Socialnetworks latvia by Juliettes

UNIVERSITĂ&#x2030; DE NANTES Institut universitaire de technologie de La Roche-sur-Yon DĂŠpartement Information et communication

Student in communication DUETI final report Riga Stradins University Academic year 2013-2014

Picture source: ÂŠ www.pha-media.com

UNIVERSITĂ&#x2030; DE NANTES Institut universitaire de technologie de La Roche-sur-Yon DĂŠpartement Information et communication

Can global social networks help the building of intercultural relationships between the Russian and Latvian communities in Latvia?

Student in Information and communication DUETI Communication report Riga Stradins University Academic year 2013-2014

Keywords: Latvia, communities, conflict, social media, intercultural interactions

Latvia has known deep social, cultural, economic and political changes following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Today the country faces large ethnical, cultural, linguistic problems and national identity issues, due to the co-existence of two main communities, Latvian and Russian. The traditional media landscape, including the press, the radio and the television, is also divided into two information spaces dedicated to the Latvianspeaking and Russian-speaking audiences. This social split is, in addition, visible in the digital area, and especially in the social media, through the development of Latvian and Russian local participative platforms. This research report will especially focus on the recent impact of global social networks such as Facebook.com or Twitter.com on the intercultural interactions between both communities in this fragmented social environment. Due to a lack of resources on this topic, the argumentation will be based on some exchanges with three Latvian communication professionals, and the answers of thirty three Latvian students.

I would like to thank SĂŠbastien Jacotin, International Relations officer of La Roche-sur-Yon campus, UniversitĂŠ de Nantes, for approving my research topic. I am grateful to Olga Kazaka, Lecturer at the University of Latvia, for her great availability and her explanations regarding the social media landscape in Latvia. Thank you to MatÄŤss Pudulis and Roberts Bite, former students at Riga Stradins University working in the social media field, for their precious help and their answers to many questions. I also would like to thank the thirty three students who took some time to fill in my small survey for their constructive and instructive responses.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 1. LATVIA, A DIVIDED SOCIETY? .............................................................................................................. 13 1.1

Ethno-political conflict and national identity issue ...................................................... 13

1.2

Division in the traditional media landscape of Latvia ................................................... 15

2. RECENT REVOLUTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN LATVIA ....................................................................18 2.1

Late use of global social networks ...................................................................................... 18

2.2

Increasing use of social networks in a fragmented environment ........................... 19

3. UNIFYING POTENTIAL OF SOCIAL NETWORKS .............................................................................. 22 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 25 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 27 A PPENDIX 1 - T HE

AUDIENCE SHARE AMONG

A PPENDIX 2 – S URVEY “S OCIAL S YNTHÈSE – R ÉSEAUX

NETWORKS IN

BROADCASTERS IN

L ATVIA ........................... 29

L ATVIA ” .................................................................... 31

SOCIAUX ET CO MMUNICATION INTERCUL TURELLE EN LETTONIE ............ 33

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought about many political, economic and social changes over the world and especially in the post-Soviet states such as Latvia. Today, this country reveals a various ethnical1 background, mainly shared between two communities, Latvian and Russian. Although a significant proportion of Russian people are citizens of Latvia, these two groups are engaging in a strong linguistic and political conflict. In addition, Latvian is the sole official state language, but 95% of the population is able to speak Russian due to the legacies of the Soviet occupation2. Some people speak thus about “divided society” although this debate is very controversial. We can especially observe this social split in the information and communication environment which is divided into two spaces, namely the Russian-speaking and Latvian-speaking traditional media. This fragmented environment is today also visible in the new digital media. Russian and Latvian populations have started to use different local social media in order to exchange with people from the same ethnic origin. For instance, Draugiem.lv, social network especially used by Latvian users, is dominating in Latvia and has appeared in the country before the famous international platform Facebook.com. The goal of this research paper is to understand the main impacts of the social media on the intercultural relationships and communication in Latvia. The term “intercultural communication” used many times in this report, is defined “as communication, and the study of it, among peoples of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds”3. We will thus focus on the following issue: can global social networks such as Facebook.com and Twitter.com help the intercultural relationships building in Latvia between the Russian and Latvian communities? In other words, we will study the potential of global social networks to reduce some “national rifts” between these two main groups in Latvia. We will firstly concentrate on the roots of this conflict which are essentially political and ethnical, and on the debate brought about by the expression “divided society” sometimes used to define Latvia. As we previously mentioned, we will also 1

Ethnic group: “a social group or category of the population that, in a larger society, is set apart and bound together by common ties of race, language, nationality, or culture”. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica 2 AXL, www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/lettonie-1gnrl.htm 3 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, faculty.buffalostate.edu/smithrd/UAE%20Communication/Unit5.pdf 11

observe that this national split is very visible in the traditional media industry, shared in two linguistic spaces. Secondly, we will pay attention to the recent revolution of social media in Latvia and we will appreciate the development of local social networks which may amplify the isolation of these ethnic groups. Finally, we will analyse the unifying potential of global social networks by especially focusing on the famous platform Facebook.com in Latvia according to some electronic exchanges with Latvian students and professionals.

