Справка об автореАвтор: Дибоу Татьяна Александровна (дата рождения 06.04.1981)in English: Dibou T.AМесто учебы: аспирантка, Таллинский Университет, ИнститутПолитических наук и государственного управления, ЭстонияIn English: PhD student, Tallinn Uniniversity, Institute of Political science and GovernanceКонтакная информация: dibouta@hotmail.com Форма участия: заочная

Тема: Вовлечение и участие молодежиTheme: Youth engagement and participation

АннотацияОбзор литературы по теме молодежной гражданской активностипоказал, что в данной сфере более высокий уровень размытости вприменение понятий "гражданское" и "политическое"; "участие" и"вовлечение". Таким образом, ключевым вопросом работы являетсяизучение этих понятий. Комплексный анализ концепций предлагаетболее эффективный способ понять что мы понимаем подгражданской активностью молодежи. Ученые в молодежной сфереопределили, что не все активные действия молодых людей вобществе следует рассматривать как гражданское участиевовлеченость . Кроме того, в определении основных терминовгражданской активности, ученые часто впадают в долгие дебаты отом, как эти понятия должны быть измерены. Поэтому даннаястатья также рассматривает некоторые способы измерения уровнягражданской активности и охватывает вопросы молодежнойнеактивности и помагает найти ответы на вопросы: почемугражданская вовлеченность молодежи важна и кто может извлечь изэтого пользу? Ключевые слова: молодежь, молодежное гражданское участие,гражданство, молодежное политическое участие, вовлечениемолодежи, гражданское вовлечение молодежи, неактивностьмолодежи

Abstract

The review of the literature on the theme of youth civic activism have shownthat it is higher level of fuzziness in the youth field with the application ofconcepts 'civic' and 'political'; 'engagement' and 'participation'. Therefore, thekey issue of the paper is to explore these concepts. Comprehensive analysis ofthe concepts offers a more effective way to understand youth civic activism. Afocus on the youth involvement in civil society brings to discuss about variousforms of youth activism. Scholars in youth field identify that not every actionof young people in society should be seen as the full of value. Additionally todefining the main terms of civic activism, the scholars often flow into longdebates about how these terms should be measured. Therefore the paperbrings some ways of measurement the level of civic engagement and coversthe issues of youth disengagement and find the answer to the questions: whyyouth civic activism is important, who can benefit from it? The article istheoretical and youth civic activism will be analyzed through a review ofliterature.Keywords: youth, young people, civic engagement, citizenship, youth political engagement, youth participation, civic participation, youth participation, youth disengagement.INTRODUCTION

There are numerous scholars across many disciplinesand throughout the world working in the area of the civicengagement and participation. A lot of scientificprofessionals in psychology, education, political scienceand sociology have drawn their special attention to thetopic of civic activism of youth. The fall of BerlinWall, followed by monumental political and educationalchanges in Eastern Europe set the stage for attention tothis area. Nowadays more than one quarter of the world’spopulation (1.7 billion) is aged between 10 to 24-years;this represents proportionately the largest group inhistory ever to be entering adulthood. [1] The growingrecognition, that young people is one of the largestsegment of the world’s population, and specificconditions that affect youth civic activism, such asinformation communication technology need to be takeninto account by educators and policy makers, who areworking in the area of civil society and democracy.

2

In the 21 century youth activism in civil society isa certainly interesting, multifaceted and complexresearch topic. This paper main idea is to look at youthcivic activism from the point of civic participation andengagement, to understand concepts of civic engagementand participation of youth, to search arguments for andagainst youth civic engagement in the 21 century.

Studying the civic youth engagement andparticipation, one of most problematic question itself isto define these two concepts: civic participation andcivic engagement. The review of the literature on themeof youth civic activism have shown that it is higherlevel of conceptual fuzziness in the civic engagement andparticipation applications. Some authors even don'tdistinct two concepts and have given to them the samedefination and meaning. Other misunderstanding isconcerned about distinguishing beween concepts :„Political“and „Civic“. That's why in this paper one of it's objectiveis to concrete that is the youth civic participation andcivic engagement and to find the links between them. Alsoto answer why youth civic engagement and participationare important, who can benefit from it? Civic engagementand participation it is a broad topic itself.Additionally to defining these terms, the scholars oftenflow into long debates about how these terms should bemeasured. The author would like to find some ways ofmeasuring the level of civic participation of a youthfulgroup.

