Government and public administration

BETWEEN DIY AND INSTITUTIONS: SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF YOUTH POLITICIZATION FORMATS

Received: 15.06.2019 Published: 15.06.2019

UDC: 321.02-053.81 EDN: CIPKFY DOI: 10.22394/2304-3369-2019-6-45-52

Full text

Abstract

Modern youth is characterized by a high degree of diversity and increasing mobility, which is reflected, among other things, in the multiplicity and fluidity of collective youth actors who declare their interests, rights and needs. Communities and solidarity arise and soon disintegrate, and specific practices associated with them are reproduced in new contexts. The “scattered” politicization of youth is also felt in the expansion of the repertoire of its socio-political activities, which can be implemented today not only in the hierarchy of official public institutions, but also in the horizontal plane of autonomous “grassroots” initiatives on the principle of D.I.Y. (Do it yourself), which creates the problem of describing and systematizing these phenomena. The purpose of the presented work is to offer tools for describing modern phenomena of youth politicization: to give an idea of the concept of the format of politicization, to characterize the features of more traditional (institutional) and modern (self-organizing) versions of it. The research is based on the principles of social topology, social heterology, and some post-operatic positions. The work is theoretical in nature and is based on the analysis, generalization and systematization of the theoretical positions, however, presented assumptions of the study and the findings associated with analysis of an essay on the political identity of youth (n=21), with the results of the interviews with young people aged from 12 to 33 in 2017 (n=17) and from 14 to 30 in 2019 (n=10), as well as an analysis of the activities and statements of the youth in social networks. The text reveals the concepts of the format of politicization, presents the features of modern political institutions and formats that they offer, and justifies the methodology of D.I.Y. as a theoretical framework for the study of non-institutional formats of politicization.

Keywords

How to cite

Для цитирования:

Симонова И. Между DIY и институтами: социально-философский анализ форматов политизации молодежи // Вопросы управления. 2019. Т. 61, № 6. С. 45–52. https://doi.org/10.22394/2304-3369-2019-6-45-52

For citation:

Simonova I. BETWEEN DIY AND INSTITUTIONS: SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF YOUTH POLITICIZATION FORMATS // Management Issues. 2019. Vol. 61, no. 6. P. 45–52. https://doi.org/10.22394/2304-3369-2019-6-45-52

How to Cite

Simonova I. BETWEEN DIY AND INSTITUTIONS: SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF YOUTH POLITICIZATION FORMATS // Management Issues. 2019. Vol. 61, no. 6. P. 45–52. https://doi.org/10.22394/2304-3369-2019-6-45-52

References

  1. Бродовская Е. В., Хуанг Т. Цифровое поколение: гражданская мобилизация и политический протест российской молодежи // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2019. № 5. С. 3-18.
  2. Молодежное политическое лидерство в ценностно-когнитивном пространстве Северо-Западных и Южно-Сибирских регионов России: брошюра. Барнаул: Изд-во Алт. ун-та, 2019.
  3. Милорава А.Р. Политическая активность российской молодежи на современном этапе // Молодой ученый. 2017. №14. С. 572-573.
  4. Созидательные поля межэтнического взаимодействия и молодежные культурные сцены российских городов. Результаты исследования, 2015-2019 г. [электронный ресурс]// ЦМИ ВШЭ. URL: https://spb.hse.ru/soc/youth/rnf/paper (дата обращения: 1.11.19)
  5. Савельев А.Н. Непонимание политического // Российская политика XXI века: неполитический потенциал политического: Материалы Междунар. науч. конф. (23-24 апреля 2009 г.). М., 2009
  6. Томильцева Д.А. Историческая и политическая ответственность: совпадение границ проблемного поля// Полития: Анализ. Хроника. Прогноз (Журнал политической философии и социологии политики). 2016. № 4 (83). С. 25-35.
  7. Форсайт-школа НТИ. RAPID FORSIGHT методология. Рабочие материалы. Версия 0.3 [электронный ресурс] // Ассоциация "Саморегулируемая организация оценщиков "Экспертный совет". URL: https://srosovet.ru/content/editor/Metodichka_foresight.pdf (дата обращения: 10.09.2018).
  8. Lane J-E, Ersson S. The New Institutional Politics: Performance and Outcomes, London and New York: Routledge, 2000.
  9. March J.G., Olsen J.P. The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life, American Political Science Review. 1984. №78. Р. 734-749
  10. Ананишнев В.М. Социальная структура, социальные институты и процессы: монография. М.: ООО НИЦ "Инженер", 2013.
  11. Российская социологическая энциклопедия. Норма-Инфра М Москва, 1998.
  12. Green L. Тhe Authority of the State. Clarendon Press, 1990.
  13. Giddens A. Sociology. Cambridge, 1989.
  14. Thacker E. Networks, Swarms, Multitudes. Part One. [электронный ресурс] // CTheory. URL: http://www.ctheory.net/ articles.aspx?id=422 (дата обращения: 01.10.2019).
  15. Wolf M., Mcquitty S. Understanding the do-it-yourself consumer: DIY motivations and outcomes. AMS Review, 2011.
  16. Wehr К. DIY: The Search for Control and Self-Reliance in the 21st Century. Framing 21st Century Social Issues. Routledge, 2013.
  17. Institutions and Political Choice. On the Limits of Rationality. Amsterdam: VU Press, 1996.