socialization process

Introduction to Behavioral Sciences

Collection of Journals The Socialization Process and

Society, Culture and Values

Presented to the Faculty Of the

Department of Languages, Humanities and Social Sciences Cavite State University

Indang, Cavite

A Class Project by BS Biology 2-1 Batch 2013-2014 and Irregulars

SOCS1

October 2014


Introduction

This project was a compilation of different journals under the subjects assigned to by

their professor of the students in Introduction to Behavioral Sciences. It contains journals under

the subjects The Socialization Process and Society, Culture and Values, which was obtained

from different sources of comparison.

The Socialization Process discusses on the individual and how he or she interacts with the

environment in order to achieve belongingness and social status in the community. Socialization

is the process by which children and adults learn from others. This topic discusses the factors

that influence socialization and the agents which induce socialization to the individual.

Society, Culture and Values discusses on how an individual affects the society and its

environment. It also tackles how a culture was created by the individuals living in the community

and the norms that are created and learned because of the society.

This collection of journals was due to the collaboration of the BS Biology students and

the irregulars who are also taking up the subject under the same course code.


Table of Contents

The Socialization Process

A. Development of the Social Self

I. Function of Socialization………………………………………………6-11

II. Agencies of Socialization………………………………………….….11-14

B. Social Group

I. Concept of Group…………………………………………………….15-26

II. Factor that Influence Group…………………………………………..26-29

III. Classification of Groups………………………………………………29-30

IV. Importance of Groups………………………………………..……….30-32

Society, Culture, and Values

A. Concept of Society……………………………………………………………37-43

B. Culture

I. Characteristics of Culture……………………………………….……43-53

C. Filipino Values

I. Past VS Present………………………………………………...…….53-59

II. Values and Social Change……………………………………….…..59-82


The Socialization Process

Socialization is the process by which children and adults learn from others. We begin

learning from others during the early days of life; and most people continue their social learning

all through life (unless some mental or physical disability slows or stops the learning process).

Sometimes the learning is fun, as when we learn a new sport, art or musical technique from a

friend we like. At other times, social learning is painful, as when we learn not to drive too fast by

receiving a large fine for speeding.

Natural socialization occurs when infants and youngsters explore, play and discover the

social world around them.

Planned socialization occurs when other people take actions designed to teach or train

others from infancy on. Natural socialization is easily seen when looking at the young of almost

any mammalian species (and some birds). Planned socialization is mostly a human phenomenon;

and all through history, people have been making plans for teaching or training others. Both

natural and planned socialization can have good and bad features: It is wise to learn the best

features of both natural and planned socialization and weave them into our lives.

Positive socialization is the type of social learning that is based on pleasurable and

exciting experiences. We tend to like the people who fill our social learning processes with

positive motivation, loving care, and rewarding opportunities.

Negative socialization occurs when others use punishment, harsh criticisms or anger to

try to "teach us a lesson;" and often we come to dislike both negative socialization and the people

who impose it on us. There are all types of mixes of positive and negative socialization; and the

more positive social learning experiences we have, the happier we tend to be -- especially if we


learn 1useful information that helps us cope well with the challenges of life. A high ratio of

negative to positive socialization can make a person unhappy, defeated or pessimistic about life.

Our prior socialization helps explain a gigantic chunk of who we are at present -- what

we think and feel, where we plan to go in life. But we are not limited by the things given to us by

our prior social learning experiences; we can take all our remaining days and steer our future

social learning in directions that we value. The more that we know about the socialization

process, the more effective we can be in directing our future learning in the ways that will help

us most.

Because we were not able to select our parents, we were not able to control much of the

first 10 or 20 years of our socialization. However, most people learn to influence their own

socialization as they gain experience in life. It takes special skills to steer and direct our own

socialization, and many of us pick up some of those skills naturally as we go through life.

Having a course on socialization can help us understand which skills are most effective in

guiding our socialization toward the goals we most value. It is important to know that we all

come into life with a variety of psychology systems that foster self-actualization and favor the

development of our human potential. These are the biosocial mechanisms that underlie natural

socialization. We can see and study natural socialization by examining the socialization of

primates and other mammals. Once we under the natural biosocial processes, we can try to build

strategies of self-actualization that are compatible with the natural biosocial mechanisms we are

born with to make self-development as easy and rewarding as possible.

1 http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/baldwin/classes/soc142/scznDEF.html


A.DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL SELF

I. FUNCTION OF SOCIALIZATION

Socialization is the dominant factor in human progress. The analysis of its character and

significance has been the central object of this essay. Emphasize, as we must, the influence of

geographic environment or the role of heredity in determining both the characteristics of ethnic

groups and individual differences in temperament and mentality within groups, yet the problem

of a scientific explanation for human evolution is only partially solved.

Socialization, or the co participation of persons in the mental unity of group life, is, as we

have seen, the efficient determinant in progress. Over against the physical environment we place

the social environment. The physical environment provides the condition for social life: the

social environment with its tools of thought and technique functions for the efficient control of

the environment. Over against physical heredity we emphasize social heredity.

Physical heredity with its chromosomes, its unit determinants, and its laws of dominance

and of segregation determines the physical characteristics and mental capacity of the person:

social heredity endows him with the social capital of humanity. And what are social environment

and social heredity but aspects of the process of socialization? With every step in human

progress both personal and social development and achievement are less and less dependent

upon the immediate pressure of , the geographic environment or upon the congenital physical

and mental equipment of the person and are more and more determined by the nature and degree

of his participation in the process of socialization.

Socialization, we repeat, is the central process in social evolution. It is not necessary at

this point to make a detailed of our evidence for the dominant of socialization in human

development. The inner unity of our thesis is indicated by the dynamic part played by the


socializing process in material evolution, in social progress, and in personal development. Our

present efficient control over nature is but the objective expression of the functional organization

of the minds of men down the ages and across continents that we have named socialization. Our

present social order, imperfect as it is, our codes of morals, our standards of conduct, and our

ideals—the social organism in its most rigid form and its most plastic tendencies—is a passing

stage in socialization. Then, too, the degree of the development of personality, whether measured

by the technique of control over things and persons, or by aesthetic refinement and emotional

power, or by the rhythm of action and reaction in the social life, stands for the index of the

socialization of the individual. So, then, this study of the of socialization in social evolution has a

practical significance. The dependence of discovery and invention upon socialization leads us to

reject the doctrine of economic determinism.

Geographic influences, in general, but condition randomly in extreme instances

determines human activity. The social environment, social heredity, social organization—in a

word, socialization—is the dominant forces. Thus, instead of economic determinism we have

psychic and social determinism. In speaking of social determinism we mean more than Ward

incorporated in his term "social telesis." For Ward, as we have seen, thought that society could

only accelerate, but not direct, the course of social evolution. But social determinism is the

constructive phase of the process of socialization, and signifies the evaluation of social

tendencies and the consequent direction of the movement of society toward the highest human

welfare. Recognition of the process of socialization means that social evolution in the future is

not to be the outgrowth of economics, but rather the product of ethics.

In the failure to perceive this fact, as Professor Ellwood has demonstrated, lay the error of

Marx. What Marx did emphasize, however, and with rough truth, was that the emergence of the


working class into the world of action would amount to a revolution. His mistake lay in too crude

a conception of the social change involved, namely, in his blindness to the subtle processes of

socialization. He dreamed of social ends being achieved by violence, and of the violent taking

the coming social kingdom by force. He did not appreciate the force of the mental explosion of

the proletariat into the thought-world which hitherto had been effectually safeguarded against the

masses.

The study of social progress in England which we have made is an interpretation of the

class struggle from the standpoint of socialization. All indications point to an intellectual rather

than a physical solution of the conflict. For all social orders, according to our analysis, rest upon

and require a reconstruction of mental attitude and are characterized by a peculiar type of

socialization. However basic pecuniary values are for the realization of human value sit is in the

human values that the aspirations of men find realization. Since the passing of primitive

democracy human nature has been warped in every social order to meet the peculiar

requirements of efficiency in the industrial activities of that order. With the realization of

democracy in our present age it is now possible to reconstruct our social order so that it will

conform more nearly to the fundamental impulses of human nature. At any rate, the realization

of a socialized order is bound up, in the interplay of cause and effect, with the socialization of the

person.

The identification of the individual in thought and sympathy with the ongoing of

humanity will multiply the tendencies toward the social direction of human evolution. In the

future we may hope to parallel in the achievement of social control our present efficient physical

control over nature. This control over men is not to be won by the loss of individual freedom and

happiness. Indeed the harnessing of our social forces is to come, we believe, in its most efficient


and effective form through increasing the freedom and heightening the happiness of the person.

If this be a paradox, the clue to its solution lies in the socialization of the per-son. The socializing

of the individual means that he consciously shapes his aims and purposes to harmonize with the

promotion of the coordinated welfare of all members of society. The fact that the person is the

center of initiative and invention, that rivalry with his fellows releases the "reserve stores of

energy," means from the standpoint of socialization that the individual will be recognized as the

active agent in social reconstruction. In so acting he realizes his best self. His fullest participation

in the store of knowledge, in the higher refinements of play and of art, and in both the

generalized and the specialized social activities results in the development of personality and in

the joy and happiness of life.

Thus, for material evolution, for social progress, and for personal development the factor

of socialization has dwarfed the factors of geographic environment and inborn mental capacity.

Socialization has become the predominant force in social evolution. Wish the establishment of

this point the primary purpose of our thesis is accomplished. There is, however, a secondary

object of methodological rather than of practical importance. The attempt has been made to

formulate the content of the term "socialization." For the progress of sociological thinking it was

deemed desirable to develop a coherent organization of the concept "socialization." A cursory

examination of both social and sociological literature reveals the need of such an attempt. In

contrast with the term "physical environment" and with the term "physical heredity" it is

desirable to have a definite unitary conception. This has been the purpose of our analysis of the

term "socialization." "Social environment," "social heredity," "education," "nurture," "social

capital, “and numerous other phrases now in current use are all aspects of the process of

socialization and get a more definite and dynamic significance when this relationship is


recognized. The old controversy as to the relative influence of heredity and environment upon

the life of the person loses its ambiguities and vagueness when the confused middle, i. e., the

social influences, is clearly defined and socialization is recognized as the decisive factor.

Among sociologists the process of socialization has been often pointed out since Simmel

gave the term currency, yet with the larger number it has not been given an adequate place in the

sociological system. Spencer "blazed the trail" in his rather crude analysis of the process under

the mechanical term "super-organic evolution. Ward went wide of the mark when he maintained

that "achievement “is the central fact of human association. Giddings was closer to the truth, but

seriously limited his explanation of the operation of the social forces when in his earlier writings

he confined his attention too closely to the "consciousness of kind Small, however, concentrated

his analysis upon the main aspect of human evolution in his clear and thorough description of the

concept "the social process.

We may point out here that while the social process is the form, socialization is the

product of human association. In the actual analysis of socialization individual sociologists have

also tended to overestimate certain aspects of socialization to the exclusion of others.

Socialization of the person is not merely on the cognitive side (Ward[9] ) ; nor on the affective

side (Ross[10] and Giddings[11] ) ; nor on the volitional side (Ward[12] ) ; but is the all-round

development of all these aspects of the self in the free and full participation of the person in

social thought, social sentiment, and social action. With this explanation of the primary and

secondary purposes of the thesis we close our study. Adequate recognition of the scope and play

of socialization in social evolution should have a part in the quickening of social thinking and in

the enlightening of social action. In conclusion, we may restate the thesis and the argument. The

socialization of the person consists in his all-round participation in the thinking, the feeling, and


the activities of the group. In short, socialization is "personality freely unfolding under

conditions of healthy fellowship." Society viewed from this aspect is an immense co-operative

concern for the promotion of personal development. But social organization is not the end of

socialization; the end and the function of socialization is the development of persons. The

relation is even closer: personality consists, almost wholly, in socialization, in this mental

interaction of the person and his group. The person is coming to realize that in achieving his

interests he must at the same time achieve functional relations with all other persons. In this

achieving of right relations with his fellows, in this capacity of fitting "into an infinitely refined

and complex system of co-operation the development of personality consists.

II. AGENCIES OF SOCIALIZATION

Primary socialization occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions

appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture. For example, if a child saw his/her

mother expressing a discriminatory opinion about a minority group, then that child may think

this behavior is acceptable, and could continue to have this opinion about minority groups.

Secondary socialization: Secondary socialization refers to the process of learning the

appropriate behavior as a member of a smaller group within the larger society. It is usually

associated with teenagers and adults, and involves smaller changes than those occurring in

primary socialization; e.g., entering a new profession or relocating to a new environment.

Developmental socialization: Developmental socialization is the process of learning

behavior in a social institution or developing your social skills.

Anticipatory socialization: Anticipatory socialization refers to the processes of

socialization in which a person "rehearses" for future positions, occupations, and social

relationships.


Resocialization refers to the process of discarding former behavior patterns and accepting

new ones as part of a transition in one's life. This occurs throughout the human life cycle

(Schaefer & Lamm, 1992: 113). Resocialization can be an intense experience, with the individual

experiencing a sharp break with their past and needing to learn and be exposed to radically

different norms and values. An example might be the experience of a young man or woman

leaving home to join the military, or a religious convert internalizing the beliefs and rituals of a

new faith. An extreme example would be the process by which a transsexual learns to function

socially in a dramatically altered gender role.

