Each month, the open access team of the University of Groningen Library (UB) puts a recent open access article by UG authors in the spotlight. This publication is highlighted via social media and the library’s newsletter and website.

The article in the spotlight for the month of December 2021 is titled Media Control and Citizen-Critical Publics in Russia: Are Some “Pigs” More Equal Than Others?, written by Rashid Gabdulhakov, (assistant professor at the Centre for Media and Journalism Studies, Faculty of Arts). 

Abstract

Amid the intensification of state control over the digital domain in Russia, what types of online activism are tolerated or even endorsed by the government and why? While entities such as the Anti-Corruption Foundation exposing the state are silenced through various tactics such as content blocking and removal, labelling the foundation a “foreign agent,” and deeming it “extremist,” other formations of citizens using digital media to expose “offences'' performed by fellow citizens are operating freely. This article focuses on a vigilante group targeting “unscrupulous” merchants (often ethnic minorities and labour migrants) for the alleged sale of expired produce—the Hrushi Protiv. Supported by the government, Hrushi Protiv participants survey grocery chain stores and open-air markets for expired produce, a practice that often escalates into violence, while the process is filmed and edited to be uploaded to YouTube. These videos constitute unique media products that entertain the audience, ensuring the longevity of punitive measures via public exposure and shaming. Relying on Litvinenko and Toepfl’s (2019) application of Toepfl’s (2020) “leadership-critical,” “policy-critical,” and “uncritical” publics theory in the context of Russia, this article proposes a new category to describe state-approved digital vigilantes—citizen-critical publics. A collaboration with such publics allows the state to demonstrate a façade of civil society activism amid its silencing; while state-approved participants gain financial rewards and fame. Through Foucauldian discourse analysis, the article reveals that vulnerable groups such as labour migrants and ethnic minorities could fall victim to the side effects of this collaboration.

We asked author Rashid Gabdulhakov a few questions about the article:

This article was published open access, was open access a deliberate choice?

Yes, it was. This article makes up a chapter in my PhD dissertation that I recently defended at Erasmus University Rotterdam. The project I was working on was funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), meaning that all the works I published throughout this PhD trajectory - five single-authored articles, three co-authored articles, one co-authored book chapter, and a co-authored edited volume - had to be open access. 

Publishing open access is the only option for me, I find it very important. I cherish what the Dutch universities have been able to achieve in this domain. For instance, it was refreshing to learn about the so-called “Taverne Amendment”, or Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, which allows the authors to make their articles and book chapters open access after a short embargo period regardless of the agreements made with the publisher. This is fantastic. While I know that I have this option, I still make a conscious choice of collaborating with publishers who value open access. Legal options are fundamentally important, but I also need to see the shared appreciation of open access from the publishers’ side; otherwise, I don’t want my work to be affiliated with them.

How did you select the journal in which to publish? Were you aware that publisher Cogitatio has an open access agreement with the University of Groningen? 

This was my second time publishing with Cogitatio. I was aware of their agreement with the University of Groningen (UG) and I appreciate the various options that this publisher offers to the authors in support of open access. This is exactly the example of values I mentioned earlier. Of course, working at institutions that have a direct open access agreement with the publisher makes things so much easier. Yet Cogitatio offers individual solutions for the authors who may not be in this position. Working with Cogitatio’s Media and Communication journal has been a joyful and rewarding experience. 

On your profile page you mention that: “Through my work, I aim to spotlight people, places, and cases that are underrepresented, misrepresented, or simply ignored in academia”. Why did you choose this perspective?

As much as I love being in academia, I have a sober view of its various problematic sides. Sadly, there are gendered, ethnic, economic, linguistic, and many other biases and injustices in academia. Some steps are being taken here and there to decolonize and dewesternize education, yet plenty of work is yet to be done. We need to ask ourselves the important questions: who gets to produce knowledge? Whose literature and perspectives penetrate class discussions? What are we doing to diversify and enrich the scholarly debate? As an academic from the so-called ‘Global South’ [Uzbekistan], I consider it my duty to make a difference to the extent possible. Yet sometimes I feel that the existing system is too powerful to conquer. For example, in the field of media, you may want to spotlight a given case from, say,  Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan, but journal editors would tell you that the focus is too narrow, while the same phenomenon in the context of the United States would be perceived as broad enough and universally applicable. 

Here I would again return to the issue of values. Some journals embrace underrepresented cases, but even amid all of the buzz about filling the gaps, this is more often an exception than the rule. Moreover, there needs to be a multi-level approach to the ‘diversity objective’ at all the various stages – from student and staff recruitment to research idea development, research funding allocation and curriculum design. At the Faculty of Arts here at the UG and at the Research Centre for Media and Journalism Studies I feel the important support and encouragement to push forth my objective to spotlight people, places, and cases that are underrepresented, misrepresented, or simply ignored in academia. I hope more departments, universities, and publishers would share this vision. A university is THE place to discuss diverse ideas. When there is no diversity among students and staff, and when we focus on the select number of countries and cases, we go fundamentally against this core principle. 

Could you reflect on your experiences with open access and open science in general?

When I was a student at the bachelor and master levels, it was so frustrating to see academic literature hidden behind a paywall. When institutions that I was affiliated with could not grant me student access, there would be no other options as I could not afford to pay the high price per article. This is another aspect that goes against the principles of open academia and knowledge production. It is exactly these practices that perpetuate centuries-long traditions of privilege and inequality in academia. Scholars affiliated with institutors that are rich enough to purchase access are consequently able to create new works and get published, build their careers, and influence academic discourse, while those without the access remain at the outskirts of academia. This is unacceptable.

Useful links:

Learn more about Rashid Gabdulhakov, his research interests, publications and his philosophy to life (plovism) on his personal website.

Cogatio press: Submitting authors affiliated with the UG and the UMCG can publish their articles open access at no extra cost in all journals by Cogitatio Press. 

In addition to the national VSNU agreements, the UG and the UMCG have negotiated a series of agreements in their own right.

Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act (Aw, Auteurswet), also known as the Taverne amendment, grants the author of any short scientific work that is fully or partly financed by Dutch public funds the right to make this work freely available to the public, following ‘a reasonable term’ after its publication. 

Citation:

Gabdulhakov, R. (2021). Media Control and Citizen-Critical Publics in Russia: Are Some “Pigs” More Equal Than Others? Media and Communication, 9(4), 62–72. doi:10.17645/mac.v9i4.4233 

If you would like us to highlight your open access publication here, please get in touch with us.