Building Environmental Protest: Organization and Communication of Public Participation

(Preliminary findings from a study of FânFest, an environmentalist music festival at Rosia Montana, Romania)

Dan Mercea Research Student

Department of Sociology University of York

dmm505@york.ac.uk

Paper prepared for Environmental Capacity and Development in Transitional States and Emerging Democracies Workshop, ECPR Joint Sessions, Rennes, 11-16

April

DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE

1

ABSTRACT This paper discusses how the coordinators of FânFest, an environmentalist music festival at Rosia Montana, Romania, constructed their organization and what consequences the process had on mobilizing public participation. It will be postulated that the coordination team was a hub of professional activists, movement entrepreneurs. In making decisions about organizing this festival, they referenced a ‘repertoire of organization’ which substantiated the working definition it used to encourage participation. The result was a loosely articulated network, an organizational form based on a purported shared interpretation of action and goals which attracted a heterogeneous constituency of participants in the event. These were not members in a formal organization. They were instrumental to the cause, to protect the village of Rosia Montana against the planned gold mine, principally through increasing the visibility of the protracted struggle. Organizers and participants created a network of action and meaning which was becoming permanent and consequential for the local protest and environmental activism. 1. FânFest: from local protest to social movement The campaign against the largest planned open-cast gold and silver mine in Europe, in the Romanian village of Rosia Montana (Alburnus Maior, 2007), has been one of most conspicuous environmental struggles in the country (Smith, 2007, Thorpe, 2007) since its inception in 2002. Rosia Montana sits in the centre of a geological area, in the the Apuseni Mountains, Western Carpathians, famed for its gold deposits which have been exploited for more than two thousand years (Alburnus Maior, 2007). The plans to develop the new gold mine have pitched a group of local farmers and former miners retired since the closure of the old state mine against the proponents of the project, a joint venture between a Canadian mining company and a Romanian public mining operator. The mining company that resulted from this twinning, Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, received its exploration and exploitation licenses in 1997 and has since been developing the project. The latter would use a total surface of 24,998 ha for the infrastructure of an open cast mine which would include four open pits and a tailings management facility (Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, 2006:6). To make room for the mine, the company planned to resettle or relocate 974 households (2006:7). The first resettlements began in the second half of 2002 when the company launched its Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan (2006:17). In 2000, several of the locals from Rosia Montana learnt that in the likelihood that the mining company would successfully complete all licensing procedures, they would face

2

involuntary resettlement and relocation. To protest against the proposed gold and silver mine, several from them created “Alburnus Maior”, a non-governmental association “that comprises property owners from Rosia Montana... who refuse to relinquish their properties” (Author’s interview with Xenia, 30.07.2007). They describe themselves as “the opposition to an open cast mining project which poses numerous and grave risks for the environment, the population, the archaeological patrimony, the economy at the national and cross-boundary levels” (Alburnus Maior, 2007). In 2002 this local protest became more vocal and visible through public demonstrations and the drive to raise its profile in the media. The opposition subsequently grew into what has become the “Save Rosia Montana” campaign. The latter would come to incorporate a network of Romanian and international organizations and is now presented as “the largest campaign…environmental and social movement in Romania”, as a participant in the research interviews surmised (Author’s interview with Odette, 14.08.2007). This coalition of national and international non-profit organizations included, among its most prominent international members, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth International, Bank Watch Canada, Mining Watch Canada1.

“And in June 2002 Greenpeace came to Rosia Montana and took the campaign onboard. In terms of activism, Greenpeace is probably the most active international campaign organization that we have…and then within Romania, it’s a wide spectrum that has shifted over the years…they are all…thirty of them, thirty-five that have been with us from the very beginning and still are” (Xenia, 30.07.2007).

As it will be described in a later section, several social movement organizations emerged from this local protest, to support the efforts of the local NGO, Alburnus Maior. The following section will review some of the key tenets of the literature on local protests among environmental movements (Doherty, 2003) with the objective of qualifying the Save Rosia Montana campaign as an incremental protest which over time has crossed firmly into the structural and cultural territory of social movements (Della Porta and Diani, 1999). The present argument starts from the notion that social movements have “a vision of the world and…a collective identity which permit participants in various protest events to place their action in a wider perspective” (1999:19, emphasis added). To that extent, FânFest, the environmental music festival organized at Rosia Montana since 2004 was the result of a strategic choice to expand solidarity with the local struggle, foster sensitivity and an awareness of environmental issues and the consequential collective action. 2. The local protest: tentative observations on a social movement

Della Porta and Diani (1999) have reviewed the four main streams of research into social movements, each focusing on a set of specific processes, conditions or outcomes- rational

1 ‘Cooperating Partners of Alburnus Maior’ available on http://www.rosiamontana.org/

3

choice theories (Zald and McCarthy, 1977), collective action (Blumler, 1971), political process (Tarrow, 1994, 1998) and new social movement theory (Touraine, 1981, Melucci, 1996). In line with distinct research objectives, studies of social movements reference these traditions to varying degrees and any informed approach necessarily builds on their strengths while aiming to acknowledge their limitations. To that extent, this study has been designed as a flow which starts from a preoccupation with organizational structure and develops an account of how a social movement used resources available to it to mobilize support at a broader level than that of its initial constituency of discontents. Beginning from a focus on organizational structure, the analysis will move onto the ground of identity processes and the strategic creation of frames for mobilization and participation in collective action. Organizational structure has been observed, on the one hand as an outcome of movement strategies for the management of resources, the channeling of discontentment, the construction of solidarity networks, allocation of incentives and their resonance with the larger societal context (Zald and McCarthy, 1977, Della Porta and Diani, 1999). On the other, it has been noted to be confined by political opportunity structures (Tarrow, 1998). Whether appraising the amount and quality of resources, as in the former case or considering the environment movements burgeon, function in and disappear, one has to appreciate the difficulties these two lines of research have been regarded to have when an investigation looks at how movements mobilize people into action and how those targeted respond to any such calls. The main issue taken with them has been their limited vocation to scrutinize investments movements make in frames for mobilization, the expression of protest to attain the objective of collective action. If such frames are discursive maps of resources, opportunities and worldviews, they have also been investigated as a reflection of “organizational form…which both informs collective identity and orients groups toward other actors and institutions” (Clemens, 1996:205). This study consequently describes and analyzes organizational form, a category which bridges what’s been termed as ‘formal organization’ with social movement ‘recruitment’ (Tarrow, 1998:125). The emphasis on form comes from an interest in the interplay between the distribution of roles and responsibilities in the coordination of the event, ensuing organizational strategies to manage participation at FânFest and the interpretation of participation by festival attendees. This synthetic approach, visiting resource mobilization, new social movement and constructionist theories (Klandermans, 1997) will help, the expectation is, argue that organizational form was a reflection of a purposive strategy to mobilize a specific social group resulting in a broader reconfiguration of its political practices. Along the theoretical lines developed by Castels (2007), I will argue that participants at the festival remained political in their beliefs and actions to change the world they lived in. At the same time, organizers and participants created a loosely articulated network of action and meaning (2007:250) which was becoming permanent and of consequence to the local struggle and environmental activism. This paper visits the question, how did the coordinators of FânFest construct their organization and what consequences did their strategies have on mobilization? It will