Agents of Socialization: Agents of socialization are the people and groups that influence

our self concepts, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. The family: family is responsible for the

youth and, among other things, determining one's attitudes toward religion. and establishing

career goals. Education: education is the agency responsible for socializing groups of young

people with particular skills and values in society. Religion: religions play a major role in

socialization, in the context often synonymous with "indoctrination."Peer groups: peers refer to

the people who are roughly the same age and/or who share other social characteristics (e.g.,

students in a college class).The mass media. Other agents: the work place, public institutions,

etc. The Media and Socialization: Theorists, like Parsons, and textbook authors, like Ely Chinoy

(1960), and Harry M. Johnson (1961), recognized that socialization didn't stop when childhood

ended. They realized that socialization continued on into adulthood, but they treated it as a form

of specialized education. Johnson (1961), for example, wrote about the importance of inculcating

members of the US Coastguard with a set of values so as to respond to commands and act in

unison without question. Later scholars accused these theorists of socialization of not

recognizing the importance of the mass media which, by the middle of the twentieth century, was


becoming more significant as a social force. There was concern about the link between television

and the education and socialization of children, a concern that continues today, but when it came

to adults, the mass media were regarded merely as sources of information and entertainment,

rather than molders of personality. Some sociologist and theorists of culture have recognized the

power of mass communication as a socialization device. Dennis Mc Quail recognizes the

argument: … the media can teach norms and values by way of symbolic reward and punishment

for different kinds of behavior as represented by the media. An alternative view is that it is a

learning process whereby we all learn how to behave in certain situations, and with the

expectations which go with a given role or status in society. Thus, the media are continually

offering pictures of life and models of behavior in advance of actual experience. -McQuail 2005:

494)

Socialization is the process whereby individuals are made aware of behaviors that are

expected of them with regards to the norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values of the society in which

they live. Socialization helps the individual face the realities of life, through the appreciation of

their culture practices. The agencies of socialization are the social institutions that pass on to the

people these norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes. There are several agencies of socialization

which are developmental: anticipatory, resocialization, reverse, primary, and secondary

socialization. However, the main agencies are those regarding primary socialization, which is the

process where people learn attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members

of a particular culture.

Secondary socialization agencies are important too. These agencies are responsible for

the processes in where individuals learn appropriate behaviors as members of a smaller group


within the larger society. Under the primary agencies are the family, peer groups, and opinion

leaders.

The family is the most integral part of every individual's upbringing, thus one of the most

important agencies of socialization. The family has the power to influence an individual's self-

concepts, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. Peer groups are made up of people with similar

ages and statuses in society. This group also sets the norms and values by which the individual

must abide. Under the secondary agencies of socialization are the work environment, education,

mass media, and religion. The mass media, which serve as the medium of communication, is one

of the agencies of socialization. Through the mass media, individuals are able to learn and adopt

new lifestyles and behaviors which, at the end, become a convention in society. An example of

this is fashion. Religion is another major agency of socialization, because it embodies the moral

principles of society. In this respect, religion has its own set of norms, values, and objectives that

regulate the conduct of its members. In conclusion, it is from these agencies of socialization that

we learn how to act in the way that others expect of us in society.


B.SOCIAL GROUP

I. CONCEPT OF GROUP

Socialization is the process by which human infants begin to acquire the skills necessary

to perform as a functioning member of their society, and is the most influential learning process

one can experience. Unlike many other living species, whose behavior is biologically set,

humans need social experiences to learn their culture and to survive. Although cultural

variability manifests in the actions, customs, and behaviors of whole social groups (societies),

the most fundamental expression of culture is found at the individual level. This expression can

only occur after an individual has been socialized by his or her parents, family, extended family,

and extended social networks. This reflexive process of both learning and teaching is how

cultural and social characteristics attain continuity. Many scientists say socialization essentially

represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a central influence on

the behavior, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children.

Klaus Hurrelmann

From the late 1980s, sociological and psychological theories have been connected with

the term socialization. One example of this connection is the theory of Klaus Hurrelmann. In his

book "Social Structure and Personality Development" (Hurrelmann 1989/2009), he develops The

"Model of Productive Processing of Reality (PPR)." The core idea is that socialization refers to

an individual's personality development. It is the result of the productive processing of interior

and exterior realities. Bodily and mental qualities and traits constitute a person's inner reality; the

circumstances of the social and physical environment embody the external reality. Reality

processing is productive because human beings actively grapple with their lives and attempt to

cope with the attendant developmental tasks. The success of such a process depends on the


personal and social resources available. Incorporated within all developmental tasks is the

necessity to reconcile personal individuation and social integration and so secure the "I-dentity."

(Hurrelmann1989/2009: 42)

Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development studied moral reasoning (how

individual reason situations as right from wrong) within three stages of young childhood. The

first is the pre-conventional stage, where children experience the world in terms of pain and

pleasure. Second, the conventional stage appears in the teen years of maturation. Teenagers learn

to define right and wrong according to the desires of their parents and begin to conform to

cultural norms resulting in a decrease of selfishness. The last stage of moral development is the

post-conventional level where people move beyond society's norms and consider abstract ethical

principles.

Carol Gilligan

Carol Gilligan compared the moral development of girls and boys in her theory of gender

and moral development. She claimed (1982, 1990) that boys have a justice perspective meaning

that they rely on formal rules to define right and wrong. Girls, on the other hand, have a care and

responsibility perspective where personal relationships are considered when judging a situation.

Gilligan also studied the effect of gender on self-esteem. She claimed that society's socialization

of females is the reason why girls' self-esteem diminishes as they grow older. Girls struggle to

regain their personal strength when moving through adolescence as they have fewer female

teachers and most authority figures are men.


Erik H. Erikson

Erik H. Erikson (1902–1994) explained the challenges throughout the life course. The

first stage in the life course is infancy, where babies learn trust and mistrust. The second stage is

toddlerhood where children around the age of two struggle with the challenge of autonomy

versus doubt. In stage three, preschool, children struggle to understand the difference between

initiative and guilt. Stage four, pre-adolescence, children learn about industriousness and

inferiority. In the fifth stage called adolescence, teenagers experience the challenge of gaining

identity versus confusion. The sixth stage, young adulthood, is when young people gain insight

to life when dealing with the challenge of intimacy and isolation. In stage seven, or middle

adulthood, people experience the challenge of trying to make a difference (versus self-

absorption). In the final stage, stage eight or old age, people are still learning about the challenge

of integrity and despair.

George Herbert Mead

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) developed a theory of social behaviorism to explain

how social experience develops an individual's self-concept. Mead's central concept is the self: It

is composed of self-awareness and self-image. Mead claimed that the self is not there at birth,

rather, it is developed with social experience. Since social experience is the exchange of

symbols, people tend to find meaning in every action. Seeking meaning leads us to imagine the

intention of others. Understanding intention requires imagining the situation from the others'

point of view. In effect, others are a mirror in which we can see ourselves. Charles Horton

Cooley (1902-1983) coined the term looking glass self, which means self-image based on how

we think others see us. According to Mead the key to developing the self is learning to take the

role of the other. With limited social experience, infants can only develop a sense of identity


through imitation. Gradually children learn to take the roles of several others. The final stage is

the generalized other, which refers to widespread cultural norms and values we use as a reference

for evaluating others.

Judith R. Harris

Group Socialization

Judith R. Harris (b. 1938) graduated magna cum laude with her master degree in

psychology from Harvard University. She received the George A. Miller Award for her proposed

theory of group socialization (GS theory). This theory states that a child’s adult personality is

determined by childhood and adolescent peer groups outside of the home environment and that

“parental behaviors have no effect on the psychological characteristics their children will have as

adults.” Harris proposes this theory based on behavioral genetics, sociological views of group

processes, context-specific learning, and evolutionary theory. While Harris proposed this theory,

she attributes the original idea to Eleanor E. Maccoby and John A. Martin both of whom are

doctors at Standford University and wrote the chapter on family socialization found in the fourth

edition of The Handbook of Child Psychology. After extensively reviewing the research

conducted on parent-child interactions, Maccoby and Martin (1983) state that their findings

suggest that parental behavior and the home environment has either no effect on the social

development of children, or the effect varies significantly between children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duck_Duck_Goose.jpg


Behavioral genetics suggest that up to fifty percent of the variance in adult personality is due to

genetic differences. The environment in which a child is raised accounts for only approximately

ten percent in the variance of an adult’s personality. As much as twenty percent of the variance is

due measurement error. This suggests that only a very small part of an adult’s personality is

influenced by factors parents control (i.e. the home environment). Harris claims that while it’s

true that siblings don’t have identical experiences in the home environment (making it difficult to

associate a definite figure to the variance of personality due to home environments), the variance

found by current methods is so low that researchers should look elsewhere to try to account for

the remaining variance.

Harris also states that developing long-term personality characteristics away from the

home environment would be evolutionarily beneficial because future success is more likely to

depend on interactions with peers than interactions with parents and siblings. Also, because of

already existing genetic similarities with parents, developing personalities outside of childhood

home environments would further diversify individuals, increasing their evolutionary success.

Stages

Richard Moreland and John Levine (1982) created a model of group socialization based

upon the assumption that individuals and groups change their evaluations and commitments to

each other over time. Since these changes happen in all groups, Moreland and Levine speculate

that there is a predictable sequence of stages that occur in order for an individual to transition

through a group.

Moreland and Levine identify five stages of socialization which mark this transition;

investigation, socialization, maintenance, resocialization, and remembrance. During each stage,


the individual and the group evaluate each other which lead to an increase or decrease in

commitment to socialization. This socialization pushes the individual from prospective, new,

full, marginal, and ex member.

Stage 1: Investigation This stage is marked by a cautious search for information. The individual

compares groups in order to determine which one will fulfill their needs (reconnaissance), while

the group estimates the value of the potential member (recruitment). The end of this stage is

marked by entry to the group, whereby the group asks the individual to join and they accept the

offer.

Stage 2: Socialization Now that the individual has moved from prospective member to new

member, they must accept the group’s culture. At this stage, the individual accepts the group’s

norms, values, and perspectives (assimilation), and the group adapts to fit the new member’s

needs (accommodation). The acceptance transition point is then reached and the individual

becomes a full member. However, this transition can be delayed if the individual or the group

reacts negatively. For example, the individual may react cautiously or misinterpret other

members’ reactions if they believe that they will be treated differently as a new comer.

Stage 3: Maintenance During this stage, the individual and the group negotiate what contribution

is expected of members (role negotiation). While many members remain in this stage until the

end of their membership, some individuals are not satisfied with their role in the group or fail to

meet the group’s expectations (divergence).

Stage 4: Resocialization -If the divergence point is reached, the former full member takes on the

role of a marginal member and must be resocialized. There are two possible outcomes of

resocialization: differences are resolved and the individual becomes a full member again

(convergence), or the group expels the individual or the individual decides to leave (exit).


Stage 5: Remembrance In this stage, former members reminisce about their memories of the

group, and make sense of their recent departure. If the group reaches a consensus on their

reasons for departure, conclusions about the overall experience of the group become part of the

group’s tradition.

Main article: Primary socialization

Primary socialization for a child is very important because it sets the ground work for all

future socialization. Primary Socialization occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and

actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture. It is mainly influenced by

the immediate family and friends. For example if a child saw his/her mother expressing

a discriminatory opinion about a minority group, then that child may think this behavior is

acceptable and could continue to have this opinion about minority groups.

Secondary socialization: Secondary socialization refers to the process of learning the

appropriate behavior as a member of a smaller group within the larger society. Basically, it is the

behavioral patterns reinforced by socializing agents of society. Secondary socialization takes

place outside the home. It is where children and adults learn how to act in a way that is

appropriate for the situations they are in. Schools require very different behavior from the home,

and Children must act according to new rules. New teachers have to act in a way that is different

from pupils and learn the new rules from people around them. Secondary Socialization is usually

associated with teenagers and adults, and involves smaller changes than those occurring in

primary socialization. Such examples of Secondary Socialization are entering a new profession

or relocating to a new environment or society.

Anticipatory socialization: Anticipatory socialization refers to the processes of

socialization in which a person "rehearses" for future positions, occupations, and social


relationships. For example, a couple might move in together before getting married in order to

try out, or anticipate, what living together will be like. Research by Kenneth J. Levine and

Cynthia A. Hoffner suggests that parents are the main source of anticipatory socialization in

regards to jobs and careers.

Re-socialization: Re-socialization refers to the process of discarding former behavior

patterns and reflexes, accepting new ones as part of a transition in one's life. This occurs

throughout the human life cycle. Re-socialization can be an intense experience, with the

individual experiencing a sharp break with his or her past, as well as a need to learn and be

exposed to radically different norms and values. One common example involves re-socialization

through a total institution, or "a setting in which people is isolated from the rest of society and

manipulated by an administrative staff". Re-socialization via total institutions involves a two step

process: 1) the staff work to root out a new inmate's individual identity & 2) the staff attempt to

create for the inmate a new identity. Other examples of this are the experience of a young man or

woman leaving home to join the military, or a religious convert internalizing the beliefs and

rituals of a new faith. An extreme example would be the process by which a transsexual learns to

function socially in a dramatically altered gender role.


Organizational socialization

Organizational Socialization Chart

Organizational socialization is the process whereby an employee learns the knowledge

and skills necessary to assume his or her organizational role. As newcomers become socialized,

they learn about the organization and its history, values, jargon, culture, and procedures. This

acquired knowledge about new employees' future work environment affects the way they are

able to apply their skills and abilities to their jobs. How actively engaged the employees are in

pursuing knowledge affects their socialization process. They also learn about their work group,

the specific people they work with on a daily basis, their own role in the organization, the skills

needed to do their job, and both formal procedures and informal norms. Socialization functions

as a control system in that newcomers learn to internalize and obey organizational values and

practices.

Group socialization: Group socialization is the theory that an individual's peer groups,

rather than parental figures, influences his or her personality and behavior in adulthood.

Adolescents spend more time with peers than with parents. Therefore, peer groups have stronger

correlations with personality development than parental figures do. For example, twin brothers,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Organizationalsocializationmodel.jpg


whose genetic make-up is identical, will differ in personality because they have different groups

of friends, not necessarily because their parents raised them differently.

Entering high school is a crucial moment in many adolescent's lifespan involving the branching

off from the restraints of their parents. When dealing with new life challenges, adolescents take

comfort in discussing these issues within their peer groups instead of their parents. Peter Grier,

staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor describes this occurrence as," Call it the benign side

of peer pressure. Today's high-schoolers operate in groups that play the role of nag and nanny-in

ways that are both beneficial and isolating."

