Civil Activism of Youth in Russia: The Structure of Roles, the Formation of Attitudes Factors, Triggers of Protest Potential Growth

In conditions of external information pressure and activation of internal extra-systemic forces, conditions are formed for the implementation of the “standing wave” effect, in which the growth of the protest potential reaches its maximum and is actualized under the influence of trigger events. Among such events, a special place belongs to the electoral cycle and the transit of power. The communication and socio-political effects of the impact of digitalization on the processes of political socialization and civil formation of Russian youth have now become pronounced. First, there is a broader, in comparison with the generation of parents, the involvement of young people in civic and political practices. Second, the transfer of civic and political activism to the digital space by young Russians is recorded. Third, a high rate of switching of civic activism of representatives of the younger generation into political formats, online strategies — into real practices, conventional forms of activism — into unconventional forms is registered [1]. Based on this, the authors of the article identified patterns of actualization of the destructive potential of youth civic engagement in modern Russia, taking into account the online factor.

1. Rastorguev S. V. Extremism among the youth of modern Russia: Types, factors of propagation, soft technologies of prevention. Political science (RU). 2018;(4):124–145. (In Russ.).

2. Milbrath L. W. Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics? Chicago: Rand McNally; 1965.

3. Milbrath L. W. Political participation. In: The handbook of political behavior. S. L. Long, еd. Boston, MA: Springer; 1981:197–240.

4. Bimber B. The study of information technology and civic engagement. Political Communication. 2000;17(4):329–333.

5. George J. J., Leidner D. E. From clicktivism to hacktivism: Understanding digital activism. Information and Organization. 2019;29(3):100–249.

6. Shatilov A. B. Generational gaps as a factor of increasing conflicts in modern Russian society. Vlast. 2019;27(4): 26–32. (In Russ.).

7. Orlikowski W. J. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science. 2002;13(3):249.

8. Selander L., Jarvenpaa S. L. Digital action repertoires and transforming a social movement organization. MIS Quarterly. 2016;40(2):331–352.

9. Vaast E., Safadi H., Lapointe L., Negoita B. Social media affordances for connective action — an examination of microblogging use during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. MIS Quarterly. 2017;41(4):1179–1205.

10. Majchrzak A., Faraj S., Kane G. C., Azad B. The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2013;19(1):38–55.

11. Baym N. K. Data not seen: The uses and shortcomings of social media metrics. First Monday. 2013;18(10). URL: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i10.4873.

12. Kane G. C., Johnson J., Majchrzak A. Emergent life cycle: The tension between knowledge change and knowledge retention in open online coproduction communities. Management Science. 2014;60(12):3026–3048.

13. Dahan M. Hacking for the homeland: Patriotic hackers versus hacktivists. International conference on information warfare and security. United Kingdom: Academic Conferences International Limited; 2013.

14. Johnson P., Robinson P. Civic hackathons: Innovation, procurement, or civic engagement? Review of Policy Research. 2014;31(4):349–357.

15. Titov V. V. Strategies of Youth Social Protest on the Russian Internet (RuNet): a Comparative Analysis of Generations Y and Z. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny. 2020;(3):139–158. (In Russ.).