The paper has several objectives :-To examine the different theoretical concepts of

youth civic participation and engagement in order tocreate a map of the field;

-To study the effects of youth civic participationand engagement, how can society benefit from youth civicpartcipation in order to understand the role of youth inthe modern society and to highlight the importance ofyouth civic engagement;

3

-To provide a brief overview of he level of youthcivic engagement and participation in the 21st century,showing such problems as youth disengagement and to findmain reasons why do youth disengage from social life.

I have chosen to study this topic of youth civicengagement and participation, because I am interested inthe youth politics. Nowadays one of youth politicsproblem is that youth are not still enough involved indecision making process, very often youth's interests arenot included in the state development programms and stateactions don't meet the needs of the modern youth.Unfortunately, one of the reason of such youthdisengagement is that politicians have a special line ofthinking that youth is a danger or a problem, not as apotential valuable resourse. Active youth civicparticipation plays an essential role for youth itselfand for society, that's why youth can not be taken awaythen we talk about civil society and as it is said in thetitle of the European Commission's paper on Youth in 2001„ There are no democracy without participation“. Youth civicparticipation is one of main parts of growing activecitizens.1. DEFINING AND LINKING YOUTH CIVIC PARTICIPATION ANDENGAGEMENT

In the begining of analyzing the theme, I would liketo determine „youth“ itself in the context of this paper.There are different definations, who can be called„young“. This paper have no objective to analyze variousconcepts and definations of „young people“ , there is nodoubt that it is another separate research or discussion.For this paper, I have stopped and taken intoconsideration only 3 concepts:

-the EU concept of youth, where young are personsbetween the ages of 13-30 years;

-the United Nation concept, where young are personsbetween the ages of 15-24.

One of most important question itself is concernedabout what we mean by civic participation and engagement.

4

According to the most visited website as wikipedia.org,both civic engagement and civic participation has beendefined as "individual and collective actions designed toidentify and address issues of public concern.“[2] Forme, as for many other readers, it will be veryprovocative and vague explanaition of actually twodifferent concepts. Wikipedia.org is not only onereference, where you can find merging the two conceptsinto one. One reason for such kind fuzziness can beexplained that two concepts are very closely linked toecah other, and we can not explain one concept withoutusing other. But let's try to understand each one of thisconceptions by analyzing some definations, that have beengiven by several authors in the field of civic activism.

Starting with youth civic engagement, some of authorsconceive civic engagement as being a good neighbour,obeying the rules, respecting community values, andvolunteering. Others think of civic engagement asdistinctly connected to political processes such asvoting, being involved in political campaigns, andunderstanding current issues and policies. [3]

For example, we can look at youth civic engagement as“working (that involves developing the combination ofknowledge, skills, values, and motivation) to make adifference in the civic life of one’s community.” [4] Themore concrete explanation of civic engagement is given byBoyte 2005, who looks at engagement as at the process:“Civic engagement is a process in which people takecollective action to address issues of public concern. Itincludes effects by people to participate in the publicdecisions that affect their lives, and by civic agenciesto involve people in their proceedings. It involves„people as citizens“in „public work“and „civic activities“that arelimitless in number”

This last definition shows to us, that civicengagement is the process and there are no single form ofcivic engagement. As the find civic engagement as theprocess it will be useful to concrete, that it is

5

„developmental process”, as many youth field scholars believethat “over time young people will grow to be activecitizens so long as they are provided with a strong senseof identity, self-worth, responsibility and confidence,all of which are required to successfully navigate theresponsibilities of active citizenship. [3]

For confirmation that civic engagement can takevarious forms, we can find another definition. Accordingto Scopol and Fiorina (1999) civic engagement representsthe network of ties and groups through which peopleconnect to one another and get drawn into community andpolitical affairs. Also for Putnam, “civic engagementhistorically has come in many sizes and shapes” and hisreview for example of civic engagement in US includesactivity in politics and public affairs, involvement incommunity associations (clubs and community associations,religious bodies, and work related organizations, such asunions and professional societies, and informalassociations and activities”.