Gender socialization Henslin (1999:76) contends that "an important part of socialization

is the learning of culturally defined gender roles." Gender socialization refers to the learning of

behavior and attitudes considered appropriate for a given sex. Boys learn to be boys and girls

learn to be girls. This "learning" happens by way of many different agents of socialization. The

family is certainly important in reinforcing gender roles, but so are one’s friends, school, work

and the mass media. Gender roles are reinforced through "countless subtle and not so subtle

ways" (1999:76).

As parents are present in a child's life from the beginning, their influence in a child's early

socialization is very important, especially in regards to gender roles. Sociologists have identified

four ways in which parents socialize gender roles in their children: Shaping gender related

attributes through toys and activities, differing their interaction with children based on the sex of

the child, serving as primary gender models, and communicating gender ideals and expectations.

Racial socialization: Racial socialization has been defined as "the developmental

processes by which children acquire the behaviors, perceptions, values, and attitudes of an ethnic

group, and come to see themselves and others as members of the group". The existing literature


conceptualizes racial socialization as having multiple dimensions. Researchers have identified

five dimensions that commonly appear in the racial socialization literature: cultural socialization,

preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, egalitarianism, and other. Cultural socialization

refers to parenting practices that teach children about their racial history or heritage and is

sometimes referred to as pride development. Preparation for bias refers to parenting practices

focused on preparing children to be aware of, and cope with, discrimination. Promotion of

mistrust refers to the parenting practices of socializing children to be wary of people from other

races. Egalitarianism refers to socializing children with the belief that all people are equal and

should be treated with a common humanity.

Planned socialization: Planned socialization occurs when other people take actions

designed to teach or train others—from infancy on.

Natural Socialization: Natural socialization occurs when infants and youngsters explore,

play and discover the social world around them. Natural socialization is easily seen when

looking at the young of almost any mammalian species (and some birds). Planned socialization is

mostly a human phenomenon; and all through history, people have been making plans for

teaching or training others. Both natural and planned socialization can have good and bad

features: It is wise to learn the best features of both natural and planned socialization and weave

them into our lives.

Positive socialization: Positive socialization is the type of social learning that is based on

pleasurable and exciting experiences. We tend to like the people who fill our social learning

processes with positive motivation, loving care, and rewarding opportunities.

Negative socialization: Negative socialization occurs when others use punishment, harsh

criticisms or anger to try to "teach us a lesson;" and often we come to dislike both negative


socialization and the people who impose it on us. There are all types of mixes of positive and

negative socialization; and the more positive social learning experiences we have, the happier we

tend to be—especially if we learn useful information that helps us cope well with the challenges

of life. A high ratio of negative to positive socialization can make a person unhappy, defeated or

pessimistic about life.2

II. FACTOR THAT INFLUENCE GROUP

It was the first day of kindergarten. The children arrived with new clothes, lunch boxes, book

bags stuffed with wide-line tablets, fat pencils, a blanket for naptime, and a box of 100 crayons.

As a teacher, I watched the children’s faces and those of their parents and realized that some of

these children were not ready to leave home. Small hands clutched a parent’s hand, eyes

brimmed with tears, and even a few sobs echoed from one corner of the room. For some, the

socialization process had not occurred. Social-Emotional Development Specific tasks related to

social development occur in early childhood, just like developmental tasks occur in cognitive

growth. The term social refers to a relationship or interaction between two or more people, who

by definition respond to each other and influence each other’s behavior. Socialization is an

important process in child development. Stated simply, it is the process whereby individuals,

especially children, become functioning members of a particular group and take on the values,

behaviors, and beliefs of the group’s other members. Although the process begins shortly after

birth and continues into adulthood, the age of early childhood is a crucial period of socialization.

How children are disciplined, how they respond to this discipline, and how they develop

independent behavior are all connected to the process in which socialization occurs.

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization


The Family and Parental Influences

Families are different, and the role of the family is changing. According to Smart and Smart

(1980), “Each family is unique in the expectations of the people in various roles, in its patterns of

interaction, its history of development, and its relationship with other systems”. However, family

categories usually fall into three groups:

1. The nuclear family consists of a mother, father, and offspring living together.

2. When two or more families live together, this is known as an extended family. Within this

group are grandparents, uncles, aunts, or other relatives.

3. The third family group is that of single parent households. The proportion of children living in

single-parent homes more than doubled between 1970 and 1998 – from 12% to 28%. Children

living only with their mothers were more than twice as likely to live in poverty than those living

with only their fathers (47% vs. 20%).

Dimensions of Parental Behavior

Researchers believe that acceptance-rejection and control-autonomy are contributing

factors that determine a family’s attitude toward child rearing. The structure of the family and the

personality characteristics of individual parents make a difference in socialization as will be

demonstrated in the following examples. Will, a father of two young children, believes that

spending time each day with his kids is vital to developing strong family ties. During this time,

the children talk about their day, engage in some type of physical activity, such as going for a

walk, playing with their dog, or enjoying simple games. Hugging his children, telling them how

important they are in Will’s life is a part of each day. In return, his children feel accepted in this

warm environment. His friends often remark, “Your children show such responsibility and self-


control. What are you doing that makes a difference?” When children feel this level of

acceptance, they want to please and parents become their best role model.

Next, let’s look at Susan a mother of a six-year-old. At the end of a long workday, Susan is

exhausted. Instead of giving her daughter a few minutes of quality time when she comes home,

she immediately starts working on the home chores. “Every time I want to talk to my mother, she

is too busy, too tired, or says ‘wait till later’,” remarks her daughter. Later never seems to come.

Parents who use rejection in parental behavior may have children who are hostile and aggressive

toward others. I recall a home of six youngsters where the children were extremely well behaved.

Some years later I talked with one of the adolescent boys in that home and he said, “On occasion,

my father had to watch us while our mother ran to the grocery store. He made each one of us

sit on the couch and dared us to move. A large paddle stood nearby. We were scared to death of

him.” Restrictive parents who use strict control usually have children who are well behaved.

However, these children may be highly dependent on the parents. On the other hand, parents and

teachers that are highly permissive allow children to make the rules. In these settings, the child is

clearly the “boss.” Take for example, Lorri and her three year-old son. “Whenever my friends

visit, my son interrupts constantly, jumps on the furniture, and is loud and noisy,” says Lorri.

“Often I have to count to three several times. Nothing seems to help.” Children who see

autonomy as a form of parental and caregiver behavior may be sociable and assertive youngsters

who are aggressive. Achieving a balance between these dimensions of parental behavior

seems to be the ideal, yet it is difficult to accomplish. The Effects of Punishment and Discipline

The approach to punishment and discipline is another developmental task of learning. When

children misbehave, teachers or parents may use some form of discipline. This approach may be

in the form of spanking, scolding, yelling, embarrassing, or making the child feel inferior or


unloved. Often a combination of these is involved. These negative approaches may have

unwanted results (Park, 1977). Parents and teachers that rely on a positive approach to discipline

teach the child the appropriate behavior and reinforce that behavior, which makes it less likely to

recur in the future. For example, if a child turns over their milk at the table, have them clean up

the spill instead of punishing. This positive approach teaches the child what to do when an

accident happens. Consistency is vital in guiding children to a higher level of socialization. Often

teachers scold or punish a child for a behavior one day, and the next appear to ignore the same

behavior. This happens due to the mood of the teacher at the moment. Consistency in discipline

allows the child to know what he can and cannot do. Parents and teachers can assist children in

socialization by building a sense of trust and a feeling they can have some control over their life

(Maccoby, 1980). Children who are disruptive and seek attention may draw attention to self

through silly behaviors, immature or regressive actions, loud talking, and making inappropriate

noises or gestures. Educators suggest that parents terminate disruptive attention-seeking

behaviors and increase cooperative, prosocial interactions. (Jongsma, Peterson, McInnis, 2000)3

III. CLASSIFICATION OF GROUPS

1. SOCIAL MEMBERSHIP. The common membership of the group is what we call in-group. It

defines the social orientation along feeling of belongingness and companionship. The social

preference of the in-group derives from group associations. The opposite side of this is the out-

group; it connotes more on an antagonistic group that sometimes create group conflicts such as

the existence of fraternities. There are those groups that may identify certain level of reference

based on political and economic affiliations. This group is called reference group that

characterize by the idea of recognition and respect among other members of society. There are

also the small groupings of the society which consider as the peer group. In at larger scale of

3 http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=553


social interaction of the group, the voluntary association entails the membership of individual or

group such as the regional associations, military organizations and other voluntary organization.

2. SOCIAL INTERACTION OF GROUPS The social group is further classified according

primary group and secondary group. The primary group responds to the face-to-face

communication which is more personal and intimate in nature. While the secondary group entails

the formal communication in business or government organization. The organization position

and designation gives credence in the way the group communicate each other.

.3. NATURE OF SOCIAL GROUPS The group provides specific form as to the nature of

interaction in the society. The nature of social group is either informal group or formal group.

When the social interaction responds to the shared emotions, beliefs and sentiments of the

members of the group then it is called informal groups. The advantage of this group is the sense

of belongingness as interaction with the common social interests and issues in the society

happens. On the other hand, the formal organization adheres the rigid formal structure wherein

the line authority in the position is respected in the organizational structure. It is therefore created

by the organizational communication in public and private organization with formal sets of

philosophy, mission, vision and goals as adhered by the motive for profit or service-oriented

enterprise. Finally, the concept of the Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft formulated by Ferdinand

Tonnies may also form part on the nature of social groups .The Gemeinschaft considers the

social interaction of the rural areas or communities wherein the set of values, beliefs, norms,

culture and tradition is deeply embedded by the way they communicate each other. While the

Gesselschaft recognizes the distinct feature in urban areas as the social groups are characterize


by formal, impersonal and fragmented relationships. Usually, it considers the highly

sophisticated culture, and impersonal way of social interaction.4

IV. IMPORTANCE OF GROUPS

Group discussion on study is essential for effective learning. In group discussion learning

is shared and student participating in discussion are benefitted.

When you study a topic, discuss it with your classmates in college. Tell your classmates or

friend that you will discuss about a particular topic tomorrow so that they can prepare the topic

for tomorrow’s discussion. In discussion every student has his turn to talk. Try to be polite and

friendly in discussion. Participating in group discussion has the many benefits. Let me explain

some of the main benefits

It enhances your learning – You learn more.

Your friend may have learnt a topic well comparatively. He may have picked up some

important points from the topic which you may have not. When you discuss it with him, you

learn these points as well. Similarly you may have learnt some points in a topic which he may

have missed, so he learns it in discussion. In this way the learning is shared and you are

benefitted.

Discussion generates good questions – helps in preparation for exam.

When you discusses about a topic with your friend in group, you can freely ask any

question which you have in your mind about any point in the topic and you get the answer.

Similarly they ask questions.

Different minds discussing about a topic, generates good questions and try to find their

answers. These are the conceptual questions which are asked in the exams. In this way, Group

4 http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_classification_of_groups_in_sociology


discussion helps in preparation for exams by generating conceptual question and finding their

answers.

It shows you your weakness – it improves you.

Until you don’t know about your weaknesses, you cannot improve. In group discussion

you come to know that in which areas you are weak and you need to focus more on them to

improve.

It rectifies your mistakes.

You may learn something wrong. You may make a wrong concept about a topic which

you think is correct. When you share it in discussion, you come to know that it is wrong. In this

way, your wrong concept is rectified. If you don’t discusses it group, you may write this wrong

concept even in exam and get less marks for it.

It helps you on “how to study and how to make preparation for exam”.

While discussing on a topic, inspired from a student you ask him how he studies or how

he make preparation for exam? In this way, you improve your study method or preparation

method

It helps for oral exams – It improves your communication skills.

By participating in group discussions you can improve your communication skills. In this

way it prepares you for oral exams and interviews as well.5

5 http://www.studyandexam.com/importance-of-study-discussion.html


C. SOCIETY, CULTURE AND VALUES

SOCIETY

A human society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships, or

a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the

same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized

by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture

and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among

its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification or

dominance patterns in subgroups. Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members

to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual

and social (common) benefits can thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.

A society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their own norms and values

within a dominant, larger society. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used

extensively within criminology. More broadly, and especially within structuralist thought, a

society may be illustrated as an economic, social, industrial or cultural infrastructure, made up

of, yet distinct from, a varied collection of individuals. In this regard society can mean the

objective relationships people have with the material world and with other people, rather than

"other people" beyond the individual and their familiar social environment. Members of a society

may be from different ethnic groups.

A society can be a particular ethnic group, such as the Saxons; a nation state, such as

Bhutan; or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society. The word society may also refer

to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific,

political, patriotic, or other purposes. A "society" may even, though more by means of metaphor,


refer to a social organism such as an ant colony or any cooperative aggregate such as, for

example, in some formulations of artificial intelligence.6

CULTURE

Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/, from Latin: cultura, lit. "cultivation" is a concept based on a term first

used in classical antiquity by the Roman orator Cicero: "cultura animi" (cultivation of the soul).

This non-agricultural use of the term "culture" re-appeared in modern Europe in the 17th century

referring to the betterment or refinement of individuals, especially through education. During the

18th and 19th century it came to refer more frequently to the common reference points of whole

peoples, and discussion of the term was often connected to national aspirations or ideals. Some

scientists such as Edward Tylor used the term "culture" to refer to a universal human capacity. In

the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the

range of human phenomena that cannot be directly attributed to genetic inheritance. Specifically,

the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings:

1. the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act

imaginatively and creatively; and

2. the distinct ways that people, who live differently, classified and represented their experiences,

and acted creatively Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior

patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of

biological inheritance. Distinctions are currently made between the physical artifacts created by a

society, its so-called material culture, and everything else, the intangibles such as language,

customs, etc. that are the main referent of the term "culture".