A real debate has hinged over the years, and especially since the declaration of independence in 1991, on the Latvian society which would be source of political conflicts and national identity issues due to its unofficial multilingual status and its multi-ethnic characteristic. However, can we consider Latvia as a divided society? After analysing these several national problems, we will focus on the traditional media landscape, particularly impacted by this diversity. 1.1 ETHNO-POLITICAL CONFLICT AND NATIONAL IDENTITY ISSUE

Latvia is part of the particular countries whose population was more substantial twenty years ago, and even one hundred years ago, than it is today. Both World Wars caused this phenomenon in addition to deportations, emigrations and a demographic crisis. In Latvia, “ethnic consciousness is very pronounced, sometimes even predominating over national or religious consciousness”4. The soviet oppression during the Second World War and the post-war years reinforced Latvian ethnic consciousness, since Latvians tended to turn away from the Soviet state and the large population of ethnic Russian immigrants who arrived during the Soviet occupation5. Russians are a powerful minority in Latvia. They represented nearly 26,9% of the population6 in 2011. Half of the Russians today are living in large urban centres. They constituted, for example, some 43% of the population in Riga, and 55% in Daugavpils in 2004 (located in the South of the country)7. The divide between Latvian and Russian communities was especially accentuated following the fall of the Soviet Union and the proclamation of independence in Latvia in 1991. Indeed, a process of inherited citizenship was implemented. All those who were citizens of the Republic of Latvia before the beginning of the Soviet era in 1940 automatically regained their citizenship which was granted to all their direct descendants. However, people who had arrived in Latvia during the last decades “were offered a choice of either applying for citizenship from their country of origin or becoming permanent 4

LATVIA, www.latvia.lv/library/country-and-society LATVIA, www.latvia.lv/library/country-and-society 6 RODIN Mihail, 2013, p. 5 7 AXL, www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/lettonie-1gnrl.htm 5

residents of Latvia without Latvian citizenship (status of “non-citizens”)”8. Most chose the second option which eventually allowed the naturalization process. In addition, the Latvian language became the sole official language of the Republic of Latvia in 1991. The fact that the Russian language becomes an official language of Latvia as well is a claim of political parties representing the Russian minority. But accepting such a claim could lead to the progressive disappearance of the Latvian language. It results that 95% of the population can speak Russian as their mother tongue or as a second language. This is one of the legacies of the Soviet occupation, when it was required to learn Russian9. Mihail Rodin, doctor of political sciences at the Institute of European studies in Latvia, interested in the analysis of inter-ethnic conflict relations, has identified the sources and the causes of these conflicts. “The typical causes of ethnic conflicts among experts and representatives of the mass consciousness in Latvia indicate ethnic origin and language of the titular nation, the attitudes to the historical past and its interpretation, the fear of modern Russia”10, he argues. Indeed, a survey conducted in 2013 showed that the main reasons for inter-ethnic confrontation would be linked to “economic and political inequalities of ethnic groups, economic crisis, and the threat of assimilation, the power struggle between the elites of ethnic group, the lack of citizenship and the influence of Russia”11. Some people evoke a divided or discriminatory society. But according to Boriss Cilevics, a Member of the Latvian Parliament (Saeima), "Latvia is not a divided society"12. He considers that it is only a political conflict between the Latvian political regime and the Russian-speaking minority, and not ethnic. “The problem is a lack of understanding, a lack of dialogue and a clear refusal to establish this dialogue on the part of the government”13, he claims. However, according to Brigita Zepa and Inese Šūpule, both professors of Social sciences at the University of Latvia, the theory of language conflict argue that if a dominant group “uses language as the basis for integration of the 8