4

herein be posited that the coordination nucleus was a hub of professional activists, entrepreneurs or as they referred to themselves, ‘campaigners’. In making decisions about organizing this event, they referenced a ‘repertoire of organization’ which substantiated the working definition it used to encourage participation. The result was a loosely articulated network, an organizational form based on a purported shared interpretation of action and goals which attracted a heterogeneous constituency of participants in the event. These were not members in a formal organization. They were instrumental to the cause, to protect the village of Rosia Montana against the planned gold mine, principally through increasing the visibility of the protracted struggle. The question that remains to be discussed herein is the extent to which they were also nurturing a greater political purpose, a new politics conjoining cultural performance, radical environmentalism and weak social ties (Bennett, 2003). Diani and Donato (1999), Diani (2001) have delineated a conceptual continuum for organizational form which has at one end the ideal type of the professional organization geared on participation in conventional interest representation activities within formal institutional settings and at the opposite end, the participatory model. The latter would act to voice concerns through public protest, disruption and direct action. There were four resulting categories, combinations of the two models. These were environmental organizations from a sample from Western Europe reviewed by these authors. Importantly, they were an expression of strategies to mobilize adequate resources from two distinct constituencies, the general public or the members of an organization (Carter, 2001:134). They were the confrontational participatory protest organization, a “decentralized, grassroots SMO” which developed the capacity for direct disruptive action; the professional protest organization, which used “professional activism and the mobilization of financial resources” along with direct action and other public protest techniques; members and supporters contribute with resources to the participatory pressure group which uses them towards interest representation through conventional methods such as lobbying. Finally, the public interest lobbies are run by paid staff, use exclusively conventional channels and methods to promote the interests they represent and rely on material resources rather than participatory ones to attain their goals (1999: 16-17). Building on this taxonomy, the present study will posit that FânFest was an instantiation of a fusion between several of the Diani and Donato categories. The ensuing organizational form would incorporate a professional protest organization which used a decentralized network of grassroots and also professional groups to organize a protest event to facilitate mass public participation. It will consequently be argued that just as organizational form was negotiated and transformed mobilization was successively rearticulated through the design and distribution of new frames for participation. This was a purposive action taken by the festival’s coordination team which appeared to have had a direct influence on participation. The latter point will be made using survey data from a sample of participants at the 2007 edition of the festival. Clemens has claimed that “one role of movement activists and entrepreneurs is to creatively recombine existing components of a society’s organizational repertoire in the hope of optimizing the social potential for mobilization” (1996:207).

5

3. The FânFest coordination team: understanding a social movement The “Save Rosia Montana” campaign started from a narrow interest of a section in the village community, to protect their property rights. As these locals took steps towards organizing and formalizing their opposition, their repertoire broadened both in terms of the interpretations afforded to their struggle and the means they used to protest against the mining development. This local group was, at the onset, a ‘not-in-my-backyard’ opposition whose legitimacy was challenged both from inside the community, by those who were in favor of the mine and the mining company itself and from outside it. Gradually, as the organizational capacity of the opposition grew, topics of broader concern and general appeal to a wider, national and international audience were brought to the fore of the campaign. Consequently, the challenge to the gold mine, although initially articulated mainly on legal and technical grounds, expanded to accommodate social and environmental justice issues and the protection of the cultural patrimony. Mainly due to these developments, the campaign may be regarded as the epicenter of a social movement. Brian Doherty (2003) synthesized several arguments why local groups such as Alburnus Maior and their protests have generally been relegated from the broad definition of social movements. He notes that

“local environmental groups…do not usually have the characteristics expected of social movements; most are short lived, many never undertake protest action and may not see participation as an end in itself of their activity, and most do not seek far-reaching changes in society and politics” (2003:185).

He adds, however, that instruments specific to the analysis of movements remain highly relevant for this line of research because of the many adaptations such groups may go through if their protest endures the test of time. Systematic analyses of the ensuing organizational structure, the culture and identity of such organizations, their members and the participants in their actions can thus be conducted borrowing from the expertise accrued by students of social movements (2003:185). Sidney Tarrow (1994:101) posits that an organization that generates a protest through which it aims to challenge the legitimacy and authority of its opponents, which at the same time creates “uncertainty” about its actions while “building solidarity” and support for its cause can be studied as the subject of a social movement. The network between the core activists who carried through the struggle of Alburnus Maior could be researched as the central social movement organization in the Save Rosia Montana campaign. A trope which may help describe it is that of a nervous system of social in-links and out-links from which a multiplicity of work groups ensued such as the coordination team of the protest festival. A social movement organization is an established group- by means of shared identities, practices, aims and outside recognition-that subsumes “its goals with the preferences of a social movement or a countermovement and attempts to implement