The modern term "culture" is based on a term used by the Ancient Roman orator Cicero

in his TusculanaeDisputationes, where he wrote of a cultivation of the soul or

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society


"culturaanimi" ,using an agricultural metaphor for the development of a philosophical soul,

understood teleological as the highest possible ideal for human development. Samuel Pufendorf

took over this metaphor in a modern context, meaning something similar, but no longer assuming

that philosophy was man's natural perfection. His use and that of many writers after him "refers

to all the ways in which human beings overcome their original barbarism, and through artifice,

become fully human, as described by Velkley.

The term "culture," which originally meant the cultivation of the soul or mind, acquires

most of its later modern meanings in the writings of the 18th-century German thinkers, who were

on various levels developing Rousseau's criticism of ″modern liberalism and Enlightenment″.

Thus a contrast between "culture" and "civilization" is usually implied in these authors, even

when not expressed as such. Two primary meanings of culture emerge from this period: culture

as the folk-spirit having a unique identity and culture as cultivation of waywardness or free

individuality. The first meaning is predominant in our current use of the term "culture," although

the second still plays a large role in what we think culture should achieve, namely the full

"expression" of the unique or "authentic" self.7

VALUES

A personal value is absolute or relative and ethical value, the assumption of which can be

the basis for ethical action. A value system is a set of consistent values and measures. A principle

value is a foundation upon which other values and measures of integrity are based. Some values

are physiologically determined and are normally considered objective, such as a desire to avoid

physical pain or to seek pleasure. Other values are considered subjective, vary across individuals

and cultures, and are in many ways aligned with belief and belief systems. Types of values

include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious, political) values, social values, and

7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture


aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically

determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be

classified as vices or virtues. Values have been studied in various disciplines: anthropology,

behavioral economics, business ethics, corporate governance, moral philosophy, political

sciences, social psychology, sociology and theology to name a few.

Values can be defined as broad preference concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes.

As such, values reflect a person's sense of right and wrong or what "ought" to be. "Equal rights

for all", "Excellence deserves admiration", and "People should be treated with respect and

dignity" are representative of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior.8

Personal values

According to Morris Massey, values form during three significant periods:

Imprint period - from birth to 7 years

Modeling period - from 8 to 13 years

Socialization period - from 13 to 21 years

Personal values provide an internal reference for what is good, beneficial, important,

useful, beautiful, desirable, constructive, etc. Values generate behavior and help solve common

human problems for survival by comparative rankings of value, the results of which provide

answers to questions of why people do what they do and in what order they choose to do them.

Over time the public expression of personal values that groups of people find important in their

day-to-day lives, lay the foundations of law, custom and tradition. Recent research has thereby

stressed the implicit nature of value communication.

Personal values exist in relation to cultural values, either in agreement with or divergence

from prevailing norms. A culture is a social system that shares a set of common values, in which

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(personal_and_cultural)


such values permit social expectations and collective understandings of the good, beautiful,

constructive, etc. Without normative personal values, there would be no cultural reference

against which to measure the virtue of individual values and so culture identity would

disintegrate. Wyatt Woodsmall points out that "'Criteria' are used to refer to 'the standards on

which an evaluation is based'." Values relate then to what one wants and in what order one wants

them; criteria can only refer to the evidences for achieving values and act as a comparative

standard that one applies in order to evaluate whether goals have been met / values satisfied9

A.CONCEPT OF SOCIETY

From Leon H. Mayhew's article, "Society," in vol 14 of the International Encyclopedia of

the Social Sciences(Macmillan & Free Press, 1968), pp. 577-86: 'society' is frequently used

merely to refer to an encompassing network of social relationships that enclose some more

specific phenomenon which is the primary object of analysis. . . . It is only when analysis begins

to isolate the attributes of the larger whole which we term 'a society' that analytical treatments of

the concept begin to emerge. . . .

"Analytical definitions usually treat a society as a relatively independent or self-sufficient

population characterized by internal organization, territoriality, cultural distinctiveness, and

sexual recruitment. . . . "It is not surprising that definitions of society are so closely articulated

with conceptions of the nature and functions of sociological thought, for from the beginning of

the analytical development of the concept, social theorists have found in 'society' a convenient

foundation for relating their specific problems to a larger context. .

"History of the concept. In the Western world the concept of society as an entity distinct

from the state emerged rather late. The age of reason, when philosophers began to search for

secular foundations for critical analysis of existing political institutions, was one of the earliest

9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(personal_and_cultural)


periods when Western thinkers came to view society as something clearly prior to and outside of

the state. The vehicle used to establish this differentiation was the social contract doctrine. . . .

The utilitarian conception of society. . . . [T]he liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment wished to

justify secular rational criticism of the state. In developing a critical doctrine, such thinkers as

Locke began to distinguish the law of nature from the social contract that had formed the state.

For Locke there is a layer of natural order guaranteed by man's interdependence and his sense of

the natural rights of all. . . "By a similar logic the critical philosophers sought to establish

analytical distinctions between society and church and to separate church and state. . . .The idea

of society developed during the Enlightenment was not entirely satisfactory, for the ultimate

premises of argument continued to be the same premises from which Hobbes had derived the

war of all against all. Enlightenment thought was founded on the concept of reason. The method

of reason is analytical reduction; complex wholes must be reduced to their fundamental particles

and the whole reassembled by a process of deduction from the laws governing the particles. For

society, the particle is the individual, and the law governing particles derives from the most

essential quality of individuals, their natural reason. Each man uses his reason to rationally

pursue his chosen ends. . . . The utilitarian could protect their Achilles heel, that is, the problem

of conflicting ends, only by arbitrarily postulating such metaphysical concepts as the 'natural

identity of interests,' 'natural rights,' and 'the spirit of sociability.' "The more perceptive figures of

the Enlightenment -- Hume, for example -- recognized the inner weakness of the utilitarian

conception . . . "Romanticism and organism after the French Revolution, many social theorists

became disillusioned with individual reason and the reductive methods of the analytical

philosophers. As the philosophy of romanticism became more influential. . Society came to be

viewed as an organic whole, embodying the practical and profound wisdom of convention and


tradition. Being a cumulative organic product, society has an organic unity. Abstract analytical

segments cannot be separated from the whole and arbitrarily changed; to do so is to destroy the

complex interdependence of the web of social life . . . ."The organism conception . . . drew

attention to a new element, cultural tradition, as a functionally necessary part of society. The idea

of a cultural order as a constituent part of a society was developed further by August Comte in

the early nineteenth century. . . . At the same time he refused to derive the larger society from

individual reason and the concurrence of interests. Drawing on organism conservatism, he found

in cultural tradition the specifically collective factor in society. For Comte, the formation of any

society presupposed a system of common opinions about nature and man. The Enlightenment

philosophers, by destroying the normative order of the religiously based society, had loosed

anarchy upon the world. Comte argued that the reformation of society required the creation of a

new, scientifically based moral order. Again we see an example of the ideological use of the

concept of society. .

"The belief that society is an institutional order which embodies a fundamental set of

cultural ideas was prominent in another branch of romantic thought which might be termed

'idealism.' Idealism, which was especially prominent in nineteenth-century German thought,

stresses the cultural distinctiveness of each society. A society reflects a peculiar Geist or spirit

that is embodied in its distinctive traditions and institutions. . . . "The economic conception of

society. . . . "According to Marx, society exists in the concrete relations between social groups

and not in the concepts used by philosophers to summarize these relations. The Geist is a mere

analytical construct of the observer. The real foundations of society and the real springs of social

development lie in the economic relations between men. . . . . "[This] conception of society starts

with the assumption that man's most fundamental problem is to provide for his material needs.


To do so, man must cooperate with other men by entering into relations of production. Stable

relations of production constitute economic structures. Economic structures are variable, but they

generally involve two crucial phenomena: the division of men into classes and the exploitation of

one class by another. . . . The state, law, religion, and ideology function to bring temporary

stability into inherently unstable situations. Since economic structure is more basic, it can be

termed the 'substructure' of society; and the supporting institutions may be termed the

'superstructures' . . . In the theory of substructure and superstructure, we see one of the first and

most comprehensive theories of society as an institutional order. "Conflict theory. The Marxian

conception of society is one of a larger set of conceptions that can combine under the heading of

'conflict theory.' The premise of conflict theory is that men are organisms, and as such they must

compete for access to the resources of life. The struggle for existence does not occur between

isolated individuals but between certain groups. In various versions of conflict theory the

competing units may be families, bands, classes, nations, or races, depending on the special

interests of the analyst or the stage of social development under analysis. . . . Society is viewed

as an organizational device for relating populations of organisms to an environment, and in this

sense conflict theory may be said to adopt an ecological perspective. . "Emergence of the

'utilitarian society.' Nineteenth-century evolutionary theory . . . worked out developmental

sequences for every institutional sphere of society. . . . As [societies come to increase in scale

and complexity. new forms of social organization become possible. Social organization can be

built upon processes of free discussion, free exchange, and the pursuit of individual interests.

The inflexibility of the 'cake of custom' and rigid military organization becomes nonadaptive;

only a looser framework of organization can improve the adaptation of society to the

environment by unleashing the forces of creativity and innovation. . . . "Not all of the social


analysts writing at the end of the nineteenth century viewed the emergence of the utilitarian

society with equanimity. According to some analysts, the breakdown of old forms of

organization meant the loss of what had once provided society with integration, coherence, and

meaning. The utilitarian society, founded upon the industrial revolution, the capitalist system,

and the market mentality, fails to provide for an ethical standard outside of the individual or a

viable source of social cohesion. "In 1887 Tönnies incorporated this type of perspective into his

famous dichotomy between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In the Gemeinschaft (usually

translated as 'community') men are held together by communal feeling and organic ties. In the

Gesellschaft (usually translated as 'society') organic ties are replaced by artificial ties of

calculating self-interest. . . . "The independent reality of society. In 1893 Durkheim . .

Reaffirmed the reality of society as an entity. . . . He insisted that a modern society, founded on

the extensive division of labor, cannot be conceptualized as a mere collection of the wills of

isolated individuals. It is . . . no less organic than earlier forms of society. . . . "Other analysts of

the era developed similar techniques for identifying the reality of the social. Simmel found a

social level in the mutual influence that interacting persons have upon each other. Mutual

influence comes to have coherent forms, and thus, as people interact, they create society. . . .

'The social-psychological approach. In the United States a social-psychological school

emerged which found in the concept of symbolic interaction the key to the integrated treatment

of society and the social person. Cooley, Mead, and others explored the development of

personality and society as they emerge through interaction. Their analysis permitted a novel

conceptualization of human society as a symbolically regulated process. . . . It is through

participation in that complex of differentiated and interrelated roles called 'society' that we

develop our distinctly human capacities and identities. It is through adopting, playing, and


imaginatively construing social roles that we develop social personality. Thus, self and society

are intimately connected through the concept of role. . . . "Society as process. . . . the most

sophisticated analysts converged on the idea that society is ultimately an organized process. . . .

The units of [social] relations are not people but activities. . . . "The new emphasis on process did

not eliminate the ideological component of the concept of society. . . . For example, the

popularity of the social-psychological approach in the United States cannot be separated from its

capacity to provide a sociological foundation [for] the defense of either conservatism or

radicalism, depending on whether social reality is conceived as an irreducible obstacle or an

inexorable transformative force. . . .

"The truth or falsehood of alternative conceptions of society is not at issue here. . . .

"How . . . is a society to be distinguished from a community? The term community has been used

in a variety of ways. For some, communities are locally based units of a larger society; for

others, 'community' refers to some aspect of society, such as its solidarity (that is, communal) or

spatial components. Others, particularly in the German sociological tradition, distinguish

communities as relatively solitary types of societies. "It is legitimate to use the term 'community'

to refer to both locally based units and some aspect of the larger society. . . . The concept of

population can be used in a similar way to distinguish societies from other sets of systems of

social processes, since the latter may have sets of members without having populations in the

biotic sense. A society is sustained by a population. To establish the boundaries of a societal

population we may adopt a definition of population quite similar to the one employed by

bioecologists: A population consists of the self- perpetuating inhabitants of a territorial area. In

this context the term 'self-perpetuation' implies mating, and the term 'inhabitant' implies

relatively permanent residence. Thus, the boundaries of a society are established by the limits of


the largest territorial area within which mating is common and residence is relatively

permanent."The society is not the population, but the complex systems of action in which the

units of the population participate. "In a highly organized society, which closely controls the

relations between the units of its population and members of other populations, it may be useful

to treat only relations within the societal population as internal to the society. On the other hand,

when societal systems become very permeable to social influences that transcend population

boundaries, it is more realistic to consider the society to have irregular boundaries and to overlap

other societies. "If sociological analysis is adequately to represent the constraints imposed by this

emergent global level of social reality, its analytical conceptions must not be inflexibly tied to

the concept of the national boundary."10

B.CULTURE

I. CHARACTERISCTIC OF CULTURE

1. What are the characteristics of culture?

Culture has a number of characteristics. It is: (1) prescriptive, (2) socially shared, (3)

learned, (4) subjective, (5) enduring, (6) cumulative, and (7) dynamic. Furthermore, it facilitates

communication.

2. Explain the impact of culture on consumption.

Consumption patterns are dictated by culture, and consumption habits vary greatly. Some

Chinese do not understand how Americans can eat beef, believing that it is improper to eat cattle

that work on farms. Americans, in contrast, do not understand how some Chinese and Koreans

can eat dogs, the animal often treated as pets or family members in the United States.

Interestingly, the Korean government, during the Olympics, banned such traditional delicacies as

dog stew, snake soup, blood worm soup, and deer antlers for fear of offending foreigners who

10

http://community.plu.edu/~jensenmk/271society.html


might label Koreans as barbaric. Therefore, not only does culture influence what is to be

consumed, but it also affects what should not be purchased.

3. What is the SRC (self-reference criterion)?

The SRC explains how the individual tends to be bound by his or her own cultural

assumptions. The individual thus observes foreign cultures by making reference back to personal

cultural values. As a result, perception of overseas events can be distorted by the effects of the

SRC.

