Apathetic Millennials The Personal Politics Of Todays Young People

Arguelles, Cleve V. 2020. “Apathetic Millennials? The Personal Politics of Today’s Young
People”. In Rethinking Filipino Millennials: Alternative Perspectives on a
Misunderstood Generation, edited by Jayeel S. Cornelio. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House, pp. 41-63.
Apathetic millennials?
The personal politics of today’s young people
Cleve V. Arguelles
Are millennials apathetic? This accusation is common about Filipino millennials.
But in this chapter, I provide a different way of approaching the seeming political
apathy among them. Building on Mannheim’s (1952) sociological theory on
generations, I argue that the politics of the youth of today is expectedly different
from the previous generations’ because of differing social, economic, and political
moments that may have shaped their political dispositions. To measure millennials
against standards of political participation derived from the experiences of previous
generations is unproductive. Following Cornelio (2016), I argue further that a
general condition of social isolation that characterizes contemporary Philippine
society continues to form the unique modes of political participation among young
Filipinos. This chapter draws from my reflections on my experiences as a youth
activist for almost a decade and our research on the political dispositions of
contemporary youth as well as from studies on political participation, civic
engagement, and the political motivations of Filipino youths.
This chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section, I trace the social
conditions and the consequent forms of political participation of the previous
generations. As the approach is macro-historical, spectacular moments of
participation were deliberately chosen to reflect a generation’s politics (instead of
the everyday and the particular). The generational lens adopted here may have also
uncritically homogenized generations. But this is far from the aim of this chapter.
Some political moments discussed may have only mobilized or involved certain
segments of the population. But they nonetheless occupy a valuable place in the
political imagination of one’s generation. Whether the radical university students
that led the anti-dictatorship struggle or the rural youth who joined the anti-
Japanese guerrilla units, these particular youth populations that involved
themselves in defining political moments may be argued to represent a generation’s
politics because of its long-term impact and symbolic value. The second section
accounts for the shared social tragedies or experiences that continue to shape the
specific kind of politics of Filipino millennials. Economic vulnerability,
transnationalizing family, and political detachment are significant experiences that
affect this generation. In turn, they significantly influence their evolving preference
for a personalized and amorphous kind of political involvement.
Young people and political participation
In young societies like the Philippines, their political futures depend on the
participation of their young people. Societies expect the youth to regularly lead
political renewals by drawing on their fresh ideas, energy, and dynamism. However,

how Filipino millennials choose to participate or abstain in politics at present
betrays the usual and comfortable categories drawn from the history of political
participation of previous generations of young Filipinos. Around the world, the
relationship of the youth with contemporary politics is plagued by similar
controversies. Studies on political participation of the young in advanced
democracies have been concerned with decreasing levels of civic engagement,
declining electoral turnout, and eroding trust in representative institutions, parties
and politicians (Nye 1997; Pharr and Putnam 2000; Torcal and Montero 2006). In
these societies, observers point out that youth citizens have become estranged from
politics (Wallace 2003). Whether the Philippine experience fits this observation is
presently the subject of academic and public conversations.
When news of the hero’s burial of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos broke out,
protests led primarily by the young erupted nationwide. Young professionals and
students as young as grade school kids filled the streets carrying social media-ready
protest signs. Their placards had the millennial imprint. One sign, which said “we’re
young, broke, and woke!”, appropriated a famous pop song to dispel notions of
youth apathy towards politics. Another sign, written with the words “I skipped my
Tinder date for this”, implicitly claimed that young people got their priorities right.
They were not the much-maligned generation that is supposedly seized only by
trivial matters like sex and dating. And another placard, which read “I was not alive
then but I still remember”, summed up the atmosphere of the protests where many
young people despite being born after the dictator Marcos’ rule learned the difficult
lessons of the country’s authoritarian past.
Yet, while indignant voices characterized the protests around the hero’s burial of
Marcos, cheering crowds of young people welcomed the son as he went around the
country for his attempt to secure the second highest government position in the
land. His campaign rallies, where he discussed his message of reinstating the glory
of the Philippines under the dead dictator, had the support of a massive number of
youth. Captivated by the message, the dictator’s son consistently topped university
election surveys. He became an easy friend to aspirational millennials. In between
shots of Starbucks mugs and “Instagrammable” food plates, selfies with him were
inserted in their well-curated feeds. And during the birth anniversary of the dead
dictator, throngs of young people joined the barrage of thank you messages on
social media. One of the more widely shared posts said, “If Marcos was not ousted,
we would have been Singapore by now! Shame to the previous generation who stole
our chance to live in a First World nation.”
But whether reflective of the democratic aspirations or authoritarian nostalgia of
young Filipinos, these moments reveal that youth are not estranged from politics
(Hoskin et al 2012; Sloam 2012). Although these instances of political participation
are admittedly episodic and unusual, they surface a more complex and nuanced