6

those goals” (Zald and McCarthy, 1987:20). Finally, FânFest could be considered as one of the instruments in the protest repertoire of the Save Rosia Montana campaign which built and extended solidarity with the local group and triggered uncertainty about this challenge, to the extent that participants at the festival became active in this and other environmentalist events and actions of this and other movements. FânFest was originally a protest music festival. In 2007, its organizers designated it as “the space of environmental activism in Romania” (FânFest, June 2007). The initial rationale for incorporating an event of this kind in the anti-mining campaign was rooted in evaluations of the scope of public attention likely to be afforded to it by the Romanian media, in 2004, the year of its first edition. An appreciation of the political economy of the media, and in particular the press, which featured the paid advertisements of the mining company but had only a limited editorial interest in the opposition to the proposed mining project, bore in it the seeds of the festival. Warren, one of its coordinators, reminisced on the sense of urgency, in the campaign, to embrace new audiences and increase the scope of participation in the Save Rosia Montana campaign. “So then we said OK, ‘what can we do?’ And we thought of getting artists involved…The thing was that we had to reach young people somehow…and the festival was the best solution” (Author’s interview with Warren, 14.07.2007). Charting the four main traditions of investigation into social movements, collective behaviour, resource mobilization, new social movement and the school of political process, Della Porta and Diani (1999) outlined a syncretic definition for the collective manifestation of discontent. To qualify as a movement any assemblage of individuals, groups, organizations or crowds would, these authors postulated, have to be connected via networks of “informal interaction” which facilitate transfers, both instrumental, to facilitate action and symbolic, to fashion a shared mindset. Furthermore, participants in such networks would engage in a common process of creating a vision for resolving the conflict to which they seek to respond by deciding on the means and outcomes they collectively act upon and support. To that extent, their mobilization would be the result of an acknowledgement of contention over an object which divides social actors that make competing claims on it. Unlike other social forces, movements may resort to public protest to voice their concern and act to attain their goals. Della Porta and Diani therefore concluded that specifically, social movements which pursue political aims will broadly be organized as “informal networks, based on…shared beliefs and solidarity which mobilize about…conflictual issues, through…the frequent use of various forms of protest” (1999:16).

Conflicts that underlie movements have reflected societal transformations and a broadening pluralism of dimensions over which social actors compete, overpassing the economic determinism of industrial relations (Melucci, 1989). Alberto Melucci has designated these as new social movements as he set out a research agenda fundamentally concerned with identity processes that underpin the organization of protest (1996). Importantly, identity has been a research object considered in its historical context (Tarrow, 1994) and observed against the backdrop of developments in the environment in

7

which collective action has developed. To that extent, changes in the media landscape, with the advent of new technologies have allowed SMOs to “create an implicit structure out of proportion to their internal strength” (1994:143). This process has been explained using terms such as “decentralization” or “professionalization” (Tarrow, 1994); and it has been regarded as leading both to modifications in the fabric of organizations- definition, function, outreach- and in the makeup of membership. With the increase in the scope of information and communication and the concurrent decrease of costs with access and distribution, mobilization strategies have also conceded to this opportunity. Ultimately, expectations have been put forward that “information abundance makes possible flexible, scalable, network-style organizational structures” (Bimber, 2003:103) in which people engage in a transitory manner while negotiating their participation based on multiple, co-existing allegiances and eclectic commitments (Snow et al, 1980, Castells, 2007). A taxonomy that has informed particularly the resource mobilization track and which could is that of the differentiation between isolated and federated movement structures (McCarthy and Zald, 1976). The former category lies very close to or is even overlapping, historically, the bureaucratic ideal type (Klandermans, 1997:123). The second one has been qualified as incorporating three distinct morphs of organization. The latter were reviewed by Klandermans (1997). They were the loosely coupled network, the pyramid structure and the centralized one. The first has been hailed as the most adept at describing contemporary social movements. This was a segmented- kaleidoscopic congregation of organizations and groups, polycehphalous-multi-modal leadership and finally, and reticular structure- of links between organizations and groups Gerlach (2001). The loosely coupled network structural model has historically been adapted to specific circumstances (Morris, 1984). The Save Rosia Montana campaign and FânFest can be compounded, one could argue, as a contextualized form that incorporates key features from this model. In spite of the fact that overall, coordination of the campaign and the event has exposed some degree of centralization, the modulation of this particular organizational form appears to be best represented referencing the loosely coupled model. Neither the pyramid structure nor the centralized movement one are as adept at fashioning an understanding of this case based on its detailed description. This may be a result of the origins of the Save Rosia Montana struggle in a local protest. Doherty (2003) has contended that local environmental protests have been noted to branch out into topics of broader interest than their specialized or technical concerns. The anti gold-mining campaign was a pertinent example, it will be asserted. FânFest, the postulation in later sections is, served such an objective for the campaign while also opening it to wider public participation. Issues of social and environmental justice underlay the agenda for the festival with the aim of rendering it a permanent expression of a specific collective identity. To that extent, the coordination nucleus for the event developed into a distinct social movement organization within the campaign and its unique character molded the nature and scope of public participation in the Save Rosia Montana campaign. Ultimately, the festival’s goal to transform environmental action, expand local environmental concerns, link them up with concurrent struggles and present

8

them to a sympathetic audience moved this protest onto the higher ground of a movement. The extent to which organizational links and the connection with participants were made permanent will be considered against the claim that this event was generative of a shared identity, solidarity and an enduring affirmation of ends which included but were not restricted to local environmental concerns. As Della Porta and Diani concluded,

“…in order to be able to speak of social movements it is necessary that single episodes are perceived as components of a longer-lasting action, rather than discrete events; and those who are engaged feel linked by ties of solidarity and of ideal communion with protagonists of other analogous mobilizations” (1999:19)

4. The Team at Work This section describes how the coordination nucleus functioned. It was an offshoot of the Rosia Montana campaign, a distinct entity which worked to expand the former and muster the resources for a large-scale public event. This was not, however, a formal organization even though it relied on one to secure the funding it required. Its aims were, as described earlier, to increase the visibility of the local protest and broaden the scope of public participation in it while extending its agenda to incorporate a larger gamut of environmental concerns. Ultimately, it sought to prevent a favourable decision for the mining project and in 2007 to also get public support for a project law to outlaw the use of cyanides in mining. In this enterprise the festival nucleus and the campaign were, each in their turn, setting precedents. What became particularly appealing for this study was how they were organizing their communication with their preferred audiences, how they were using the media for the purpose and particularly the Internet and finally, with what results. This emphasis was induced by Klanderman’s assertion that there has been a disproportionate interest in movement strategies to influence policy outcomes to the detriment of detailed analyses of other of their key objectives such as stimulating public participation (1997:131). Della Porta and Diani posit that social movements can be differentiated from other groups that arguably represent a political interest, starting from the notion that the former are not organizations per se. Rather, they are “networks of interaction” (emphasis added, 1999:16) that can incorporate formal organizations but are not limited to any single one. The ensuing image of FânFest was that of a network of overlapping allegiances, criss-crossing responsibilities and shared roles concentrated around the festival’s coordination nucleus. To that extent, this team reinforced the notion that membership in a social movement, as the aforementioned authors asserted, is not “a single act of adhesion” (1999:17) but rather a sum of actions, beliefs, values and goals that are projected into and reflected through a movement.