4. Distinguish between high-context and low-context cultures.

In low-context cultures (e.g., the United States), messages are explicit and clear in the

sense that actual words are used to convey the main part of information in communication. The

words and their meanings, being independent entities, can be separated from the context in which

they occur. In high-context cultures (e.g., Japan), the context of communication is high because,

in addition to the verbal part, it includes a great deal of extra information, such as the message

sender's values, position, background, and associations in the society. As such, the message

cannot be understood without its context. One's individual environment (i.e., physical setting and

social circumstances) determines what one says and how one is interpreted by others.

5. Distinguish between monochronic and polychronic cultures.

Monochronic cultures (e.g., the United States) handle information in a direct,

linearfashion. Schedules, punctuality, and a sense that time form a purposeful straight line

areindicators of such cultures. In polychronic cultures (e.g., Japan), people work on several

fronts simultaneously instead of pursuing a single task.

6. Explain how the meanings of time, space, agreement/disagreement, and friendship can vary

from one culture to another. Also discuss their business implications.


Perceptions of time are culture bound. In the United States, there is a direct relationship

between time and the importance of a matter. In some countries, a reverse relationship exists.

Space has its own meaning and is relative. What is perceived as crowded in the United States

may be perceived as spacious somewhere else. Culture dictates how an agreement or a

disagreement is expressed and resolved. North Americans prefer a straightforward and explicit

approach. Elsewhere, one must be careful in a disagreement never to make someone lose face.

The development of friendship is also affected by culture. Americans have no difficulty in

developing friendship in a very short time. Friendship is not developed as fast in other countries,

but, when it is developed, it tends to be deeper and to be longer lasting.

DISCUSSIONS

1. Which one of the following seems to better characterize the world: cultura l

commonality or cultural diversity?

This question is similar to asking whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. The answer

thus depends on one's perspective. Still, the world is perhaps much better characterized by

cultural diversity. There is no useful purpose to study culture and international marketing if

consumers were homogeneous. The lack of commonality is readily apparent. Countries have

religious, philosophical, and environmental differences. Consumption and perceptual differences

are everywhere. Conflicts arise because of the failure of nations to understand each other. It is

thus a grave mistake to assume that everyone wants to be like us. Cultural commonality will

exist only when there is but one language remaining worldwide.

2. Because English is the world language of business, is it necessary for U.S. managers to learn a

foreign language?


English is a second language in most parts of the world because of the recognition of the

importance of English as a business communication medium. Still American managers should

learn a foreign language, especially that of a country with which they do a significant portion of

business. Without the knowledge of a foreign language, American managers are at a

disadvantage because their foreign counterparts can converse in two languages. Not only the

knowledge of a foreign language makes an American manager aware of what his counterparts

are saying to each other, but also he can make a good impression by showing interest in the other

country's language and culture. Furthermore, the practice makes it more likely for American

managers to understand the logic and thinking of their foreign customers or suppliers.

3. Do you agree that the United States is a "melting pot"?

The U.S. melting pot is a misconception because sub cultural differences are everywhere.

Being aware of these differences, U.S. firms segment the U.S. market based on region (e.g.,

South, West), race (e.g., white, black,), language (e.g., English, Spanish), occupation (e.g.,

professionals, truck drivers), age (e.g., young, old), and so on. The idea is to appeal to consumers

through their subcultures.

4. As Hispanic consumers in the United States are also American consumers, is it necessary for

marketers to adjust their marketing mix for this market segment?

This question is highly related to the previous one. It is true that Hispanic consumers are

American consumers. Equally true is the fact that they have their own identity, language, and

preferences. Thus, it is necessary to adjust the marketing mix for this market segment. It should

be noted that all segmentation criteria are met. This Hispanic segment is different, identifiable,

accessible through selective advertising media, and sufficiently large. It should come as no

surprise then that firms create advertisements just for this group.


5. Explain how culture affects the ways people use eating utensils (e.g., fork, spoon, knife,

chopsticks).

Culture affects how people use eating utensils. In some cultures, people eat with their

hands instead of using utensils. The Chinese and Japanese, of course, are well known for their

chopsticks. Americans and Europeans use fork and knife to cut food on their dinner plates to

bite-sized portions. Many other peoples have no need for a knife at the dinner table because meat

has already been precut to small portions before cooking (e.g., Chinese foods). Asians are likely

to use table spoons instead of knives, and they use spoons of varying shapes and sizes. The way

Americans hold and use forks and knives differ from how these things are used in England,

Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. People there eat with their forks upside down. Because the curved

fork facilitates the lifting of food to the mouth, food is raked onto the fork with a knife. In

addition, these Europeans do not set their knives down after cutting meat. They simply eat left

handed since switching the fork from the left hand to the right hand is a wasted motion.

6. Explain why people in several countries are upset when they see: (a) an advertisement

showing an American crossing his legs at the reader or putting his legs on a table; and (b)

Americans wearing shoes into their homes.

In many cultures, feet are low and dirty. As a result, it is an insult to cross the legs, put

the legs on a table, or uses a leg to point at something. Americans wear shoes into their own

houses, thinking that the floor is dirty. In most cultures, shoes--not the floor--are the ones which

are dirty. Since the floor is swept and mopped every day, walking into someone's home with

shoes on is a sign of ignorance and disrespect of someone's home.

7. According to Edward T. Hall, a renowned anthropologist, American are more comfortable

with Germans than with the Japanese because Germans generally make eye contact to indicate


attention to a speaker. Still, the Americans feel that the Germans do not smile often enough. How

do the Germans and Japanese regard the Americans' frequent smiles and eye contact?

Americans smile frequently to show friendliness and make frequent eye contact to show

interest and sincerity. But quick and frequent smiles may be taken as a sign of insincerity and an

indication of suspicious motive. Germans regard smiling and casual touching as things for friend.

Friendship cannot be developed alone by smiles. Also eye contact is a sign of aggression. In

many countries, people get into a fight just by looking at each other.

8. According to William Wells of the DDB Needham Worldwide advertising agency, American

TV commercials are usually shown either as an illustrated lecture or as a drama in which a

product is a prop (or a mixture of both techniques). Why is the lecture approach (a low-context

technique) inappropriate for high-context cultures? Why is the drama approach (a high-context

technique) appropriate for Japan? Note that Japanese commercials go to great lengths to present

cues that are not product-related before devoting only a few seconds to the product itself at the

end.

To American advertisers, this advertising approach is ambiguous and puzzling. The

lecture approach is inferior to the drama approach for such high-context cultures as Japan. In

many parts of the world, peoples are very aware of their social classes and status. The social

standings affect how the message is conveyed and interpreted. There is an emphasis on

interpersonal relationships between communicators, nonverbal expression, physical setting, and

social circumstances. The lecture alone is thus inadequate because it is not capable of carrying all

the meanings. As a result, additional cues, although not necessarily product related, must be

presented so that the audience will understand the target market of the product and the appeal of

the product. The drama is therefore more effective in sending the additional message as related to


the message sender's and the receiver's values, position, background, and social circumstances.

For example, a print advertisement or commercial which shows a young girl kneeling while

talking with another person implies that she is a servant--someone of lower status. The drama

approach is high-context in the sense that the product is shown in its natural settings. As a result,

there are opportunities to present contextual cues. An advertisement showing a luxury car by

itself (or even the owner with it) is not capable of conveying the meaning of luxury unless such

additional cues as a uniformed chauffeur are brought in. In high-context cultures, owners of

luxury cars rarely, if ever, drive their own cars. The Japanese pay attention to nuances and tone

(i.e., the music and scenery and how people act). These contextual cues are too subtle for those

of the low-context cultures to understand because these cues do not get to the point. Although the

day-after recall method is appropriate in measuring advertising effectiveness in low-context

research, the attitude-change measurement is more appropriate for high-context advertising

studies.

9. What are the stereotypes of the following groups: Arabs, Asians, Africans, and Latin

Americans? Why is it undesirable to use stereotyping as a basis to understand foreigners? Also

identify the positive traits and values of the groups mentioned above. This discussion assignment

is based on: Carol J. Fouke, “Sensitivity to Cultures Builds Foreign Markets,” Marketing News,

19 June 1989, 8-9.

The stereotypes of Arabs include: terrorist, sheik, harem, revenge, and torture. The

stereotypes of Asians include: geishas, being submissive, gangsters, Samurai, pigtailed

“Chinamen,” snake-charmers, turbaned Indians, and enemy. The stereotypes of Africans include:

pygmies, cannibals, and savages. The stereotypes of Latin Americans include: being dirty, being

lazy, and the character in sombrero reposing against a basket or cactus. It is undesirable to use


stereotyping to characterize foreigners and minority groups. Some feel that stereotyping is a lazy

way to learn about the others since it assumes that all members of the same group (e.g., women,

Asians, etc.) are all alike. On the other hand, it is necessary to point out that some type of

generalization and stereotyping is often a necessity if learning is to be facilitated. The world will

be a chaotic place if a person has to learn from scratch about each new person, object, or event.

Both generalization and discrimination are needed.

This discussion assignment is a good way to get students to become culturally sensitive

and examine their own biases and prejudices. The goal is to prevent a student from making as

weeping generalization. Instead, everyone will be better off if the focus is on the cultural values

that are stressed by a certain target group. Marketers should use values on which Arab cultures

place a high value. These values include: hospitality, personal dignity, continuity, stability, and

psychological and emotional strength.

The traits valued by Asians include: sense of obligation and loyalty, strong work ethic,

oneness with nature, modesty, harmony with others and with the universe, transcendence, and

human dignity. In the case of Africans, they value: story-telling and the oral tradition, continuity,

respect for elders, memory, and oneness with nature, interdependence, community, cooperation,

and harmony. The values emphasized by Latin Americans include: survivability under adversity,

patience, interdependence, and cooperation.

10. What are some of the unique characteristics of the U.S. culture? What are some of the unique

business characteristics of the Japanese culture?

American culture has several distinctive characteristics. It is: (1) materialistic, (2)

individualistic, (3) achievement- oriented, (4) time-oriented, (5) youth-oriented, and (6) practical

and efficient. Some general characteristics of the Japanese culture are: (1) permanent and


irrevocable membership, (2) recruitment and selection based on personal qualities, (3) status

acquired based on an extension of the person's status in the society, (4) compensation including

non monetary benefits and based on broad social criteria, (5) corporate responsibilities extended

to employees' non business activities, (6) job responsibility and authority not being well-defined,

(7) decision-making style of risk minimization and confrontation avoidance, and (8) prevalent

sexual discrimination.11

THE SEVEN ELEMENTS OF CULTURE

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

· Creates social structure by organizing its members into small units to meet basic needs.

· Family Patterns: family is the most important unit of social organization. Through the family

children learn how they are expected to act and what to believe.

· Nuclear family: wife, husband, children. This is a typical family in an industrial society (US).

· Extended family: Several generations living in one household, working and living together:

grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins. Respect for elders is strong.

· Social classes: rank people in order of status, depending on what is important to the culture

(money, job, education, ancestry, etc.)

CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS

· Rules of Behavior are enforced ideas of right and wrong. They can be customs, traditions, rules,

or written laws.

RELIGION

· Answers basic questions about the meaning of life.

· Supports values that groups of people feel are important.

11

http://www.ocs.cnyric.org/webpages/phyland/global_10.cfm?subpage=19595


· Religion is often a source of conflict between cultures.

· Monotheism is a belief in one god.

· Polytheism is a belief in many gods.

· Atheism is a belief in no gods.

LANGUAGE

· Language is the cornerstone of culture.

· All cultures have a spoken language (even if there are no developed forms of writing).

· People who speak the same language often share the same culture.

Many societies include a large number of people who speak different languages.

· Each language can have several different dialects.

RTS AND LITERATURE

· They are the products of the human imagination.

· They help us pass on the culture’s basic beliefs.

· Examples: art, music, literature, and folk tales

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

· People form governments to provide for their common needs, keep order within society, and

protect their society from outside threats.

· Definition of government:

1. Person/people who hold

Power in a society;

2 Society’s laws and political institutions.

· Democracy: people have supreme power, government acts by and with consent.

· Republic: people choose leaders who represent them.


· Dictatorship: ruler/group holds power by force usually relying on military support for power.

ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

· How people use limited resources to satisfy their wants and needs.

· Answers the basic questions: what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom.

· Traditional Economy: people produce most of what they need to survive (hunting, gathering,

farming, herding cattle, make own clothes/tools).

· Market Economy: buying and selling goods and services

· Command Economy: Government controls what/how goods are produced and what they cost.

Individuals have little economic power

· Mixed Economy: Individuals make some economic decisions and the government makes

others.12

C. FILIPINO VALUES

A.PAST VS.PRESENT

One of the major activities of the analytic philosophical tradition is the clarification of the

meanings of words, phrases, and sentences. I presume from the title of my paper—“Filipino

philosophy: Past and present”— that we understand what are meant by the words “past” and

“present.” So I will precede with the phrase “Filipino philosophy” and attempt to clarify its

meaning, for it will be useless for us to go on talking about the historical development of Filipino

philosophy unless we are clear as to its meaning. There are two terms here to analyze: “Filipino”

and “philosophy.” And there are many questions to ask:

(1) What or who is a Filipino? (2) What is the meaning of “philosophy”? (3) How can we

determine whether a particular kind of thinking is philosophical or not? (4) How do we know

12

http://www.ocs.cnyric.org/webpages/phyland/global_10.cfm?subpage=19595


whether a particular kind of philosophy is Filipino or not? And (5) is it necessary for one to be

seriously—and even perhaps professionally—called a philosopher to have a degree in

philosophy? These are questions we must answer in passing as we go along with our discussions

(see Gripaldo 2009a, 1-9; 2012a, 59-65).

GREEK PHILOSOPHY AS MODEL

The ancient Greeks did not have a constitution that defines who a Greek is, but they were

able to identify themselves, by the time of Thales [620-546 BC], the first Greek philosopher, as

Greeks living in various city-states and regions. The Greeks2 came, of course, from various

tribes and, according to one version, after the Trojan War these tribes formed the Great

Amphictyonic League composed of twelve tribes.3

When Thales of Miletus, an Ionian philosopher, began philosophizing and spread his

philosophical thoughts, historians of philosophy marked him as the father of philosophy.