Latvia, www.latvia.lv/library/country-and-society AXL, www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/lettonie-1gnrl.htm 10 RODIN Mihail, 2013, p. 8 11 RODIN Mihail, 2013, p. 9 12 POLITIKA, politika.lv/article/latvia-is-not-a-divided-society 13 POLITIKA, politika.lv/article/latvia-is-not-a-divided-society 9

remaining part of society (the minorities), there is fertile ground for political and linguistic conflict, which, in turn, can develop into ethnic conflict”14. In Latvia, there was a turnaround in the hierarchy of the two socio-linguistic groups after independence. Analyses show that the process has not yet been completed, which has a large impact on ethnic relations. Indeed, the Latvian people still feel themselves as a threatened majority15. A survey of Latvia’s youth attitudes named We are different, but United by Latvia, and conducted in 2004, noted that 67% of surveyed students considered Latvia to be an ethnically divided society16. These national matters consequently reflect a current ethnic confrontation. Although the term "divided society" arouses controversy and that opinions are mixed, we can however note that mass media play an important role in this national split. 1.2 DIVISION IN THE TRADITIONAL MEDIA LANDSCAPE OF LATVIA

The media law started to develop when Latvia regained its independence in 1991. Latvia’s constitution now guarantees freedom of speech and of press. The media market is thus divided into two different information spaces: one is reserved for Latvian speaking and the other for Russian speaking audience. This distinction has provoked an additional constraint and pressure on the development of the media market and the acquisition of a large audience is the main way to get adequate revenue. However, even though the number of Latvian and Russian readers is quite similar, the Latvian newspapers are more competitive in terms of publishing amount17. 244 newspapers have been published in 2009 in Latvia18. Most of them were small local media. “There were twenty dailies, twelve in Latvian and eight in Russian”19. The most popular Latvian language dailies in terms of circulation are Diena, Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze and Latvijas Avīze20. The Russian press market, on the other hand, is less stable and less concentrated, and it experienced the emergence of new dailies in 2004. The most important daily publications are Vesti Segodniya, Chas, and Telegraf. “The number of 14

ZEPA Brigita and al, 2005, p. 11 ZEPA Brigita and al, 2005, p. 11 16 SILOVA Iveta, 2006, p. 157 17 STRAUSA Solvita, 2004, p. 3 18 EUROPEAN JOURNALISM CENTRE, ejc.net/media_landscapes/latvia 19 EUROPEAN JOURNALISM CENTRE, ejc.net/media_landscapes/latvia 20 NAGLA Ilze, KEHRE Anita, 2004, p. 257 15

Russian dailies and publishers has increased, which is a trend that is in contrast to the consolidation in the Latvian press”21. However, the Russian media are regularly accused of being funded by Moscow and of exercising a form of propaganda on the Russian-speakers minority in Latvia22. According to a survey conducted by the Baltic Institute of Social Sciences, “the mass media also serve to split up society”23. Indeed, the press would often be tendentiously negative about one or another socio-linguistic group. Latvian language newspapers would take a more global view, while Russian language newspapers are more confined, focusing mostly on Latvia’s Russian-speaking community and Russia itself. “Some Russian newspapers often illustrate open hostility toward the Latvian state. The Latvian language press critiques political processes and serves as a “watchdog””24. A few years ago, the first free newspapers appeared in Latvia, which was a success in the country. The leading one, 5min, was created in 2005. Its particularity is being published both in Latvian and Russian and is distributed on the street and in public transports25. The Latvian TV market, amounting more than two millions of viewers in 2004, is dominated by three main broadcasters26. Latvian Television, the national public TV broadcaster, operates two commercial channels, TV3 and LNT, a national channel, LTV1, an entertainment channel, LTV7, and the regional channel for the city of Riga, TV5. TV 3+ Baltics and Pirmais Baltijas kanals (First Baltic channel) are two other players coming into the Latvian broadcasting market and are exclusively in Russian27. Regarding the radio, Latvijas Radio (Latvian Radio), the public service radio broadcaster holds the largest audience and “provides informative and analytical programs, news and different kind of music”28. The media industry thus reflects this national diversity and is divided into Latvian and Russian outlets and broadcasters. Both communities are perfectly identifiable in the main traditional media such as the press, the television or the radio. We could now wonder 21

NAGLA Ilze, KEHRE Anita, 2004, p. 258 Eurotopics, www.eurotopics.net/fr/home/medienlandschaft/lettlandmdn/ 23 ZEPA Brigita and al, 2005, p. 6 24 European journalism centre, ejc.net/media_landscapes/latvia 25 European journalism centre, ejc.net/media_landscapes/latvia 26 STRAUSA Solvita, 2004, p. 4 27 See Appendix 1 – The audience share among TV broadcasters in Latvia 28 STRAUSA Solvita, 2004, p. 4 22

about the impact of the new digital media and especially of social networks on this situation of media pluralism.