“There is no division, nobody sort of like, a:hm, says, ‘you do this or you do that’. Over the years, when FânFest happened, certain volunteers…have naturally taken some roles and then over the years they have been, a:hm, able to deepen their knowledge or whatever that role [entailed]”. (Xenia, 29.07.2007, emphasis added)

9

The coordination team created a permanent communication flow among its members and with all relevant stakeholders in the organization of the festival. This was one measure for designing a horizontal, participative and inclusive decision making structure. Envisaged as a heterarchy, this network was built around a number of core nodes. There was a nucleus and a rhizome of links with individuals who joined it in the four years since its first edition. This was the extended coordination team whose history was inextricably marked by differences in social status and reputation. However, the nucleus was conscientious about its position and driven to level such distinctions to ensure the functionality of the team, the voluntary appropriation of tasks and their independent completion. Ultimately, the underlying problematic in this section can be subsumed to Klandermans’ argument that “…like most voluntary associations, social movement organizations must balance a hierarchical distribution of power with the ideals of democratic participation in organizational affairs” (1997:134). The FânFest coordination team was a flow of ideas, decisions and practices of its individual members. It functioned as a communication exchange between the members, through an internal listserv, instant messenger conversations and conferences, mobile phone calls and face-to-face meetings. A communication infrastructure, which developed autonomously through computer terminals and Internet connections in the flats and offices where the members worked and lived, was the principal physical structure that the team used in its work. The FânFest nucleus had most of its meetings in a flat in Cluj, where three members lived where they also had the office of a small public relations company they ran. The majority of the fifteen coordination meetings that I attended before the team moved to Rosia Montana, at the start of the festival, were held in the living room of this apartment. A couple of other meetings took place in the offices of an advertising company that several other members of the team were running. Finally, I was also invited to dinner and drinks at various points in time during my stay with the team. They were organized, separately, in the homes of another two members of the group.

“…we don’t have an office; we don’t have a purpose-built infrastructure just for Rosia Montana. Everybody works on their own things and everybody works from their home or from the ‘Company’ ((advertising company run by several of the members in the Save Rosia Montana campaign)) or I don’t know where else.” (Skye, 01.09.2007)

The coordination team may be described as a sprout of the campaign which was growing and transforming since its original meeting. Its morphing throughout the four editions of the festival made it, the members I interviewed argued, a hybrid organizational form. On the one hand, it was an ad-hoc group of well-resourced individuals who volunteered their skills to preparing and running the festival. On the other, even though the festival was only a one weekend event, the team developed into a permanent structure through its communication. Ultimately, the predominance of the environmental activists in the team resulted in the increasing emphasis on the environmentalist character of the festival. However, as Warren noted, the event was more than an “NGO project” (Warren,

10

14.08.2007) and it remained the only non-commercial music festival in Romania, where artists would sing pro-bono (Xenia, 29.07.2007). The extended team around the FânFest ‘nucleus’ was described as permanently expanding but not as a result of a renewal process, in which new members would take the place of departing ones: “…the criterion when somebody is invited to join the team [is] to complement the team. So it wouldn’t be a substitute. We’ve very rarely invited somebody who was substituting somebody else, and only in extreme situations” (Odette, 14.08.2007). There were, however, two notable exceptions to this rule. Firstly, before the third edition, the festival’s music manager was asked to leave the group because of a general dissatisfaction with his capacity to cooperate with other members. Secondly, in 2007 Greenpeace Romania officially renounced its role in the festival although a large number of its former volunteers remained in the team. This decision by Greenpeace was part of a broader strategy to reform its operations in the country. To that extent, the aggregate number of the nucleus remained the same while the extended team grew larger from one edition to another. The members of the nucleus all either lived or worked in Cluj or Rosia Montana or were commuting between the two localities. A week or more before the festival they would all move to Rosia Montana. As the FânFest nucleus developed around a Rosia Montana work group which had initially functioned in the peace and non-violence NGO in Cluj where Galia, Warren, Odette and Skye had been volunteers, the team was bound to a specific geographic locality. When it started to expand, this common trait became less salient a characteristic of its membership. Old and new members were linked by previous and ongoing collaborations, a socializing routine which went beyond specific projects that developed into friendships and an increasingly intense use of the Internet in their communication. The Internet allowed them to regularize, make permanent and more inclusive the internal communication team which included the nucleus and all their partners. It both supplemented and subsequently substituted some other technologies and communication practices. Finally, it also allowed the coordinators to create specialized communication flows both inside the team and with volunteers at the festival and with participants.

The extended coordination team and the nucleus were united in the spirit of protecting Rosia Montana through the opposition to the planned gold mine. The members of the nucleus had all been active members of the Save Rosia Montana campaign. The leading coordinators of the campaign were amongst the key organizers of the festival. Together with the representatives of the other environmental NGOs they formed a ‘green’ majority in the nucleus. To that extent, preparations for the 2007 edition of FânFest had been marked, as previously described, by a growing emphasis on the environmental character of the event. A key conduit in the consecration of this frame had been the delimitation of the participants at the festival.

“…we start from the idea that there are quite a few people who are interested in the environment, in general, they want to do things but they haven’t had the space and the place where to meet or see what all these things mean and how things are

11

done… I hope that in time this is what FânFest will become… a space where all these people meet, you know. With fewer or more concerts but anyway with this being the final goal.” (Warren, 14.08.2007)