Bell (2004) further developed the distinctive natureof enagagement and participation. Engagement is a genericor umbrella term covering a range of activities. Thesecan include information giving and receiving andconsulting on specific issues. Participation refers toyoung people taking an active part in a project orprocess, not just as consumers but as key contributors tothe direction and implementation of work carried out. [5]

Analyzing various authors, I have found that fourinterrelated constructs have been identified in theresearch literature as necessary for civic engagement:-Civic action or participation;-Civic commitment or duty, or willingness to makepositive contributions to society;-Civic skills, or the ability to be involved in civilsociety, politics, and democracy;-Social cohesion or a sense of reciprocity, trust, andbonding to others.

6

According to these constructs of civic engagement wecan distinguish engagement from participation. Civicengagement isn’t restricted to physical activity, civicengagement includes also psychological engagement incivil society. Civic engagement refers to actions,beliefs and knowledge that link citizens on theirsocieties and that establish the basis of cooperativebehaviour.

These and other definitions suggest that civicengagement is a broader concept than civic participation.As for definition of civic participation, it can beexplained as a physical action or activity of youngpeople throughout their communities. Here there is nodoubt, that one question that should be considered:Should we distinguish concept of „civic participation“and„political participation“. Question can be also raisedas: what activities are „civic“and what not?

Looking for answer, I have found that „civic“ conceptis not the same thing as “political”. “Political” dimension isexpressed through voting, demonstrations, signingpetitions and work with political organizations. „Civic“may be a broader construct—one that goes beyond a focussolely on the procedural aspects of democracy (voting orjoining a political party) to one that embraces the manyfacets of a deliberative democracy. This includes whatPutnam has called the ability to engage in a “civicconversation,” through which people are able to weigh oneanother’s views fairly and civilly, take responsibilityfor their own views, and test them in a give-and-takewith others. [3] Blurring boundaries of politicalparticipation and civic participation has becomeattractive also at European level. Here, participation isconnected to democracy without being restricted toelections (partly also because of the limited scope ofelections).

Also we can see that political participation refersto the relationship between individual and society interms of citizen and state, but civic participation refer

7

to the relationship between the individual self and agroup or community. The political term of participationhas both individual and collective aspects; terms such ascivil society and civic participation primarily refer tocollective action: membership, especially activemembership, in associations and organisations. It isespecially in this regard that (new) social movementsdeserve mentioning (although overlapping with politicalparticipation). Referendums, initiatives anddemonstrations related to political issues into politicalparticipation are other forms of which some refer toissues of the official policy agenda while others referto issues which apparently are non-political. Youthcouncils and forums might also be listed here in as muchas they are located somewhere between contributing tocommunity life and the official political agenda. [5]

No doubt that civic participation includes politicalparticipation, but these concepts are not the same thing,and maintaining the conception distinction is essential.Alhthough civic participation includes a broad spectrumof activities, many schoolars agree that not allactivities can be valued as civic participation. Nextpart of the work, I would like to find answer for thequestion what activities can be valued as civic. In orderto answer this question it neccessary to analyze variouslevels and forms of youth participation.2.FORMS AND LEVELS OF YOUTH CIVIC PARTICIPATION

According to several youth filed researches youthparticipation can occur in following forms: communityorganizations (e.g., doing volunteer work helpingpeople); youth organizations (e.g., help plan events, runprograms); music (e.g., playing in a band, schoolorchestra); sports; ethnic/cultural organizations;work/career/employment; school; social activism (e.g.,working on an issue for social change); politics (e.g.volunteering for a political party);religion/spirituality.