Although it was said that he went to Egypt and gained the perspective of logos rather than of

mythos, he did not have a formal training in philosophy. He did not have a degree in philosophy,

so to speak. He simply asked a primordial question out of wonder: “Why is there something

rather than nothing?” For him the fundamental substance of the universe is water. In other words,

in reply to our fifth question above (5), it is not necessary to have a degree in philosophy—like

Jose Rizal—to be a philosopher but one must be able to show coherence and consistency in his

writings or teachings about his philosophical ideas.4 Thales became the first teacher of

philosophy and he had students, one among which was Anaximander, who in turn had a famous

student by the name of Anaximenes. Later philosophizing spread to the other regions of Greece

until it developed into a golden age in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. After Aristotle, we have the


Greek and Roman stoics, hedonists, eclectics, and neoplatonists (see the Sahakians 1970, 581-

83). The important thing here is that the body of philosophical literature produced by Greek

individual thinkers was subsequently called “Greek philosophy.” The term philosophy was

coined by Pythagoras, an Ionian mathematician-philosopher of Samos, from two Greek words

philia (love) and sophia (wisdom). It was said that the wisdom of man is derivative from the

wisdom of God since God is the only truly wise, or is Wisdom Himself. Man can only be a lover

or friend of wisdom (see Chroust 1964). In this regard, in answer to our second question above

(2), philosophy generally is a body of principles that contains seeds of wisdom or ideas of great

significance. A philosophical question is one wherein we go beyond what is empirically given in

experience to seek for the connecting link to all or most of these data of experience. So we ask

questions as to the nature, purpose, or moral justification of the what is. We ask questions for the

authenticity of what appears—since it can be illusory—as in searching for the authentic life,

authentic knowledge, authentic beauty, and so on. In answer to our third question above (3), the

answers to these types of questions are what constitute philosophical thinking. Why is the Greek

philosophical model important? It is important because if we want to seek a genuine or an

authentic Filipino philosophy, then we must have a body of philosophical literature that is

produced by Filipino individual thinkers. This is the same sense in which we call a body of

philosophical literature as British philosophy, German philosophy, French philosophy, or

American philosophy. We enumerate, together with their respective philosophies, individual

British, German, French, or American thinkers.

FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

There are at present three different views about “Filipino philosophy.” Any taxonomy on

this topic— Feorillo Demeterio III (2012a), for example, has a taxonomy of sixteen different


meanings of “Filipino philosophy”—can always be reduced to these three categories. The first is

the traditional or the authentic philosophical approach; the second is the cultural approach; and

the third is the nationality or constitutional approach.

Traditional/Philosophical Approach

The traditional approach is the genuine philosophical approach. It answers the question,

“What is your own philosophy?” It is the truly philosophical approach as traditionally used by

historians of philosophy. It follows the Greek philosophical model. It enumerates Filipino

individual philosophers and discusses their respective philosophical ideas. I have so far written

two books—Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach, Part I, Sections 1 & 2 (2009c and 2009d)

on this type of approach. In these books I discussed the philosophical ideas of Jose Rizal, Andres

Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Manuel Quezon, Jose Laurel, Renato Constantino, R. Esquivel

Embuscado, Cirilo Bautista, Claro Ceniza, and Rolando Gripaldo. No doubt, this list is not

complete and certainly the discussions of the philosophical views of these philosophers are not

exhaustive. A complete history of Filipino philosophy has yet to be written.

Cultural Approach

The second approach is the cultural one. It answers the question, “What is the people’s

philosophical perspective?” or “What are the philosophical views of the people based on their

socio-linguistic, cultural, and folk concepts or the like?” Originally, I called this the

anthropological approach (1996, 3) because Leonardo Mercado (1976), the author of the book

Elements of Filipino philosophy, is an anthropologist. Florentino Timbreza (1982), who wrote

Pilosopiyang Pilipino, also followed the anthropological approach (see Mancenido 2010, 80-94).

But when I attended in Tehran in 1999 the World Congress on Mulla Sadra—a philosophical

conference on an Iranian philosopher—I met Dr. George F. McLean, the editor of various books


published by the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.5 In 2000 I requested him to

write the foreword of the first edition of my book, Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach,

Part I, Section 1 (2000a). He suggested that I use “cultural” instead of “anthropological,” since

any social science approach to Filipino philosophy—be it anthropological, psychological,

sociological, and so on—is basically, broadly speaking, cultural in nature. To distinguish the

genuine philosopher in the Greek traditional model of an individual who does his own original

philosophizing on various philosophical themes from the cultural model of hermeneutic

philosophizing—that is an individual who extracts interpretatively the myriad philosophical

underpinnings, presuppositions, implications, or nuances of Filipino languages and dialects,

myths, folk songs, riddles, folk sayings, and the like—I now broadly use the term

“ethnophilosopher.”7 The product of an individual who philosophizes is a personal philosophy,

while the product of an individual who extracts philosophical ideas from the languages and folk

literature of a group of people is an ethno philosophy (see the comments of Hallen2010, 73-85).

This distinction is very significant in the Philippine setting as the cultural or ethno philosophical

approach seems to undermine the authenticity of the genuine Filipino philosopher. So far, I have

distinguished the philosopher from the historian of philosophy and the ethnophilosopher. The

first is the authentic thinker in the sense that he creates his own philosophy which is

distinguishable from the ideas of other philosophers, although this may not be purely original.

The latter two extract the philosophical ideas either from the writings or lectures of philosophers

(and present these historically) or from the cultural oral or written literature of an ethnic group

(tribal or national). We should also distinguish the ethnophilosopher from the philosopher of

culture. The former extracts the embedded philosophical underpinnings of a people’s languages,

folk literature, folk reasoning, and so on, while the latter reflects upon the merits and demerits of


one’s culture, how culture can be meaningful, what essence there is—if any—of culture, the

ethical dimensions of culture, and the like. An ethnophilosopher can be a philosopher of culture

and vice versa, but the two activities are quite distinct. Moreover, there are ethnophilosophers

who simply remain as ethnophilosophers by resisting any meaningful philosophical change of

one’s culture (see Gripaldo (2012a, 59-65).

Nationality/Constitutional Approach

The third approach I call the nationality or constitutional approach. It answers the

question, “How do we classify a Filipino work on a Western or Eastern subject from the point of

view of bibliography writing?” When I was gathering the philosophical materials of a research

on a bibliography on Filipino philosophy (1996, 2000, 2004) I simply gathered all writings by

Filipinos on any philosophical topic, including ethnophilosophical topics, together with the

writings of foreigners on Filipino thinkers like Rizal and Constantino. But when I began

classifying the works into several philosophical categories—like ethics, epistemology,

metaphysics, aesthetics, and so on—I was faced with the problem as to what to include as

epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, and so on—I was faced with the problem as to what to

include as Filipino philosophy. A more accurate classificatory criterion was needed. What is

Filipino philosophy from the perspective of bibliographic writing? What is a Filipino in the first

place and who are the Filipinos? Should I consider a work on Bertrand Russell’s idea of neutral

monism—written by a Filipino—a work on British philosophy or is it a work on Filipino

philosophy? Most of the writings I have gathered are of this nature—a Filipino work on

Heidegger’s Dasein, on Sartre’s existentialism, on Foucault’s genealogy, on Plato’s republic, and

so on. These are works of Filipino philosophy scholars (see Gripaldo 2009b). What is the

standard criterion for classifying philosophical works? So you see how great my predicament


was. If I discard all Filipino writings on foreign philosophers and philosophies, then my research

work will be reduced into a few pages as there are only very few writings done on both (i) ethnic

and indigenous philosophical ideas and (ii) on original or derivative but distinctive philosophical

works by Filipinos themselves. This is something I was not prepared to do. The normal or

standard procedure is to classify Filipino works on foreign philosophies in terms of substance or

content with the nationality of the author simply taken for granted. So a Filipino work on

Heidegger’s concept of Being is a work on German philosophy; a Filipino work on Sartre’s

concept of nothingness is a work on French philosophy; and so on. The standard central focus of

analysis, in this case, is the substance or subject matter regardless of the nationality of the author.

A deconstruction is necessary. We shift the central focus—or the criterion of classification—to

the nationality of the writer himself or herself.13

B.VALUES AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Sustainability as it is commonly used has a particular political and historical context.

Rather than simply a discourse of the environment movement or the competing tension between

environment and development, sustainability is primarily a discourse of modernity. In simple

terms, modernity can be seen as the social relations created by institutions and cultural values.

The key institutions that can be associated with modernity are democracy, capitalism and

science. Modern values include progress, consumption, human rights and individual freedom. As

a discourse of modernity, sustainability reflects and creates ideological contradictions and has

material consequences when it is defined and acted upon. People’s relationship with nature, the

environment and the place in which they live is critical; however, this relationship is essentially

social and dependent on power relations in local, regional, and global contexts. In our work at

the Institute for Sustainable Futures, we are frequently required to challenge the meaning behind

13

http://www.academia.edu/6363265/Filipino_Philosophy_Past_and_Present_2013_


the increasingly familiar lexicon of sustainability in both the private and public sector. This is not

always easy or comfortable. Inevitably it is a process where there are competing knowledge’s,

diverse interests, personal ambitions and institutional power struggles. Nevertheless, within this

process there are opportunities for meaningful dialogue about how communities, government and

society might plan and act for the future.

The approach that one takes to working in this area has consequences in terms of the

power certain groups have over other groups. It is our view that social action relating to

sustainability may as easily perpetuate oppression and exclusion as create change that is

liberating and inclusive. In this paper we outline a brief history of sustainability discourse, the

contribution of social sciences to the theory and practice of sustainability and an analysis of

some specific projects undertaken at the Institute. We demonstrate the limitations and potential

of a particular approach to social research. Following Flyvbjerg (2001), we argue that when

engaging in practical work and theoretical debates it is essential to clarify competing values, to

actively address power relations and to ground research in specific contexts.14

Sustainability

In the past decade, the interpretation of sustainability has occurred in various ways and in

multiple contexts. The original or literal meaning of the term is equivalent to permanence and

implies notion of durability, stability and eternalness. The term as commonly used today appears

to have first been used in the early 1970s, and drew upon the environmental discourse of the

1960s typified by emerging green movements. This early discourse focused on the threat of

ecological harm by using such metaphors as the ‘tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). It was

argued that changes to social and economic structures were necessary to avert large-scale

14

Albro, M. 1997. The Global Age: state and society beyond modernity, Stanford University Press:

Stanford, California.


ecological disaster. In 1987, the idea of sustainable development started to gain mainstream

currency when the World Commission on Environment and Development released Our Common

Future (the Brundtland Report). The report explicitly drew a connection between accepted

models of development and the deterioration of the environment. It called for inequitiesto be

addressed, in particular those between present and future generations and between rich and poor

countries. Subsequent multilateral conferences in the 1990s3 started to address particular issues

requiring international agreements and cooperation. This included the establishment of Agenda

21 as a framework for institutional change, and the development of supporting instruments so

that considerations relating to sustainability could be incorporated into policy making and

business. It is argued by Petrucci (2002),among others, that much of this incorporation has been

appropriated within the rhetoric of continued economic development. He argues that the original

issue of environmental limits was subsumed within a global drive towards further economic

growth and consequently the current interpretations of sustainable development are deficient, as

they are:

…too plastic—or too loaded—to be of any authentic or practical use. Indeed, it’s current

deployment on the global scene as a political catchphrase engendering a vague sense of goodwill toward

the “Third World,” and the environment generally has done little toengender any radical shift in top-down

development strategy and oppressive global tradingpractice (Petrucci, 2002).

This fluidity has aroused impatience and skepticism in many quarters. For example, in

the world of business, Paul Tebo (Du Pont’s vice president for safety, health and environment)

has been attributed with creating the term sustainable growth to make sustainable development

acceptable to business: Growth was very important. I tried sustainability and the business leaders

saw it as status quo. I tried sustainable development and they viewed it as environmental


sustainability. I tried sustainable business [but] growth is what organizations want – either

you’re growing or you’re not and not growing is not a very good sit (Spencer-Cooke, 2000, cited

in Holliday C. et al,2002 p15. original emphasis).These two examples offer quite different and

inherently contradictory critiques of sustainability. Perspectives such as these are part of a much

more complex set of political and theoretical debates. They exemplify, however, the

interpretations that have arisen from two particular interest groups—social justice advocates and

the business community. These groups are incredibly diverse and, of course, not always mutually

exclusive. Work in the area of sustainability often requires deliberate and careful choices about

positioning oneself in relation to the arguments offered by these two groups and about managing

the associated conflicts. Dialogue, stakeholder involvement, consultation and collaboration are

all common processes associated with sustainability work. These processes will ideally consider

underlying values and assumptions of the parties involved and openly address conflicts. The

processes of dialogue or engagement will often involve difficult decisions for participants as they

may offer both promise and risk in both ethical and political terms. This is even more acute when

working directly with communities in projects involving social research.

Social sustainability

The triple bottom line (TBL) has come to represent an agreed set of categories to assist

conversations and action relating to sustainability. Many social scientists would argue that the

attempt to segment the “social” from economic and environmental considerations is

fundamentally questionable. For example, longstanding theoretical debates about the usefulness

and validity of the nature/culture dialectic would suggest these categories are much less straight

forward than TBL advocates would often imply. In some quarters, the idea that economics

should be reified as a separate sphere outside the social sphere is a particularly unattractive


consequence arising from this way of segmenting the world. It is important, however, to consider

the extent to which the demarcation of the ‘social’ in this way has been useful in supporting

action. Researchers, policy makers, activists and other social change agents have used, and will

continue to use, the triple bottom line to pursue ethical and political goals. The social dimension

provides a context in which social scientists are considered to have particular expertise and to be

able to make relevant contributions to public policy and decision-making. This social science

knowledge is usually underpinned by the explicit recognition of ethics and principles concerned

with the advancement of what “should” be, rather than what “is”. The specific contribution that

this perspective brings to sustainability is an emphasis on the core values of justice and dialogue.

