Positions On Socialization

Chapter - 2

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIALIZATION

 

2. 1. Sociology

Modern Sociology may be classified into four groups—conceptual sociology, aereal             sociology, institutional sociology and organizational sociology.   In conceptual sociology, processes of social control, structure and elements of social stratification and the processes of socialization receive pointed attention.  In areal sociology, we have rural sociology, urban sociology, regional sociology and community sociology.  In the institutional sociology, the familial, educational, political, economic and religious institutions are studied with reference to their impact on social behaviour.  The organizational sociology covers the industrial and large scale organizations as well as the organizations of small groups. 

 

            Modern sociology, is the result of a combination or a culmination of ideas from several masters.  It is difficult now to pinpoint which of the generally accepted concepts of sociology came originally from whom; some ideas are obsolete; some continue to guide and influence researches; many make their reappearance in a different garb.  The early masters of sociology are propounding their ideas at a time when sociology had not attained the autonomous status and recognition it has now as a separate discipline.  In some sense, it was most opportune because cross-fertilization came very easily, smoothly and naturally.  It was most inopportune because clarity was at times lost and the missionary zeal to reform the world took an upper hand, leading to an erosion of perspective, on the issues of socialization.  A student of linguistics would indeed, find certain interesting comparisons between the ideas of the masters of sociology and those of the similarities in ideas may have been due to the contemporaneous nature of the writings.  At the same time he would also be surprised that there had been no or few cross references made.  Sociology did not exert that much influence, then, on linguistics as did anthropology or psychology.

 

            Not all the masters of sociology were explicit about socialization but their chief concern was both with a description of the social organization and the mutual relationship between it and the individual.  To this extent, socialization must be considered the thread that connects all their thinking.  In what follows here, we present the ideas of a few leaders in sociological thought insofar as these have some relation to the characterization of general processes of socialization.

 

2. 2 Stages of Human Progress and Socialization

 

            August Comte (1798-1857) suggested three stages in human progress.  These are the theological or fictitious stage, the metaphysical or abstract stage and the scientific or positive stage.  In the theoretical stage, the human mind seeks the essential nature of beings, seeks the origin and purpose of all effects and supposed all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.  There is no question of change.  There is only strict adherence without any scrutiny.  The chief characteristic is pious obedience.  In the second stage, the metaphysical stage, the mind supposes abstract forces capable of producing all phenomena.  In the final phase, the positive state, the absolute notions are given up, along with the origin and destination of universe and the causes of these phenomena.

 

            This evolution of human mind is seen as paralleled by the evolution of the individual and the evolution of the social organization.  As we have defined socialization as the evolution of individual, the three stages of human progress may be considered the major milestones of an individual’s socialization.  We suggest, then, that the first stage may be compared to childhood socialization, the second stage perhaps to the adolescent idealism and youthful imagination and the third stage to a socialized individual adult behaviour.  It is our submission also that at any time in the life span of an individual also that at any time in the life span of an individual or at least in the case of the socialized individual adult, where one stage is dominant, the others do not disappear but do have their roles in some compartments f the individual’s life.

 

            Comte also argued that these three stages are correlated with parallel stages in the development of social organization of types of social order, of social units and the material conditions of human life.  If this were true, then the socialization process to which a particular society belongs.  It would also mean that while the same individual mind may go through all the three stages, one of these stages would have to be considered dominant and guiding the process of socialization.  It should also be considered the goal of the socialization process at that period.

 

            Comte advocated that phylogeny—the development of human groups or the entire human race-is retraced in ontogeny, the development of the human organism.  A similar belief is echoed in Piaget’s and Jakobson’s writings.

 

            As regards the acquisition and use of language, in the absence a reference to the already available adult system before the child, the elements being acquired and manifested in child’s verbal and nonverbal behaviour would indeed look meaningless when compared with adult behaviour.  As regards the socialization process insofar as social organizations, etc., is concerned, language connects us, individuals of a living community, to our remote ancestors, and to the thought and culture of the preceding generations.  By sharing a language one shares the social norms.  To this extent the relationship between the phylogeny and ontogeny is rather clear.  But to what extent the specific individual behaviour responses can be related to phylogeny is a matter for further empirical investigation.

