Youth politics

What counts as political participation?

Actions by private citizens aimed at who governs and/or what they do

Institutional modes of voting

Established formal structures of political participation that are channeled through the government directly (i.e. voting, political parties, etc.)

Non-institutional modes of voting

impromptu, informal structures of political participation often formed by citizens and/or action groups (i.e. protests, digital, etc.)

Lifecycle change

The difference (increase or decrease) of political participation dependent on what stages of life you are at (i.e. younger people more willing to protest AND vote, whereas older people may ONLY vote)

Cohort imprint

The difference in political views based on age (i.e. older people often tend to be more conservative, whereas younger people tend to be more liberal)

Examples of major pitfalls in lifecycle/cohort research

Existing differences are interpreted differently by researchers, comparing young and older people used less frequently in recent studies, definitions on what youth-specific explanations are to be “engaged” are inconsistent

Define descriptive representation

The physical appearance of a political actor, including race and gender, but most importantly age

Define substantive representation

The actions and interest of a political actor, such as legislation or policy they advocate for

Reasons that age gaps are persistently seen

Lack of proportional representation and age barriers/term limits, age gaps varying per country, voters more likely to favor older candidates, parties won’t run younger candidates

Pitfalls in age inequality research include

Not enough data to support ‘affinity voting’ (people voting on candidate correlating with age), data not supporting that people prefer older candidates, no voter bias to explain shortage of youth in politics

Competing interpretations of youth skepticism

Youth questioning democracy does not equal disengagement, young people are generally more satisfied than older people with liberal democracy

Description of age-pattern findings without stereotyping

Young people’s critical views on democracy rarely turn into disengagement, different ages display different forms/propensities to engage in voting or protesting behaviors

Traditional assets of major U.S. mobilization

Village, religious, regional, ethnic identities, etc.

Associational/secondary assets of major U.S. mobilization

Labor unions, social clubs, agricultural cooperatives, educational institutions, etc.

Relation of U.S. mobilization assets to youth strengths/relative success

Combination of multiple social groups shows various sectors of society care for one “bigger picture” issue,

Relation of U.S. mobilization assets to youth weaknesses

Can bring about other issues while trying to negotiate a consensus about strategy in terms of tactics, goals, and targets

Collective behavior/strain

Classical theory; focused on system strains or breakdowns in society that lead to psychological distress and eventuate in social movements

Resources/networks

Resource mobilization theory; focus on the resources both included and excluded from social groups to sustain mobilization against powerful interests

Political opportunities/threats

Political process theory; shares both “good news” (i.e. institutional access, relaxation in governmental repression, scandal, etc.) and “bad news” (i.e. economic problems, erosion of rights, etc.) to explain why groups may mobilize more likely at these times

How emotions and identities complement resource/opportunity models

By movement leaders attempting to tap into specific emotions, they will generate or sustain mobilization among adherents, bystanders, and the larger public

Political perspective(s) that dominated research chronologically

Classical theories were most most prominent, with resource mobilization theories coming next in the 80’s, and then political process theory being the dominant one thereafter

Reasons universities are “protest hubs”

They promote political awareness and critical thinking through encouraging creative ways of working independently, as well as being stimulating grounds for democracy, citizen empowerment, and civil rights

Ways universities lower coordination costs and build networks

Universities promote a sense of shared identity and interests, which leads to easier connections to protesting and mobilizing movements than other counterparts

Issues often associated with campus protest

Widespread concerns such as human rights, racial inequities, gender inequalities, as well as more local concerns such as education reforms or university policies

Historical examples of protest hotbeds

University of Nairobi in the 60s-80s protesting with political literature, pamphlets, and political performances of plays and songs; various universities in China in 1989 protesting Tienanmen square incident in Beijing

Common misconceptions about youth protests

Young people are more violent and unruly, less prone to being repressed by the government, and are not in favor of democracy as other age groups

Drivers of future activism

Past protest levels, increasing food prices, declining satisfaction with life, and higher levels of urbanization

Digital activism

Internet-based, mostly social media driven, tool(s) that allows for mobilization and organization without relying on traditional media or established political institutions

Non-violent protest

Organized movements that include diverse groups of people and do not exert obstruction of law

Pre-emptive repression

Theory that suggest governments are more likely to shut down violent movements due to the idea that youth are inherently more violent (also includes the fear of detention of protestors, intimidation, harassment, and prosecution)

Framing

Marking a position by campaigning and marketing a solution (diagnosing a problem, giving a solution)