Political identity of Russian youth in self-assessments and experts’ assessments

   The article presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of such a significant element of the collective consciousness of Russian youth as political identity. The authors share the conventional understanding of political identity as attributing oneself to certain political views, parties, politicians and public opinion leaders, as well as certain ideological values. The article leverages the data from online survey of Russian youth and expert survey of scientists, political authorities, and political youth activists and leaders conducted in October–November 2022. The mass online survey was accomplished in the online questionnaire mode, while conducting an expert survey, the method of non-standardized interview was applied to collect information, as well as the method of discourse analysis was used for processing. The study reflected the persistence of a significant group of young people with an unformed set of political identity, as well as the inhomogeneity of indicators of political identity in different age subgroups of generations z and y. In modern conditions, political parties as identification objects are unattractive to young people by contrast with bloggers and public opinion leaders. Russian youths party identity rates are significantly lower than ones of political attitudes and orientations. The demand of young people for the value of justice, which is combined in their minds with the values of freedom and human rights, remains extremely high. The results of the study indicate a deficit of political socialization institutions in the process of forming the political identity of the Russian youth.

1. Achen C., Bartels L. Democracy for realists. Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2016, 424 p.

2. Aleksandrova Yu. A. Political trust as a managerial resource in the system of socio-political relations of modern Russia. Legal culture. 2017, N 3 (30), P. 50–57. (In Russ.)

3. Barreneche S. Mind the Gap! On the discursive construction of collective political identities. Punctum. 2020, N 6 (2), P. 11–27. doi: 10.18680/HSS.2020.0019

4. Boix C. The emergence of parties and party systems. In: Boix C., Stokes S. C. (eds). The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2007, P. 499–521.

5. Chen S., Urminsky O. The role of causal beliefs in political identity and voting. Cognition. 2019, N 188, P. 27–38.

6. Djuyandi Y., Ramadhani R. The effectiveness of political identity in post 212 movement. Central European journal of international and security studies. 2020, N 13 (4), P. 456–468.

7. Grishin N. The state identity policy: a new bet in the political struggle? Tomsk State university journal of philosophy, sociology and political science. 2020, N 55, P. 231–239. doi: 10.17223/1998863X/55/23 (In Russ.)

8. Guest G., Bunce A., Johnson L. How Many Interviews Are Enough? Field Methods. 2006, Vol. 18, N. 1. Р. 59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903

9. Hernández-Lagos P., Minor D. Political Identity and Trust. Quarterly journal of political science. 2020, N 15 (3), P. 337–367. doi: 10.1561/100.00018063

10. Huddy L. From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory. Political psychology. 2001, N 22 (1), P. 127–156.

11. Kahn D. T., Reifen Tagar M., Halperin E., Bäckström M., Vitriol J.A., Liberman V. If they can’t change, why support change? Implicit theories about groups, social dominance orientation and political identity. Journal of social and political psychology. 2018, N 6 (1), P. 151–173. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v6i1.752

12. Kim C., Han D., Duhachek A. Political identity, preference, and persuasion. Social influence. 2018, N 13 (4), P. 177–191. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2018.1518786

13. Liu X. Interviewing Elites: Methodological Issues. Confronting a Novice. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2018, Vol. 17. Р. 1–9. doi: 10.1177/1609406918770323

14. Meléndez C., Rovira Kaltwasser C. Political identities: the missing link in the study of populism. Party politics. 2019, N 25 (4), P. 520–533. doi: 10.1177/1354068817741287

15. Mosley L. (ed.) Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell University: Cornell Paperbacks, 2013. 301 р.

16. Nieuwenhuyse K., Wils K. Historical narratives and national identities. A qualitative study of young adults in Flanders. Journal of Belgian history. 2015, Vol. XLV (4), P. 40–73.

17. Popova O. V. The Matrix of state identity in the post-truth era. In: Gaman-Golutvina O. V., Smorgunov L. V., Timofeeva L. N. (eds). Time for big changes: politics and politics: proceedings of the all-Russian scientific conference. Moscow: RUDN, 2017, P. 291–292. (In Russ.)

18. Popova O. V., Lagutin O. V. Political moods of youth: loyalty or protest? RUDN journal of political science. 2019, N 21 (4), P. 599–619. doi: 10.22363/2313-1438-2019-21-4-599-619 (In Russ.)

19. Roberts K. Populism and political parties. In: Rovira Kaltwasser C., Taggart P. A., Ochoa Espejo P., Ostiguy P. (eds). The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford: Oxford, 2018, P. 287–304.

20. Rose R., Mishler W. Negative and positive party identification in post-communist countries. Electoral studies. 1998, N 17 (2), P. 217–234.

21. Slocum-Bradley N. Identity construction in Europe: a discursive approach. Identity. 2010, N 10 (1), P. 50–68.

22. Smorgunov L. V. Political identity and the concept of the political. Polis. Political studies. 2012, N 6, P. 178–185. (In Russ.)

23. Soest Ch. von, Why Do We Speak to Experts? Reviving the Strength of the Expert Interview Method. Perspectives on Politics, First View, 2022, P. 1–11. doi: 10.1017/S1537592722001116.