reality than initially portrayed by previous studies. Around the globe, young people
are accused of political indifference (Zukin et al 2006). Millennials are said to have
been abandoning elections in droves and abstaining from mainstream politics
(Pattie et al 2004; Dalton 2008). Some scholars even argue that the crisis of
democracy in many societies can be traced to the political complacency of this
generation (Farthing 2010). Without a clear commitment to traditional exercises of
democratic citizenship like voting, joining political parties or attending rallies, they
endanger the legitimacy and sustainability of contemporary political institutions
(Putnam 2000; Mycock and Tonge 2012). In the Philippines, conversations about
millennials reflect the same themes. Many of the country’s contemporary political
misfortunes, from the election of populist president Rodrigo Duterte to the
resurgence of support to the Philippine martial law years, have been blamed on the
supposed apathy of young Filipinos. Critics argue that they have detached
themselves from politics and instead immersed themselves in a self-centered
consumerist world where they try to outdo each other. This they do not in terms of
political contributions but according to achievements in sex, social status, and
cultural capital (Tolentino 2016).
The picture, however, is not one-sided. A different stream of scholarship on the
political participation of the youth suggests that while they may be dissatisfied with
mainstream politics, they are nevertheless involved “in emerging forms of civic
engagement that takes place outside the institutionalized sphere of politics” (Stolle
and Hooghe 2011, p 119). Young people, even those in the Philippines, are turning
to volunteer activities (Cornelio 2016; Fiorina 2002; Fisher 2012). A new style of
citizenship that focuses on responsibilities and advocacies in the digital sphere is
also notably emerging (Loader 2007; Bennett et al 2011). Even in terms of
conventional forms of participation, studies are pointing out the significance of
millennial-led movements from Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall Street (Milkman
2016). Scholars also note that youth involvement in politics seems to broaden what
counts as political participation. This includes public expressions of non-
heteronormative identities (Kiesa et al 2007) and introduction of ethical and
environmental criteria in choosing which goods and services to patronize
(Micheletti 2003; Micheletti and Stolle 2009). There is reason to believe that moral
panic may have once again clouded the dominant understanding of how the youth of
today are redefining political participation (Quintelier 2007). The task, therefore, is
for youth researchers to uncover the changing nature of their politics. An
understanding of these seemingly opaque orientations of the youth towards politics
may provide grounding to conversations on youth political participation as well as
enrich understanding of the millennial generation.
Generations of young Filipinos & their political moments

