Socio-political risks of civic participation of the Russian youth in the conditions of digitalization of society

The article considers online forms of civic participation of young people in the digital space, aimed at protecting their rights, expressing political positions, demonstrating attitude to decisions made by authorities. Oftentimes the civic activity of young people goes beyond social tasks and issues (volunteering, participation in social projects, etc.), becomes politicized due to the dependence of many decisions on the authorities. Therefore, the article considers civic participation in relation to the political activity of young people. It is proved that excessive freedom of action and lack of control in social media, the availability of various information channels, a decrease in trust and loyalty to official sources of information, create a zone of socio-political risks of the manifestation of the protest civic activity of young people, which falls under the influence of manipulators (influencers) and intensifies both online and offline formats. During the expert survey, it was found that as a result of online communication, content, communicational, electronic and ideological sociopolitical risks manifest themselves. The risks may produce consequences which may be destructive actions on the part of young citizens in social networks (criticism, condemnation, bullying, disinformation, aggression, etc.) against the political system. Due to the adoption of timely institutional measures, it is possible to manage the digital space, and in particular, the socio-political risks of civic participation of young people in modern Russia.

1. Almond, G.A. and Verba, S. (1992), “Civic culture and stability of democracy”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 122–134.

2. Bulanova, M.B. and Kostenko, V.V. (2019), “NEET-youth. Protest potential and reality”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. “Philosophy. Sociology. Art Studies” Series, no. 1, pp. 120–129.

3. Dorozhkin, Yu.N. and Gaetkulov, E.N. (2022), “Digital transformation of civil protest participation in modern Russia”, Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 115 121.

4. Kasavina, N.A. (2019), “Youth in a digital society. Risks and opportunities”, in Usloviya i sposoby povysheniya aktivnosti molodezhi kak sub”ekta innovatsii i ustoichivogo razvitiya regionov: XV Vserossiiskaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferentsiya “Problemy sotsiokul’turnoi evolyutsii Rossii i ee regionov”: Sb. dokl. [Terms and means of increasing youth activism as a subject of innovation and sustainable development of regions. 15th All-Russian scientific and practical conference “Issues of the sociocultural evolution of Russia and its regions”. Collection of reports. Saint Petersburg, Russia, pp. 222–229.

5. Castells, M. (2000), Informatsionnaya epokha: ekonomika, obshchestvo i kul’tura [Information age. Economics, society and culture], HSE University, Moscow, Russia.

6. Kirdina, S.G. (2012), “ ‘Civil society’. Departure from the ideologeme”, Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia, no. 2, pp. 63–73.

7. Makarevich, E.F. (2020), “The concept of the public sphere by J. Habermas as a model of media influence in the new reality”, PolitBook, no. 3, pp. 98–119.

8. Mead, M. (1988), Kul’tura i mir detstva [Culture and the world of childhood], Nauka, Moscow, USSR.

9. Nikovskaya, L.I. and Yakimets, V.N. (2016), “Institutional development of intersectoral partnership in Russia”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 5, pp. 37–48.

10. Petukhov, V.V. (2012), “Civil society and civic participation”, Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny, no. 1, pp. 23–26

11. Pyrma, R.V. (2019), “Protest moods of Russian youth in the digital network”, Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University, no. 9, pp. 110–110.

12. Serkina, N.E. (2019),“The concept of a network society by M. Castells”, Vestnik Maikopskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnologicheskogo universiteta, no. 2, pp. 161–169.

13. Habermas J. (2012), Ah, Europe. Short political writings, Ves’ Mir, Moscow, Russia.

14. Kaase, M. (1991), Partizipation. Staat und Politik, Bonn, Germany, SS. 251–252.

15. McCloskey, D. (1983), “The rhetoric of economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 481–517.