 

            For Comte, language is a collective tool to bring in social order.  While division of labour creates interdependence among individuals, a common language becomes a medium to strengthen this division of labour within a community.  Comte also argued that a common language is indispensable to a human community.  This position of Comte is, indeed, necessary to characterize one human community from other human communities.  It may also be necessary as interaction between the members of a community is possible through shared codes, one or more languages.  But note that this is not absolutely necessary from the point of view of individuals because the membership of an individual need not be restricted to a single human community—that is, he can be a member of more than one community, at times even without knowing the language of one or more of these communities.  The fact that one is human entails that the he possesses at least one language.  But the fact that the possesses a particular language does not entail that he belongs to the community of that language.

 

2. 3. Socialization as Struggle and Conflict

 

            For Marx (Karl Marx, 1818-1883), socialization may be considered a struggle rather than peaceful growth.  It is a struggle to come to grips with and overcome the cognitive and physical challenges.  The child engages himself also in struggles to come to grips with parental authority and socio-economic order.  This struggle is not an antagonistic conflict against the cognitive, physical, parental and other socio-economic order.  It is a struggle to acquire and grasp the relations and use the cognitive, physical and socio-economic order.

 

            In this struggle, the child is guided by the norms of the social class in which he is born.  When a child is born, he is born in a society which is already divided into several social classes.  Each of these divisions would have their own political, ethical, philosophical and religious views of the world.  The child will have no option but to go through and acquire the processes of socialization dictated by the class in which he is born.  The norms of the social class are guided by the property relations.  That is, the property relations lead to or give rise to different social classes which in their turn lead to differences in socialization processes.  The child is governed by the class roles of the social class role.  The class roles are the primary determinants of the quality and content of socialization.  In this sense society has a greater influence over the individual.

 

            Can the individual not influence the course of society at all?  Through the control over the means of material production, man can still change his society.  The class roles of different socioeconomic classes involved in the production and distribution would begin to clash with one another.  Through this class conflict newer relations would be established.  We suggest that the making of newer relations must be considered a function of adulthood socialization, and not of childhood socialization.

 

            Marx emphasized the class conflict rather than the functional collaboration between different classes. We suggest that an established order or at least the commanding classes of the established order seek and encourage the functional collaboration between different classes.  We also suggest that the predominantly practiced functional collaboration in childhood socialization distinguishes it from possible class conflict in adulthood socialization.  As one indeed cannot pinpoint as to where childhood socialization stops and adulthood socialization begins, we cannot establish a clear-cut point at which functional collaboration ceases and class conflict commences.  It would be more realistic to posit both the phenomena as part of a single entity—with functional collaboration as a mark of childhood socializations.

 

            There are several other conflict theories which do not share the Marxist axioms.  C. Wright Mills, for instance, does not base his conflict theory of sociological behaviour on the control of the means of production and distribution and on the class struggle, but on the major conflicts and contentions between key holders of societal power.  He focused on the historical drift of such power form local and contentions between key holders of societal power.  He focused on the historical drift of such power from local and popular centers to military and corporate bureaucracies.  It is the struggle for power between conflicting classes, between rulers and ruled that forms social process.  Another conflict theorist, Dahrendort, assert that conflicts cannot be erased but only channeled, institutionalized and shorn of their violent manifestations.  This is so because power and authority are part and parcel of any social system.  They necessarily lead to contention, social conflict and social change.  Coser, another important conflict theorist, while conceding the central places of conflict in human societies for social processes, stresses that we investigate the bases of consensus as well as the conflicts between individuals and classes of individuals. Thus writhing the framework of these conflict theories also, one could visualize socialization as a process of the mastery of the conflict or as a process that places the individual organism in its appropriate places in the conflict.

 

2. 4. Socialization as a Process of Alienation

 

            An important concept of Marx directly relevant for an understanding of the socialization process is the concept of alienation.  Alienation is defined as a condition in which humans are dominated by forces of their own creation.  The products of the humans come to control the humans. Society as an institution is an excellent example of the alienation process.  Society is a creation of individual humans.  But, in course of time, it has come to occupy a more important place and has come to dictate the behaviour of individuals.  Men are dominated by forces of their own creation which confront them as alien powers.  Man is alienated form the object he produces, from the process of production, from himself and from the community of his fellows.  We suggest that all of us strive to achieve as great an alienation status for ourselves as possible.  We also suggest that a major function of the socialization processes in any society is for the individual to absorb and the subject to the alienation process.  If socialization is viewed as becoming a member of a society, it is easily viewed as being subject to the alienation process.