Our notion of justice embodies three key concepts—fairness, equitable distribution and human

dignity (Sachs, 2003). Fairness is a question of substantive outcome, of whether the allocation of

benefits and harm could be considered fair, legitimate and just. The relational aspect of justice is

captured by equitable distribution, which takes into account the distribution of resources and

rights among individuals or groups. Finally, human dignity acknowledges that there are

minimum levels of rights necessary for human existence, such as the right to subsistence. In the

field of human rights, there is also an increasing recognition from communities and governments

of the ‘right to participate’. This may be justified in association with theories such as

participatory democracy, public deliberation and discourse ethics. A rights perspective, however,

is not always compatible with the rationale for public participation from the perspective of

decision makers. Public participation in decision-making is valued for various reasons. The

rationale for initiating public participation from the point of view of decision makers is mostly to

increase political legitimacy of decisions and to enhance the quality of outcomes through

combining knowledge and perspectives. Unfortunately, the practice of public participation often


leaves much to be desired as consultation is often poorly carried out and tokenistic. The differing

expectations of the parties, the public believing they have a right, and the bureaucrats and

proponents often concerned only with procedural compliance, can lead to disillusion and

increased distrust between the project proponents, government and public.

There are many opportunities for inclusive and influential public dialogue to be extended

within the scope of existing and future projects. Yet inevitably, decision-making concerning

development is characterized by complexity, often because of the uncertainty of the science and

related risk. The multiplicity of actors adds additional social and political challenges. Inevitably,

these actors have disparate and competing interests, often with much to gain and lose from

decisions. Of greater relevance, they are in varying relationships of power, not only to each

other, but also to the decision makers. The social sciences have much to offer in contexts such as

these, as its study of politics and power relationships is well developed. Social science, however,

is a broad church and encompasses many disciplines, diverse traditions and worldviews. Each

tradition comes with a particular approach and underpinning each is a set of values the researcher

implicitly or explicitly adopts. These values may vary in the extent to which they are democratic,

managerial, inclusive, individualized, and collective and so on. Sometimes issues of fairness,

equity and human dignity are considered and sometimes they are not. The values underpinning

some approaches, when unquestioned, may be counter to social justice. Certain social science

practitioners tend to employ the discourse of the social quite narrowly. In these approaches,

social issues may be limited to the consideration of local employment or the measurement of

attitudes or live ability. Researchers using such approaches may consider issues of justice as

being outside their brief, not relevant or too political.


The work of the Institute for Sustainable Futures

At the Institute, we are seeking to include critical social science within all of our projects.

This requires us to account for power relationships within our research projects and to explicitly

adopt justice as a normative value. The implications for our approach are various. For example,

we need to recognize the multiplicity of values and interests in a given context and actively seek

“participation” by those who may otherwise be excluded. We need to acknowledge and

appreciate the particularities of local contexts and related social change processes. Moreover,

rather than simply articulate the diversity of competing values and interests we also need to make

transparent the power relations at play. The following section draws on projects conducted by the

Institute. Three case studies are selected to illustrate the potential for this kind of approach to

sustainability research:

1. Community perspectives on weirs in the Upper Nepean River

2. The Integrated Monitoring Program: the SECH group

3. Family support needs of rural General Practitioners (GPs).

These case studies all contain elements where contradictory values and power relations

between different actors impact upon the research process. The context within which these

relations occurred had consequences for both the methodology and the management of

conflicting interests between the researched, the researchers, those providing funding for the

research and those the research sought to influence.

Local perspectives on weirs in the Upper Nepean River4

A State Government decision was made to introduce releases of water (known as

environmental flows) from storage reservoirs, of sufficient quality and quantity to help restore

the “natural” or pre-industrial state of the river in the Hawkesbury–Nepean River. A River


Management Forum was established and an Expert Panel appointed to provide Government with

advice. Weirs along the river, in particular those that had been poorly maintained and were no

longer functioning, were regarded by various decision makers as barriers to environmental flows.

Therefore, removal of weirs was considered a straight forward option to facilitate environmental

flows in the river. As part of the decision making process, a study on local perspectives was

commissioned. The purpose of the study was to identify the values held by river users and

community members, including irrigator groups along the river, in relation to identified weirs on

the Upper Nepean River. This involved identifying the nature of the social and economic

relationship between relevant river stakeholders and the weirs and the concerns they might have

with any change to the weirs. The researchers also sought to find out what information

requirements there were in relation to any change, and the ways in which the various groups

would want to participate in related decision-making processes. The researchers rather than those

who had commissioned the study initiated these last aims. The researchers were conscious of the

fact that decision-making was likely to have significant impacts at the local level. The approach

taken was deliberately flexible, participatory and sensitive to the local context. For instance, the

range of possible issues to be researched was decided in consultation with stakeholders prior to

the formal research process. Indigenous groups were consulted, both about how they would like

to respond and to identify their key issues for the study. By involving the relevant communities

in planning the scope of the project, the researchers sought to foster local control over the

research agenda. Disparities in power between the researched, researchers and decision makers

were consciously managed throughout the process. Variable access to information reflected,

impart, the power relations between researchers and researched. The researchers had access to

various documents that had not been available to local people. This was further complicated by


the preliminary nature of the study. That is, the community study took place prior to an

environmental impact assessment, and so technical information about weir removal or

modification was limited. At times it was impossible to adequately respond to people’s requests

for information about the changes that might be expected.

This differential access to information was managed by incorporating two-way processes

to share information with research participants. A key feature of the process was a feedback loop

designed to respond quickly, where possible, to information needs and concerns that were raised

during the project. Following initial consultations, a mailing list for a newsletter was created to

keep all participants updated on the progress and preliminary findings of the study. Given that

community information about weir management was limited, it was essential to provide

sufficient information to enable understanding of proposed changes. Multiple communication

avenues were used. An information sheet, prepared using advice and input from the Expert Panel

and government agencies, was provided to participants in the study. A series of frequently asked

questions raised by participants during the research were recorded and sent on to representatives

of the Hawkesbury–Nepean River Management Forum. Responses were obtained and

distributed. Informal contact and meetings with participating groups and individuals provided

opportunities for ongoing dialogue about issues relating to the weirs and the research process

itself. The research processes used to collect and analyze information were also influenced by

consultations with local government, water user groups and other local stakeholders, including

Indigenous groups. Multiple methods were designed to capture the diverse views of as many

interested parties in the community as possible. These methods included questionnaires,

structured on-site interviews, informal communications (email and telephone) and group

meetings. A media analysis of reported community perspectives and other secondary sources


was also done. The combination of methods enabled the approach to be sensitive to the diversity

of views and the relationships between those views. It allowed an understanding of the interests,

conflicts and relationships threading through this particular sustainability issue, and for these to

be represented appropriately and fairly.

The diversity of values found in the study was not surprising. As mentioned earlier, some

stakeholders (decision-makers and others), originally assumed the removal of weirs would be

straightforward. They had assumed that the resulting environmental benefit had primacy. The

study revealed, however, that the economic, social and heritage value of weirs had been under-

estimated. Commercial water users strongly identified weirs with their livelihoods. Irrigators, in

particular, pointed out that the “original purpose” for constructing the weirs, as a mechanism to

compensate irrigators for lower river levels due to upstream dams, is just as valid today as it was

previously. In contrast to views held by some scientific experts, some stakeholders spoke about

the weirs as a natural feature of the river environment. The weirs, and the river, were valued for

their aesthetic qualities and there was much concern expressed about how the river would change

if the weirs were removed. The research findings addressed power relations between the public

and the decision makers by identifying their differential information needs, expectations and

assumptions concerning participation. Participants across all non-government stakeholder groups

consistently expressed a desire to be better informed in the future. In particular, they were

concerned about likely social and ecological impacts of weir removal and/or modification and

requested specific information about technical details relating to repair and of weirs. Many

indicated their willingness to participate in ongoing dialogue and involvement in the

management of the weirs. Many expressed a desire to take part in further community

consultations and debates through community meetings, and to have issues debated in the local


newspapers. Mechanisms of direct involvement suggested by participants included surveys,

submissions, a public vote, public viewing of the weirs in question and the formation of a bush

care group. All participants strongly expressed concerns that decision-making processes ought to

be inclusive, and that they should accord local experiential knowledge equal currency alongside

empirical scientific evidence. In some instances, there was deep mistrust of the decision-making

process, with some participants asking what “really was going on”, and suspecting an “ultimate

agenda of removal” .It has been decided by the government that, at least for now, it is too

difficult to negotiate between the competing interests. It is likely that in some cases the local

communities and stakeholders may not have opposed weir removal. For example, some of the

weirs are very dilapidated and it would have been possible to achieve a high degree of support

for these to be removed. Relative to a unilateral decision concerning all weirs, the resources and

time required for specific negotiations around particular weirs may on balance have appeared too

onerous, and limited environmental benefits. There was an uncomfortable disjuncture in the

conversations between the researchers, the researched, the departments funding the research and

the various layers of decision-making involved. These sites of power could not be made explicit

in the project for a number of reasons. The research team carrying out the community study did

not know exactly what was going on behind the scenes and the various agendas were not

transparent. It is thought that the commissioning of the research brief arose because of a

dispersed set of interests that were represented on the River Management Forum and in the

Expert Panel. Some of these interests were being negotiated concurrently on other water resource

issues in NSW and in a much broader social context around river management and water reform.

The researchers adopted an approach to the study that centered on the representation of the local

peoples’ perspectives rather than on assessing should or should not happen in relation to the


weirs. This was frustrating for some of the decision makers who were focused on achieving a

particular outcome. The ultimate decision concerning weir removal did not rest with the local

community. Nevertheless, the research approach taken and its findings (with the associated

media and political debate) significantly influenced the decision-making process. This influence

was incremental, so that during the process it would have been hard to identify particular turning

points. It would be fair to say, however, that the community research process did allow local

views to be expressed and heard. The public language employed by the decision-makers shifted

during the course of the project. For example, the assumption of “weir removal” became one of

“weir management”, and “weir modification”. This decision was seen as a compromise by some

of the parties. For example, for some environment groups and recreational users participating in

the study weir modification was not the most desirable or “sustainable” outcome. Nevertheless

on balance this was considered a politically acceptable alternative that would achieve

environmental benefits, albeit probably not equivalent to potential benefits from weir removal.

The use of an approach that explicitly accounted for diverse values and unequal power relations

clearly influenced the outcome of this research. At the beginning of the project, researchers were

asked to consult the community on their views about weir removal. Conscious decisions were

made by the researchers not to present the proposal as a faitaccompli so as to encourage active

participation and allow other possibilities to be considered. This more open approach then

contributed to an alternative course of action being undertaken. It is frustrating that the limited

timeframe of the project and the parameters of the decision making process have not supported

ongoing dialogue with the local community on this issue. Hopefully, the next stage of the

process will build on local knowledge already established and will extend the process to other


contexts where environmental flows and weirs are being considered. The Integrated Monitoring

Program: The Social, Economic, Cultural and Heritage (SECH) group5

As part of the consideration to introduce environmental flows in the Hawkesbury-Nepean

River, decision makers also needed to evaluate the likely outcomes of the proposed flow regime.

The expert panel proposed an integrated monitoring program to assist in achieving this outcome.

The panel needed to demonstrate that the proposed integrated monitoring program was

feasible—conceptually and financially—before the decision to fund the actual program could be

made. For many involved in the program design, particularly those trained in traditional

scientific paradigms (engineers, ecologists and other scientists), this requirement meant that the

value of the monitoring program lay in its capacity to prove or justify the benefits of

environmental flows. There was less interest in any negative consequences that may arise from

policies and programs proposed to provide and protect environmental flows. There were two

sources of conflict.

Firstly, the group was unfamiliar with participatory research (Reason and Bradbury

2001)and participatory decision-making (Konisky and Beierle 2001; Carson and Gelber

2001).Secondly, most of the group wanted to achieve a particular project outcome. For

researchers developing the social, economic, cultural and heritage (SECH) component of the

monitoring program, this added an extra layer of difficulty. Experience elsewhere on social

monitoring, social impact assessment and river management suggested that public participation

in decision-making and monitoring is crucial. Ideally, this participation occurs early, during the

initial scoping of potential issues to be monitored. Ongoing and meaningful participation should

encourage stakeholders to contribute to how and where monitoring should occur, how

information should be interpreted, and how it should influence decision-making. Focusing on


issues specific to both the context and the values of stakeholders can assist in the prevention of

conflict and address unequal power relations. The expert panel’s terms of reference required the

use adaptive management, which is primarily concerned with the relationship between people

and the environment, as an appropriate approach to natural resource management (Jiggins and

Roling 2000). It seeks to base decisions on local knowledge as well as scientific research. The

participation of local communities is thus central to the operation of the monitoring program,

aiming to increase stewardship of the river and share responsibility between government and the

wider community. The program is based on a pragmatic approach that integrates both technical

and participatory methods, and uses diverse forms of knowledge to capture ongoing dialogue

about river uses and values. Easier said than done! The framework proposed by the SECH group

sought to enable the people most affected to interpret change at the local level and to influence

decision-making. This takes into account the range of social conflicts that inevitably arise in the

management of a catchment such as the Hawkesbury–Nepean. Policy actions, rather than

environmental flows per se, formed the basis of a framework for monitoring the SECH

consequences associated with a changed river management regime. This recognizes that policy

actions are potentially conflictual and need to be engaged with and managed with affected

communities as part of an adaptive management process. Because of limited time and resources

there was consultation with only selected planning and natural resource agencies and other

stakeholders represented on the River Management Forum. In contrast, the SECH program

recommended processes for local communities and stakeholder participation at all stages. At the

outset, the Forum’s social objectives were quite different from their environmental objectives.