8

But not all activities can be valued as „civic“. Herewe have to stop on such aspect as the quality of actionsor activities. Quality means in this context that youngpeople can influence a decision or affect an outcome. Asfor example, Arnstein defines civic participation as thepower of „have- nots“ to influence agency decisions. Sheformulates a „ladder of participation“ ( 8 rungs: CitizenPower: Citizen Control, Delegated Power, Partnership;Tokenism: Placation, Consultation, Informing;Nonparticipation: Therapy, Manipulation) in which eachrung corresponds to the power of under represented groupsto influence decisions and she concludes thatpowerholders often „manipulate“ rather than „empower“these groups. Thus when an powerholders holds communitymeetings for people after decisions are already made,these activities are „token“ but not „real“. This holdstrue for young people; who are usually have-nots ininfluencing powerholders decisions. Arnstein ladder ofparticipation has led to many critics as in some waysthe ladder was stereotypical, presenting stages withlittle reference to context, were they actually enablingyoung people to participate effectively or were theyindeed ‘agents of social control’

Another famous model of youth participation levelswas presented by Hart. (Figure 1) Hart’s model haveutility in identifying the false types of participation.Participation in decision making simply means ‘takingpart’. This covers a huge range of possibilities. Theimplication suggested in Hart’s model is that the ‘lowerrungs’ are of little value. The reality may be howeverthat young people may not be ready to climb the ladderand that a more gradualist approach based on adultadvocacy is more sustainable.

9

Figure 1. Hat's model of youth participation.

Inspired by Hart's model, the Dutch youthorganisation, CHOICE for Youth and Sexuality, has createdThe Flower of Participation (Figure 2) which better illustratesdifferent forms of youth participation, where differentforms of participation can suit different forms of needs.All forms of participation are following [6]:-Manipulation. This is the case when young people don’thave any understanding of the issues and therefore don’tunderstand their actions. For example when a four yearold AIDS orphan is shaking the hand of President Bush tomake him invest more in orphans.-Decoration. This looks very much like manipulation but inthis case young people might understand their actions.However, young people are just used to bolster theadult’s cause (support their problem) in an indirect way.Adults do not pretend that the case they are fighting foris inspired by young people. An example could be youngpeople who are singing to the delegates at the opening ofa conference on youth.-Tokenism. Young people are given a voice, but in facthave little voice about the subject orthe style ofcommunicating it and little or no opportunity toformulate their own opinions.This can be the case when

10

children are taking seat on conference panels or whenyouth is ina delegation but not allowed to say anything.-Assigned but informed. This can be seen as the start ofparticipation. Young people now understand the aim of theproject, they know who made the decisions concerningtheir involvement and why and they have a meaningfulrole. They volunteered for this project after the projectwas made clear to them. An example might be a communityactivity which was planned by adults, but youth joins inthe activity-Consulted and informed. Project is designed and run byadults, but young peopleunderstand the process, are consulted and their opinionsare treated seriously.-Adult-initiated, shared decisions with youth. Though the projectsare initiated by adults, the decision-making is sharedwith young people.-Youth-initiated and directed. When the conditions aresupportive (adult support), youth can work together co-operatively in large groups and design and run their ownprojects.-Youth-initiated, shared decisions with adults. This would be thecase when young peopleask adults to join in a certainactivity that is initiated by the youth. [6]

11

Figure 2. Flower of participation.[6]An alternative model can be taken from Treseder

(1997). This model (Figure 3) recognises that differentlevels of participation are valid for different youngpeople at different times, according to their own wishes,as well as what is possible or an organisation. Tresederstressed that these forms of activity should be perceivedas ‘equal but different’ in terms of the particularcontext and also the methodology deployed to encourageparticipation. The framework proposed by Treseder isperhaps more pragmatic and accepting of adult involvementin seeking to involve young people. [5]

12

Figure 3. Treseder model of youth participation.Another youth participation model that can be viewed

here is Shier’s model, where she outlines five levels ofparticipation that are:-Youth are listened to;-Youth are supported in expressing their views;-Youths’ views are taken into account;-Youth are involved in the decision-making process;-Youth share power and responsibility for decision-making.

At each level the individual has different degrees ofcommitment. This is clarified by identifying three stagesof commitment at each level as openings,opportunities.and obligations. The model proposed byShier is in contrast to other hierarchical participationmodels in that it focuses not only on what young peopleneed to do to progress, but importantly what theorganisation needs to do to create participative access.