5. Mobilizing public awareness about Rosia Montana This section introduces a detailed analysis on framing participation at FânFest by the event’s organizers. In 2007 the latter developed based on their aims and experience, an interpretive framework of participation. Their values, particularly those concerning the environment, their interests, to encourage the participation of young people and their activities, both environmental and cultural were articulated in their presentation of the festival to its audience. An initial working hypothesis was that this local environmental group would seek to transform and extend its own interpretation of its struggle, to increase its visibility and motivate support for its cause. To that extent, FânFest, a music festival and an instrument in a protest repertoire, was principally aimed at bringing together participants as supporters of the campaign. As this initial research will show, the organizers’ main goal was to mobilize a specific audience while acknowledging the weak and transitory character of its engagement with the contentious issue. They were however working to foster a longer-lasting one and particularly with environmentalism. This was a qualitative change in the fabric of the movement’s membership. A newly found solidarity was an opportunity to further legitimize and extend this protest and its appeal. The ensuing argument from this section resonated with Della Porta and Diani’s (1999) postulation that movements entail a plurality of means and avenues to espousing its contention. These authors have consequently posited that “strictly speaking social movements do not have members, but participants” whose involvement is agglutinated through a sense of a shared identity (1999:16). The preoccupation with frame alignment has been fueled by this study’s interest in recruitment planning by social movement organizations. The concept of frame alignment has been coined by Snow et al. (1986). It describes an interpretive process in which individuals and Social Movement Organizations (SMO) construct and understand issues, events, opportunities and risks “such that some set of individual interests, values and beliefs and SMO activities, goals, and ideology are congruent and complementary” (1986:464). Interpretation of participation in a social movement is a dynamic process of negotiation which individuals, on the one hand, enter with some combination of calculations of costs and risks, socio-psychological predispositions- values, beliefs, emotions and evaluations. On the other hand, movements aim to align individual assessments of participation with their identity and action framework. “The underlying premise is that frame alignment, of one variety or another is a necessary condition for movement participation, whatever its nature or intensity, and that it is typically an interaction accomplishment” (1986:467). There was an initial three-fold argument that the nucleus conceded to in their decision to hold a protest festival at Rosia Montana. Firstly, it was their aim to gather a large number

12

of individuals in this location, to offer them the opportunity for a firsthand experience of the ground- physical and abstract- of contention, prompted by the participants’ interaction with the environment and the locals. Secondly, it was hoped that the locals would be able to gain some material benefits from the influx of visitors in their community, if the former organized their small-scale commercial activities. Finally, it constituted the means to enact a belief that the area was not unalterably mono-industrial and economic alternatives to mining could be implemented. These three aims remained central to the resolution to organize the festival throughout its four editions notwithstanding the assessment of their attainment which continued to be debated among the members of the nucleus. Opinions appeared to converge, however, on the conclusion that of the three goals, the first, to convene people at Rosia Montana had been the most successful. There were nevertheless limits on the sense of satisfaction brought by appraisals of the degree of engagement of the participants with the contentious issue and broader, with environmental topics. As one of the organizers noted, it was the music and notoriety of some of the bands who attended the event which made it attractive to many of the participants. This awareness, although fuelling questions about the need and the ways to select the people who would attend, was directly linked to efforts to redress the balance between the music and the environmental agenda. To that extent, in 2007, the organizers were ready to accept a fall in the number of participants which would be the upshot of their distinctive calls for participations which emphasized the environmentalist character of the event. Ultimately, in the aftermath of the festival, this gamble was regarded to have been only partly successful while participants were observed to have been as preoccupied with the music as at previous editions.

“I think there are all sorts [of participants]. To a smaller extent, people that are really interested in the environment.. to a larger extent, ahm, young people that go to a festival.. Ahm, but at the same time, I think that from among the young people who before used to simply come to the festival, there are now young people who go to a festival and are interested in the environment. And this I think has become an important thing about FânFest…the initial goal…to save Rosia Montana through a festival is not quite attained; precisely because of the many people who come are not necessarily concerned about this problem”. (Caden, 05.09.2007)

FânFest was accommodated in the “Save Rosia Montana” campaign as an extension which would sensitize an audience whose interests were balanced between on the one side, the concern for the environment and the local struggle at Rosia Montana, and the appetite for music and entertainment, on the other. As Caden asserted, and in their turn also Odette and Warren, previously participants at FânFest had been more interested in the entertainment. To that extent, participation at FânFest, these organizers hoped, would have been at this edition, on the one hand, an opportunity for the many to develop their limited awareness of campaign issues and other environmental topics discussed there, while banking on their taste for music. On the other, it would have been a chance to link existing concerns about environmental issues with on-going activist projects presented at the festival.

13

Building on such anticipations, the organizers decided to actively pursue what they understood as a process of selective recruitment. This they grounded into a frame that extended the message of the “Save Rosia Montana” campaign, to include subject areas from the broader environmental movement and to signal a widening of the cultural scope of the festival. Such an extension was coupled, on the one hand, with a deliberate effort to offer incentives-positive and negative- to future participants and thus influence their choice on attendance of the festival. On the other hand, a new definition of the festival would have also served the purpose of setting this event firmly into the context of an environmental movement. Caden explained that the organizers felt the participants at FânFest were implicitly supporters of the campaign to save Rosia Montana. A deliberate decision had been taken to extend the frame on membership in the movement and transform the frame on participation. Membership was extended to those who attended the festival, who were loosely connected to the campaign, principally through their participation at FânFest. Participation was redefined in the process of transforming the music festival into an environmental event while preserving, to some extent, the broad appeal of the former among young people. These interpretations of the event were principally distributed to the youth through the Internet.

“… [participants] play a very important role through the fact that they come to FânFest; through the fact that they come there in spite of how difficult it is to get there… if it’d be in some city centre it would be a completely different thing. But the fact that somebody has to make such an effort to get there, I feel that they do support a movement, regardless of the thoughts they come with. You know, because they come there, they hear about Rosia Montana, they go back home and they tell others about Rosia Montana…because they hear about other environmental issues that are presented at FânFest and maybe they go back home and tell others. So, I think that information spreads widely through the participants at FânFest and at the same time, even though they might not be 100% aware, ahm, they make a statement because they are there. You know, they take a stance” (Caden, 05.09.2007).

6. Mobilization: the participants at FânFest

Mobilization, as far as the term is used in conjunction with processes specific to social movements, has been described as the collection and management of “resources for the pursuit of a shared objective against the resistance of groups opposing that objective” (Melucci, 1996:286). The structural purview on mobilization emphasizes the role of pre-existing conditions and also developing contingencies (McAdam, 2003: 284) to explicate how movements emerge, grow and are transformed and concurrently, how participation in them co-varies.