First of all, the term “social media” is used in this paper in a broad sense and designates all the Web 2.0 resources such as blogs, social networks, forums and wiki. In 2011, social media were still in the early stages of development in Latvia due to some difficulties linked with the fragmented social environment and the country’s history. What about today? Are social media becoming increasingly popular in Latvia? 2.1 LATE USE OF GLOBAL SOCIAL NETWORKS

Although many online participative and digital platforms have appeared and become popular over the past couple of years, we will especially concentrate on the social networks phenomenon. In 2011, Olga Kazaka, lecturer at the University of Latvia and PhD candidate, conducted a research in order to clarify some trends in the communication strategy of Latvian companies which targeted their audience on social media 29. She identified three main issues: Latvia is a small Post-soviet country, in which the communication area is comparatively new; the lack of experience among specialist in the social media field is obvious; the communication environment is fragmented and divided into two language communities which consequently use different social media. For instance, the local social network Draugiem.lv is dominant in Latvia and was already popular before Facebook.com appears. It is used by 89% of all Internet users in the country30. In contrast, the social platforms Одноклассники (Odnoklassniki) or ВКонтакте (VK) are particularly popular among Russian users living in Latvia. According to Olga Kazaka, the social media landscape is thus similar to that of traditional media, shared between two main communities, Russian and Latvian. As we can observe on the map below (see Map 1), Latvia is still one of the rare countries in 2013 where the global social network Facebook.com is not the strongest, although it is growing in terms of Latvian members with 270,000 registered users in 201131. The platform of micro-blogging Twitter.com was, as for it, three years ago a communication tool used by young adapters,

KAZAKA Olga, 2011 KAZAKA Olga, 2011, p.248 31 KAZAKA Olga, 2011, p.248 30

highly advanced Internet users and communication specialists with 40,000 users in Latvia32.

Latvia

Map 1 - World map of social networks, 2013 © allfacebook.com

Finally, the research led by Olga Kazaka showed that Latvia was still at a stage of attracting users in 2011. The communication specialists had to face the challenge of changing their philosophy from a “targeted campaign-based transfer of a message” to a “constant informal conversation”33 with users on social networks. Today, the trends have considerably changed. The Latvian companies and institution or even the government decided to seriously include social media in their communication strategy. 2.2 INCREASING USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN A FRAGMENTED ENVIRONMENT

Social networks have developed very fast over the past three years. Due to a lack of recent quantitative and qualitative information on the subject, I took the initiative to contact Olga Kazaka in order to get some comments and explanations about the major changes in today's use of social networks in Latvia. I had already noted that the Latvian 32 33

KAZAKA Olga, 2011, p.248 KAZAKA Olga, 2011, p.255 19

government and Latvian or Russian political parties were becoming more and more active on the social networks, with an emphasis of engagement, in contrast to the trends observed in 2011, where institutions used social media with an objective of information diffusion. For instance, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia has written

5,964

tweets

since

the

creation of their account in August 200934 and has got 7,867 followers over the last four years. The president of

the

Republic

Latvia,

Andris Bērziņš, is less active and has written 1,027 tweets since 201035,

although

his

account

July is

followed by 15,600 persons (see

Picture 1 - Twitter account of the Latvian president © twitter.com

Picture 1). According to Olga Kazaka, companies and organisations better understand which goals they can achieve with the help of social media. Today, many of them even think about the Key performance indicator (KPI) in the social media corporate communication strategy. Engagement is a new trend: institutions now consider the importance of involving the users in their communication. Olga Kazaka then added “If two years ago, when I asked experts about the fields that will never communicate in social media, I was told about banks, today I see that all the most serious players of the financial field have their profiles in social media. What is still in force: we still are learning. And I think that this trend will continue for a long time”36. According to a former student of Riga Stradins University working in the field of social media, Matīss Pudulis, many Russians have started to use the social networks Facebook.com and Одноклассники (Odnoklassniki) following the closure of the social network One.lv, in order to express their opinion. For example, we can see that the Latvian politician Nils Ušakovs (Нил, мы с тобой), leader of the left-wing party alliance, 34

TWOPCHARTS, twopcharts.com/howlongontwitter TWOPCHARTS, twopcharts.com/howlongontwitter 36 Interview of Olga KAZAKA in January 2014 by Juliette SAURY 35

Harmony Centre, and supported by the large ethnic Russian population of Latvia, is “followed” on Facebook.com by 68 594 persons (“Like”), which is considerable (see Picture 2). All his publications are posted in Russian, his mother tongue. However, Matīss Pudulis argued that very few Russians communicate

Twitter.com,

because of all the Latvian brands communicating

this

social

network and tweeting exclusively in Latvian.

