Digital political socialization and changing electoral dynamics in the context of sociotechnological transformation

Introduction. In the context of the transition from the institutional to the platform logic of political interaction (digital platforms, digital networks), electoral behavior becomes fragmented, situational and algorithmically deterministic. These changes reflect not just technological modernization, but a profound shift in the structure of political subjectivity, in which the digital environment becomes the main space for the formation and expression of civil will. The present study is aimed at a theoretical and analytical understanding of the mechanisms of digital socialization and their impact on the transformation of electoral dynamics.

Purpose. To identify the transformational processes of political socialization and their impact on the structure and dynamics of electoral behavior amid the sociotechnological restructuring of the public sphere.

Methods. This study employs methods of sociopolitical analysis, including a structural-functional approach to examining the mechanisms of political socialization, as well as elements of discursive and institutional analytics. The empirical basis was formed through interdisciplinary synthesis of data from contemporary studies in digital political communication, electoral sociology, and network theory.

Results. The analysis conducted within this study demonstrates that the digital environment significantly influences the form of political socialization, transforming electoral behavior from a stable institutional practice into fragmented and situational activity driven by algorithmically managed flows of informational resources (i.e., manipulation of public consciousness through the digital environment). New types of political subjectivity are emerging, dominated by behavioral personalization (individual subjectivity), media platformization, and digital mobilization (collective subjectivity). It was also established that traditional institutions involved in electoral participation are losing their monopoly on the political socialization of citizens, ceding this role to digital media environments and informal network communities. As a result of these processes, channels of political communication are being transformed, stable political identities are eroding, and electoral stratification is intensifying.

Conclusions. Digitalization is shaping a qualitatively new structure of political socialization, within which electoral behavior reflects deep changes in social structure, communication practices, and mechanisms of political participation. In the new political realities, the effectiveness of the electoral process depends not so much on technological progress, but on the ability of political systems to adapt to the new logic of socialization and representation. The success of such a transition requires institutional flexibility and a rethinking of normative models of citizen interaction with public authority.

1. Parsons T. On the structure of social action. Moscow: Academic Project; 2018. 880 p. (In Russ.)

2. Ruwe D. Black Minds Matter: Repression of Critical Race Theory and Racial Violence Against Black Students. Journal of Critical Race Inquiry. 2022;9(2):73–92.

3. Volodenkov S. V., Fedorchenko S. N. Digital technologies and artificial intelligence in modern politics. Moscow: Prospekt, 2024. 496 p. (In Russ.)

4. Zhou Y., & Pan J. Analyzing protest mobilization on Telegram: The case of 2019 Anti-ELAB protests in Hong Kong. PLOS ONE. 2021. 6(10).

5. Labytsina A. N. Stages of digitalization of the electoral process in Russia. In: Communications. Society. Spirituality – 2024. Materials of the XXIV International scientific and practical conference. Ukhta, 2024:319–324. (In Russ.)

6. Kiryushin I. A. The impact of digitalization on the electoral behavior of citizens in modern Russia. In: Public Administration and Development of Russia: civilizational challenges and national interests. Collection of articles from the IGSU RANEPA Conference session. Moscow; 2024:78–85. (In Russ.)

7. Pavlova T. V. Deliberation as a factor in the constitution of the field of modern politics. Political Science. 2018;(2):73–94. (In Russ.)

8. Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell; 2010.

9. Kara-Murza S. G. Manipulation of consciousness. Moscow: Rodina; 2022. 464 p. (In Russ.)

10. Kiryushin I. A. The influence of state and municipal authorities on the transformation of electoral behavior of Russian citizens in the context of digitalization. In: Digital Society: the sociological dimension of the present and the future. Collection of conference materials. Moscow; 2024:182–188. (In Russ.)

11. Stoker G. Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. Palgrave Macmillan. 2006.

12. Gabidulina E. R. Political activism in the digital environment: new forms of participation. Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2022;(1);89–96. (In Russ.)

13. Yezhov D. A. Actual trends and factors of electoral activity of Russian youth. Azimuth of Scientific Research: Economics and Administration. 2018;3(24):356–358. (In Russ.)

14. How do you live, Russia? Express information. 53rd stage of sociological monitoring, June 2023: [bulletin] / V. K. Levashov, N. M. Velikaya, I. S. Shushpanova [et al.]; FNIST RAS. Moscow: FNIST RAS; 2023. 91 p. (In Russ.)

15. Kurbanov A.M. Digital modernization of elections in the CIS countries: legal and institutional aspects. Electoral law. 2020;(4):17–26. (In Russ.)

16. Kadlets V. A. Review of the use of Internet voting in Estonia. International Scientific Research Journal. 2015;7-3 (38):134–135. (In Russ.)

17. Meleshkina E. Y. Studies of electoral behavior: theoretical models and problems of their application. Political Science. 2001;(2):187–212. (In Russ.)

18. Kiryushin I. A. Model of electoral behavior of Russian citizens in the context of digitalization of the electoral process. Communicology. 2024;12(2):84–96. (In Russ.)