 

            Language, as it stands today is another example of the powerful alienation process.  Even when viewed as a purely communicate tool, language plays a significant role of providing identities to societies. It has come to dictate the behaviour of individuals in certain decisive areas.  Rules of language are not to be changes at the will and pleasure of the individuals.  As a collective body it commands obedience and adherence, and individuals who brought language into existence through their social activity are now totally alienated form it.

 

            George Simmel also recognized the role of alienation in society.  There is a process of reification of cultural products through division of labour, leading to the alienation between person and product.  Unlike the artist, the producer no longer finds himself in it, Simmel said.  We suggest that he majority of the uses of language falls within the alienated category.  Even the personalized, novel utterances are subjected to the process of alienation.  Language comes to dominate our expressions; only rarely the users of language are able to overcome language and express their thoughts fully.  Difficulties in retrieval must be related to the position of language as a cultural artefact in this sense.  We, the producers, cannot find ourselves in the product, language.  Language has come to have its own existence independent of its producers.  Only the great creative writers can find themselves in their product; even this varies form work to work and, within a particular work, from context to context.  Also it is only a matter of time before even their works get alienated.

 

            Marx said that men began to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they began to produce their means of subsistence.  Note that a human child is not capable of producing his means of subsistence and is dependent on his parents.  But he is endowed with c capacity to communicate and to use certain fixed symbols to get what he wants.  Note also that the inability of children to produce their means of material subsistence may have led some scholars to say that children are in the animal stage.  One should also note the underlying contradiction between two facts—the child labour is resorted to more often by low economic classes whereas the child of higher economic classes is given facility to engage himself in activities that are not directly related to the production of the means of material subsistence, and to develop his own mental capabilities through leisure and formal instruction.  The former is a case where (early or, rather, premature) resort to production of the means of subsistence places the children in the same class with animals while the latter is a case where the postponement of the production of their means of subsistence places the children in a class distinct form the animals.  We suggest hat the social classes differ among themselves as to length of the period of this postponement of the production of the means of subsistence and that this is an important distinguishing mark in the process of socialization among different classes.  This may also be crucial variable to indicate or mark the commencement of the processes of adulthood socialization.   One important consequence with regard to acquisition and use of language comes form the reaction of listeners.  The values attached to the words of the speaker or the seriousness with which the words of the speaker are greeted marks the commencement of adulthood-at least symptomatic of adulthood-in many societies.

 

            In every society, the individual is socialized to meet the requirements of different stages in childhood; he is also prepared in his childhood to take up roles in later life.  Accordingly the socialization processes of different economic classes should be looked into form the point of view of assigned roles to the economic calls to which the individual belongs.  The language consequences of the roles, however, have been a mater or great controversy.  We discuss the controversy in the second volume.

 

2.5 Socialization as Growth of Structure and Differentiation

 

            From the point of view of Spencer (Herbert Spencer,), it should be said that the growth of structure and differentiation characterize the process of socialization.  Growth is due to the joining of previously unrelated units.  Increase in the size of units is accompanied by an increase in the complexity of their structure.  Process of growth is also a process of integration.  Integration is accompanied by a progressive differentiation of structures and functions.  Differentiation makes the units mutually dependent on each other.  That is, the growing differentiation leads to inter-dependence and hence integration.  In other words, socialization, to begin with, is a process of growth.  With the increment in units acquired through growth, increment in complexity and a structural organization of the units acquired take place.  The units have been organized to terms of their mutual dependence and differentiation of functions in the socialization process. The growth and increase in mutual dependence necessitates the emergence of a regulating system.  For the child in the socialization process there is already a regulating system, namely, the social self.  The regulating system controls the actions of the parts and ensures their co-ordination.  The social self acts as the supreme regulating system for a child in the socialization process, providing him with the means, firstly for personal survival as a helpless biological organism and secondly with the means for organizing the increment in units.

