Focusing on a protest movement against unwanted development projects in Moscow, I consider their opportunities to act, framing mechanism, and outcomes. I regard theoretical tools of “cognitive liberation” and “social appropriation of claims” as most applicable in cases of sustained local activism in the context of Russia, adverse to collective action. One of such groups sets upon infill development projects at Taganka in central Moscow. After reviewing relevant literature, I then proceed to the case study. Given that little is known on the mechanisms through which such groups can persist and exert influence, I compare relative weight of several prospective factors. I conclude this article by arguing that framing mechanisms, especially a certain “ownership frame,” are most relevant in explaining such groups’ remaining motivated for long time and producing unexpected outcomes.
BartlettRVBaberWF (1999) From rationality to reasonableness in environmental administration: Moving beyond proverbs. Journal of Management History5(2): 55–67.
2.
BertaudARenaudB (1997) Socialist cities without land markets. Journal of Urban Economics41(1): 137–151.
3.
BimberB (2003) Information and American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BurninghamKBarnettJThrushD (2006) The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: A literature review. School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Working paper 1.3. Available at: http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_3.pdf
5.
CammettM (2005) Fat cats and self-made men: Globalization and the paradoxes of collective action. Comparative Politics37(4): 379–400.
6.
CastellsM (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
7.
CastellsM (1994) European cities, the informational society, and the global economy. New Left Review204: 18–32.
8.
ClémentK (2008) New social movements in Russia: A challenge to the dominant model of power relationships?Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics24(1): 68–89.
9.
De-ShalitA (2000) The Environment: Between Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
DridzeTAkimkinY (2004) Opyt sotsial’no-diagnosticheskoi raboty v zone ozhidaemogo snosa ustarevshikh pyatietazhek s pereseseleniem zhiteley v noviye doma v moskovskikh munitsipal’nykh raionakh Presnensky i Tagansky [Social diagnostics in the area of proposed demolition of old five-story apartment blocks with their residents resettlement—in Moscow boroughs of Presnensky and Tagansky]. In: Sotsial’no-obosnovannoye gradoustroistvo [Socially justified urban planning]. Moscow: ISRAN, Centre for Social Management, Communications and Social Project Technologies, pp. 138–176.
11.
DridzeTGolubevaGMazlumyanovaN (2004) Diagnostika problemnykh zhiznennykh i lokal’noi sotsial’noi situatsii v rekonstruiruyemom moskovskom mikroraione Arbat-Povarskaya [Diagnostics of problem life situations and of the local social situation in Moscow borough of Arbat-Povarskaya, undergoing reconstruction]. In: Sotsial’no-obosnovannoye gradoustroistvo. Moscow: ISRAN, Centre for Social Management, Communications and Social Project Technologies, pp. 213–245.
12.
FalkB (2003) Post-’communism’s first decade: A primer for non-specialists. Canadian Journal of Political Science36(2): 417–437.
13.
FereeM (1996) The political context of rationality. In: MorrisADMuellerCM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 29–52.
14.
FreemanJ (1999) A model for analyzing the strategic options of social movement organizations. In: FreemanJJohnsonV (eds) Waves of Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 221–240.
15.
GamsonW (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
16.
GladarevBLonkilaM (2012) The role of social networking sites in civic activism in Russia and Finland. Europe-Asia Studies64(8): 1375–1394.
17.
GoodwinJJasperJ (2006) Emotions and social movements. In: StetsJETurnerJH (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. New York: Springer, pp. 611–635.
18.
HajerM (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
HamelPLustiger-ThalerHMayerM (2001) Introduction: Urban social movements—local thematics, global spaces. In: HamelPLustiger-ThalerHMayerM (eds) Urban Movements in a Globalizing World. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 1–23.
20.
HanniganJ (1995) Environmental Sociology. London; New York: Routledge.
21.
HendersonS (2002) Selling civil society: Western aid and the nongovernmental organization sector in Russia. Comparative Political Studies35(2): 139–167.
22.
HenryL (2006) Shaping social activism in post-Soviet Russia: Leadership, organizational diversity, and innovation. Post-Soviet Affairs22(2): 99–124.
23.
