Specificities of Hybrid Risk Formation in the Russian Public Sphere

Contemporary research in social science often turns to the problem of the hybridization of politics: analyzing the “gray zone” between authoritarianism and democracy; defining the role of new media, and understanding informal practices in restoring peace in post-conflict societies. The contribution of the present article is based on an investigation of the concept of risk hybridization to explore the reflection on risk in the public sphere for the state, social movements, and citizens. The sociology of U. Beck with the theory of reflexive modernization — as well as the concept of cosmopolitics — are used to explore different effects of risk hybridization models (diffusion, dominance, breakdown of hierarchy and causation) for the public sphere and politics. The author used materials on the COVID-19 epidemic — practices of the Russian state and the change of mass consciousness — to analyze interrelations between the process of risk hybridization and decrease in the coherence of state institutions and the transformation of political alienation in Russian society. The relationship between risk hybridization models and the formation of collective cognitive maps is considered through the practice of framing social movements and protest campaigns. Said nexus is illustrated by the Russian cases of social movements and specific public claims of mass protests actions in 2019-2020. The state governance perspective is used as an framework for a discussion of the effects of risk hybridization on limitations of deliberative and authoritarian models for managing of risk, as well as its perception by social groups. In the conclusion, the author highlights the high cost of maintaining the consistency of reflection on risk in the model of managing (authoritarian) knowledge. Moreover, the author discusses the rising complexity of social reality and the spread of digital media that multiplies reflection on risk.

1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. A. (2015) Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty, Мoscow: AST. — in Russ.

2. Beck U. Risk society. Towards a new modernity, Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. — in Russ.

3. Buchanan D. (2015) The limits of liberti. Between anarchy and Leviathan. Municipal Economy, 2: 2-10. — in Russ.

4. Vinokurov A. (2021) Pandemic controversy. Kommersant, July 30. — in Russ.

5. Golubev A. V. (2019) “If the world hit our republic”: Soviet society and the external threat in 1922–1941, 2nd ed. Moscow, Berlin: “Direct-Media” LLC. — in Russ.

6. Karasik V. (2020) The epidemic in the mirror of media discourse: facts, assessments, positions. Political Linguistics, 2(80): 25-34. — in Russ.

7. Kirzyuk A. A. (2021) “I have no fear”: covid-dissidents in search of agency and truth. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 2: 484-509. — in Russ.

8. Kordonsky S. (2013) Classification and ranking of threats. Otechestvennye zapiski, 2(53): 52-73. — in Russ.

9. Coronavirus and vaccination. Attitudes towards the epidemic and vaccination practices (2022a). FOM, April 13 (https://fom.ru/Zdorove-i-sport/14715). — in Russ.

10. Coronavirus and vaccination. Is vaccination considered a necessary measure in the fight against the pandemic (2022b). FOM, September 15 (https://fom.ru/Zdorove-i-sport/14780). — in Russ.

11. Merkel W., Croissant A. Formal and informal institutions in defective democracies (II). Polis. Political Studies, 2: 20-30. — in Russ.

12. Nikiforov A. A. (2022) Ontological and political dimensions of reflection on risk: risk society and digitalization. Political Expertise: POLITEKS, 18 (4): 489-503. — in Russ.

13. Pervushin N. S. (2022) Media sphere during the COVID-19 pandemic: regional and discursive differences in setting the agenda. Monitoring public opinion: economic and social change, 3 (169): 277-300. — in Russ.

14. Severskaya O. I. (2020) Covidiots on a holiday: coronavirus dictionary as a diagnostic field of current discursive practices. Communication Studies, 7(4): 887-906. — in Russ.

15. Seliverstov V. E., Kravchenko V. A., Klistorin V. I., Yusupova A. T. (2021) Russian regions and the federal center in confronting global threats: a year of the coronavirus pandemic control. Region: Economics and Sociology, 1 (109): 3-46. — in Russ.

16. Conspiracy theories — and what do people think about them? (2020) VTsIOM, July 29 (https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/teorii-zagovora-i-chto-lyudi-o-nikh-dumayut). — in Russ.

17. Fedorinova Y., Terentyeva A., Pismennaya E. (2009) The state will not rescue depressed single-industry towns. Vedomosti, September 29 (https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2009/09/29/gosudarstvo-ne-budet-spasat-depressivnye-monogoroda). — in Russ.

18. Fisun A. A. (2010) Rethinking Post-Soviet Politics: Neopatrimonial Interpretation. Political Conceptology, 4: 158-187. — in Russ.

19. Foucault M. (2003) Governmentality (the idea of public interest and its genesis). Logos. 4-5: 4-22. — in Russ.

20. FAQ. — National Liberation Movement (NOD) (https://nodrf.ru/vopros-answer). — in Russ.

21. Chernogor N. N., Zaloilo M. V. (2020) Metamorphoses of law and challenges to legal science in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Russian Law, 7: 5-26. — in Russ.

22. Bordignon F., Ceccarini L. (2015) The Five-Star Movement: A hybrid actor in the net of state institutions. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 20 (4): 454-473.

23. Chadwick A. (2017) The hybrid media system: Politics and power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24. Coser L. A. (2001) The functions of social conflict, London: Routledge.

25. Diamond L. (2002) Elections without democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of democracy, 13 (2): 21-35.

26. Dragu T., Lupu Y. (2021) Digital authoritarianism and the future of human rights. International Organization, 75 (4): 991-1017.

27. Eisenstadt S. N. (1973) Traditional patrimonialism and modern neopatrimonialism, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

28. Fieschi C., Heywood P. (2004) Trust, cynicism and populist anti-politics. Journal of political ideologies, 9(3): 289-309.

29. Galeotti M. (2019) Russian political war: moving beyond the hybrid, London and New York: Routledge.

30. Giusti S., Piras E. (2020) Democracy and fake news: information manipulation and post-truth politics, London and New York: Routledge.

31. Hagmann J., Cavelty M. D. (2012) National risk registers: Security scientism and the propagation of permanent insecurity. Security Dialogue, 43 (1): 79-96.

32. Iannelli L. (2015) Hybrid politics: Media and participation, London: SAGE Publications.

33. Kenyon T., Naoi M. (2010) Policy uncertainty in hybrid regimes: evidence from firm-level surveys. Comparative Political Studies, 43 (4): 486-510.

34. Latour B. (2007) Turning around politics: A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper. Social studies of science, 37 (5): 811-820.

35. Levitsky S., Way L. A. (2002) Elections without democracy: The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of democracy, 13 (2): 51-65.

36. Mac Ginty R. (2011) International peacebuilding and local resistance: Hybrid forms of peace, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

37. Roth G. (1968) Personal rulership, patrimonialism, and empire-building in the new states. World politics, 20 (2): 194-206.

38. Snow D. A., Rochford Jr. E. B., Worden S. K., Benford R. D. (1986) Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4): 464-481.

39. Tullock G. (1967) The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Economic inquiry, 5 (3): 224-232.

40. Tumber H., Waisbord S. (2019) Media and scandal. H. Tumber, S. Waisbord (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Media and Scandal, London and New York: Routledge: 10-21.