13

The models presented thus far do clarify theconceptualisation of factors which influence theparticipation of young people. This opportunity howevermust be complemented by local knowledge of specificcontexts and the underlying processes which influence theadult-young person relationship. Arnstein’s Ladder ofParticipation may have application in promotingdemocratic involvement, particularly in local governmentcontexts, but the reformulation offered by Hart may bemore useful for some, given its more flexible reasoning.The Treseder model places much more emphasis on powersharing moving towards more gradual achievement ofdemocratic youth participation. Importantly, it alsosuggests that consultation may be more appropriate forsome young people. This ‘readiness to participate’ themeis further developed in Shier’s work, which emphasisesthe rights of young people and the ability of those whowork with young people to respond effectively. In someways these models may all represent a misleading pictureof how young people do and might participate in civiclife. In practice, participation may have a dynamic whichis much more complex than these models suggest. That'swhy one more problematic question in regard of youthcivic participation and engagement is the measurement howeffectively youth are engaged in civil society and how wecan measure youth civic participation.3.PROBLEMS WITH MEASUREMENT OF PARTICIPATION ANDENGAGEMENT

Discussions about the definition of civic engagementand partcipation and related terms often flow intodebates about how it should be measured. Politicalscientists often focus on voting as a measure of civicengagement or democratic participation. Others argue thatvoting and knowledge of democratic and governmentprocedures are insufficient measures of civic engagementbecause they “assume a limited view of citizenship” that

14

may underestimate the responsibilities and challenges forcitizens in a participatory. [3]

Several efforts to define indicators and measurecivic particapation was made by Ben- Arieh, Kaufman,Andrews, Goerge, Lee and Aber, who have included in theirworks indicators of civic participation as following [7]:a) civic and community awareness (measures of civicawareness include youths' knowledge of democraticinstitutions and principles, youths' knowledge of currentevents and opportunieties for civic involvement, theirunderstanding of democratic processes, and their self-reports of concern for social problems);b)civic and community values (measuring civic valuesamong youth include beliefs in the importance ofcontributing to the community and society (e.g.,community service, voting), and tolerance for expressionof minorty viewpoints; c)civic and community activities;d)opportunities for civic and community activities.

Common measures of civic participation also includedO'Neil 2006 in her works such indicators as politicalinterest, media consumption and political knowledge, inthat these provide a measure of the degree to which arementally participating in society. It is for sure, thatit is a long list of things that we can measure in orderto find answer for the question: how active are youth incivil life and how effectively they are engaged.

But problems of measurement are closely connectedwith qualitative and quantative indicators ofmeasurement. As for aquantiative indicator, what can beeasily measured and is more concrete, the problem is:does it give to us the whole picture of level of youthparticipation in civil life or not? As for measurementyouth civic participation, it can be easily taken intoconsideration only quantitave indicators as numbr ofyouth civic activities, projects, youth organizations,number of young people who have taken part in such

15

activities or are members of youth organization, numberof young volunteers, number of political voters amongyouth people, or may be quantatitive analysis ofknowledge how much youth know about politics and civilsosiety and etc.

But as concerning youth civic engagement it will bemore difficult to take into account only quantativeindicators as it was define before, civic enagement ismore psychological activity than psychical activity, thatit seems impossible to measure just in numbers. What canindicate succesfull youth civic engagement or how do weknow from the way that youth thinks that he or she isengaged in an activity or with an organization? One wayto answer these questions is to analyze how engaged youthact, how engaged youth feel and how engaged youth think.(Figure 4).

HOW DO ENGAGED YOUTH ACT?An engaged youth:• performs the activity or spends time with the organization frequently• talks to others about the activity/organization• initiates the activity him/herself (rather than at the suggestion or urging ofothers)• participates actively and regularly, with a specific purpose in mind• brings other people to the activity/organization and seeks out others with similar interests• leads and organizes others who are involved in the activity/organization• advocates energetically on behalf of the activity/organization• seeks adult support and

HOW DO ENGAGED YOUTH FEEL?An engaged youth:• cares about the activity/organization with which he or she is involved• derives a sense of belonging from the activity/organization and feels connectedto the people in the activity/organization• finds the activity or participation in the activity fun or enjoyable• feels that the activity is meaningful -that it's an important and worthwhile thing to be doing• feels that the activity is an importantpart of his or her identity• derives a sense of pride, accomplishment or satisfaction from achievements in the activity/organization• gains a feeling of competence and senseof control over events related to the activity or organization (agency, effectance)• feels disappointment, sadness or frustration when participation in the activity is blocked or things are not

16

structure when needed, acts independently when appropriate

going well

HOW DO ENGAGED YOUTH THINK?An engaged youth:

• thinks the activity/organization is an important one• is well-informed about the activity/organization

• sees an important sense of purpose in the activity/organizationFigure 4. Measuring youth civic engegement

It is complex qualitative analysis, that needs to usedifferent methods as interviews and observations. As itis descriptive analysis we come up to such problems asthe objectivity of such measurement. That's why if wehave some information and statistics about youth civicparticipation and engagement we should not be too hastyto declare it absolute or irreversible.