Picture 2 - Facebook account of Nils Ušakovs © facebook.com

Finally, Latvian Internet users, institutions, companies and politicians are becoming more familiar with the social networks today, although a social and linguistic split is still very visible between both Latvian and Russian communities through the use of local and specific social media. However, very few researches deal with the unifying potential of global social networks such as Facebook.com and Twitter.com in a situation of ethnopolitical conflict within a country. Can these two social networks help the intercultural relationships building in Latvia? Have they got the strength to unite both Latvian and Russian communities?

At the beginning of my researches, I had not realised the complexity of this topic, which is even still new in the field of intercultural new media studies. However, it is obvious that social media allow people with very different cultural sensitivities or with different ethnic origins to find a connection or to engage communications which, without these platforms, would not have taken place. According to Kumiko Aoki and Mary Kimura, “The worldwide prevalence of Web 2.0 technologies […] has enabled limitless opportunities of transnational exchange and intercultural communication” 37. But we are exclusively talking, in this research paper, about the intercultural interactions between two ethnic and linguistic communities sharing the same history within the same country. This means that the results of international researches which reveal an explosion of intercultural relationships thanks to the social networks are likely not to be generalized to the case of Latvia. Facing these difficulties, I decided to lead a small survey through a questionnaire among Latvian students. Being aware of the impossibility of conducting a large-scale quantitative analysis, this questionnaire favoured some open questions enabling the respondents to explain their views. I will thus analyse the results with caution. Thirty three students filled in the form, of which only three were Russians by nationality. A great majority of Latvians and one Russian student specified that they were familiar with the local social network Draugiem.lv. According to most of them, the main advantage of this platform is to keep in touch with older Latvian relatives who do not use Facebook.com and to communicate easily with their friends from the same ethnic origin. One student argued that there were both advantages and disadvantages in this social network, as they unite people sharing the same language but isolate them from other ethnic groups. In parallel, the main strength of Facebook.com is its international dimension: “Facebook connect every corner of the world”38. The expressions “wide network”, “global reach”, “international platform”, “people from different countries” are often mentioned. However, nobody talked about the contribution of Facebook.com or Twitter.com in the case of Latvia as a multi-ethnic country. Therefore the following 37 38

AOKI Kymiko, KIMURA Mary, 2009, p. 135 Answer of one of the respondents – Questionnaire, Social networks in Latvia (by Juliette SAURY) 22

question was interesting: “Draugiem.lv and VK.ru may reflect both Latvian and Russian communities on social networks. Do you think Facebook.com or Twitter.com have the potential to unite them?”. The responses are in reality very mixed. Although most of the respondents think that Facebook.com and Twitter.com are a good way to unite both ethnic groups, the reasons mentioned by the students who did not agree with this supposition are mainly consistent. I can now affirm that there is unequivocal answer to this assumption. This hypothesis that I had imagined initially could depend, in reality, on certain variables such as the goal of each individual using these social media (to expand his/her international or local relationships, to follow some specific groups or brands); the type of relationships maintained on the social media (personals or professionals); the degree of knowledge of Russian and Latvian languages; the familial cultural environment of the person. This list is obviously not exhaustive. Olga Kazaka has for instance observed the unifying potential of these global platforms in certain situations. People sometimes interact in their native languages and understand each other. But this potential is especially seen when the topic of the communication is professional. If we speak about private communication, the trend to communicate with the ethnic community representatives will be more visible. We will all the more so see it if the topic is related with politics, the Latvian political views being often connected with the person’s nationality in Latvia. In addition, some Latvians who are not familiar with the Russian language will tend to remove or to refuse a friend request on Facebook.com because of the potential Russian language posts. Another respondent underlined this fact: “the possibility of the two nationalities to mix by using Twitter and Facebook depends on the content they are posting. Different cultural and language contents probably do not allow mixing. If English is used, we can mix”39. Finally, the global social networks and the Web 2.0 resources may have contributed to an intercultural revolution due to transnational exchanges. Some situations have even proved the role of social networks in the unification process of populations during political conflicts, as it was the case for the Arab Spring in 2010 for example. However, it is especially difficult to measure the impact of social media on intercultural relationships in the case of a multi-ethnic country, where the groups use 39

Answer of one of the respondents – Questionnaire, Social networks in Latvia (by Juliette SAURY) 23

different languages with different alphabets. It would be very interesting to deal with this topic in depth in order to analyse the main trends and behaviours of the individuals in this kind of complex social environment.

