printCitizenship as Understood by St. Petersburg Young People and their Parents
Nartova N.A.
Сand. Sci. (Sociol.), Senior Research Fellow, Center for Youth Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia nnartova@hse.ru
This 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).
Nartova N.A. Citizenship as Understood by St. Petersburg Young People and their Parents. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2019. No 12. P. 38-47
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, a 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.
Бабинцев В.П., Реутов Е.В. Самоорганизация и «атомизация» молодежи как актуальные формы социокультурной рефлексии // Социологические исследования. 2010. № 1. С. 109–115. [Babintsev V.P., Reutov E.V. (2010) Self-organization and «Atomization» of Youth as Relevant Forms of Sociocultural Reflection. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No.1: 109–115. (In Russ.)].
Длугош П. Негражданское поколение? Анализ политической активности молодежи Польши, России и Украины // PolitBook. 2012. № 2. С. 6–20. [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.)].
Омельченко Е.Л. Уникален ли российский случай трансформации молодежных культурных практик? // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2019. No. 1. С. 3–27. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.1.01. [Omelchenko E.L. (2019) Is the Russian Case of the Transformation of Youth Cultural Practices Unique? Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: economicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 1: 3–25. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.1.01. (In Russ.)].
Омельченко Е.Л., Андреева Ю.В. Что остается в семейной истории: память о советском сквозь разговор трех поколений // Социологические исследования. 2017. № 11. С. 147–156. DOI: 10.7868/ S0132162517110162. [Omelchenko E.L., Andreeva Ju.V. (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.)].
Радаев В.В. Миллениалы на фоне предшествующих поколений: эмпирический анализ // Социологические исследования. 2018. № 3. 15–33. DOI: 10.7868/S0132162518030029. [Radaev V.V. (2018) Millennials Compared to Previous Generations: an Empirical Analysis. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 3: 15–33. 10.7868/S0132162518030029. (In Russ.)].
Седова Н.Н. Гражданский активизм в современной России: форматы, факторы, социальная база // Социологический журнал. 2014. № 2. С. 48–71. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2014.2.495. [Sedova N.N. (2014) Civil Activism in Modern Russia: Formats, Factors, and Social Base. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal [Sociological Journal]. No. 2: 48–71. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2014.2.495. (In Russ.)].
Тютюнджи И.М. Новые формы социального активизма // Социологические исследования. 2012. № 5. С. 149–153 [Tutundzhi I.M. (2012) New Forms of Social Activism. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 5: 149–153. (In Russ.)].
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.
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.
Bessant J., Farthing R., Watts R. (2017) The Precarious Generation. A Political Economy of Young People. London; New York: Routledge.
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.
Collin P. (2015) Young Citizens and Political Participation in a Digital Society. Addressing the Democratic Disconnect. Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dahlgren P. (ed.) (2010) Young Citizens and New Media. Learning for Democratic Participation. New York; London: Routledge.
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.
Fahmy E. (2006) Young Citizen: Young People’s Involvement in Politics and Decision Making. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
GESIS. (2018) National Report level 2 (Collection of short comparative country reports). Project: PROMoting Youth Involvement and Social Engagement: Opportunities and Challenges for ‘Conflicted’ Young People across Europe. URL: http://www.promise.manchester.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Nationalreports-using-secondary-data-analysis-by-GESIS-May-2018.pdf (accessed 03.10.2019).
Harris A., Wyn J., Younes S. (2007) Young People and Citizenship: An Everyday Perspective. Youth Studies Australia. Vol. 26. No. 3: 19–27.
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.
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.
Miller-Idriss C. (2006) Everyday Understandings of Citizenship in Germany. Citizenship Studies. Vol. 10. No. 5: 541–570. DOI: 10.1080/13621020600954978.
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.
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.
Putnam R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
Stevenson N. (2014) Cultural Citizenship in the «Cultural» Society: a Cosmopolitan Approach. Citizenship Studies. Vol. 7. No. 3: 331–348. DOI: 10.1080/1362102032000098904.
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.
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.
Zdravmyslova E., Voroncov V. (2002) The Informal Public in Soviet Society: Double Morality at Work. Social Research. Vol. 69. No. 1: 49–69.