Mannheim’s (1952) work is fundamental in using a generational lens in
understanding youth and politics. His work argues that individuals are significantly
influenced by the social conditions of their youth (see Cornelio’s introduction in this
volume). Young people are more likely to be shaped by the way historical moments
have shaped their political consciousness and beliefs while in their formative years.
However, their varied social locations, whether in terms of class, gender or ethnicity,
may diversify the supposed generational consciousness and responses. In this
section, I extend this framework to the case of the Philippines and broadly map the
historical moments and the consequent political moments of the previous
generations of youth in post-World War II Philippines. It is important to note,
however, that the succeeding discussion focused on historically significant events.
There is, therefore, the danger of forgetting that generational responses are varied
and diverse as their particular social locations. Yet the value of this kind of macro-
historical approach lies in the historical significance of these moments.
Those who were born in the 1920s grew up as victims and fighters in the Second
World War (Kerkvliet 1977). The Japanese occupation of the Philippines gave no
other choice to this generation but to join the war. Many became martyrs, some as
comfort women, and those who survived ended up with trauma (Constantino and
Constantino 1978). The brutalities of the Japanese and memories of war formed the
identity and memory of this generation (Jose 2001). The succeeding 1930s
generation were also victims of the war. But coming to the war a little later, this
generation of Filipino youth bore the burdens of post-war reconstruction. They
were forced to mature early by a war-torn Philippines needing rebuilding. They
actively built institutions, from government agencies to political parties, for the then
young republic (Abinales and Amoroso 2017). Both these generations inherited a
formally independent Philippines by 1946. Shaped by their tragic experiences of
war, these young Filipinos worked tirelessly to get a taste of a working free and
independent Philippines.
The Filipino youth of the 1940s will eventually become the pioneers of the radical
years of the country in the 1960s (Weekley 2001). Born after WWII, they grew up in
an independent and relatively peaceful and prosperous Philippines. They were very
critical of the achievements of the previous generations, including the
reconstruction effort that fell short of the nation’s aspirations (Guerrero 1979). This
generation poured on the streets to oppose the Vietnam War, protest the hardships
faced by workers and farmers, and advocate for a radical politics in campuses and
elsewhere. The Communist Party of the Philippines, formed by eager university
students who discovered immobilized war veterans in the countryside, was rebuilt
by this same generation (Weekley 2001). The 1960s was a time of disquiet. Young
Filipinos then, disappointed of prevailing social ills despite absence of colonial
occupation, experimented with progressive causes and seized political
opportunities to advance social reforms.

The years of disquiet prepared the country to a more turbulent period. Those who
were born in the 1950s were the youth who eventually produced the First Quarter
Storm of the 1970s (Pimentel 2006). They eschewed the progressive politics of the
previous generation in favor of a revolution. It was a generation at home with the
radical ideas of the world: from China’s cultural revolution to the anti-war causes in
Europe and USA to independence movements in the Global South (Abinales 1984).
However, an equally politically involved politician, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos,
challenged this era of kinetic involvement of youth in national politics further.
Martial law was imposed in the country to temper the tempest storm that the
rebellious 1950s generation of Filipino youth created. The best and the brightest of
this generation became modern martyrs that led the anti-dictatorship movement.
This generation that suffered under the Marcos period, a time of widespread human
rights violation and misgovernance, produced young revolutionaries and a Filipino
revolutionary politics.
Those who were born in the 1960s and 1970s, called “Marcos babies” and knew
Marcos as the eternal president, is the generation that made the legacies of Marcos
the subject of their dreams and nightmares (Cimatu and Tolentino 2010). Some left
the country in search of less tragic futures but many others stayed. Those who
stayed volunteered to protect the ballots in the 1986 snap election, grieved and
protested the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, and faced Marcos head-on in the EDSA
People Power revolt. After Marcos, many young Filipinos embraced initiatives to
democratize politics as their own project. Whether grassroots non-government
organizations or pockets of participatory avenues in government, they created and
maximized democratic spaces afforded by the new regime. Armed with new
freedoms and the potentials of a country in transition to democracy, the young
Filipinos of this generation replaced radicalism with pragmatic and reformist
politics (Thompson 1998).
With neither colonizers nor Marcos as a pronounced generational enemy, the
political moments of the succeeding times were less defined and more ambiguous.
Young Filipinos anchored their hopes on the democratizing and globalizing
Philippines and world. Some bore the burdens of rebuilding the country while many
others followed the previous generations to work overseas and even migrate to
foreign countries in search of greener pastures. Whether at home or abroad, these
young people grew up under a global atmosphere of euphoria: the end of wars and
dictatorships, an end to any challenges to liberal democracy (Fukuyama 1992). The
1980s generation adopted an uneventful politics of good citizenship: vote regularly,
pay taxes diligently, contribute to charity occasionally, and work hard daily. Like
today’s youth, their generation’s lack of a collective orientation and spectacular
political movements like the WWII guerrillas, First Quarter Storm and EDSA 1, have
been accused of adopting political apathy as a way of life.

But the post-EDSA presidency of Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo gave the 1980s
generation a cause (Lande 2001). They were no Marcos but enough of a low hanging
fruit to mobilize a generation. Estrada was a college dropout, womanizer, alcoholic
and gambler. Arroyo was a plunderer, mastermind of an electoral fraud and a grave
human rights violator. Both declared a bloody all-out war in Mindanao and against
their critics. Both easily became the generation X’s Marcos. The Estrada ouster
campaign, which culminated in the second EDSA People Power revolt in 2001, drew
tactics and strategies from the previous generation’s FQS and people power revolt.
The Arroyo ouster campaign, however, did not succeed. Even so, they have found a
collective politics of anti-corruption, human rights and good governance. More
importantly, in both cases it was an undeniably youthful political movement: the
mobilizations were powered by the rebirth of activist politics in university
campuses and the by then popular text messages in mobile phones (Rafael 2003;
Jordan 2006). Finally, the Filipino generation X found their political moment. And
like previous generations of young Filipinos, the crisis of their time formed their
political responses.
Filipino millennials, or those who were born in the 1990s to present, are slowly
discovering their distinct politics and attempting to make their defining moment in
Philippine politics. This generation grew up under one of the world’s worst
economic crises, tough environmental challenges, and increasing social isolation
(Milkman 2017). The failed policies of the previous generations have brought an
arduous present and a precarious future to a large majority of today’s youth. There
are varied political responses from young Filipinos but its form continue to evolve.
So how did these conditions continue to shape the Filipino millennials’ search for
their political moment?
Filipino millennials in search of a distinct politics
Filipino millennials constitute a new political generation, shaped by the social
tragedies of their time, which are in search of their distinct politics. Adopting and
building on Cornelio’s (2016) argument that today’s youth is an isolated generation,
I argue that this social condition, which he rooted in three major social tragedies,
influence their politics significantly.
First, today’s young Filipinos live in a time of worsening economic vulnerability.
Their mobility aspirations have been frustrated by the expansion of precarious
types of employment, retreat of labor rights and benefits, as well as vast income
inequalities (Kalleberg and Hewison 2012). The supposedly job-hopping culture of
millennials, which is negatively portrayed as one of their bad working attitudes, is in
fact a reflection of prevailing job insecurity in the market (Ofreneo 2013). In my
years of fieldwork in slum communities, it is common to encounter many young

people who earn irregular income from occasional construction work. Even my
students in community colleges rely on short-term contract service jobs in fast food
chains and shopping malls. Inheriting a global economy that underwent its worst
recession in the recent years even made the situation worse. Young Filipinos who
just joined the labor market realized they were not only economically vulnerable
but also even disposable when the situation worsened. In fact, youth suffer the most
from economic crises (Elder and Rosas 2015). A top contributor to youth
unemployment in the Asia-Pacific, young Filipinos constitute half of all the
unemployed workers in the country (Medenilla 2017). Looking after oneself in an
atmosphere of economic anxiety while living a life of ambient insecurity can be
isolating especially for young people.
Second, contemporary Filipino youth grew up under an increasingly
transnationalized Filipino family. Long distance intimacy and parenting at a
distance characterized how many young Filipinos were raised by their overseas
parents in recent years (Parreñas 2005; 2001). Their parents worked overseas, self-
servingly conferred modern heroes by the state, to send them to school and ensure
there is food on the table. While the fast evolving information and communication
technologies helped bridged the geographic divide among many Filipino youth and
their families, many young people still long for adult companions (Madianou 2012).
With a large number of the previous generation away from the country, this might
have also affected the inter-generational sharing of collective memories and other
modes of political socialization that is traditionally played by parents and families.
In my work on how millennials remember the EDSA revolt, I discovered that social
media is the primary source of their information. They are also increasingly relying
not on their parents but on their peers and the mass media to educate and guide
them (McCann Erickson 1994). The absence of direct and accessible parental care to
Filipino millennials (that their OFW parents ironically provide to foreign families) is
a painful reality that has been the subject of many local television shows and
movies. The rise in the number of youth living separated from their families (Xenos
and Raymundo 1999) is strongly suggestive of the challenges to the traditionally
strong kinship bonds in the Philippines. All this is a shared experience of isolation
among Filipino millennials.
And lastly, the exclusionary nature of politics in the country has nourished a sense
of political detachment among Filipino youth. Generations of elite families continue
to dominate Philippine politics since the establishment of the Philippine republic
(Tadem and Tadem 2016). This dominance of elite dynasties also extend to political
institutions that supposedly caters to the youth such as the Sangguniang Kabataan
and the National Youth Commission (NYC) (Malaluan et al 2014). With neither
meaningful access to decision and policy-making nor significant representations to
political institutions, young Filipinos feel helpless and powerless. As such,
participation in mainstream politics is seen as a rather futile exercise. Political

participation is associated with corrupt, selfish and questionable individuals. In
turn, abstaining from political activities is considered a more respectable choice
than participating. Even in student government elections in major universities, the
abstain option have been winning against most of the candidates in the recent years
(Guanga et al 2017). A sense of political detachment may have also thrived due to
the absence of attractive alternative political alternatives. Their lack of trust to
politicians and government institutions also extend to activist groups and civil
society groups (Abinales 1996; Kusaka 2017). Since the country’s transition to
democracy, the civil society has been badly splintered and resorts to frequent
infightings (Hedman 2006). It did not also help that these groups, while generally
advocate for progressive causes, regularly engage and partner with mainstream
politicians (Juliano 2015; Sanchez et al 2018). With their voices silenced and their
capacity to shape their own futures disregarded, a politically isolated generation is
born.
This is an isolated generation, as Cornelio (2016, 152) argues, insofar as young
people’s “personal but shared experiences of the institutions of the family, economy,
the Catholic Church and national politics today suggest move towards
autonomization in which an individual is thrown upon himself or herself to navigate
everyday life.” There is disappearance of traditional social bonds and identities and
breakdown of civic institutions. Building on this, I contend that young Filipinos are
gravitated towards a politics that is distinctly personal and amorphous. A personal
orientation in politics is characterized by an appeal to everyday authenticity rather
than to spectacular expressions of politics (Cornelio 2014). This refers to practices
that address frustrations with how big political moments in the past such as the two
people power revolts failed to substantially change Philippine politics for the better.
In my work as a youth activist, I have encountered countless young people
nationwide who expressed such “people power fatigue” (Coronel 2006). The
demand then is to carry out personal and authentic expressions of one’s political
conviction in everyday life since its outcomes are under one’s control. This
preference for a personally-oriented politics is reflected in the enthusiasm of
Filipino millennials with ethical lifestyle and consumption activism in the form of
using environmentally-friendly and sustainably produced products, with joining
volunteering activities to help poor communities, and with calling out sexist
practices in schools, workplaces and elsewhere. Many of the rising “eco-friendly”
local shops in the country were pioneered by millennials. There is also an
abundance of online stores run by young entrepreneurs specifically catering to the
needs of the young for “cruelty-free”, “eco-friendly” and “fair trade” products. This
consumption activism while only implicitly political is no less political as it is also
founded on political commitments. Joining a protest for higher wages is fuelled by
the same political motivations of refusing to buy products from companies that do
not observe labor rights. More importantly, these direct and personal expressions of
everyday politics, rather than overt political expressions like protests, are seen to be