 

            There are five elements that should be looked into when we characterize the socialization process, if we accept the sociological thought of Herbert Spencer.  These are as follows:  The socialization process of a society may differ from those of another society on the basis of the evolutionary stage in which the former is in at the moment.  Secondly, the socialization process of a particular society can also be characterized on the basis of the relation these processes have with those of other societies.  Thirdly, he socialization can also be described in terms of the functions they serve at the particular evolutionary stage the society is in.  Spencer expressed belief in the unilinear evolution of mankind.  He also believed that societies could be classified into various categories on the assumption that types of social structures depends on the relation a society has—militant, industrial, etc.—with other societies in its significant environment.  Hence the above three approaches to the characterization of socialization process.  Fourthly, socialization is viewed as an individualistic process concerning the individual and taking place primarily to benefit the individual.  This arises from the Spenserian view that the properties of the units determine the properties of the aggregate, that society is considered an aggregate, of individuals, and that society, thus, must be considered a discrete whole.  However, as society is considered an aggregate of individuals, benefit to the individual is a benefit to the society.  This discreteness of society requires some agent for the discrete elements to affect one another and to foster co-operation between them overcoming the intervening spaces.  This agent is the language of society and it pervades all the other four elements.

 

2.6. Socialization as Internalization of Social Facts

            Social facts are endowed with coercive power to impose themselves upon the individual.  But the power or the effectiveness of social facts does not derive from their being independent of or external to individuals.  (Social facts are explainable only on social characteristics, and not on others such as biological or psychological.)  The social facts are effective only to the extent they become internalized in the consciousness of individuals. If we accept this potion of Durkheim (Durkheim, 1857-1917), then, socialization should be constructed as a process of internalizing in the individual the social facts, the social phenomena.

            While Durkheim made internalization of social facts as part of existence, Simmel made the internalization of cultural values as part of excellence.  He argued that in individual needs to internalize cultural values making them part of himself.  Individual excellence can be obtained only thorough absorption of external values.

 

2.7. Likenesses and Differences between Individuals and Socialization

 

            Durkheim distinguished between mechanical and organic solidarity.  The former is based on the likenesses between individuals whereas the latter is based on the differences between individuals.  The former depends on the extent to which ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society are greater in number and intensity than those which pertain personality to each number.  The organic solidarity is a product of the division of labour.  We must then consider that the socialization process aims at imparting both mechanical and organic solidarity.  We suggest that mechanical solidarity precedes or at least is dominant over the organic solidarity in the processes of socialization in beginning stages.  We also suggest that language acquisition is a direct reflection of the evolution of mechanical solidarity.  We should emphasize, however, that mechanical and organic solidarity are not in oppositions to one another.  Mechanical solidarity underlies the very fabric of organic solidarity.

 

2.8. Collective Consciousness, Language and Socialization

Society has to be present in the individual.  Society reflects the collective consciousness.  It is outside the individual, above him and local contingencies.  It is distinct from the totality of individual consciousness.  This postulation led De Saussure (1857-1913) in his examination of language.  Lapazole is used to refer to the individual manifestations of language.  It is the sum of what people say, including individual constructions that are consequence of a speaker’s choice, acts of articulation that are equally matters of free choice required to produce these constructions.  Le language is the sum of la parloe and the grammatical rules of language.  This includes, thus, individual manifestations of la parole.  Thus, la parole includes whatever might be said by the speaker, including falsie starts, ungrammatical utterances, etc.  La language includes everything a speaker might say and also the grammatical constraints that underline the speech.  La langue includes only the underlying system.  De Saussure argued that it is  la langue that should be studied in linguistics.  This position is fully justified if we interpret the Durkheimian position as an emphasis on the exclusive sturdy of collective consciousness.  However, just as collective consciousness is to be found in and acquired through individual consciousness, la langue is to be found and acquired through la parole.  La langue is outside the individual, above him and local contingences.  But, as Durkheim point’s out in the case of social facts, la langue is effective only to the extent it becomes internalized in the consciousness of individual.  (Some may consider this internalization an inevitable consequence of being human in the sense that it innate or inherent; some may consider it a process of conditioning.) This internalization manifests itself only through la language which includes la  parole and la langue.  Thus the ultimate end product of socialization is la language. 