14

Micro-mobilization is a concept that has been most often employed in structural accounts that have concentrated on recruitment into social movements (Snow et al, 1980, Snow et al, 1986, Tarrow, 1994, McAdam and Diani, 2003). Thus far, there seems to be agreement over an understanding that: first, features of personality-predispositions, preferences, cognitions, emotions and evaluations have not been a primary but rather a galvanizing factor in recruitment. As Snow et al. posited, irrespective of preexisting social-psychological determinants at the level of the individual, a looming question which persisted was concerned with how contact was initiated, or, accepting a purposive preoccupation of SMOs or movement entrepreneurs with recruitment, how the latter was “structured by sociospatial factors” (1980:789). Ultimately, however, research prior to their study and subsequent to it has defended the point that social networks are the key structure upon which mobilization occurs and develops (Tarrow, 1994). To that extent, those individuals, who are linked to movement members “have a greater probability of being contacted and recruited” (1980:792). More than half of those interviewed in the survey stated that they had attended at least one previous edition of the festival (see Table 14). This was, if only a partial indication of an increasingly permanent link between the event organizers and the participants and in line with the expectations of the former. Additionally, three quarters from those who answered the question “To what extent did you decide to come to FânFest because you wanted to be together with your friends who are also here?” stated that this was the case to a large or a very large extent. Furthermore, approximately one third of them answered that they had come because they had been encouraged ‘by friends or family’. A little more than one third of respondents stated they would consider joining the ‘Save Rosia Montana’ campaign with an almost equal proportion of people who were undecided about the issue. Finally, just two people in ten from them reported having a personal connection with any of the members of the ‘Save Rosia Montana’ campaign. These results would indicate that a social network of personal links had formed around the festival. The proportion of recurrent participants was also interpreted as an indicator of the enduring commitment participants showed for the Rosia Montana campaign and as will be argued later, for environmental concerns, more broadly. There was no one most adept metaphor to describe this social formation. Rather the latter seemed to be best expressed as the conjoining of the “loosely coupled network” (Gerlach and Hine, 1970) with a horizontal structure of recruitment and a decentralized yet specialized or professionalized nucleus (Tarrow, 1998) which managed the event but did not control the selection of participants. Rather it aimed to mobilize them starting from an awareness of this recruitment mechanism through networks of friendship (Warren, 14.08.2007) using former participants as a point of access to newcomers, thus conforming postulations on the importance of social networks to mobilization (Tarrow, 1994, Snow et al, 1980). It consequently extended and transformed the membership frame for the “Save Rosia Montana” campaign and used the Internet to guide participation and voice a green agenda.

15

In a subsequent battery of questions respondents were asked to rank three descriptions of FânFest, in the order they believed was the most appropriate for the 2007 event. The three categories of this variable were ‘an environmental event’, ‘a political event’ and ‘a musical event’. From the respondents, 65% believed that FânFest was, first and foremost, an environmental event; 31% considered that it was principally a musical event and finally, only 4% of the participants deemed it to be primarily a political event. Table 14: Participation at a previous edition of FânFest

Have you attended a previous edition of FanFest?

127 50.4 50.8 50.8123 48.8 49.2 100.0250 99.2 100.0

2 .8252 100.0

NoYesTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Table 15: Motivation for participation- prospective membership of campaign

I am here because I want to be an activist in the "Save Rosia Montana" campaign.

41 16.3 17.0 17.053 21.0 22.0 39.0

75 29.8 31.1 70.1

25 9.9 10.4 80.529 11.5 12.0 92.518 7.1 7.5 100.0

241 95.6 100.011 4.4

252 100.0

strongly agreeagreeneither agree nordisagreedisagreestrongly disagreeNS/NRTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Table 16: Motivation for participation- direct link with member of campaign

16

Extent to which you came to FanFest because you know sombody involved in the 'Save RosiaMontana Campaign

32 12.7 13.4 13.419 7.5 7.9 21.340 15.9 16.7 38.144 17.5 18.4 56.5

104 41.3 43.5 100.0239 94.8 100.0

13 5.2252 100.0

to a very large extentto a large extentto some extentto a small extentnot at allTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Table 17: Description of the event

Description of FanFest: environmental event

160 63.5 64.8 64.878 31.0 31.6 96.4

9 3.6 3.6 100.0247 98.0 100.0

5 2.0252 100.0

most appropriateless appropriateleast appropriateTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

When asked whether they regarded their attendance of FânFest, among other things, as a result of their concern for the environment, almost half of the respondents from the sample considered that this was the case to a large or a very large extent. An almost equal proportion from the respondents, 45%, stated that they came to FânFest only ‘to some extent’ because they believed they were ‘a person concerned about the environment’. Finally, 6% stated their decision to attend FânFest was grounded ‘to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’ on the consideration that they were individuals concerned about the environment. Table 18: Motivation to attend the festival (1)

17

Attend FanFest because you feel you are a person concerned about the enviroment

35 13.9 14.6 14.682 32.5 34.2 48.8

108 42.9 45.0 93.813 5.2 5.4 99.2

2 .8 .8 100.0240 95.2 100.0

12 4.8252 100.0

to a very large extentto a large extentto some extentto a small extentnot at allTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Respondents were also asked to state the extent to which they agreed with several propositions which described hypothetical motivations that people will have had for attending FânFest. 64% of them reported that they ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the statement ‘I am here because I want to learn more about environmental protection’ while 21.5% neither agreed nor disagreed with it. However, two thirds of the respondents also stated that they ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the statement ‘I am here because I like some of the bands playing at this edition of FânFest’. These results pertained to an interpretation which supports the claim that a majority of participants’ perceptions on the festival reflected the coordinators’ aims to construct this as an expression of solidarity around environmental concerns. This point is further explored in the subsequent paragraphs but it was regarded as a likely indication of the degree to which participation in this event had extended the meaning of public engagement in the campaign, broadening the agenda and appeal of the latter. The use of a music festival as a platform for social mobilization into protest activities (Scott and Street, 2000, Street, 2003) cannot be considered systematically herein. However, it appeared to have been successfully used as a conduit for mass participation in the event. Table 19: Motivation to attend festival (2)

I am here because I want to learn more about environmental protection

74 29.4 30.5 30.582 32.5 33.7 64.2

52 20.6 21.4 85.6

27 10.7 11.1 96.73 1.2 1.2 97.95 2.0 2.1 100.0

243 96.4 100.09 3.6

252 100.0

strongly agreeagreeneither agree nordisagreedisagreestrongly disagreedon't know/can't answerTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

18

Table 20: Motivation to attend the festival (3)

I am here because I like some of the bands playing at FanFest.