In the next part of the paper we will give a shortoverview of youth civic engagement and participation,trying to discover for and againt arguments of civicyouth engagagement and understand that factors caninfluence these phenomenon.

4.DISENGAGEMENT AND ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST CIVICYOUTH ENGAGEMENTThe role of young people as a social and political

force is largely a recent feature in Western societies.In the 1960s, opposition to the Vietnam War, the struggleagainst racial inequality in the United States and theevents of May 1968 in France were high points in youthpolitical assertiveness. Today, however, young peopleseem to exhibit disengagement from the civic sphere and ageneral loss of interest in public affairs. Thisphenomenon has been reported in numerous countries,including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canadaand Russia. [8]

Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University studying civicdisengagement suggested a number of factors that mayexplain such civic disengagement: demographic factors,age group factors, technological progress, and the

17

expansion of governments and the strength ofbureaucracies. Additionally to Putnam factors, by otherscholars following factors are outlined:-Family practises: in particular, the communication and engagement practises of parents vis-a-vis their children;-Social trust: that is, the belief on the part of youththat „ most people are generally fair and helpful“, alongwith social trust`s link to youth`s connection to thecommunity or polity;-Spaces and practise within university: the degree towhich university spaces are inclusive for youth,including openness to differing opinions, value andpositions, as well as space and voice for youth to definegroup goals. The degree to which educators, professorsand other staff practise, model and exemplify civicbehavior inside the classroom and on campus. Support forthe polity and its principles can come through proximalauthority figures like teachers, school administrations,coaches and so on as youth learn to accept the mostdistal authority of the state as legitimate and binding-Participation in extra-curricular activities: whether atschool and non-formal youth organizations „offers youngpeople opportunities to explore what it means to be amember of public, and to work out the reciprocity betweenrights and obligations in meaning citizenship. [21]

These factors may of course partly explain civicdisengagement among young people, but other assumptionsmust also be made. For example, living in communitieswhere insecurity and violence predominate and poverty isa daily reality may explain why some young people nolonger want to get more involved in society. Lack ofsafety leads to feelings of mistrust of adults and ofthose who are supposed to protect young people.

Civic disengagement is probably the most apparent inthe area of democratic participation. Some researchershave emphasized that multicultural societies find it hardto promote civic engagement among youth from socio-cultural backgrounds that differ from that of the core

18

cultural group. Sometimes the consequence of diversityamong youth is a different vision of participation indemocratic life. Other American researchers contend thatadults may have a negative perception of youth and theirability to take a genuine part in the democratic process.This perception breeds mutual mistrust, which makescooperation between the two groups difficult. Buildingbridges with older generations and working in cooperationwith them is a continuous and often difficult matter ofstarting over again. One reason for youth civicdisengagement is also some kind of sceptic line ofthinking, that youth should not take an active part incivil sosiety, state should control the actions ofyouth. According to this line of thinking young peopleare social minors, vulnerable and in danger. Youngpeople’s development is threatened by lots of things, andthus they are in need of protection – including their ownbehaviour. Young people are conceived of as eitherpotential victims of their upbringing and conditions, oras victims and potential perpetrators because of theirpersonal traits and character. Which is in contrast toyouth as active participants in the continuousconstruction of society, youth life and their ownidentities. [9]

Youth mistrust of politics and politicians alsoshould not be overlooked as an explanation for low voterturnout among young people. Young people do not thinkthat politicians’ decisions affect them directly, they donot believe that casting a vote every few years can havea genuine influence on the decision-making process, andthey are skeptical about a system that concentrates powerin the hands of the executive to the detriment of thelegislative branch.