Latvia, due to its history and its multicultural and multilingual background mainly shared in two main communities, reveals an especially divided media industry. This media pluralism tends also to accentuate the political conflict between the Russian-speaking parties and the Latvian-speaking parties in Latvia. In addition, the new digital media have on the one hand amplified the fragmentation of the social environment in Latvia, through the development of local social networks such as Draugiem.lv or Odnoklassniki.ru. But they could have, on the other hand, a strong impact on the intercultural interactions between the Russian and Latvian communities through the increasing use and the development of global social networks. At the beginning of my researches, I had put forward a hypothesis: international social networks such as Facebook.com or Twitter.com may contribute to the building of intercultural relationships between the Russian and Latvian groups. However, as we noted previously, the international researches stating an explosion of intercultural interactions due to the social networks development cannot be generalised to the case of Latvia, as they essentially concern transnational exchanges. Therefore we cannot provide an unequivocal or unique answer to the initial assumption which could differ in reality from specific socio-cultural variables. Robert Shuter, in his article The Next Frontier in Intercultural Communication published in 2012, specifies that â&#x20AC;&#x153;New Media and Intercultural Communication theory is the primary focus of Intercultural New Media studies (INMS)â&#x20AC;?40. However, he argues that researches on this area are scant and that most of studies focus on the relationships between culture and new media. The lack of resources was the main difficulty met in the creation of this research report. Therefore despite the designing of a small survey (considered as non-reliable quantitatively) and some exchanges with three Latvian professionals, it is essential to put things into perspectives. I have however discovered with a lot of curiosity a new social networks environment very different from that of France, where Facebook.com is largely dominating. 40

SHUTER Robert, 2012, p. 220 25



NAGLA Ilze, KEHRE Anita, Media Ownership and its impact on media independence and pluralism, Peace institute, 2004, 492 p. SILOVA Iveta, From Sites of Occupation to Symbols of Multiculturalism, IAP, Latvia, 2006, 237 p. 

(all active on Mai 1 , 2014)

AXL, www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/lettonie-1gnrl.htm EUROPEAN JOURNALISM CENTRE, ejc.net/media_landscapes/Latvia EUROTOPICS, www.eurotopics.net/fr/home/medienlandschaft/lettlandmdn/ LATVIA, www.latvia.lv/library/country-and-society POLITIKA, politika.lv/article/latvia-is-not-a-divided-society STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, faculty.buffalostate.edu/smithrd/UAE%20Communication/Unit5.pdf

TWOPCHARTS, twopcharts.com/howlongontwitter 

AOKI Kymiko, KIMURA Mary, Telecollaboration 2.0: Using Facebook for Intercultural Exchange, 2009, p. 1 KAZAKA Olga, Corporate Communication in Social Media in Latvia, University of Latvia, 2011, pp. 241-259. RODIN Mihail, Ethno-political conflicts and national identity in Latvia, Institute of European studies, Latvia, 2013, 18 p. SHUTER Robert, Intercultural New Media Studies: The Next Frontier in Intercultural Communication, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 2012, pp. 219-237 STRAUSA Solvita, Media system of Latvia, Hans-Bredow-Institut, Germany, 2004, 23 p. ZEPA Brigita and al, Ethnopolitical tension in Latvia: looking for the conflict solution, Baltic Institute of Baltic sciences, Latvia, 2005, 81 p.

The table below presents the daily audience share among the different TV broadcasters in 2004 in Latvia. We can note that LNT is the most watched and popular channel.

ÂŠ www.hans-bredow-institut.de

Here is the questionnaire that I realised through docs.google.com, filled in by thirty three persons.

PRÉAMBULE

L’objectif de ce mémoire est de permettre la compréhension des principaux impacts des réseaux sociaux sur la communication interculturelle en Lettonie. L’expression « communication interculturelle » désigne, dans le cadre de cette analyse, l’étude de la communication entre des groupes de différentes origines ethniques41 et culturelles. L’argumentation de cette recherche s’appuie également sur l’exemple de deux réseaux sociaux influents : Facebook.com et Twitter.com. Une remise en contexte permettra de comprendre les raisons qui nous ont amenée à traiter la problématique suivante : Les réseaux sociaux mondiaux favorisent-ils la construction des relations interculturelles entre les communautés russe et lettone en Lettonie ?

La Lettonie a connu de profonds bouleversements sociaux, culturels, économiques et politiques après la proclamation de son indépendance suite à la chute de l’URSS42 en 1991. Cet événement a engendré la mise en place d’un principe de citoyenneté héritée. Les personnes ayant acquis la citoyenneté de la République de Lettonie avant le début de l’ère soviétique en 194043 l’ont automatiquement regagnée, leurs descendants pouvant également en bénéficier. En revanche, les personnes non concernées pouvaient soit engager une procédure dans le but d’obtenir la citoyenneté de leur pays d’origine (Russie, Ukraine, Biélorussie, Estonie, Pologne), soit choisir le statut de « non-citoyens » de Lettonie. La plupart d’entre eux ont choisi la seconde option permettant un éventuel processus de naturalisation. Par ailleurs, l’occupation soviétique a renforcé la conscience ethnique lettone, les Lettons s’étant peu à peu détournés de l’état soviétique et de l’importante population d’immigrants russes. Le pays connaît encore aujourd’hui de nombreux clivages nationaux notamment liés au conflit ethnique, politique, historique et linguistique engendré par la coexistence de deux communautés principales : russe et lettone. La minorité russe est en effet puissante. Elle constitue aujourd’hui près de 30 % 41

