N.V., Ryabchenko N.A., Tereshina M.V., Barley K.V. The frontier of the network society as a space of political interaction: monograph. Krasnodar : Prospects for education, 2017, 270 p. (In Russ.)

14. Glukhova A.V., Kolba A.I., Sokolov A.V. Urban conflict as object of research and political management: conceptualization problems. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: History. Political science. Sociology. 2018, N 4, P. 5–12. (In Russ.)

15. Glukhova A.V. Political conflicts: foundations, typology, dynamics (theoretical and methodological analysis). 2 nd ed. Moscow : LIBROKOM, 2010, 280 p. (In Russ.)

16. Gobo G. Glocalization: A critical introduction. European journal of cultural and political sociology. 2016, Vol. 3, N 2–3, Р. 381–385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2016.1209886

17. Heijden H.-A. Environmental networks and social movement theory. Environmental politics. 2014, Vol. 23, N 6, Р. 1111–1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.939417

18. Jacobsson K. Introduction: the development of urban movements in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Jacobsson K. (ed.). Urban grassroots movement in Central and Eastern Europe. New York : Routledge, 2016, Р. 1–32.

19. Jacobsson K., Saxonberg S. Beyond NGO-ization. The development of social movements in Central and Eastern Europe. Farnham : Ashgate, 2013, 280 p.

20. Klandermans P.G. Identity politics and politicized identities: identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Political psychology. 2014, Vol. 35. N 1, Р. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12167

21. McAdam D., McCarthy J.D, Zald M.N. Comparative perspectives and social movements: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing. New York : Cambridge university press, 1996, 426 р.

22. Mikhailova O.V. Network architecture of public administration: problems of conceptualization and practice: dis doctors of political sciences. Moscow, 2014, 335 p. (In Russ.)

23. Mikhailova O.V. How are power positions on the state actors in networks are possible or «Cheshire cat governance strategy». Human. Management. Community. 2016, Vol. 17, N 4, P. 6–17. (In Russ.)

24. Miroshnichenko I.V., Ryabchenko N.A., Morozova E.V. Heterarchies as hybrid political institutions of a new political reality. Caspian region: politics, economics, culture. 2015, N 4 (45), P. 116–121. (In Russ.)

25. Miroshnichenko I.V., Ryabchenko N.A. Networking resources of the development of local policies. Central Russian journal of social sciences. 2015, Vol. 10, N 5, Р. 38–49. (In Russ.)

26. Opp K-D. Collective identity, rationality and collective political action. Rationality and society. 2012, Vol. 24, N 1, Р. 73–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463111434697

27. Osipov V.A. The concept of "heterarchy": conceptualization, subject field and heuristic possibilities in the analysis of public policy: dis candidate of political sciences Moscow, 2018, 170 p. (In Russ.)

28. Plucinski P. Forces of altermodernization: urban social movements and the new urban question in contemporary Poland. Voluntas: International journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations. 2018, N 29, N 4, Р. 653–669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0007-x

29. Ranciere J. Disagreement: politics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota press, 1999, 145 р.

30. Sassen S. Whose city is it? Globalization and the formation of new claims. Public culture. 1996, Vol. 8, N 2, Р. 205–223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-8-2-205

31. Skogstad G. Policy networks and policy communities: conceptual evolution and governing realities. Workshop on “Canada’s contribution to comparative theorizing” annual meeting of the Canadian political science association. London ; Ontario : University of Western Ontario, 2005, 16 p.

32. Soloviev A.I. State and society: new facets of historical conflict. South-Russian journal of social sciences. 2018, Vol. 19, N 4, P. 6–24. (In Russ.)

33. Soloviev A.I. Political agenda of the government, or why the state needs the society. Policy. Political studies. 2019, N 4, P. 8–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.04.02 (In Russ.)

34. Soloviev A.I. Governmental agenda in state decision-making: political forms and mechanisms of interaction. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: History. Political science. Sociology. 2020, N 2, P. 53–59. (In Russ.)

35. Staeheli L. Cities and citizenship. Urban geography. 2003, Vol. 24, N 2, Р. 97–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.24.2.97

36. Stürmer S., Simon B. Pathways to collective protest: Calculation, identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in social movement participation. Journal of social issues. 2009, Vol. 65, N 4, Р. 681–705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01620.x

37. Tufekci Z. The medium and the movement: digital tools, social movement politics, and the end of the free rider problem. Policy & Internet. 2014, Vol. 6, N 2, Р. 202–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.poi362

38. Tykanova E.V. The City as a territory of inequality: challenging the demolition of garage buildings in St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg sociology today. 2017, N 8, P. 54–72. (In Russ.)

39. Volodenkov S.V. Digital technologies in the system of traditional institutions of power: political potential and contemporary challenges. Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University (electronic journal). 2018, N 2, P. 39–48. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2018-2-893 (In Russ.)