 

The question is about the interrelationship between la parole and la langue.  Does the quality of la parole effect the quality of a langue achieved?  Do the individuals’ inherent and evolving traits affect the ultimate representation, acquisition, mastery and use of collective consciousness a pre-eminent position. But once internalization of collective consciousness is viewed as the ultimate goal in socialization, something more than, or, over and above the collective consciousness, call it a process, call it individualization, should be included in the scheme. 

 

2.9. Socialization in Large and Small Societies

 

            A comparison between the dyadic and triadic structures is generally made to illustrate the control of the individual by the collectivity.  In a dyad, there are only two persons leading to immediate reciprocity between them.  Their behaviour is governed by each other’s behaviour and not by one outside the dyad. One a third member is brought to this dyad, many possibilities are opened up for social action.  The triad is considered the smallest society.  Through the formation of a coalition of the two, the majority can impose itself on the third member.  That is, what is not shared by an individual comes now to control him in the triad.  Simmel (George Simmel, 1858-1918)  considers the triad as the simplest structure in which the group as a whole achieves domination over its members.  New properties emerge which cannot be derived from the individuals.  Additions to the triad continue to open up newer possibilities for social action, permutations, and combinations and so on between individuals involved.  Likewise there could be crucial differences between small and large groups.  Simmel finds that there is possibility for direct interaction between members of a small group. L In large groups interaction is to get carried out through formal arrangements on the basis of special organs, differentiation of status positions, and delegations of responsibilities, etc.
There is only indirect interaction between its members through various structures and positions, and the distance between these structures and individuals is great.  The smaller the group the greater is the involvement of its members.  The interaction among a few members may be more intense that that among the many.  As the structural relation becomes more and more complex, individuals begin to develop or show only segments of their personalities and not their whole human personalities.

 

            Does the Simmelian argument that there is crucial difference between large and small groups have any direct consequence for the processes socialization?  What are the consequences of the growth of segments of personalities for the processes of socialization?  How are the segments of personalities arrived at through the socialization processes?  What are the consequences of these in language acquisition and use?3

 

            The Simmelian position with regard to the differences between small and large communities cannot be accepted without certain qualifications.  To begin with, we may point out that at any stage of human civilization, barring perhaps the early periods of the existence of human species, a true and pure dyadic relationship did not exist.  There is already a collectivity, a society, hanging over the heads of the members of a dyad, which regulates their reciprocity.  It may also be pointed out that while interaction among the members of a large group may be few and/or restricted because of the seize, the interaction among the members of a small group could also be equally few and restricted if the small group could also be equally few and restricted if the small group is subjected to several intervening variables of structural constraints that may include assigned roles and positions of individuals.  In other words, while there is some truth in taking the sizes of the group as influencing the intensity of interaction, size is not the sole variable conditions this.  We should seek reasons in the internal structure of a social group, and not in its size. We should also find out where and how a particular group is placed in relation to the other significant groups or groups.  Even a small group/community/society may have a more complex social organization.  Mediation through formal arrangements need not be restricted to large groups only.  Is the group a part of another group/society?  Are there many intervening structural variables?  This becomes clearer when we look at language use in small and large communities.  While greater the density of communication lesser could be the difference in linguistic variables (social class, status, etc., of the interacting individuals) can maintain or devise differences in the language, even in small communities.  We realize that there is some justification with other overriding internal structural variables and the group’s externals associations or placement within other groups.  Thus the consequence of the size of a group for the socialization processes of that particular group must be sought in relation to other variables as mentioned above.

 

2.10. Segmented Personalities and Socialization

 

            The appearance of the segmented personalities is a consequence of an individual being a member of many well defined circles. This is made possible or caused by differentiations in a group (which in turn is induced by the size of the group, in Simmelian frame).  None of the circles of which an individual of a modern society is a member controls the individual’s total personality. In out times the number of circles an individual moves about is considered one of the indices of cultural development.  The language consequence of this is reflected in the availability, mastery and use of a variety of registers. Mastery of different registers and mobility with case form one register to another are indices not only social mobility but also of signs and means of success.  The individual at such junctions are aware of the values attached to language symbols.

