State youth policy and political identity formation: between tradition and innovation

The state youth policy has been analyzed in the context of forming political identity, considered at the intersection of traditional and innovative mechanisms. The relevance of the research topic is determined by the need to find effective tools for social consolidation and to compare the legacy of Soviet models of socialization with modern digital practices. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of forming youth political identity in modern Russia and to determine the state’s role in this process, considering the stable institutions of the past and the new challenges of digitalization. The methodological basis of the study is aninterdisciplinary approach combining political, sociological, and psychological analysis. It is complemented by the historical and comparative method, which makes it possible to correlate the Soviet and modern experience. The theoretical section reveals the multidimensional nature of the identity concept through socio-constructivist, psychological, communicative, and institutional approaches. Based on the Soviet period material (1920–1930s), it has been shown that political identity was formed mainly through institutionalization, ideologization, and paternalism, ensuring the system stability at the cost of limiting the subjectivity of youth. The modern digital environment, on the contrary, is characterized by polycentricity, fragmentation, and hybrid identity. The algorithmic logic of platforms, visual communication formats, and the impact of influencers enhance the mosaic of perception, forming a more flexible and individualized subjective identity. The key impact factors are digital platform algorithms, blogging, visual culture, and soft power 2.0 practices, where political meanings are integrated into entertainment content. It has been proved that the state youth policy is developing today between tradition and innovation, and this requires forming a hybrid model. Such a model should combine value bases with modern digital engagement formats, critical thinking development and participatory platforms creation for dialogue with young people. This is what will make it possible to adapt youth policy to the challenges of the digital age and contribute to a consolidating social ideology formation.

1. Anderson B. Imaginary communities: refl ions on the origins and spread of nationalism. Moscow: Canon-Press-C; 2001. 286 p. (In Russian).

2. Baudrillard J. Simulacra and simulations. Moscow: Postum; 2015. 238 p. (In Russian).

3. Berdnikova E.V., Kulikova S.A. Political and legal mechanisms of formation of the Russian constitutional identity in the information society. Proceedings of the Saratov University. Economy. Management. Law. 2023;4(23):460–470. (In Russian). https:// doi.org/10.18500/1994-2540-2023-23-4-460-470

4. Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality. A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Moscow: Medium; 1995. 323 p. (In Russian).

5. Castells M. The power of communication. 3rd ed. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publ. House; 2020. 591 p. (In Russian).

6. Dugin A.G. The War of the Continents. The modern world in the geopolitical coordinate system. 2nd ed. Moscow: Academic Project; 2015. 359 p. (In Russian).

7. Dunas D.V. Media and socialization: primary, secondary or self-socialization? The experience of studying the media consumption of the digital youth of Russia. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philology. 2022;78:200–224. (In Russian). https://10.17223/19986645/78/12

8. Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis. Moscow: Progress; 1996. 344 p. (In Russian).

9. Evseeva L.N. The role of language in the formation of national identity. Abstr. Dis. ... Cand. Sci. (Philos.). Arkhangelsk; 2009. 21 p. (In Russian).

10. Frumkin K.G. Global changes in thinking and the fate of textual culture. Ineternum. 2010;1:26–36. (In Russian).

11. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press; 1990. 188 p.

12. Goncharova I.V., Chuvardin G.S., Sudorgin O.A. Youth as the social base of the agrarian transformation of Soviet Russia in the 1920s – early 1930s: problem statement. Scientifi notes of OSU. 2024;2:26–31. (In Russian). https://10.33979/19982720202410222630

13. Habermas Yu. Moral consciousness and communicative action. St. Petersburg: Nauka; 2001. 380 p. (In Russian).

14. Howe N., Strauss V. The fourth transformation: how American generations shape the future of the nation. Moscow: AST; 2005. 445 p. (In Russian).

15. Ilyinsky I.M. State youth policy in the USSR. Moscow: Moscow University for the Humanities Publ. House; 2017. 432 p. (In Russian).

16. Istyagina-Eliseeva E.A. Military-patriotic education of youth by means of sports and the GTO complex in the period 1917–1940. Historical and socio-educational thought. 2015;6(7):49–51. (In Russian).

17. Kara-Murza S.G. Soviet civilization. Vol. 1. Moscow: Algorithm; 2007. 544 p. (In Russian).

18. Lapin N.I. Socio-cultural factors of Russian stagnation and modernization. Sociological research. 2011;9:3–18. (In Russian).

19. Legenina T.B. Formation of political identity. Modern science and innovation. 2017;1:235–238. (In Russian).

20. Mannheim K. The problem of generations. In: Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge: The problem of generations – competitiveness – economic ambitions. Moscow: INION RAS; 2000. Pp. 8–63. (In Russian).

21. March J.G., Olsen J.P. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review. 1984;3(78):734–749.

22. Mead M. Culture and the world of childhood. Moscow: Nauka; 1988. 429 p. (In Russian).

23. Nikitina T.I., Nikitin A.A. The main aspects of the impact of media environment transformation on media consumption of Russian youth. Kazan Social and Humanitarian Bulletin. 2023;3(60):38–43. (In Russian).

24. Penner R.V. Digital identity as a new form of social recognition. Abstr. Dis. ... Dr. Sci. (Philos.). Saratov; 2023. 38 p. (In Russian).

25. Semenenko I.S. (ed.) Political identity and identity politics. Vol. 1. Identity as a category of political science: dictionary of terms and concepts. Moscow: ROSSPEN; 2012. 208 p. (In Russian).

26. Smirnov A.I., Kokhtyulina I.N. Global security and Soft Power 2.0: challenges and opportunities for Russia. Moscow: VNIIgeosystem; 2012. 252 p. (In Russian).

27. Sudorgin O.A., Agafonov A.V. The impact of digitalization on the formation of modern youth political leadership. Upravlenie / Management (Russia). 2024;2(12):99–108. (In Russian).

28. Tajfal G. Social identity and intergroup relations. In: Modern foreign Social Psychology. Moscow: MSU Publ. House; 1984. Pp. 227–231. (In Russian).

29. Tishkov V.A. Russian identity: internal and external challenges. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2019;4(89):408–412. (In Russian).

30. Tsybulsky E.V., Chugunov A.I., Yukht A.I. Border troops of the USSR. 1939 – June 1941. Moscow: Nauka; 1970. 822 p. (In Russian).

31. Yaroslavsky E.M., Pospelov P.N. A short course in the history of the CPSU(b). Moscow: Gospolitizdat; 1938. 352 p. (In Russian).

32. Zinchenko V.P., Meshcheryakov B.G. Psychological dictionary. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press; 1999. 440 p. (In Russian).