IvanouA (2013) “Taganka 3” Group: An instance of local urban activism in Moscow. In: JacobssonKSaxonberg (eds) Beyond NGO-ization: The Development of Social Movements in Central and Eastern Europe. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 191–211.
24.
JohnstonH (2006) “Let’s Get Small”: The dynamics of (small) contention in repressive states. Mobilization11(2): 195–212.
25.
JohnstonH (2014) What is a Social Movement. Cambridge: Polity Press.
26.
KolossovVO’LoughlinJ (2004) How Moscow is becoming a capitalist mega-city. International Social Science Journal56(181): 413–427.
27.
KolossovVVendinaOO’LoughlinJ (2002) Moscow as an emergent world city: International links, business developments and the entrepreneurial city. Eurasian Geography and Economics23(3): 170–196.
28.
LyallJ (2006) Pocket protests: Rhetorical Coercion and the micropolitics of collective action in semiauthoritarian regimes. World Politics58(3): 378–412.
29.
McAdamD (1982) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (1996) Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—Toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–20.
31.
McCarthyJZaldM (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82: 1212–1241.
32.
McClymontKO’HareP (2008) “We’re not NIMBYs!” Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable sommunities. Local Environment13(4): 321–335.
33.
MartinD (2003) Place-framing as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers93(3): 730–750.
34.
MayerM (2001) Urban social movements in an era of globalization. In: HamelPLustiger-ThalerHMayerM (eds) Urban Movements in a Globalizing World. London, NY: Routledge, pp. 141–158.
35.
MolotchH (1999) Growth machine links: Up, down, and access. In: JonasAWilsonD (eds) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 247–266.
36.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
OppK-D (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social. Movements: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique, and Synthesis. New York: Routledge.
38.
PerryJL (2000) Bringing society in: toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2): 471–488.
39.
PerryJLBrudneyJLCourseyD. (2008) What drives morally committed citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration Review68(3): 445–458.
40.
PickerillJ (2001) Weaving a Green Web: Environmental protest and computer mediated communication in Britain. In: WebsterF (ed.) Culture and Politics in the Information Age: A New Politics?London: Routledge, pp. 142–166.
41.
PickvanceCG (1986) Concepts, contexts and comparison in the study of urban movements: A reply to M Castells. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4: 221–231.
42.
PickvanceCG (1995) Where have urban movements gone? In: HadjimichalisCSadlerD (eds) Europe at the Margins: New Mosaic of Inequality. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 197–217.
43.
PickvanceCG (2001) Inaction, individual action and collective action as responses to housing dissatisfaction: A comparative study of Budapest and Moscow. Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change23: 179–206.
44.
RobinsonA (1999) From NIMBY to NOPE: building eco-bridges. Contemporary Politics5(4): 339–364.
45.
SalmenniemiS (2014) The making of civil society in Russia: A Bourdieuian approach. International Sociology29(1): 38–55.
46.
ShemtovR (1999) Taking ownership of environmental problems: How Local NIMBY Groups expand their goals. Mobilization4(1): 91–106.
47.
SnowDABenfordRD (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research1: 197–217.
48.
SnowDARochfordEBWordenSK. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review51(4): 464–481.
49.
TarrowS (1998) Power in Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
UhlinA (2006) Post-Soviet Civil Society: Democratization in Russia and the Baltic States. London; New York: Routledge.
51.
WeberM (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
52.
YanitskyO (1991) Fight for Lefortovo, Moscow: Resolving the conflict between urban planners and residents. In: DeelstraTYanitskyO (eds) Cities of Europe: The Public’s Role in Shaping the Urban Environment. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, pp. 356–371.
53.
YanitskyO (1993a) Environmental initiatives in Russia: East-West vomparisons. In: VariATamasP (eds) Environment and Democratic Transition: Policy and Politics in Central and Eastern Europe—Technology, Risk and Society, vol. 7. Dordrecht; Boston, MA; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 120–145.
ZdravomyslovaE (1993) Paradigmy zapadnoi sotsiologii obshchestvennykh dvizhenii [Paradigms of Western theory of social movements]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.
59.
ZdravomyslovaE (1996) Opportunities and framing in the transition to democracy: The case of Russia. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldMN (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 122–138.