The environmental objectives were specifically defined, relying primarily on technical and

scientific criteria. On the other hand, social objectives were broad and participatory, using the


language of inclusiveness, equity and negotiation. The integrated monitoring program required

that the different paradigms of social and natural sciences be reconciled. This integration was

particularly challenging on at least two levels. Firstly, there is the challenge of integrating the

different paradigms within the SECH (social, economic, cultural, heritage) monitoring

component itself, and secondly, the challenge of integrating the biophysical sciences’ and social

science paradigms. With the first challenge, the approach taken was to balance 'technical'

methods with elements of participatory research. Integration with biophysical monitoring,

however, was more problematic, and reflected a struggle between very different epistemological

and ideological perspectives. The different values and power relations within the monitoring

group caused conflict at times. Some Expert Panel and Forum members expressed resistance to

the social sciences, particularly to the participatory approach. The inability to resolve these

conflicts were exacerbated by shared objectives and conflict resolutions kills. Ultimately, the

interdisciplinary and integrated intent of the program was frustrated and integration in this sense

has not been as successful as was first anticipated.

On a more positive note, some benefits resulted from the project. The SECH issues have

been included in the monitoring program and some funding will probably be allocated to

continue the work. Moreover, scoping of issues was broader to include more than the usual basic

demographics and economic interests. The SECH component included arrange of river related

activities like recreational fishing and community values such as a sense of place. Hopefully,

those implementing the program will be supported to pursue the recommendations concerning

community involvement in monitoring and river management more generally.


Family support needs of rural medical General Practitioners (GPs)

Rural sustainability is a multi-faceted issue, one aspect of which is the difficulty of

attracting a range of professionals to rural areas. The sustainability of local communities can be

assisted by ensuring the presence of a diverse range of skills and professions in local towns and

rural regions. Demographic changes in Australian health services personnel are one important

factor affects the recruitment and retention of professionals in rural areas. The ‘new’ generation

of rural GPs, for example, is more likely to be female, from a wider range of ethnic backgrounds,

with stronger interest in lifestyle and family/work balance, and have spouses with professional

careers. (Cheney, Willets & Wilson, 2004) This research project focused specifically on personal

and family support factors that affect the retention of rural female GPs and rural registrars

(doctors undertaking their vocational training as general practitioners). It was conducted in

collaboration with the Rural Faculty of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

(RACGP) between June 2002 and April 2003.Experience had shown that simply recruiting

individual GPs by increasing financial incentives is a necessary but inadequate response. An

effective approach to recruitment necessitates a broader view of GPs and their families. This

includes the needs of spouses, children and extended family members. In this project it was also

seen to include an even broader social network, in particular the local community and the rural

medical profession. It was found during the project that the needs of each GP and their family

were considerably diverse and dependent upon a range of factors. These included age of

children, spousal relations, proximity of family and friends, social and professional interests and

attitudes toward rural life. The researchers needed to appropriately address people’s specific

needs as well as other needs shared by the local community or the community of GPs and their

families. It became possible during the project to focus on supporting and building rural


communities, rather than just offering an exclusive service to individual GPs. The approach

taken can be broadly described as combining collaborative evaluation, action research and

community development. Wadsworth (1997) argues that collaborative evaluation is valuable

because it involves parties who might be expected to change their practice as opposed to a non-

participatory and non-democratic evaluation process, which cannot ensure an appropriate

outcome for those who will be affected. To instigate successful change, the affected parties need

to experience evidence of the value and significance of change, both directly and personally. To

do this, the project initiated and supported actions that provided the actual experience of change

for participants within the timeframe of the project. The specific strategies developed needed to

be community-owned, meaning that both the definition of the problem and its solutions come

from the group most affected by the issue. In the first instance this was the rural GPs and their

families, however the need for ownership also extended to the community more broadly. The

specific process of community development used here can be summarized as a series of cycles

and is described in detail elsewhere (Wilson, 2002). Key aspects include: developing a

relationship with those most affected by the issue, agreeing on goals, and exchanging skills and

information that enable all stakeholders to participate in bringing about the desired result. The

action group expands outwards, particularly toward politicians and bureaucrats, to influence

policy and decision-making. The project activities comprised a sequence of steps to identify

needs, develop potential strategies, support their implementation and evaluate their impacts. The

project team firstly worked closely with GPs and their spouses to identify needs that they

identified, in contrast to ones that might have been assumed or predetermined. Communication,

including telephone, fax, letters, e-mail and meeting face-to-face, was flexible and open to new

and changing possibilities throughout. The researchers encouraged GPs and spouses to identify


the issues most likely to affect their retention in a rural area and were open to issues that might

be considered the responsibility of other sectors of government, such as education and childcare.

Through dialogue, the researchers and participants explored a range of potential areas of

activity in the design of an appropriate strategy. In some cases, the needs of participants changed

during the project, which led to existing strategies being modified or new strategies being

developed. The researchers worked collaboratively with GPs, their families, other community

members and service providers to implement the strategies.

The strategies were then evaluated from the participants’ point of view through in-depth

interviews. Individual case studies were analyzed to develop general findings and

recommendations were formulated to effect change in Commonwealth policy development and

the rural medical profession. The main strategies trialed during the project had both individual

and community orientations. While all strategies could be seen to have individual and collective

benefits, the emphasis within each was a matter of degree. When the notion of community is

referred to here, there are two main communities of interest: the immediate geographic

community and the rural GP profession. The case studies demonstrate the potential to satisfy the

individual needs of GPs and their families and in a number of cases, with consequent benefits for

a larger community.GP spousal unhappiness related to rural employment opportunities has

previously been identified as a key issue for recruitment and retention of rural GPs (Tolhurst and

Lippert, 2002). Rural GP spouses often struggle to develop a meaningful role for themselves, and

provision of assistance and funding for further education in a new professional field has been a

typical response. In this study there were several GP spouses with specific employment needs. In

these cases, the strategies focused on building professional skills and creating employment

opportunities. While this is primarily an individual response it can also indirectly improve


service provision within the local community or provide a precedent that others with this need

may adopt when learning from the project is shared. It is also widely reported that both GPs and

their spouses may be susceptible to feelings of isolation when residing in a rural community

(Nichols, 1997; Tolhurst et al., 2000; Tolhurst and Lippert, 2002). A number of the case studies

here involved strategies designed to help alleviate social isolation, enabling GPs and GP spouses

to contribute to community groups and support beneficial community activities. The aim with

these strategies was to address both individual and broader community requirements. Much of

the research literature in this field is concerned with the needs of spouses (such as those stated

above) rather than the whole family, particularly children. There has been some discussion of

children’s education from an academic perspective (McDonald et al, 2002; Wallis, 2002). A

unique element of our case studies was the inclusion of extracurricular activities designed to

meet the recreational and creative needs of children.

These strategies also have the potential to improve the range of activities available to the

wider community of children and adults. For example, a music theatre workshop was offered

during the school holidays. While it was the particular interests of one GP that prompted the

workshop, it attracted 50 children from the region and is planned to be an ongoing event in that

community. Other case studies involved improvements to services and infrastructure for the

local community such as childcare and recreational facilities, and in particular, swimming pools.

A number of strategies were designed to address policy and more systemic problems.

These can also be seen as concerned with the interests of a broader community of interest,

namely rural GPs and their families. Strategies with this focus included the preparation and

circulation of a number of discussion papers and the evaluation of a professional support group

for female GPs. The discussion papers were concerned with flexible practice working


arrangements, the changing face of GPs in rural Australia, and the potential for medical agencies

to employ spouses who could work from home. These strategies had direct benefits for

participants at the time of the study. The research process also allowed for the evaluation of the

strategies to be documented and distributed to a wider audience that extended their potential

benefits to rural GPs as a group.

Overall, the strategies were seen to have a positive impact on the individual participants

when they were evaluated at the end of the project period. Participants spoke of a range of

benefits including improved confidence and personal effectiveness, the satisfaction of being

heard and understanding some problems as shared rather than individual. People also reported

that strategies were beneficial in assisting them to explore options for support or change and for

increasing networks and resources locally. The success of the strategies relied on various factors

relating to the circumstances of the individual participants as well as that of the local community

context. Conflict in communities is inevitable, and in this project it arose in a number of

interesting ways. In one case, the conflict generated from the project made the researchers more

aware of the power dynamics relating to the role of GPs within small communities. It appeared

that the perception of GPs as an elite group gave rise to resentment in at least one instance. The

activities associated with the strategies created tensions between the GP, other members of the

community and the researchers. Some participants, and others not directly involved in the

research, expressed another area of concern in that the evaluation may lead to public policy

preferences for certain needs and strategies above others. The concern was that this might not

reflect their own interests or what they saw as the most important issues.

For the most part, by working directly with a core group of GPs and families, we were

able to identify shared issues and to engage other local and professional community stakeholders


in addressing them. Our research found that rural GPs and their families are often reluctant to

receive special treatment. They were usually interested in exploring strategies that led to

improvements for the local community as a whole and the professional community of rural GPs.

Fostering this link between self-interest and broader community interests lay at the heart of our

ability to facilitate positive change in rural communities, while attending to the specific needs of

our collaborating group of rural GPs and their families.

This suggests that that policy responses to the support needs of rural medical families(and

similar professional groups) may be designed to enrich the community as a whole rather than

privileging a minority, arguably already privileged, group. The social science, particularly

community development, experience of the researchers working on the project was essential for

prompting discussion and assisting participants to articulate their needs. Researchers were able to

draw upon their knowledge of community and government to provide specific advice and access

to resources. It is unlikely that researchers without this background would be able to replicate

this approach. A policy response would need to be accompanied by skilled workers, appropriate

resources to carry out activities, links with other professions and sectors, sensitivity to rural

Australia and knowledge of the community and services sector to be successful. The ongoing

conversations between researchers and participants about their particular situation enabled a

range of concerns to be heard, acknowledged and addressed. Together, they were able to

pinpoint specific problems, and stimulate the generation of ideas for change rather than accepting

the status quo if this was unsatisfactory. This dialogical process is a powerful one and likely to

achieve a level of innovation than would usually be evident in non-participant-driven research

projects. 15

15

Nichols, A. 1997. The Spouses of Rural Doctors: a significant influence on professional

life in the bush. 4th National Rural Health Conference. 9th February, Perth.


It is accepted that leadership is value-driven, yet we wanted to find out what values “in

action” make social change leadership successful. Examining the underlying values of leadership

success, therefore, supports our inquiry into distinguishing and recognizing social change

leadership. Learning more about the values held in common across different leaders and

organizations brings to light the values we hold and other we want to expand. Articulating our

values with clarity and conviction are part of the skill and the art of strategic communication,

She talks a lot about doing what you do, doing that well, that the imperative comes out of our

spirits – Stan The sense of family, with wisdom and harmony with everyone... we are a part of a

bigger thing, we are a part of the universe, we are a part of Mother Earth and what she gives to

us and we have a need to keep a balance with that. When we do things, we need to know why we

do them– and we do them from our spirit, which is helping us keep a balance. We need to realize

that it is not just this little community, but part of the larger community. We are all brothers and

sisters...and the sun is our father, the earth our mother, and justice is our guide, and I define that

in one big term– our spirituality. – Susana Through this belief in the spirit, the humanity, inside

all of us we are able to reach into ourselves and reach out to others to form bonds, build

relationships, and strengthen communities.

• Empowerment through Education

Another theme that appeared in all of our stories and work was the importance of

empowering communities. The focus of social change leaders is less on giving them power, but

more on giving them the tools with which to claim power. One of the central roles for social

change leading is being an educator for action. As a result much of our work centered on

educating communities, other organizations, and policy makers. Dissecting the issue, breaking it

down to the grassroots level, explaining various outcomes for each scenario, so that community

http://www.ruralhealth.org.au/


residents can make an informed decision. It takes a lot of work, a lot of education, and time to do

that. – Susana We kept coming together to get information, form strategy using the experts. Then

we’d go back out into our neighborhoods, with the experts coming out to help in those

communities, to explain, to provide information – Michelle Keeping the revolution in sight while

working on reform that are in the system … education at multiple levels – Mary The leader

understands the opportunities for teaching is that those with leadership roles have to be able to

allow for the creativity of others that are a part of the work – Theresa This emphasis on

education, sharing of information and strategies, and providing a “seat at the table” gives voice

to those who were previously silent. What is also interesting is that as others in the community,

and within our organizations, find their “leadership voice” we are required to find a new voice

for ourselves, either by finding new onduits/bridges with other organizations, as suggested in the

previous section, or by looking for new ways to develop ourselves and our leadership. As we

discussed several times in our inquiry, we would all love to “work ourselves out of a

job.”SUCCESS USING “WE-NESS” AND BRIDGE-BUILDING

As a result of our cooperative inquiry, we defined a dynamic we named “we-ness”. We-

ness focuses on pursuing the collective good instead of, or in some cases along with, the

individual or private interest. In coming to know what sets apart social change leadership

success, our group carefully distinguishes ourselves as social change leaders who differ from

other types of leaders in our society. In contrast, other leaders pursue their goals in benefit for

themselves and/or a relatively small group of shareholders. Attaining and working with the

dynamic of the collective good, or “we-ness” was one of the important answers to our question.

It requires an expanded, overlapping role for relationship and trust. Through our inquiry

reflections, we described the relationship factor, “we-ness” as the social change leader(s)


identifying, knowing, and then working with relationships more widely, more deeply, and very

skillfully in benefit of common, society-focused results. Although overlapping in reality, the

multiple levels of “we-ness” can be constructed using concentric circles. The outermost circle is

the relationship often found in social change coalitions that aid in getting many tasks done for an

issue campaign or a project. In between the outer and the inner circle is an area of trusting

relationship which bridges or serves as a conduit. In the center of “we-ness” is a deeper form of

self-knowledge that respects and uses personal experiences in a compelling, authentic way.16

16The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership by Wilfred Drath. Center for Creative

Leadership: Jossey-Bass, 2001.