Ethnie : « Groupement humain qui possède une structure familiale, économique et sociale homogène, et dont l'unité repose sur une communauté de langue, de culture et de conscience de groupe ». Source : Dictionnaire Larousse 42 Union des républiques socialistes soviétiques 43 La première occupation soviétique s’est déroulée de 1940 à 1941 et la seconde de 1944 à 1991 33

de la population de Lettonie44. 95 % des habitants sont également capables de communiquer en russe bien qu’il ne s’agisse pas d’une langue officielle 45. Certains qualifient alors la société lettone de société « divisée » ou encore « discriminatoire », bien que ces idées soient extrêmement controversées. Boris Cilevics, membre du Saiema46, conteste par exemple ces interprétations et évoque un simple conflit politique47. En revanche, Brigita Zepa, professeur de sciences sociales à l’Université de Lettonie, affirme que dès qu’un groupe dominant utilise la langue comme base d’intégration des minorités, il existe un terrain fertile à d’éventuels conflits politique et linguistique susceptibles d’évoluer en conflits ethniques48. De plus, cette fracture sociale se dessine dans le paysage des médias traditionnels (presse, radio, télévision) divisé en deux espaces d’information dédiés aux audiences de langue russe et lettone. Le pluralisme médiatique aurait alors participé à la scission de la société, la presse ayant parfois tendance à déprécier l’un ou l’autre groupe sociolinguistique49. Par ailleurs, les médias russes sont régulièrement accusés d’être financés par Moscou et d’exercer une forme de propagande adressée à la minorité russe de Lettonie50. Mais outre les médias traditionnels, les médias sociaux numériques ont également contribué à la fragmentation du milieu social letton. Olga Kazaka, maître de conférences à l’Université de Lettonie, a identifié trois principales problématiques liées à l’utilisation des médias sociaux51 en 201152 : la Lettonie est un petit état post-soviétique, dans lequel le domaine de la communication est relativement récent ; le manque d’expérience parmi les spécialistes des médias sociaux est évident ; l’environnement de la communication est fragmenté et divisé en deux communautés linguistiques utilisant par conséquent différents médias sociaux. En effet, différentes plateformes collaboratives russes et lettones se sont développées localement au cours de la dernière décennie permettant aux utilisateurs de communiquer avec des personnes issues de la même origine ethnique. Le caractère tardif de l’arrivée des géants du Web tels que 44

RODIN Mihail, 2013, p. 5 AXL, www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/lettonie-1gnrl.htm 46 Parlement de la Lettonie 47 POLITIKA, politika.lv/article/latvia-is-not-a-divided-society 48 ZEPA Brigita and al, 2005, p. 11 49 ZEPA Brigita and al, 2005, p. 6 50 Eurotopics, www.eurotopics.net/fr/home/medienlandschaft/lettlandmdn/ 51 Les médias sociaux regroupent toutes les ressources du Web 2.0 (réseaux sociaux, forums, wiki…) 52 KAZAKA Olga, 2011 45

Facebook.com ou Twitter.com en Lettonie explique le succès et la prédominance de la plateforme lettone Draugiem.lv apparue en 200453 et utilisée par 89 % des internautes54. Le réseau social Odnoklassniki.ru est, quant à lui, populaire parmi les internautes de nationalité russe. Bien que ces sites collaboratifs locaux soient très appréciés, nous remarquons cependant un engouement croissant pour les célèbres réseaux sociaux Facebook.com ou Twitter.com. Comme nous l’avons mentionné dans le préambule, ce rapport de recherche s’intéresse à la problématique suivante : les réseaux sociaux mondiaux favorisent-ils les interactions interculturelles entre les communautés russe et lettone en Lettonie ? En d’autres termes, les plateformes telles que Facebook.com et Twitter.com encouragentelles les échanges entre ces deux groupes ethniques et contribuent-elles à la réduction des « clivages nationaux » ? En raison d’un manque de ressources qualitatives et quantitatives sur ce sujet, l’argumentation de ce rapport s’appuie principalement sur des conversations par e-mail avec trois professionnels de la communication en Lettonie, Olga Kazaka, Matīss Pudulis et Roberts Bite, et sur les réponses constructives de trentetrois étudiants lettons enquêtés par voie électronique. Au début de mes recherches, je n’avais pas réalisé la complexité de ce sujet, encore récent dans le domaine des études sur les nouveaux médias interculturels (Intercultural new media studies). Il est évident que les médias sociaux permettent aujourd’hui aux personnes de différentes sensibilités culturelles ou de différentes origines ethniques de se « connecter » ou d’engager des communications qui, sans ces plateformes, n’auraient jamais eu lieu. Cependant, ce rapport de recherche traite uniquement des interactions interculturelles entre deux groupes linguistiques et ethniques partageant la même histoire au sein d’un même pays. Cela signifie que les résultats des recherches internationales qui révèlent une explosion des relations interculturelles grâce aux réseaux sociaux, ne peuvent pas être généralisés au cas de la Lettonie. Confrontée à ces difficultés, j’ai pris l’initiative de mener une enquête par questionnaire auprès d’étudiants de Lettonie. Consciente de mes limites et de mon impossibilité à conduire une analyse quantitative de grande envergure, ce questionnaire a

