All
 
|
 
 


Citizenship in Understanding of St.Petersburg Young People and Their Parents
 
PIIS013216250007742-9-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250007742-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Nadezhda A. Nartova 
Occupation: Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Youth Studies
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 12
Pages38-47
Abstract

The problematization of youth citizenship from the perspective of participation in traditional institutionalized politics not only questions the relevance of the dominant theoretical and methodological grounds for studying citizenship in modern conditions, but also calls for a new look at youth as a generation, including  their parents. The article is devoted to the analysis of ideas about citizenship in the generational perspective. Based on the concepts of everyday citizenship developed in youth research and a qualitative methodology, the work explores the meanings and interpretations of citizenship as part of personal experience by young adults (18-26 years) and their parents in St.Petersburg. The ideal-typical ideas about citizenship and the reflection on one’s own citizenship are consistently discussed.  The analysis of empirical material shows that young people have formed and share a relatively conventional model of citizenship as active involvement in social changes in everyday space. For the parent generation, citizenship is predominantly defined in moral and ethical categories and is manifested through responsible labor activity. At the same time, the more active and socially oriented position of youth leads to a change in intergenerational interaction: not only older generation transmit their values and experience to the younger, but also vice versa.

Keywordsyouth, citizenship, generation, everyday citizenship, social involvement, civil engagement
AcknowledgmentThis article results from a research project implemented as a part of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2016.
Received29.11.2019
Publication date11.12.2019
Number of characters29601
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 1675

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Babitsev V., Reutov E. (2010) Self-organization and «atomization” of youth as relevant forms of sociocultural reflection. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No.1: 109–115. (In Russ.)
2. Dlugosh P. (2012) Non-civilian generation? Analysis of the political activity of youth in Poland, Russia and Ukraine. PolitBook. No. 2: 6–20. (In Russ.)
3. Omelchenko E., Andreeva Ju. (2017) What remains in family history: the memory of the “soviet” in the conversation of three generations. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 11: 147–156. (In Russ.)
4. Omelchenko E.L. (2019) Is the Russian case of the transformation of youth cultural practices unique?. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 1: 3—25 (In Russ.)
5. Radaev V. (2018) Millennials compared to previous generations: an empirical analysis. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 3: 15–33. (In Russ.)
6. Sedova N. (2014) Civil activism in modern Russia: formats, factors, and social base. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal [Sociological Journal]. No. 2: 48–71. (In Russ.)
7. Tutundzhi I. (2012) New forms of social activism. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 5: 149–153. (In Russ.)
8. Adler R.P., Goggin J. (2005) What Do We Mean By “Civic Engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education. Vol. 3. No. 3: 236–253. DOI: 10.1177/1541344605276792
9. Bang H. (2005) Among everyday makers and expert citizens. In: Newman J. (ed.)  Remaking governance: peoples, politics and the public sphere. Bristol: Policy Press: 159–179
10. Bessant J., Farthing R., Watts R. (2017) The precarious generation. A political economy of young people. London, New York: Routledge.
11. Coe A.-B., Vandegrift D. (2015) Youth Politics and Culture in Contemporary Latin America: A Review. Latin American Politics and Society. Vol. 57. No. 2: 132–153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-2456.2015.00271.x
12. Collin P. (2015) Young Citizens and political participation in a digital society. Addressing the democratic disconnect. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Dahlgren P., ed. (2010) Young citizens and new media. Learning for democratic participation. New York, London: Routledge.
14. Ekman J., Amnå E. (2012) Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human affairs. Vol. 22. No.3: 283–300. DOI: 10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1
15. Fahmy E. (2006) Young Citizen. Young people’s involvement in politics and decision making. Hampshire: Ashgate Pablishing Ltd.
16. GESIS (2018) National Report level 2 (Collection of short comparative country reports). Project: PROMoting youth Involvement and Social Engagement: Opportunities. URL: http://www.promise.manchester.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/National-reports-using-secondary-data-analysis-by-GESIS-May-2018.pdf  (accepted 3.10.2019)
17. Harris A., Wyn J., Younes S. (2007) Young people and citizenship: An everyday perspective. Youth Studies Australia. Vol. 26. No. 3: 19–27.
18. Krupets Y., Morris J., Nartova N., Omelchenko E., Sabirova G. (2017) Imagining young adults’ citizenship in Russia: from fatalism to affective ideas of belonging. Journal of Youth Studies. Vol. 20. No. 2: 252–267. DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2016.1206862
19. Manning N. (2013) ‘I mainly look at things on an issue by issue basis’: Reflexivity and phronêsis in young people's political engagements. Journal of Youth Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1: 17–33. DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2012.693586
20. Miller-Idriss C. (2006) Everyday Understandings of Citizenship in Germany. Citizenship Studies. Vol.10. No. 5: 541–570. DOI: 10.1080/13621020600954978
21. Omelchenko E.L., Pilkington H. (2013) Regrounding Youth Cultural Theory (in Post-Socialist Youth Cultural Practice). Sociology Compass. Vol. 7. No. 3: 208–224 DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12023
22. Pilkington H., Pollock G. (2015) Politics are bollocks’: youth, politics and activism in contemporary Europe. The Sociological Review. Vol. 63. No. S2: 1–35. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12260
23. Putnam R.D. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
24. Rheingans R., Hollands R. (2013) ‘There is no alternative?’: challenging dominant understandings of youth politics in late modernity through a case study of the 2010 UK student occupation movement. Journal of Youth Studies. Vol. 16. No.: 4.: 546–564. DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2012.733811
25. Stevenson N. (2014) Cultural Citizenship in the “Cultural” Society: a Cosmopolitan Approach. Citizenship Studies. Vol. 7 No. 3: 331–348. DOI: 10.1080/1362102032000098904
26. Sveningsson M. (2015) ‘I Wouldn’t Have What It Takes’: Young Swedes Understandings of Political Participation. Young. Vol. 24. No. 2: 139–156. DOI: 10.1177/1103308815603305
27. Voronkov V., Chikadze E. (2003) Different Generations of Leningrad Jews in the Context of Public/Private Division: Paradoxes of Ethnicity. In: Humphrey R., Muller R., Zdravomyslova E. (eds) Altered lives and Broken Biographies: Biographical Research in Eastern Europe. London: Palgrave: 239–259.
28. Zdravmyslova E., Voroncov V. (2002) The informal public in soviet society: double morality at work. Social research. Vol. 69.  No. 1: 49–69.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up