Pussy Abhor. Musical expression as a from of protest

Pussy Abhor

Musical expression as a form of protest is nothing new, especially in the United States. The hippie movement enjoyed their three days at Woodstock in 1969 while peacefully protesting the government over an array of controversial social issues. Rage Against The Machine made an entire career out of inciting political activism through their music in the nineties. We lost count long ago of how many punk bands with racy names we have been able to pass off as generally anti-government and anti-religion. This is America’s history, though. It has been easy for punk bands like NOFX to question our government and religious institutions through songs like “Leaving Jesusland” and albums like “War on Errorism” because their right to do so is protected in our constitution. So when news broke in this country about the Russian punk band Pussy Riot being arrested on charges of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred,” it seemed only natural for people to think of them as a typical punk band, perhaps just facing harsh consequences for their actions (Bratersky, Twickel). However, upon researching the actions the Russian government took in order to deal with this issue, it became quickly apparent that this is far from a typical punk band protest.

Allow me to present a brief background of this case. On February 21, 2012, select members of the all-female punk band Pussy Riot entered Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior. They performed various stunts inside (kicking, punching, screaming, dancing, etc.) which were videotaped and quickly transformed into a music video titled, “Punk Prayer: Holy Mother, Chase Putin Away!” (Ioffe). Among many goals the band members had, one of the objectives of the video was to denounce the current collaboration of church and state by mocking the Russian Patriarch Kirill Gundyayev, whom the girls have since repeatedly pointed out was a former colleague of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s in the KGB (Beal). The State reacted by arresting two of the band members on March 4, one day before Putin was elected to his third term (Barry). A few days later, they arrested a third member of the band. This lead to a trial shortly after, where the girls were sentenced to two years each in prison after being found guilty of trying to “undermine civil order, motivated by religious hatred” (Beal).

Part of what makes this ongoing story so complicated comes from the different parties that are involved. Each party has a varying degree of power that their speech and actions hold, making this case very much about a power struggle amongst them. My research was greatly concerned with two of these parties in particular: the arrested Pussy Riot band members, and Putin’s government, or, “the State” (sometimes referred to as The Kremlin). While the Christian Orthodoxy (the Church) would normally be considered its own, additional party, their collaboration with The Kremlin in this case gave me little reason to distinguish them at times as separate entities in my research. This essentially lead my research to covering a battle between Pussy Riot and the many authoritarian powers of Russia, which will be wholly referred to as The Kremlin (or Putin’s Kremlin) throughout the rest of my analysis, unless specifically noted otherwise.

Once I began getting involved with my basic research, I realized two things: For one, devoting my research to a story that was currently taking place could cause problems for me down the road. I decided I would eventually have to establish a cutoff date on my research. The date I settled on was October 23rd, 2012, and I will explain that decision later on. The other realization I had came about when I was thinking about President Vladimir Putin. I developed many suspicions early on in my research that even before this Pussy Riot case, Putin had a controversial history with Russia. This hypothesis I had about Putin was encouraged by quickly finding supporting evidence of controversial acts committed, such as voter fraud, the repression of certain freedoms, and questionable collaboration between Church and State, just as Pussy Riot had accused the Kremlin of. That is when I decided to establish such controversy as the entire basis of my project. It became my goal to expose the ill effects that Putin’s hypocrisy and corruption in Russia has had, and will continue to have, on the Pussy Riot protest case.

Story Time

Before I even knew what kind of methodology I wanted to use in my final analysis, I began my research by looking for articles that helped in giving me an overall, basic understanding of the story. I began by casting the many different parties involved in this case into two directly-opposing sides: Pussy Riot, and Putin’s Kremlin. Unfortunately, the more articles I uncovered, the more I realized how difficult finding an objective retelling of the facts was. On many occasions, the articles and texts I would read were very contradictory of each other. It was as if each of the two parties were trying to tell their own side of the story, and the two stories did not always line up. That is why I decided to approach my research with the theory of narratology in mind.

Narratology enables us as readers and viewers to take the content of a story and allows us to make sense out of it. Identifying the narratives that these public figures have been conveying has made it possible for me to make constructive arguments about the actions they took, statements they made, and what kinds of consequences they brought with them. It has also allowed me to make guided predictions about what future events might take place in this case. In return, it has made me aware that I should not always take what I read as truthful and objective.

Once I settled on the use of narratology analysis in my research, I revisited the different pieces of the story that each of the two parties had been presenting. For a while, I focused a good portion of my research on finding individual texts from both sides that collectively told a story about the relationship between the two parties. For example, coming from the side of Putin’s Kremlin, the Russian courts convicted the girls of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” (Bratersky, Twickel). By having the girls convicted of this specific charge, it immediately paints a picture of the band that suggests they are a group of people attacking a religious institution. Meanwhile, there are statements given by the band members themselves in which specific Bible passages were cited, both to show how their Christian Orthodox faith plays a positive role in their lives, and to support their condemnation of Patriarch Kirill, creating a narrative inherently opposite of The Kremlin’s original accusation (Beal). This allowed Pussy Riot to make the argument that their protest was a way of using their Orthodox Christian faith and knowledge of its teachings in order to help the church see the irony of its actions. Furthermore, the blatant contradiction of these two individual stories collectively communicates the idea that, while both parties are supposedly commenting on the same action, there is an obvious discrepancy in determining whose story is objectively true.

A more extreme example of this division of facts was presented on October 1st. Shortly after the three girls were sentenced in August, an appeal date of October 1st was chosen. An article from The Associated Press covered a few different opinions on the matter, all of which were in favor of Pussy Riot. These statements suggest that even those who are supposed to be on “Putin’s side,” so to speak, are wary of his involvement in this case at times.

The Russian Orthodox Church said Sunday the rockers would deserve mercy if they repent for their February stunt. Earlier, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had said that keeping them in prison any longer would be ‘unproductive.’ Even some government loyalists have criticized the harsh sentence, voicing concern about the church's interference in secular affairs and a growing repressive streak in the Kremlin's policies. (Seddon)

The article then goes on to cover the fact that shortly before the appeal trial would have taken place, it was postponed until October 10th after a member of Pussy Riot fired one of her lawyers. Seddon writes that the prosecution pegged this as a “delaying tactic,” while a defense lawyer said that, “the women were under tremendous pressure, with the government threatening to take away their children” (Seddon, The Associated Press).

My practice of narratology was taken even further by focusing on each party individually, allowing me to make inferences about what messages certain actions send. One message that resonated particularly loudly with me came during the end of Pussy Riot’s trial in August 2012. Preceding the trial’s verdict, band member Yekaterina Samutsevich started off her closing statement by speaking on behalf of all three of the girls. She immediately stated that, although it is traditionally expected for the defendant to express sorrow or guilt for their actions, the three of them are going to break that custom, as it is not necessary for them to repent (Samutsevich). Not only does this set the stage for the rest of her speech, it sets the stage for the rest of the band to give their closing statements as well. The act of breaking the tradition of expected repentance of action showed that they were prepared to stand their ground, even if expressing regret may have lead to a more lenient sentencing. This defiance also showed that the girls could uphold the “punk band” image, despite all that they had faced in the months leading up to the trial. By doing so, it strengthened the image of their overall protest effort, and in turn, increased the strength of their outside support. In case it is not clear what is meant by “punk band” image, the three bandmates summed up its meaning back in 2011 when they said that they “realized that this country needs a militant, punk-feminist, street band that will rip through Moscow's streets and squares, mobilize public energy against the evil crooks of the Putinist junta and enrich the Russian cultural and political opposition" (Chayka).

[...]