The role of information in the development of civicyouth engagement should be also outlined as the keyfactor that can increase youth civic engagement. Theunprecedented rise of information technology leads to newforms of youth civic engagement. It has been argued that

19

in British society, internet use by young people leads toa loss of civic engagement. Through the Internet, it isnow possible to access, almost instantaneously,information from foreign countries that previously tookdays, weeks or months to arrive. Issues of publicinterest no longer know borders, and people can nowdebate them almost instantly with anyone anywhere on theplanet.

Research carried out by Livingstone et al (2004)challenged this assertion, offering an insight into howyoung people participate civically on-line, with diversenetworks leading to new forms of activism. Kenway andBullen also refer to the influence of cyberspace and theimportance of young people being not only observers, butalso critical engagers in understanding the widerworld. Adapting the term ‘flaneur’ which means ‘a personwho saunters or strolls about’, they propose the conceptof ‘youthful cyberflaneurs’, defining young people asglobal citizens who are more than observers, but rathercritics and cultural producers. Nor should anyoneunderestimate the fact that the Internet and social mediahave changed the way in which young people communicateamong themselves and, very likely, the ways in which theycan and want to engage in civic life. [8]

In assessing the civic mindedness of youth, it isimportant to focus on their current interests and not onwhat might have been interests in another era. Seeminglyapathetic youth can suddenly become mobilized when theysee their interests at stake. For instance, 40,000Japanese junior high school students went on strike in1991 to protest repressive school conditions. Anotherexample, on their own initiative, twenty-three 10- to 13-year-old students in a poor province of India walked 3days to the district headquarters to protest theneglectful condition of their village school.. When theirfutures are at risk, youth are apt to become participantsand leaders in social movements aimed at reform. [10]

20

Although there are many factors that can influenceyouth civic engagement, civic engagement is criticallyimportant nowadays. There are several arguments for youthcivic engagement. All these arguments can be dividedinto two parts: one of them, that shows that youth itselfcan benefit from civic engagement; and anotherarguments, confirm that youth civic engagement giveadditional bonuses for society in the whole.

1) Benefits at the individual level.

First of all, youth civic engagement is significantfor youth itself. It is one of part to prepare youngpeople to be active citizens in a democracy. Researchershave defined five youth abilities developed due to civicengagement as follows:-a general improvement in social and school/universityskills; -greater self-confidence;-reinforced ties with family and peers;-reinforced moral values and integrity.

At the individual level, American researchers JamesYouniss and Miranda Yates surveyed 44 studies thatexplored the impact of youth participation in communitylife. Most of those studies found that civically engagedyoung Americans 12 to 24 years of age were more likelythan unengaged youths to meet personal and socialchallenges and to control their own lives. They enjoyedhigher self-esteem and a more acute sense of theirabilities.

2) Benefits for community.

Youth participation has significant benifits also forcommunities in which they participate. Youthparticipation in civil society also has long-termsignificance for their community, nation, and worldbeacuse of need to socialize the knowledge, skills,values, and attitudes that are fundamental to suistaining

21

democracy. For example, people can organize actiongroups, plan local programs, advocate in civic agences,raise awareness on issues, or provide community-basedservices. They can increase dialogue, challengediscrimimation, and address racial segregation as aforce. [3] Youth participation in policy formation canhelp to highlight the link between public spending(budgets) and youth development, to sensitize people inministries to the concerns of young people. In additionto influencing budgets so that they reflect the needs ofyouth, young people can also help to reform institutionsthat affect their lives. CONCLUSION

Our discussion of youth civic engagement andparticipation makes it possible now yo state and concisemain concepts of youth civic engagement and particpation.Civic engagement is broader concept than civicparticipation. Civic engagement is considered as process,and participation refers to young people physicalactivity. Civic engagement includes additionally tophysical activity also psychological engagement in civilsociety. In analysis of civic engagement andparticipation it is important to take into considerationthat „civic“ is more broader construct than “political”.Civic participation includes also politicalparticipation. But it is essential that civic activityshould have some quality or in other words some influenceas decision or affect at least community, whereyoungsters have take an active part. That’s why not allactivities can be valued as civic. Youth civicparticipation was explained trough various levels ofyouth participations in the models of participation Themodels presented in the paper have shown factors whichinfluence the participation of young people. For example,Arnstein’s ladder of participation may have applicationin promoting democratic involvement, particularly inlocal government contexts, the Treseder model places muchmore emphasis on power sharing moving towards more

22

gradual achievement of democratic youth participation.This ‘readiness to participate’ theme is furtherdeveloped in Shier’s work, which emphasises the rights ofyoung people and the ability of those who work with youngpeople to respond effectively.

