.png)
Rethinking Youth Apathy: Civic Engagement in the Digital Age
- Mar 4
- 3 min read
Written by Saneya Mohamed
Edited by Piotr Mateusz Kukula, Francesca Howard, and Annika Lilja
Youth, from the perspective of the older generation, are considered highly politically apathetic. Whether it’s the lack of young voters or the indifference to global issues, this is how most studies describe the trends of youth in the United States that make them come to the conclusions about what age groups are and aren’t politically apathetic. Contrary to institutional belief, young people ages 14-24 are more politically active than standard metrics can quantify. Most studies use factors such as voting, consumption of news, protesting, and involvement in campaigning. While these can often give a basic understanding of involvement, many people find themselves civically engaged beyond these generalized means of grouping.
After I conducted a preliminary survey of a diverse group (diverse in age, race, borough and interests) of 27 young people ages 14-24 in NYC, it was found that most young people tend to lean towards digital activism as a form of civic participation. Due to institutional metrics failing to take this into account, many respondents found themselves to be politically apathetic when using institutional standards (e.g., following news, voting/planning to, affiliation with a political party, involvement in political campaigning), but politically engaged when using non-institutional standards (sharing political content on social media, issue-based/community-based activism, boycotting, protesting).
One student, when asked if they feel politically engaged using standard metrics, responded, “I feel unsure because even though I repost political content on my social media pages, I don’t feel like it really make[s] a big dent in me actually making change, as like actually engaging in protest or political petitions.’’ This student's response showcases how the digital age is becoming a more relevant metric of political participation, and should be treated as such. Many people opposed to this idea will attempt to portray digital participation as less than physical advocacy, but all this results in is the undermining of what young people find accessible.
Most critics of new age activism consider digital activism to be “slacktivism,’’ believing it has little to no impact and can actually be considered harmful for a movement. When addressing the form of digital activism that includes reposting and joining a movement, the University of Sussex claims, “At best, this behavior is simply empty of real political action, and at worst, it can harm the cause at stake.’’ Narratives like this can cause many young people to distance themselves from some of the most important usages of technology, as the fear of being labeled ‘‘performative’’ grows larger. In my opinion, not just digital activism, but abstract advocacy is about the intention behind the person participating in it. By focusing on intention and their understanding of the topic instead of the specific form that they chose to express it through, we could get a lot more young people participating and taking time to educate themselves about issues—because the first step to activism is education.
When we broaden our understanding of civic engagement to reflect the realities of the digital age, youth do not appear disengaged but instead “differently’’ engaged. Persisting in the use of narrow, twentieth-century metrics to evaluate a generation that constantly pushes the boundaries of normalcy does not reveal apathy, as it does a failure of measurement. When institutions refuse to adapt their definitions, they risk constructing a narrative of disengagement that the data itself cannot fully support. This misrepresentation extends beyond my research and into everyday policy design. Narratives of youth apathy shape funding decisions and civic education policy. When institutions assume disengagement, they design corrective measures instead of building upon the forms of participation already taking place.
If institutions continue measuring youth with outdated tools, they will continue misunderstanding the very generation they seek to mobilize.
Sources:
