so cal is at ion

8/4/2019 So Cal is at Ion

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/so-cal-is-at-ion 1/22

Socialization: The Role of Family, School & Political Inst.

By Paul Bourne on August 31, 2006 9:47:17 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser

Forums

Sociopolitical Socialization: An overview of the influence of the school and the

family on ones sociopolitical socialization

PAUL ANDREW BOURNE, M.Sc. (pending); B.Sc.; Dip. Edu.

The University of the West Indies

Mona Campus

Kingston 7, St. Andrew

Jamaica, West Indies

Introduction

Culture has three major tenets, and these are: ‘technological’, ‘sociological’

and ‘ideological’ (Bourne, 2006; Thomlinson, 1965)

Political Sciences cannot be viewed in a vacuum disconnected from the other

sub-disciplines of the social sciences, as it is continuously interfacing with

issues in sociology, psychology and demography, to name a few, in order to

ground various theorizing. The issue of socialization is crucial to political

scientists as well as to other social scientists. Nevertheless, the branch of

study in the social sciences that looks comprehensively at socialization is

sociology. As such, in order that a comprehensive evaluation of this topic be



forwarded to readers, the writer will critically examine how sociologists view

the issue of socialization after which he will provide answers so that the

readers can grasp to what extent we are effectively politically socialized by

the family and the school, and whether or not our experiences can be

considered as typical.

Theoretical framework

Gosling, Hill, Fee and Taylor argue sociology from the perspective of the

‘materialists’ and ‘idealists’ theorizing, and within their monograph clear

depict the functioning of society through those concepts.

They show how ‘materialists’ explain their theorizing that economic and

social realities of peoples’ existence shape their experiences. Whereas, the‘idealists’ theorize that people interpret the social actions through values,

morals, sentiments and so on, ‘as the essence of social life’ (Gosling, Hill, Fee

and Taylor, 2003, 21). Therefore the principle of socialization of human is

simply not economic or is based on value-laden judgements but is

multispatial.

Socialization is the process by which individuals learn the culture of their

society (Haralambos and Holborn, 2002). They reiterated that it is through

socialization that an individual bears resemblances to another human being,and as such he/she is defined as normal based on the standards of his/her

society. It is society that defines norms, values, morals, culture and mode of

interpretation of events to which an individual normally subscribes in order to

be socially accepted by his/her peers. In the text Sociological Concepts and

Research, the author concurs with Haralambos and Holborn that the issue of

‘socialization’ is the designer of the individual into a social being “through

learning to think and behave according to the values and norms prevalent in

his society” (Thomlinson, 1965, p.10). The process is accomplished by

consensus based on Durkheim theorizing of social order (Durkheim, 1950;

Inkeles, 1964) Furthermore, norms, values, perceptions and roles that people

formulate are significantly defined by society through various agents namely

the family, peer groups, the church (that is, religious institutions) and

educational institutions. G. H. Mead (in Thomplinson, 1965, p.10) postulates

that human beings are the product of their societies and not the creator

thereof; they have the innate capacity and endowed with personalities by

their social institutions. Therefore, society and not the individual on society

do socialization. From the perspective of Herbert Spencer (in Inkeles, 1964),



the development of the family stands first in socialization. He cited that:

He also stressed the obligation of sociology to deal with the interrelations

between the different elements of society, to give an account of how the

parts influence the whole and are in turn reacted upon, and in the process

may transform or be transformed (Inkeles, 1964, p. 5)

Inkeles’ perspective, which he argued from analyzing the position of Herbert

Spencer, showed the interdependence of the society on the individual and on

other institutions in order to effectively carry out their holistic function. The

individual influences society’s actions and society in return impacts on the

likely happenings of the individual, thereby establishing an association

instead of a causal relationship between the two categorizations.

It should be understood that socialization is not only confined to childhood

(Haralambos and Holborn, 2002), as event is a lifelong process and so the

individual does not cease learning norms, myths, perceptions, customs and

other forms of the culture because (s) he has fully grown from childhood

through adolescence to adulthood. According to Gosling, Hill, Fee and Taylor

(2003) society is not merely an ‘aggregation’ of individuals’ actions and so

sociologists challenge the general perspective that ‘social behaviour’ is

reducible to individuals but argue that this is possible for groups.

They argued that:

As social life evolves, develops and become more complex, certain forms of

conduct and belief – moral codes or religious practices for example – become

reproduced by successive generations of people as accepted or proper ways

of doing things. In sociological terms, they become ‘institutionalized’.

Language is a good example of a social institution. We all learn it and use it,

but none of us created it. (Gosling, Hill, Fee, & Taylor, 2003, p.8)

Gosling, Hill, Fee and Taylor provided that conduit of an explanation for

culture through socialization. The poignant issue for many non-academics is

how ‘language’ becomes a medium of socialization to which we all must

subscribe, and that people are only agents of the general whole who must



adhere to the units of the society.

Unlike other species whose behaviour is biologically set, human beings rely

on social experiences to learn the nuances of their culture in order to survive

(Macionis and Plummer, 1998). “Social experience is also the foundation of

personality, a person’s fairly consistent patterns of thinking, feeling and

acting” they said (Macionis and Plummer, 1998). In cases where there is non-

existence of social experiences, as the case of a few individuals, personality

does not emerge at all (Macionis and Plummer, 1998). An example here is the

wolf boy (Baron, R., & Bryne, D., Branscombe, N., 2006). They noted that a

boy who was raised by wolves, when he was brought from that situation into

the space of human existence in which he was required to wear clothing and

other social events died in less than two years from frustration. This

happening goes to show the degree to which individuals are ‘culturalized’ by

society, and that what makes us humans is simply not mere physicalexistence but the consent of society of that which is accepted as the

definition of humans.

Macionis and Plummer argued that Charles Darwin supports the view that

human nature leads us to create and learn cultural traits. “The family is the

most important agent of socialization because it represents the centre of

children’s lives” (Macionis and Plummer, 1998). Charles A Beard (in

Tomlinson, 1964) believed that mothers should be appropriately called

“constant, carriers of common culture”; this emphasizes the very principaltunnel to which mother guide their young, and they are equally conduits of

the transfer of values, norms, ideology and perspective on the world for their

children. Infants are almost totally dependent on others (family) for their

survivability, and this explain the pivotal role of parents and-or other family

member. The socialization process begins with the family, and more so those

individuals to which the child will rely for survival. This happening emphasizes

the how the child is fashioned into a human, and not merely because of birth.

The child learns to speak, the language, actions, mode of communication,

value system, norms and the meaning of things through adoption, repetition,

and observation of the social actions of people within the environment. The

process of becoming a human is simply only performed by the family but

other socio-political agents.

Agents of socialization



Sociologists explain that the agents of socialization are classified in two (2)

main groups namely primary and secondary. The family and peer groups are

considered to be primary whereas the school, religious institutions (e.g. the

churches) and mass media are seen as secondary because of their

positioning in the socialization process of the infant. They confer that the

primary agents of socialization are probably the most important in thesocialization process of an individual.

Some sociologists argue that family and the state apparatus hold a close

relationship in the socialization process of individual members of a society.

The relationship between the family and the stat may be view from two

perspectives. …Individuals should be allowed to pursue their interests and

rights as far as possible and that the state should have only a minimal role in

influencing people’s lives. It follows from this that the family is a private

institution in which individuals pursue their own concerns such as marriage,

procreation and residence. The role of the state in these areas is restricted to

a reactive and supportive role such as protecting the victims of family

breakdown. Indeed the family is viewed as an autonomous institution,

effectively countering the power of the state (Gosling, Hill, Fee and Taylor,

2003, p. 40).

From the perspective of Gosling, Hill, Fee and Taylor, the state supports the

family so far as it is able to execute its functions without interfacing with

those of other families. An underlying principle of the discourse that is not

mentioned is the typology of states, and how their social policy may hinder or

foster the individualistic nature of the family if the society were to subscribe

to a particular political ideology (that is, capitalism as against socialism or

communist).

What is political socialization and how is it different from the sociologists’

view of socialization?

Have you ever stopped to think about WHY you have the political beliefs and

values you do? Where did they come from? Are they simply your own ideas or



have others influenced you in your thinking? Political scientists call the

process by which individuals acquire their political beliefs and attitudes

"political socialization." What people think and how they come to think it is of

critical importance to the stability and health of popular government. The

beliefs and values of the people are the basis for a society's political culture

and that culture defines the parameters of political life and governmentalaction (Mott, 2006).

Dr. Mott’s monograph despite having a summative perspective on the issue

of ‘political socialization’ it is multi-dimensional, and it gives the notion that

this phenomenon is substantially beliefs and values that one acquires from

the ‘culturalization’ process on political ideology and governance but the

issue is more spatial than that which was forwarded by the scholar; and

include other tenets (i.e. civic engagement, patriotism, participation, paying

taxes, and obeying the law) The limitation of Mott’s writing does not narrowthis discourse but offer a premise upon which a monologue may proceed that

will guide ‘culturalization’ of social man into a theorizing of what is known as

‘political socialization’. One academe writes that political socialization is “the

process in which individuals acquires the information, beliefs, attitudes and

values that helps them comprehend working of political system and orient

them within it” (rsu.edu).

Our political upbringing is simply political socialization (Munroe, 1993).

Munroe suggest that the ways and means through which our views aboutpolitics and our values in relation to politics are formed is part of our political

socialization. Munroe states that, “It is also our upbringing that made us

believe that politics is corrupt, dirty and prone to violence.” The astute

professor of governance, Trevor Munroe, shows that, there are ranges of

channels through which our political personalities are formed and these are

known as primary and secondary agents of political socialization.

It is undoubtedly clear from Munroe’s, Macionis and Plummer’s and

Haralambos and Holborn’s positions that, individuals are directly andindirectly influenced by the family, the school, the church, the mass media,

and the peer group, as they all share the same focal view on socialization.

That is, the political and sociological scientists have converged on a point of

principle, that socialization albeit it may be political or sociological is one of

the same.



The family imparts its political beliefs on the children by way of its biases,

acceptance and approval of a particular political ideology (Munroe, 1993). He

believes that, the indirect approach is one that the attitudes being formed

are only indirectly related to politics, and are not directly political. For

example, in the school or workplace there is some form of authority. The

relationship form of authority develops an attitude to authority. This meansthat the attitude formed towards authority spills over to government.

Both Political Scientists’ and Sociologists’ propositions of socialization are

similar except that the Political Scientists look at socialization from a political

aspect (political ideology as a result of socialization). Sociologists, on the

other hand, examine the process of socialization and its impact on society

and on the individual general and not from a micro unit of the political system

as that is only an aspect in the ‘culturalization’ process of the individual.

Hence, are we proposing that human behaviour and conceptions are learned?

Culturization

A group of notable psychologists argue that, learning is any relatively

permanent change in behaviour, or behaviour potential, produced by

experience (Baron and Bryne, 1997). They believe that, there can be no

doubt that learning is a process in human behaviour. Simply put, Pavlov’s

theory of classical conditioning explains that much of man’s learning is viaway of conditioning (Baron and Bryne, 1997). In that, behaviour is learnt

through punishment, reinforcement and-or imitation. Thus, they (Baron and

Bryne) show that, Freud believes much of our behaviours are through

consciousness but have been actively repressed – and so they are driven

from consciousness because they are either too vicious or provoking. For

example, shameful experiences or unacceptable sexual or aggressive urges

are often driven deep within the unconsciousness of people as a medium of

relating to their occurrences. The fact that we are not aware of our

unconscious behaviour, however, in no way prevents them from affecting our

behaviour.

On the issue of human personality, Baron, Bryne, and Branscombe (2006)

argue that, personality is an individual’s unique and relatively stable patterns

of behaviour, thoughts, and emotions that are influenced by the family and

the environment. Therefore, both the Sociologists and Psychologists who



study different aspects in the Social Sciences reveal that human behaviour is

learnt, and is influenced by their social environment through either

‘culturization’, adaptation, imitation or experiences garnered from the various

social agents – the family, the church, the school, political ideology or

structure, other social institutions or peer group.

During a conversation that the writer had recently with a particular individual,

he (respondent) unambiguously stated that he and his father were aligned to

the same political party. He recalled that his father would argue openly about

one particular political party. “Dad would speak of the advantages of this

party leader and by extension of the party with great gratification in his body

language” he said. He grew up believing his “Dad’s words to be trustworthy”

as he was the first authority figure on his impressionable mind. Furthermore,

he disclosed that his early socialization was embedded in his subconscious so

as such that, he was consequently influenced into present perspectives.

He had voted on two occasions purely on the request of his father. It was

clear from the discussion with this young prospective geologist that the other

party would not be given a second thought. He had never seen one of their

manifestos or listened to their presentations yet he still does not see them as

viable alternative for government. Although he recognized that there were a

number of goal-oriented persons within the Opposition, he thought that for

the love of their country they should become members of his party. He found

it difficult to identify any negatives, complaints or inefficiency within hispolitical ideology and association.

He declared that because of his early schooling, he continued in the practice

of not being disrespectful of the political leadership even though sometimes

he was highly critical of their judgements. Another example that he cited was

standing at the sound of the national anthem. This was something that he

learnt as a child while at primary school. He displayed much reverence while

he spoke of our political authority as if he were totally submissive to their

every fancy. The writer could sense this young man’s loyalty to Jamaica, andmore so his in-depth closeness to a political ideology that was not based on

rationality given his natural science background. He had five (5) Advanced

Level subjects of which three (3) were with distinction. In addition, he was a

finalizing student at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus,

pursuing an undergraduate degree in Geography/Geology. He believed that

the heroes and heroine have awoken in him a love for Jamaica beyond the

surface of the phrase pride. He revealed that, he was always proud to role-



play Marcus Garvey, Paul Bogle, Sir Alexander Bustamante, Norman Manley

and Dr. Martin Luther when he was a child in school as they defended the

rights, choices and freedom on the Black Race in a time when many were

silently addressing their own personal concerns in their respective territories.

He spoke eloquently and pasted his words with greater ease when he spoke

of Sir Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley. His political‘culturalization’ was so ingrained that he sounded a he were insane, irrational

and highly emotional.

Another respondent declared that on his eighteenth birthday having been

registered to vote and knowing little of the two (2) main political parties in

Jamaica at the time, voted entirely based on ‘family’s influence and

preference’. She argued that, she would hear her father; mother, aunts,

uncles and elder brother spoke of a particular leader with the greatness and

compassion as though this individual was God (i.e. Michael Manley). Thisyoung woman declared that her family argued that Jamaicans should be

eternally grateful to this icon, father, leader, as he was instrumental in the

establishment of ‘free education’, ‘minimum wage’, ‘maternity leave for

pregnant women’, ‘poor relief benefits’ and other social programmes for the

proletariat class in Jamaica.

She forwarded the perspective that while growing up as a child in her

community, she had a love and bias for this leader without having read

anything in order to justify those tendencies. She was a known graduatestudent of the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, pursuing a course

of study in Political Science. Political Science it was. As such, in retrospect,

she believed that irrespective of one’s self-concept and decisiveness, many

of the choices that we make are highly influenced by the early agents of

socialization despite our declaration of rationality, ‘scientific mindedness’ and

empiricism. People are highly subjective within the ambit of objectivity. We

attach meanings to the interpretation of our world, and many of these are

through ‘culturatization’ by the social agents in society. And so, it requires a

consorted effort on the path of grown peoples to understand some of their

biases that they have been attained due to early socialization and so re-

socialize themselves in a state of willingness to review other perspective.

You may be inclined to postulate that this essay is specific in that it deals

only with two (2) individuals, and these persons could be the exception and

not the norm. And as a result, the writer used stratified random sampling

techniques to select ten (10) students of Taylor Hall, Irvine Hall, Chancellor



Hall and Preston Hall to carry out a study so as to ascertain a generality on

socialization.

The writer formulated an instrument (questionnaire) to gather pertinent data

on whether or not students’ present political ideology was as a result of their

families’ political preferences, and-or as a consequent of formal education.

From the responses, 90 percentage points of the population sampled agreed

that their early political socialization have profoundly impacted on their

present concept of politics, governance and authority.

None of the respondents who spoke indicated a total rebellion against the

family and school. They all agreed that even in their most rebellious

adolescent years, no stance was ever taken that was totally non-conforming.

Instead, each contradictory idea in relation to their thought, values, norms

and ways of socialization was always weighed against those initially imparted

to them. And as such, oppositions were frequently never taken, as they felt

wrong. All the respondents agreed generally that their construct of society,

today, was mostly as a result of early socialization. In that the family and the

school inculcated many of their values and beliefs as they spent a large

percent of their formative and primary years in their care. They cited that

political ideology is equally fashioned from the family, peer group and other

social institutions to which the young and the individual continuously

interface.

The writer grew up not directly hearing his parents speaks of political issues

but knew of the family’s preference as it related to political ideology. In

retrospect, the writer observed his mother in particular reverently listening to

all the speeches of a particular political leader with awesome attentiveness.

Furthermore, she showed much interest in hearing all details of his speeches;

and she listened to all his public presentations, she had to hear. My uncle, on

the other hand, who was a renowned political activist spoke nothing political

while at home but we all knew of the his passion. The writer’s love for the

man’s style, family loyalty, firmness in decision taken and kind heartednessmade the man a mentor in many ways that one. As such, writer began

patterning many of his uncle’s style. The result of all this was his choice when

it came to make one was similar to that of his uncle’s and mother’s political

preference. Little die the writer recognized that he had begun the imitation

process in gravitating towards listening to all the speeches of the same

political leader as that of his uncle and-or mother with the same

attentiveness. In retrospect, writer would make countless excuses for not



listening to the oppositions’ positions on important matters, and justify all

position taken his party of preference while it was in leadership.

It was, therefore, obvious that the author’s construct of politics, governance

and political ideology greatly mimic that his family’s political thought. For

example, author was told never to question authority, obey authority, and

speak no evil of those who are set in charge, the law of the land binds all

men, your country’s need is paramount to yours, and that ‘you’ must

contribute to your country’s economic and social development.