authentic. They are perceived to be authentic because the political commitments are
reflected in personal choices in everyday life. In this way, the dangers associated
with interest-driven politics of civil society groups like partnering with traditional
politicians or compromising on advocacies may be avoided. It is more practical than
dogmatic or strategic. As such, the shifting orientation of politics by millennials
towards personalization may have been misguidedly interpreted as declining
political involvement.
The amorphous character of this generation’s politics, on the other hand, speaks to
their rejection of highly hierarchical and tightly organized groups. They prefer
horizontal leadership, crowdsourcing and other flexible forms of organizations.
While there is worry that this generation of young Filipinos are not interested in
building cause-oriented organizations, the lifeblood of Philippine civil society, the
forms in which they engage politics is easy to miss. Digital forms of engagement
such as popularizing advocacies in social media or creating online political groups
reflect this trend. The criticism that online activism, pejoratively dismissed as
clicktivism, is a lesser form of participation than street mobilizations or community
organizing do not appeal to millennials whose everyday life is immersed in the
digital world. For young Filipinos, digital action is action in the real world. The
attempt to influence conversations or to make others aware of burning issues of the
day in social media is no less significant than door-to-door community organizing. In
many recent politically contentious issues in the Philippines such as the country’s
war on illegal drugs, young people led online conversations on the issue. Traditional
activist organizations attempted to build on these conversations to mobilize them
and then recruit them into their organizations. Instead of joining, millennials
responded by creating spaces for informal discussions and free actions where the
membership is deliberately loose. Young professionals and students from different
backgrounds, with their disdain for the dominant organized opposition groups as
their only similarity, poured to these activities. The formation of the Occupy Wall
Street movement in 2011 in the United States also parallels this story. A millennial-
led movement, it favored a leaderless, participatory, and consensual ways of
running the organization over traditional movement structures (Milkman 2017).
Under the radar, young Filipinos are moving towards more diversified and plural
forms of organizing themselves to engage in politics.
Conclusion
In an era of economic vulnerability, changing family structures and political
exclusion, Filipino millennials in search of their distinct politics are gravitated
towards a more personalized and amorphous manner of political involvement.
Young Filipinos, with the social baggages they inherited from the previous
generations, find their political voices in creative, disruptive and novel forms of
political participation including good digital citizenship, lifestyle activism, and

participatory decisionmaking. Against the background of accusations that the youth
is wasted on the politically apathetic millennials, they reinterpret politics and
political participation in ways that it adapts to the changing Philippine and global
societies as well as the issues faced and embraced by their generation in their
everyday lives. Filipino youth have always been significantly involved in the
country’s defining political moments. From the anti-colonial struggle by the young
ilustrados to the contemporary EDSA revolts. So politics and active political
involvement matter to the contemporary youth but in ways that vastly differs from
how it mattered to previous generations of young people. Growing up in a national
and global environment of seismic social and economic shifts, young Filipinos are on
the frontlines to reimagine our politics that continue to influence the choices and
chances of their generation.
Cleve V. Arguelles (@CleveArguelles) researches populism, youth, and digital
citizenship in the Philippines, Thailand, and the rest of Southeast Asia. He is PhD
candidate at the Department of Political and Social Change at the Coral Bell School of
Asia Pacific Affairs of the Australian National University. Prior to joining ANU, he is
Assistant Professor and Chair of the Political Science Program (2015-2018) at the
University of the Philippines Manila.
References
Abinales, Patricio and Donna Amoroso, 2017. State and Society in the Philippines,
2nd edition. New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Abinales, Patricio, editor. 1996. The Revolution Falters: The Left in Philippine Politics
After 1986. New York: SEAP Publications, Cornell University.
Abinales, Patricio. 1984. “The Left and the Philippine Student Movement: Random
Historical Notes on Party Politics and Sectoral Struggles.” Kasarinlan:
Philippine Journal of Third World Studies.
Bennett, W. L. & A. Segerberg. 2011. “Digital Media and the Personalization of
Collective Action: Social Technology and the Organization of Protests Against
the Global Economic Crisis. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6),
770-799.
Cimatu, Frank & Rolando Tolentino. 2010. Mondo Marcos: Writings on Martial Law
and the Marcos Babies. Pasig: Anvil Publishing.
Constantino, Renato and Letizia Constantino. 1978. The Philippines: The Continuing
Past. Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies.
Cornelio, Jayeel. 2014. “Popular Religion and the Turn to Everyday Authenticity
Reflections on the Contemporary Study of Philippine Catholicism.” Philippine
Studies Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints, 471-500.
Cornelio, Jayeel. 2016. Being Catholic in the contemporary Philippines: Young people
reinterpreting religion. New York: Routledge.
Coronel, Sheila 2007. “The Philippines in 2006: Democracy and Its Discontents.”

Asian Survey, 47(1), 175-182.
Dalton, R. 2008. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American
Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Doronila, Amando. 2007. “Edsa People Power Fatigue: A Revisionist View.”
Philippine Daily Inquirer. February 23, 2007.
Elder, S. & Rosas, G. 2015. Global Employment Trends for Youth 2015: Scaling Up
Investments in Decent Jobs for Youth. Geneva: International Labor
Organization.
Farthing, R. 2010. “The Politics of Youthful Antipolitics: Representing the ‘Issue’ of
Youth Participation in Politics.” Journal of youth studies, 13(2), 181-195.
Fiorina, M.P. (2002), “Parties, Participation, and Representation in America: Old
Theories Face New Realities’, In Political Science: The State of the Discipline,
edited by I. Katznelson and H. Milner, 511-541. New York: Norton.
Fisher, D.R. 2012. “Youth Political Participation: Bridging Activism and Electoral
Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 38: 119–137.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free
Press.
Guanga, A., Umali, D., & Castro, T. 2017. “Why UST students voted abstain in student
council elections.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. 3 May 2017.
Guerrero, Amado. 1979. Philippine Society and Revolution, Oakland, CA:
International Association of Filipino Patriots.
Hedman, E. L. E. 2006. In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to
People Power in the Philippines. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Hewison, K., & Kalleberg, A. L. 2013. “Precarious Work and Flexibilization in South
and Southeast Asia.” American Behavioral Scientist, 57(4), 395-402.
Hoskins, B., C. Villalba and M. Saisana. 2012. The 2011 Civic Competence Composite
Indicator (CCCI-2): Measuring Young People’s Civic Competence Across
Europe Based on the IEA International Citizenship and Civic Education Study.
Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the
Protection and Security of the Citizen: JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.
Jordan, Mary. 2006. “Going Mobile: Text Messages Guide Filipino Protesters.”
Washington Post, August 25, 2006.
José, Ricardo. 2001. “War and Violence, History and Memory: The Philippine
Experience of the Second World War.” Asian Journal of Social Science, 29(3),
457-470.
Juliano, H. A. 2015. “Tensions and Developments in Akbayan's Alliance with the
Aquino Administration.” Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies,
30(1).
Kerkvliet, Benedict. 1977. The Huk Rebellion: A Study of Peasant Revolt in the
Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kiesa, A., Orlowski, A. P., Levine, P., Both, D., Kirby, E. H., Lopez, M. H., & Marcelo, K.
B. 2007. Millennials Talk Politics: A Study of College Student Political
Engagement. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement (CIRCLE).
Kusaka, Wataru. 2017. Moral politics in the Philippines: Inequality, democracy and the
urban poor. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Landé, Carl. 2001. “The Return of" People Power" in the Philippines.” Journal of
Democracy, 12(2), 88-102.
Loader, B. D. 2007. Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young
People and New Media. New York: Routledge.
Madianou, M. 2012. “Migration and the Accentuated Ambivalence of Motherhood:
The Role of ICTs in Filipino Transnational Families.” Global Networks, 12(3),
277-295.
Mannheim, Karl. 1952. “The Sociological Problem of Generations.” Essays on the
Sociology of Knowledge, 306.
McCann Erickson. 1994. “The McCann Erickson Youth Study: The Portrait of a
Filipino as a Youth.” The Youth Journal 1(1): 12.
Mendenilla, S. 2017. “Youth Unemployment to Rise, ILO Report Says.” Manila
Bulletin. November 22, 2017.
Micheletti, M. 2003. “Shopping With and For Virtues.” In Political Virtue and
Shopping, edited by M. Micheletti, 149-168. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. 2012. “Sustainable Citizenship and the New Politics of
Consumption.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 644(1), 88-120.
Milkman, R. 2017. “A New Political Generation: Millennials and the Post-2008 Wave
of Protest.” American Sociological Review, 82(1), 1-31.
Mycock, A. and J. Tonge. 2012. “The Party Politics of Youth Citizenship and
Democratic Engagement”. Parliamentary Affairs 65: 138–161.
Nye Jr, J. S. 1997. “The Media and Declining Confidence in Government.” Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics, 2(3), 4-9.
Ofreneo, R. E. 2013. “Precarious Philippines: Expanding Informal Sector,
“Flexibilizing” Labor Market.” American Behavioral Scientist, 57(4), 420-443.
Parreñas, R. 2005. “Long Distance Intimacy: Class, Gender and Intergenerational
Relations Between Mothers and Children in Filipino Transnational Families.”
Global networks, 5(4), 317-336.
Parreñas, R. S. 2001. “Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender, and
Intergenerational Relations in Filipino Transnational Families. Feminist
studies, 27(2), 361-390.
Pattie, C., P. Seyd and P. Whiteley. 2004. Citizenship in Britain: Values, Participation
and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the
Trilateral Countries? New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pimentel, B. 2006. UG an Underground Tale: The Journey of Edgar Jopson and the
First Quarter Storm Generation. Pasig: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.

