Research essay question: Pussy Riot‘s performance in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was directed towards debate about political rights in Russia. The group explicitly referred to the Putin regime as ‘totalitarian-authoritarian’ (2012). If music poses a threat to existing government, can state intervention ever be justified?
Bessant, J 2014, ‘Democratic renewal, Pussy Riot and flash gigs in the Kremlin’, in Democracy bytes: new media, new politics and generational change, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingtoke, United Kingdom, pp.153- 176.
This book chapter discusses about the evolution of Pussy Riot as musician activists, the role of new media in broadcasting the protests and movements of Pussy Riot, and the challenges it presented to the repressive society of Russia. The author argues that Russia is yet to prove it is capable of maintaining a culture of autonomy. It is worth mentioning that Pussy Riot persevered in creating new, motivating ideas to promote democracy in the Russian society. The chapter included footnotes and a range of references which provides useful information in expressing the main argument. This chapter supports the main argument of the two articles below respectively.
Encyclopaedia of Soviet Law 1985, Kluwer Law International, Netherlands.
Pussy Riot were convicted of violating the social order and hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. Hooliganism is defined as violating public order in an uncivilised manner which involves disrespecting the public’s interests. This entry describes two forms of hooliganism: malicious hooliganism and petty hooliganism. It is relevant to explain the meaning of hooliganism in the Russian law context to differentiate it from its common meaning, and in turn can provide a background information on the definition of the crime imposed on Pussy Riot.
Nikitin, V 2012, ‘The Wrong reasons to Back Pussy Riot’, The New York Times, viewed 22 March 2015, .
This article criticizes Pussy Riot’s philosophy...