68 27.0 28.1 28.183 32.9 34.3 62.4

50 19.8 20.7 83.1

17 6.7 7.0 90.120 7.9 8.3 98.3

4 1.6 1.7 100.0242 96.0 100.0

10 4.0252 100.0

strongly agreeagreeneither agree nordisagreedisagreestrongly disagreedon't know/can't answerTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Respondents were asked to consider the extent to which they believed their participation at FânFest could have a bearing on the decision on the Rosia Montana mining project. Two thirds of those who provided a valid answer agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘I am here because this is how I can influence the decision on the Rosia Montana mining project’. These preliminary findings would thus suggest that the organizers were successful in extending their agenda to elicit the participation of people who were not necessarily concerned about the environment but could be mobilized or made aware of issues and protests through their attendance of the event. Furthermore, 82% of the respondents also strongly agreed with the statement “I am here because I want to show the mining company that people oppose the mining project at Rosia Montana”. Finally, these initial results, based only on a count of responses, appear to show that participation in the event gave those interviewed a sense of power to influence the decision on the future of the mine. To that extent, this was regarded as an underlying premise for solidarity (Della Porta and Diani, 1999) which had been explicitly communicated by the festival’s organizers and was consistently appropriated by the participants. Table 21: Perception of personal efficacy in support for the campaign

19

I am here because this is how I can influence the decision on the Rosia Montana miningproject

69 27.4 29.0 29.088 34.9 37.0 66.0

50 19.8 21.0 87.0

15 6.0 6.3 93.39 3.6 3.8 97.17 2.8 2.9 100.0

238 94.4 100.014 5.6

252 100.0

strongly agreeagreeneither agree nordisagreedisagreetotally disagreedon't know/can't answerTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

7. Final considerations FânFest was, in 2007, at its fourth edition. Its organizers were hoping that it was becoming one of the key venues for environmental activism in Romania. They used this event as a soundboard for the central message of their campaign, to prevent the development of the environmentally harmful gold mine at Rosia Montana. As the frame in which they showcased this initial message was transformed, the festival developed into a progressively broader environmental event where participants were invited to increase or consolidate their awareness of environmental issues and participation in activist struggles. The already described extension of the frame of membership in the Save Rosia Montana campaign was engendered by the need to legitimize and widen this protest and its appeal to new audiences. From amongst the latter, supporters and new activists would be recruited. The FânFest coordination team was a web of concurrent allegiances, intersecting responsibilities and roles converging around the common aim of opening a local protest to a larger constituency, to increase its visibility, demonstrate the wide popular support it enjoyed and construct a space for environmental activism. Imagined as a heterarchy, this was a network constructed around several core nodes. A nucleus and a rhizome of horizontal links with individuals who joined it developed as a fluid structure. The absence of any definitive central coordination and the emphasis on consensus based decisional mechanisms was balanced by a history of differences in social status and reputation within the team. The outcome was a conscientious decision on the part of its principal entrepreneurs to level such distinctions in order to ensure the functionality of the team, the voluntary appropriation of tasks and their independent completion. A fundamental contention in this chapter has been that the structure, the functioning and membership of the team, was consequential to the nature and scope of participation in the festival and the social network which formed around it. The former was an integrant part of the Save Rosia Montana campaign and it was posited, a central element in a social

20

movement which grew around the latter. Throughout the four editions of the festival it was constantly updated and developed as a hybrid organizational form. It was an ad-hoc group of movement professionals who volunteered their skills to preparing and running the event. This became a permanent structure through its communication without becoming a formal organization. The preponderance of the environmental activists in the team was determinant for the environmentalist character of the festival. The Internet was a central component of this infrastructure of instrumental interaction and symbolic construction of solidarity. The socio-demographic profile of the participants at FânFest 2007 substantiated the working definition the team used to encourage participation. They were young, well-educated, and online. They were heavy Internet users. They appeared to be part of a social network of personal links which had formed around the festival. An important proportion of those who attended this edition were recurring participants, and/or people who had come to FânFest to be with their friends. The proportion of recurrent participants was regarded as a sign of the enduring commitment participants showed for the Rosia Montana campaign and environmental concerns, more broadly. There was no one most appropriate trope to illustrate the ensuing social formation. This appeared to be best expressed as the coupling of the “loosely coupled network” with a horizontal structure of recruitment and a decentralized yet specialized or professionalized nucleus which managed the event but did not control the selection of participants. The latter were mobilized through networks of friendship using former participants as a point of access to newcomers. The Internet was used to guide participation and voice a green agenda. It was, for this sample of participants at FânFest, the medium of choice for environmentalist content. Results from the survey showed that the majority of participants were not directly associated with a voluntary organization or a campaign but were supporters or to a significant extent familiar with environmental ones. The Internet contributed to their activism but actions like online petition campaigns or retrieving content on environmentalism, the ‘Save Rosia Montana’ campaign or FânFest had been normalized to the extent that they were not perceived as participatory practices. They did, it was argued, play a formative role in the creation of their activist personae.

21

References: Alburnus Maior (2007) Alburnus Maior- The Local NGO [online] available from

<http://www.rosiamontana.org> [20 Aug 2007] Bennett, L. (2003) “Communicating global activism”. In Information, Communication and Society, 6 (2), 143-168 Bentivegna, S. (2002) “Politics and New Media”. In Lievrouw A. Leah and Livingstone,

Sonia, Handbook of New Media. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications

Bimber, B. (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution

of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

22

Blumer, H. (1971) “Social problems as collective behavior”. Social Problems, 18, 199-220

Caden (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [5 Sept. 2007] Carter, N. (2001) The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity, 2nd vol. Malden, Massachusetts, Oxford, U.K.:

Blackwell Publishers Castells, M. (2007) “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network

Society”. In International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266 Clemens, E.S. (1996) “Organizational form as frame: collective identity and political

strategy in the American Labor Movement, 1880-1920. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., Zald, M.N. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings

Della Porta, D., Diani, M. (1999) Social Movements: An Introduction. Malden,

Massachusetts, Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers Della Porta, D., Andretta, M., Mosca, L., Reiter, H. (2006) Globalization from Below:

Transnational Activists and Protest Networks. Mineapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press

De Vauss, D. (2002) Analyzing Social Science Data, London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Di Genarro, C., Dutton, W. (2006) “The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline

Political Participation in the United Kingdom. In Parliamentary Affairs, 59 (2), 299-313

Diani, M. (2000) “Social movement networks: virtual and real”. In Webster, F. (ed)

Culture and Politics in the Information Age: a New Politics? London, New York: Routledge

Diani, M., Donato, P. (1999) “Organizational change in Western European environmental

groups: a framework for analysis”. In Rootes, C. Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global. London, Portland OR: Frank Cass

Doherty, B. (2002) Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement. London and New York:

Routledge Donk, van de, W., Loader, B.D., Nixon, P.G., Rucht, D. (eds) (2004). Cyberprotest: New

Media, Citizens and Social Movements. London, New York: Routledge

23

FânFest (2004) FânFest 24-25-26 August [online] available from <http://fanfest.rosiamontana.ro/2004/centrupresa.shtml?AA_SL_Session=64eb0c033c8b3beda38503e17cc4d7a4&x=71> [05 Nov 2007]

-- (2005) FânFest 24-25-26 August Verde [online] available from

<http://fanfest.rosiamontana.ro/2005/ro/prezentare.shtml> [05 Nov 2007] -- (2006) FânFest 24-25-26 August Verde [online] available from

<http://www.fanfest.ro/2k6/index.php?lang=ro> [05 Nov 2007] -- (2007) FânFest 24-25-26 August Verde [online] available from

<http://www.fanfest.ro/2k7/index.php?lang=ro> [05 Nov 2007] Filip (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [31 Aug 2007] Gerlach, L.P. (2001) “The structure of social movements: environmental activism and its

opponents. In Arquilla, J. and Ronfelt, D. (eds) Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy. Santa Monica: Rand

Gerlach, L.P., Hine, V.G. (1970) People, Power, Change: Movements of Social

Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill Garrett, R.K. (2006) “Protest in an information society: a review of literature on social

movements and new ICTs”. In Information, Communication and Society, 9 (2), 202-224

Gunderlach, P. (1989) “Organizing for change: social movement organizations in Europe and the United States”. In Klandermans, B. (ed) International Social Movement Research, vol. 2. Greenwich, Conn: JAI-Press

Hanes (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [24 Aug 2007] Haythornthwaite, C. (2005) “Social networks and Internet connectivity effects”. In

Information, Communication and Society, 8 (2), 125-147 Keira (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [02 Sept 2007] Klandermans, B. (1997) The Social Psychology of Protest. Cambridge Massachusetts,

Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers Livingstone, S., Bober, M., Helsper, E. J. (2005) “Active participation or just more

information?” In Information, Communication and Society, 8 (3), 287-314 Lofland, J. (1996) Social Movement Organizations: Guide to Research on Insurgent

Realities. New York: Aldine de Gruyter

24

McAdam, D. (2003) “Beyond Structural Analysis: Toward a More Dynamic Understanding of Social Movements”. In Diani, M. and McAdam, D. (eds.) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press

McCarthy, J.D., Zald, M. (1976) “Resource mobilization and social movements; a partial

theory”. In American Journal of Sociology, 82: 1212-1241 Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in

Contemporary Society. Edited by John Keane and Paul Mier. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

--. (1996) Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

MindBomb (2004), MindBomb Manifesto [online] available from <http://www.mindbomb.ro/index.php?vid=90&item=f343ba3fd133156d61dcaac01d0cb083&mod=fullpage&lang=RO> [01 Sept 2005]

MindBomb Collective (2005). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [12 Sept 2005]

Mocan, R., Badescu, G., Marian C. (2003)“The democratising potential of the Internet and political parties in Romania”. In Rachel K. Gibson, Paul Nixon, Stephen J. Ward, Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain? London, New York: Routledge

Morris, A. (1984) The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities

Organizing for Social Change. New York: Free Press Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the

Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Odette (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [14 Aug 2007] Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.

Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press Rob (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [03 Sept 2007] Rodgers, J. (2003) Spatializing International Politics: Analyzing Activism on the Internet.

London, New York: Routledge Romania fara cianuri (2007) Cianura: o substanta pe cale de disparitie (‘Cyanide, an

endangered substance’) [online] available from <http://www.faracianura.ro/index.shtml?x=2499&cmd%5B97%5D=c-1-

25

0ddccbbb66ade42214624fc253ced3e3&cmd%5B98%5D=x-98-2313> [7 Dec 2007]

Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (2006) Non-Technical Summary of the Rosia Montana

EIA Report [online] available from <http://www.truestory.ro/raport/files/RMP_EIA_MAY_06/1%20-%20EIA%20Chapters/9%20Non-Technical%20Summary%20-%20Chapter%209/RMP_EIAch9_NonTechSummary_May06.pdf > [20 Sept 2007]

Skye (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [01 Sept 2007] Scott, A., Street, J. (2000) “From media politics to e-protest”. In Information,

Communication and Society 3 (2) 215-240 Smith, C.S. (2007) “Fighting over gold in the land of Dracula”. In The New York Times

[online] available from <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/business/worldbusiness/03gold.html> [30 March 2008]

Snow, D.A., Zurcher, L.A., Jr., Ekland-Olson, S. (1980) “Social Networks and Social

Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment”. In American Sociological Review, 45 (5), 787-801

Snow, D.A., Burke Rochford, E., Jr., Worden, S.K., Benford, R.D. (1986) “Frame

Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation”. In American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481

Street, J. (2003) “Fight the power: the politics of music and the music of politics”. In

Government and Opposition 38 (1) 113-130 Tarrow, S. (1994) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and

Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press -- (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics (2nd

edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Thorpe, N. (2007) ‘Romania’s Gold Stays in the Hills’. From Our Own Correspondent,

BBC News [online] available from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own _correspondent/7087194.stm> [11 Nov 2007]

Touraine, A. (1981) The Voice and the Eye: an Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press Warren (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [14 Aug 2007]

26

Wellman, B., Quann-Hasse, A., Boase, J., Chen, W. (2002) “Examining the Internet in Everyday Life”, Keynote Address (given by Barry Wellman) to the Euricom Conference on E-Democracy, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, online, available from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/netlab/PUBLICATIONS/_frames.html, [20.03.2007]

Xenia (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [30 July 2007] Zald, M.N., McCarthy, J.D. (1987) Social Movements in an Organizational Society. New

Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books Zara (2007) Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Interview by author [02 Sept 2007]

27