Youth civic engagement has many positives impacts onyouth itself and for civil society in the whole. In orderto achieve sustainable youth civic engagement it isnecessary to pay attention to such factors as demography,family, educational establishments, social trust,technological progress and information and internet.

Problematic question itself is measurement of youthcivic participation and engagement. It is not onlyquantitative, but also complex qualitative analysis, thatneeds to use different methods as interviews andobservations. As it is descriptive analysis we come up tosuch problems as the objectivity of such measurement.That's why if we have some information and statisticsabout youth civic participation and engagement we shouldnot be too hasty to declare it absolute or irreversible.REFERENCES

1.United Nations.World Youth Report. The Global Situationof Young People. New York. United Nations, Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs. 2003

2.Wikipedia. Civic Engagement. [Электронный ресурс]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_engagement (датаобращения 24.01.2012)

3.Gibson, C., From inspiration to participation: a reviewof perspectives on youth civic engagement

4.Civic engagement. [Электронныйресурс]:http://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement.aspx(дата обращения 24.01.2012)

5.Barber, T., Young People and Civic Participation: Aconceptual review, Youth and Policy number 96 Summer2007, Published by The National Youth Agency, pp 19-44

6.Bergdorf, T., Problems and Possibilities Pertaining toMeaningful Youth Participation. 2008. [Электронный

23

ресурс]: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/9887/1/T%20Bergdorf.pdf], 10.12.2011(дата обращения 04.02.2012)

7.Kaufman, N., Rizzini, I., Globalization and children:exploring potentials for enhancing opportunities in thelives of chuldren and youth, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 2004

8.Menard, M., Youth civic engagement, Parliament of Canada,Social Affairs Division Parliamentary Information andResearch Service, Library of Parliament, Publication No.2010-23E. [Электронный ресурс]:http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-23-e.htm#txt21(дата обращения 04.02.2012)

9.Walther, A., Jensen, T.B. Youth Transitions, Youth Policyand Participation. Research Project YOYO. Co ordinated byIRIS, Tübingen. 2002

10. Youniss, J.; Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi,McLaughlin, M.; Silbereisen, R., Youth Civic Engagementin the Twenty-First Century, Journal of research aonadolescene, 12(1), 2002 , pp121–148

11. American Psychological Association. Civic engagement.[Электронный ресурс]:http://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement.aspx (дата обращения 27.12.2011)

12. Arnstein, S. A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4), 216-224. 1969

13. Bourn, D., Young people, identity and living in aglobal society, Development Education and Research,Autumn 2008. [Электронный ресурс]:http://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue7-focus4?page=show(дата обращения 27.12.2011)

14. Boyte, H., Everyday Politics Reconnecting Citizensand Public Life, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005,264 p

15. Camino, L., Zeldin, S., From periphery to center:pathways for youth civic engagement in the day-to-day

24

life of communities, Applied Developmental Science, 2002Vol.6, No.4, pp. 213-220

16. Hart, R.A. Children’s Participation: From Tokenism toCitizenship. (Innocenti Essays) No. 4. London: UnitedNations International Children’s Emergency Fund. 1992

17. Lerner, R., Fisher, C., Weinberg,R., Toward a Sciencefor and of the People: Promoting Civil Society throughthe Application of Developmental Science, ChildDevelopment, February 2000, Vol. 71, p. 16.

18. Mann, S., Patrick, J., Education for civic engagementin democracy, The ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studie.2000.176 p

19. Skocpol, T., Fiorin, M., Civic engagement in Americandemocracy. 1999

20. O'Neil, B., Human capital, civic engagement andpolitical participation: turning skills and knowledgeinto engagement and action, Canadian Policy ResearchNetworks. 2006

21. Putnam, R. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon andSchuster.2002

25