Quintelier, E. 2007. “Differences in Political Participation Between Young and Old
People.” Contemporary Politics, 13(2), 165-180.
Sanchez, Emerson, Anabelle Ragsag and Teresa Jopson. Progressives in an
Authoritarian Government: The Duterte Administration. Presentation at the
2018 Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, 2-5
July 2018, University of Sydney.
Sloam, J. 2012. “New Voice, Less Equal: the Civic and Political Engagement of Young
People in the United States and Europe.” Comparative Political Studies.
Stolle, D. and M. Hooghe. 2011. “Shifting Inequalities: Patterns of Exclusion and
Inclusion in Emerging Forms of Political Participation.” European Societies
13: 119–142.
Tadem, Teresa & Tadem, Eduardo. 2016. “Political Dynasties in the Philippines:
Persistent Patterns, Perennial Problems.” South East Asia Research, 24(3),
328-340.
Thompson, Mark. 1998. “The Decline of Philippine Communism: a Review Essay.”
South East Asia Research, 6(2), 105-129.
Tolentino, Rolando. 2016. Kabataang Kulturang Popular at mga Sanaysay sa
Kartograpiya ng Disaster at Aktibismo sa Filipinas. Manila: University of Santo
Tomas Publishing House.
Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. 2006. Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies:
Social Capital, Institutions and Politics. New York: Routledge.
Rafael, Vicente. 2003. “The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the
Contemporary Philippines.” Philippine Political Science Journal, 24:47, 3-36.
Wallace, C. 2003. “Introduction: Youth and Politics.” Journal of Youth Studies, 6(3),
243-245.
Weekley, K. 2001. The Communist Party of the Philippines, 1968-1993: a Story of Its
Theory and Practice. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Xenos, Peter and Raymundo, Corazon. 1999. ‘The Modern Profile of the Filipino
Youth’, in Adolescent Sexuality in the Philippines, edited by C. Raymundo, P.
Xenos, and L. Domingo, 1–12. Quezon City: University of the Philippines-
Office for Research and Coordination, UP-Population Institute, and East-West
Center for Population and Health Studies.
Zukin, C., S. Keeter, M. Andolina, K. Jenkins and M.X. Delli Carpini. 2006. A New
Engagement?. New York: Oxford University.

Apathetic Millennials The Personal Politics Of Todays Young People

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Apathetic Millennials The Personal Politics Of Todays Young People

Similar to Apathetic Millennials The Personal Politics Of Todays Young People (10)

More from Martha Brown

More from Martha Brown (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Apathetic Millennials The Personal Politics Of Todays Young People