Schooling in the socialization process

The author’s upbringing was not only owing to family socialization but also

equally as a result of formal schooling and social institution attached even

after writing this paper. While being a student at primary school, the writer

was actively involved in scouting and so one should grasp some of the

reasons for his future perception, development and decisions. This

involvement would see him responding to authority with respect irrespective

of age, physical structure and-or status. We (all the scouts) would attend

school earlier than the other students for flag raising ceremony every Monday

morning, the ceremony would span approximately forty-five (45) minutes andfor the duration of the programme we would stand upright with reverence

while other students close were mobile and migrate from topology to another

with great ease.

Attending secondary school, on the other hand, because the system was so

structured, we respected authority by indoctrination, punishment, and

‘culturalization’. In that, there were a number of bodies that represented the

teachers and were vested with the authority to maintain discipline and proper

functioning of the school environment. Even when the teachers were absent,the structure was frequently upheld through class captain, students’ council

representatives and prefects. All forms of authority groups within the school

system were specifically designed so that they reflect the various positions in

our society. Formal schooling through those agents previously mentioned

provides the background for children to capture the values, norms and beliefs

of political socialization.



In retrospect, many of the author’s peers who attended a particular non-

traditional secondary school, although we were of the lower strata of the

class structure, wanted our teachers to be proud of our future

accomplishment. The writer was from a class of twenty-five (25) individuals,to which today: Five (5) persons are teachers, ten (10) are clerical personnel

and two (2) persons are professional athletes.

It would be simplistic and one-dimensional to postulate that all individuals

who passed through the gates of Vauxhall High formerly Vauxhall Secondary

School were properly socialized by the school or for that matter the family as

mass theorizing on socialization may want people to conceive. But, it is

equally true that although all the students from that institution were brought

up by the same agent of socialization (the school), some of the pupils wererebellious, deviant and anti the structure as they considered this to be

oppressive and barbaric. As such, a few of them have angrily rebelled against

the state as there way of expressing their dissatisfaction with the agents of

socialization. Even though those persons may not be considered as a part of

the typically averaged socialized persons, their position in the author’s

perception is usually the catalyst for the socialization process to be re-

analyzed for effectiveness.

Conclusion

Sociologists, psychologists and political scientists converge on the

fundamental scope of socialization that it is embedded in ‘culturalization’;

and they postulate that this is a life long happening. The ‘culturalization’ of

animals into human beings is attained through plethora of social institutions

within that society. Many sociologists have extensively studied the

phenomenon of socialization, and have generally concluded that the process

is multispatial, and does include political institution. Political agents of

‘culturalization’ are paramount in the socialization process of social man, as

he/she relies on this institution for many actions and thereby this body aids

the perspective that the individual forms of his/her socio-political and geo-

historical space. Socialization, therefore, is not limited on the primary agent,

the family, as man is a multi-dimensional being who operates within various

social construct, and thereby formulates functions, perspectives and biases

based on those institutions to which he/she must interact on an ongoing

basis. In the situation of the wolf-boy, it was clearly demonstrated that social



man is not automatically following birth, but is inextricably linked to

association that the individual has with the various social agents in his social

space. It follows from the setting of the wolf boy that ‘culturalization’ of social

man is inevitable, and doctrine and biases that he/she takes from the

experiences form a critical part of the individual’s social being. From this

perspective, political institution plays a pivotal role in fashioning many of thesocial actions of man and this may be so ingrained in the individual that

education and other experiences are unable to any re-engineer objectivity.

Political scientists concur with academies in sociology that social agents

accommodate ‘culturalization’ of man into a social being. The discourse does

not cease there, as political socialization is a micro unit in society, and that

people constitute the macro unit through institutions and other social agents.

Political socialization is not synonymous with political ideology, as the latter is

an output of the ‘culturalization’ of social man. The discourse of politicalsocialization begins early as within the family. The respect of authority that is

taught to children is one element of political socialization, to the experience

of the acceptance of nationalism, to the willingness of individuals to abide by

rules and laws, to the appreciation of leadership in governance, to the actual

political ideology are all symbolic representation of the areas within the

political socialization discourse.

Author’s political socialization

In retrospective to the writer’s political socialization, it appears that his

experiences are similar to of the averaged person. In that, he shares the

same socio-political biases as many peoples on the University of the West

Indies, Mona Campus, in respect to adhering to political system and social

structures, accepting the concept of self identity as provided by the agents of

socialization and agreeing with the punishments of the society for those who

decide not adhere to the punishment structure for deviance. An example

here is: Instead of rebelling against aspects within particular social groups

when they confront the author, he would suppress many of these instanceswithin the sub-conscious, and for some he would request meetings with the

demagogues as to panacea the ills of the situation in for them to make more

effective.

So, the author concurs with Sociologists and Psychologist that ones present



self, value system, beliefs, ideology and discourse perceptiveness are

intricately woven in the ‘culturalization’ of his/her society through the social

agents. It is the process of socialization of a child that distinguishes him/her

from the other animals, as is clear from the example found by psychologists

in the case of the wolf boy (Baron, Bryne, and Branscombe, 2006). Therefore

social institution like the family and formal schooling are largely responsiblefor your present decisions, choices, and attitudes towards many events but

this does not reduce the effectiveness of political socialization on the same

individual.

Here the author accepts the notion that “no man is an island, no man stand

alone”, as this fitting summarizes the socialization process of social man. The

family, formal schooling, religion, political institution are encapsulated within

the social space of ‘culturalization’ of man irrespective of the timing of this in

man’s experiences. Political socialization is formed through interrelation with

either your family members and-or formal schooling, and primarily from

political parties’ ideology. A child enters the world with the scope tocommunicate, think and process information in order to make decision. That

child becomes a human by mimicking the standards, norms, culture, myths

and mentoring others in the process of enfolding into a higher animal. But the

child’s experiences may be different as was the case in the story of the “wolf

boy” of Midnapore.

Wolf boy socialization

Sociologists relate the story that two (2) children who were found in the

company of wolves by a team of researchers. These children were seen

walking on four (4) feet, barking, consuming raw meats and they were

discovered to be fierce like the animals they mimic. Furthermore, a group of

Sociologists tried their concerted best to re-socialize them into society but

they were seen to be uncomfortable, highly frustrated and died after one (1)

year (see Sociology Themes and Perspective, p.4). Hence, it follows that it is

through the primary agents of socialization like the family that fashions a

child into a human being, which is accepted by definition for society and not

merely being the biological man. Therefore ones present political ideology isnot arbitrarily constructed by present academic prowess but instead through

such agencies like the mass media, family biases, ideology and acceptance of

their authority. Owing to the fact that, a child for the about the first three (3)

years depend mostly on the family for support and survival this forms a

dependency to the authority of family and a high acceptance of much of their

ideologies, beliefs, value system and political biases.



Therefore, the author subscribes to the discourse in psychology that the most

critical years in the development of a child’s person are between birth zero

(relative and not absolute) and five (5) years; hence, it is during this period

that the ‘culturalization’ of the social being is formed. It should be noted thatof the five-year period, the first three (3) of those years are spent with the

family as a dependent from which many of the child’s views of this world is

fashioned that will guide how he/she acts.

In western societies, many children enter the formal school system at three

(3) years and onwards, as such, the school system helps the child to

understand the value of authority and ones role in accepting this office. The

language of patriotism is embedded into the consciousness of the child form

the exposure with the various agents within the society and the family andthe church reinforce those values. Teachers, and other authority personnel in

the school system, stance on the pledge, the anthem, their display of respect

for leaders of the country, their enthusiasm of the civic pride and homage of

the heroes and heroine along with their role of dedication are sufficient tools

used to foster the political socialization process on the young mind. And so,

ones political thought is not accidental but is largely due to upbringing (i.e.

‘culturalization’). Since the family and the formal school system consume a

large percentage point of an individual’s formative and impressionable years,

it follows that ones political socialization is inculcated in the child from early,

and that this process does not begin with an initiation into a political party or

a certain political ideology.

The writer believes that it is predominantly as a result of political socialization

that many Jamaicans do hold that loyalty of country, respect of authority,

uphold of Capitalism, partisanship, and insist that the class structure is

maintained. The socio-political system is so superseding that it develops a

self-identity in the individual and a sense of non-resistance despite a states of

conflict, which are resolved by the structure as against a shift of base of those institutions. It is through ‘culturalization’ of the different values,

ideological perspectives, and knowledge is viewed of the social world for a

child and many adults. Because socialization cease not with childhood, the

culture learnt by the young and the continuity of the process formulate the

human into an adoptable social agent. The way of life of people includes how

they behave and think, and it the culture which is man-made that helps to

comprehend the social man. Hence, within the general culture of a certain



topology is the various sub-cultures, which are tenets of the diversifications

of the main culture and this goes to justify how it is that the individual may

have been socialized within the basic components but fails to be properly

socialized based on the entirety of the dominant culture. Hence, the sub-

culture may be dialectic to the general culture. The examples here are: (1),

teenager peer subcultures, (2), Rastafarianism and (3), ‘gunmanship’subcultures.

Theories of sociology clearly indicate that the discipline is attained through

empiricism, realism, observation, phenomenology, and language discourse;

and it shows how man being a social agent owes many of his/her ‘culture’ to

the multitudinous social institutions to which he/she interrelate on an ongoing

basis. It follows that political socialization is simply the framework, which

seeks to explain a sub-discipline of sociology, socialization. Society is an

amalgamation of organized group of people, and this cooperation solidaritythe social order of that group by a way of life. This is an aspect of the

sociological classic that political scientists theorize as political socialization

within the space of political belief and ideology. From a sociopolitical space,

socialization may be atypical despite the dominant culture, and this may be

explained by the variations in subcultures; and how the different agents of

social agents transform the norms, values, beliefs, and ‘culturalization’ of its

members. There are areas of the general space, which may offer similar

resemblance from one topology to another, and from one subculture to

another but these may vary, with socio-demographic characteristics of the

population. Thomlinson (1964, p.10) aptly describes how it is that

socialization captures its player, and offers him/her a time space to operate.

He said that “Without socialization, the individual has extremely limited

capabilities, as is attested by studies of isolated children” (Thomlinson, 1964,

p.10). It is this happening that psychologists refer to as conditioning. Children

learn what they see and experience through a process of adaptation,

imitation and reinforcement; but adults, on the other hand, do so through

similar media but that the process is more complex. Hence, is political

socialization any different from other tenets within the general socialization

of humans?

The formulation of personality is determined by socialization through various

socio-political agents. An infant is ‘culturalized’ a human being from the

institutions to which he/she continuously interact on a daily basis, and not

merely because his/her physiological existence. The child learn the values,

beliefs, norms and cultures of a society through the interactive phase of

his/her experiences, and many of these sociological agents are taught by



family, peer group, church, formal schooling, and other social animals. The l

process of acquiring a culture is referred to as socialization. It is during

socialization that we learn the language of the culture. Our societies to which

we are born into as well as the roles we are to play in life are tenets of

‘culturalization’. The example here is girls learn how to be daughters, sisters,

friends, wives, and mothers. In addition, they learn about the occupationalroles that their society expects of them. Generally, we are also socialized and

usually adopt our culture's norms through the ‘culturalization’ process.

“Norms are the conceptions of appropriate and expected behavior that are

held by most members of the society” (O’Neil, 2005). It should be contrasted

that socialization refers to the general process of acquiring culture;

anthropologists coin the word enculturation for the process of being

socialized to a particular culture. O’Neil writes “You were enculturated to your

specific culture by your parents and the other people who raised you.” Withinthe context of socialization, political beliefs, ideologies, nationalism, civic

pride, values and other political tenets are elements that fashion the

personality of man, and accounts for many of the biases that he/she exhibit

in seeking to interpret his/her social world. Hence, political socialization is a

component of socialization. This is a social agent within man’s culture, and is

similar to other agents, which governs normalcy in man’s social world.

It is through the space of political socialization that individuals become aware

of the tenets of political culture, political facts, and political values. This

process, because man is a social agent and that he/she operates within

groups, happens through the influence of parents, the media, friends,employment and a variety of other socio-political and physical stimuli.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if persons are not exposed to germane

facts, pertinent ideas, and a certain critical thinking process, their ability to

self-govern is going to be exorbitantly limited.

Based on the discourse of social scientists on the phenomenon of

socialization, it is highly improbable that people will be most influenced by

those factors to which they are unexposed while growing up. There is a

traditional vernacular used in Jamaica that “show mi who yu fiends are and

mi tell yu how yu stay”, this summative expression speaks to the relationship

between people and their social arrangements. Although this comment lends

itself to generalizabilty to which is highly statistical non-empirical, but it is a

statement concerning the effects on the conduct of that group dynamics and

the likely common experiences of persons of same social agents. Because the

decisions that the group makes impact on its members, members are highly

likely to share some degree of value so as be continuously aligned to this

institution.



Therefore, political socialization works for the political scientist as an

accurate predictor of political beliefs and, by extension, voter preferences as

family works for the sociologists in explaining social man. Political scientists

theorize that voter preference, patriotism, nationalism, civic pride and

political beliefs are embedded within the socialization process to which is

attained by social agents. They concur with anthropologists that man’spresent actions are predated to his/her experiences garnered over time from

family, church, peer group, civil associations and political institutionalization.

It follows that man does not acquire his/her values and beliefs whether they

are political or social from merely being a physiological being but it is

accomplished by ‘culturalization’. Man’s experiences are dynamic, complex

and social and this means that he/she does not necessarily hold the same set

of values, beliefs and ideology indefinitely but is likely to change perspective

given particular set of experiences. As a result, his/her opinions are easily

shifted and changed with the addition of new information. Despite the

‘scientificness’ to which social sciences seek to align itself, man is not as

objectificated (or rationale) as many positivists would want us to belief; and

so, he/she lacks some the critical thinking skills to assess the validity or

relevance of the information that he/she receives so his/her opinions are

easily manipulated by whoever controls the media. Media influence then

becomes a political question for discussion.

The media are social agents, and so they are able to influence people’s

perspective as much as they DO because they are a part of the socialization

landscape. By placing a subject matter on the back of the newspaper, or

leaving it completely untouched, will have an influence on the importance (or

lack thereof) that people will attach to that item. Hence, the media play animportant role in agenda setting for political issues.

The media thoroughly understand how values are formulated, and so they

are able to use coverage and emphasize of issues through particular

personalities to stimulate discourse and shape political culturalization. Like

the family, the church, informal and formal social groupings, and formal

schooling, the media is a mode of socialization. Political attitudes are

grounded in values, to which the media exploit in an attempt to influence the

culture. The media receive feedback on particular issues through public

opinions from which guided approaches (or culturalization package) are taken

to address certain values or attitudes through discourse.

Socialization is germane in understanding the social man, and how he/she

operates within his/her physical environment, and why he/she is likely to take

particular actions. The discourse of socialization undoubtedly explains

culture, political ideologies, values and attitudes of people; and so, the

phenomenon of political socialization is only a subset within the general

categorization of socialization and therefore cannot be sidelined when



analyzing the social space of socialization.

References

Baron, R. A. and Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology, (8th ed). Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (2006). Social Psychology (11th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Bourne, P. A. (2006). Historical sociology. Unpublished. University of the West

Indies, Mona. Kingston, Jamaica.

Coser, Lewis and Rosenberg, Bernard. (1957). Sociological Theory: A Book of

Readings. (Second ed). New York: The McMillan Company

Durkheim, Emile. (1950). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: TheFree Press.

Galston, W. (2001). Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic

Education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217-234.

Giddens, Anthony. (1982). Contemporary Social Theory. The Macmillan Press

Limited. London and Basingstoke.

Gosling, R.A., Hill, M., Fee, L.K., & Taylor, S. (2003). Introduction to sociology,

(7th ed.). London: University of London Press.

Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming Political. Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship

Education, New York, State University of New York Press.



Hanks, M. (1981). Youth, Voluntary Associations and Political Socialisation.

Social Forces, 60:1, 211-223.

Haralambus, M & Holborn, M (2002), Sociology: Themes and Perspective.

London: University Tutorial Press

Hooghe, M. (2003). Voluntary Associations and Democratic Attitudes. in M.

Hooghe and D. Stolle (eds), Generating Social Capital, New York, Palgrave.

Inkeles, A. (1964). What is sociology? An introduction to the discipline and

profession. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall.

Jennings, M. K. (1987). Residues of a Movement. American Political Science

Review, 81:2, 367-382.

Jennings, M. K. and R. Niemi. (1981). Generations and Politics. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Johnson, M. et al. (1998). Volunteerism in Adolescence. Journal of Research

on Adolescence, 8:3, 309-332.

Kohn, M. and C. Schooler. (1982). Job Conditions and Personality. A

Longitudinal Assessment of their Reciprocal Effects. American Journal of

Sociology, 87, 1257-1286.

Langton, K. and M. K. Jennings. (1968). Political Socialization and the High

School Civics Curriculum. American Political Science Review, 62, 862-867.

Lesthaeghe, R. and G. Moors. (2001). Life Course Transitions and Value

Orientations, Selection and Adaptation. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.



Macionis, J, J. & Plummer, K. (1998). Sociology. New York: Prentice Hall.

McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, W. and M. Streb. (2001). Building Citizenship: How Student Voice in

Service-learning Develops Civic Values. Social Science Quarterly, 82:1, 154-

169.

Mott, Jonathan. (2006). Political Socialization. Retrieved on January 27, 2006

from http://www.thisnation.com/socialization.html.

Munroe, T. (2002). An Introduction to Politics: Lectures for First Year

Students, (3rd ed). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.

Niemi, R. and J. Junn. (1998). Civic Education. What Makes Students Learn.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Putnam, R. (ed.). (2002). Democracies in Flux. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.

________. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Renshon, S.A. (ed.). (1977). Handbook of Political Socialization. New York:

Free Press.

http://www.thisnation.com/socialization.html

http://www.thisnation.com/socialization.html



Schwartz, S. K. and D. Schwartz. (1975). New Directions in the Study of

Political Socialization in D. Schwartz and S. Schwartz (eds), New Directions in

Political Socialization. New York: Free Press

Thomlinson, R. (1965). Sociological concepts and research. Acquisition,

analysis, and interpretation of social information. New York, U.S.: Random

House.

so cal is at ion

Documents