53 54

Le réseau social Facebook est apparu la même année KAZAKA Olga, 2011, p.248 35

privilégié des questions ouvertes permettant de susciter des réflexions chez les personnes interrogées. Ce rapport rend ainsi compte de résultats à interpréter avec prudence. Une grande majorité d’étudiants lettons et un étudiant russe ont précisé qu’ils étaient familiers du réseau social local Draugiem.lv. Pour la plupart d’entre eux, le principal avantage de cette plateforme est la possibilité de rester en contact avec des parents ou des personnes plus âgées n’utilisant pas Facebook.com et de communiquer avec des amis issus de la même origine ethnique. Un étudiant a spécifié qu’il existait à la fois des avantages et des inconvénients à ce réseau social unifiant d’une part les personnes partageant la même langue et les isolant d’autre part des autres groupes ethniques. En parallèle, le principal atout de Facebook.com est sa dimension internationale. Cependant, aucun participant n’évoque l’éventuelle contribution de cette plateforme ainsi que celle de Twitter.com dans le cas de la Lettonie, pays multi-ethnique. C’est pourquoi la question suivante était intéressante : « Draugiem.lv et VK.ru55 pourraient refléter les communautés russe et lettone sur les réseaux sociaux. Pensez-vous que Facebook.com ou Twitter.com ont le potentiel de les unir ? ». Bien que la plupart des personnes interrogées ait témoigné de l’impact positif de ces deux réseaux sociaux internationaux sur les échanges entre les deux communautés ethniques, les raisons invoquées par les sujets ne partageant pas cette opinion sont cohérentes. C’est pourquoi l’hypothèse émise au début de ma recherche évoquant la capacité de Facebook.com ou Twitter.com à unifier ces deux principaux groupes n’a finalement pas de réponse univoque. Elle pourrait dépendre en réalité de différentes variables telles que l’objectif de chaque individu utilisant ces réseaux sociaux (élargir ses relations internationales ou locales, suivre différents groupes ou marques) ; le type de relations entretenues sur ces plateformes (professionnelles ou personnelles) ; le degré de connaissance des langues russe ou lettone ; l’environnement familial et culturel de chaque utilisateur. Cette liste est évidemment non-exhaustive. Olga Kazaka a par exemple observé ce potentiel fédérateur dans certaines situations. Certains individus interagissent parfois dans leur langue native et se comprennent mutuellement. Mais ce potentiel est particulièrement observé lorsque le sujet de la communication est professionnel. En revanche, s’il s’agit d’une communication 55

Réseau social russe 36

privée, la tendance à communiquer avec une personne issue de la même origine ethnique est plus marquée. Nous le constatons d’autant plus que le sujet est relatif à la politique, les opinions politiques étant souvent connectées à la nationalité en Lettonie. De plus, l’une des personnes interrogées a affirmé que le contenu publié sur les réseaux sociaux avait beaucoup d’importance. Différents contenus culturels et linguistiques ne permettraient pas l’union des communautés. L’utilisation de l’anglais serait par conséquent primordiale. Finalement, les réseaux sociaux internationaux et les ressources du Web 2.0 ont certainement contribué à une révolution interculturelle consistant en de nombreux échanges transnationaux. Cependant il est particulièrement délicat de mesurer l’impact de ces plateformes sur les relations interculturelles dans le cas d’un pays multi-ethnique, dans lequel les deux principales communautés utilisent différentes langues et différents alphabets. Il serait très intéressant d’approfondir cette étude et d’identifier les principales tendances

comportements

des

individus

dans

cet

environnement

social

particulièrement complexe.