 

            Simmel points out that segmented personality means also that the individual is not totally dominated.  The individual may have differential roles and positions. This is reflected also in language use. Language provides a scheme of status classification in its pronominal system of address, verb inflections, choice of lexical inflections, delivery of intonation pattern, manner in which a message is couched in various linguistic structures (choice of different sentence patterns for the same content or content of some import), back-references, cross-references and through several other language devices.  These are governed not only by class status of the individuals, addressed/referred to but also by other factors such as age and sex.  Economic position is not the only criterion.  The importance of the station occupied in life by the individual, the context and content of interaction, etc., are also very important.  The status of an individual could differ form context to context.

 

             We argue that appearance of segmented personalities need not be found only in large groups.  Both in small and large groups, the members are involved with only a segment of their personalities at a particular time, context and content, instead of as whole human beings all the time.  This is reflected in their language use in the sense that variations found in an individuals language can be corrected to the domains (in both large and small groups) in which such variations are resorted to. Mediation through formal arrangements for interaction among members of a group, large or small, is reflected in their language use in the form of phatic communicative expressions, conversation starters, repetitive elements in conversations, jargon, etc.  These are part of the influence of the general over the individual.  The segmented personality, both in large and small groups, gets reflected not in the change of linguistic structure but in the choice of linguistic items.  It gets reflected in the nuances, idioms, and the manner of expression of content through a choice of linguistic structures. In essence, it is reflected in the discourse organization, stylistic usage, and employment of rhetoric.  Language is, indeed, a classic example of how the dialectic conflict between the individual and the society is resolved to bring in harmony providing ample scope for both to function but at different levels. 

 

2.11. Types of Social Action and Socialization

            Man’s actions can be one of four types social action: goal-oriented rational action, value-oriented action, action on the basis of emotional or affective motivations, and traditional action.  Waber (Max Waber, 1864-1920) focused on these subjective meanings the human actors attach to their actions in their mutual orientations within specific socio-historical context.  The first category is the category of efficient technique of relating means to ends.  Building a bridge, language planning are all examples of this action.  Accordingly we suggest that it is based on the most conscious effort.  The value-oriented rationality strives for a substantive goal.  The goal may not be a rational one such as that of ridding a language of all the borrowed items and striving to make it “pure” by the use of even contrived words and expressions through extreme loan translations, etc. However, one may employ rational means to achieve the goal-means such as those already available to the langue, following valid processes of word formation, etc.  In the affective action, no rational weighing of means and ends is followed.  It is based on the emotional state of the actor.  The traditional action is based on and guided by customary habits of thought and traditions.

 

            We ask here a question as to whether the above four types are acquired in any programmatic manner or these types are interrelated and found in the same individual with their exploitation depending upon contexts.  In answer to this, we suggest that these types are all part of an individuals personality.  The individuals chooses one of the four types when he is confronted with a phenomenon.  His choice is guided by several factors.  If this interpretation is accepted, the, one many suggest a measure of evaluation for the process of socialization on the basis of the individuals’ sensibility in choosing the right action type for right purposes.  The superiority or the inferiority of an individual as opposed to the social status would be decided on the basis of the individual’s ability to modulate in terms of these four types of action.

 

            In fact Weber was worried about the assessment or individual’s action and assigning the individual to a proper place in the sphere of social types of action.  He suggested the notion of the ideal type as a measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases.  An ideal type is found by accentuating one or more points of view and by the synthesis of concrete features from diverse phenomena—discrete units from different objects, events, etc., to form a uninflected analytical construct.  An ideal type does not refer to moral ideas or statistical averages.  It does not correspond to a concrete reality.  It is constructed out of certain elements of reality, and forms a logical, precise and coherent whole, which can never be found in reality.  Weber suggested three kinds of ideal types.  In the first type, we refer to phenomena that appear only in specific historical periods and in particular cultural areas.  Expressions such as South Indian Villages, pallava Architecture, and 19th Century Socialism, exemplify this type.  In the second kind, we have abstract elements of social reality such as “bureaucracy” and “feudalism”. These many be found in a variety of cultural and historical contexts.  In the third type, we have rationalizing reconstructions to a particular kind of behaviour emitted.

 

            Note that the ideal types are based on the perception of the world by the adult. Note also that Weber looked at society more from the point of view to evaluate the members of a society, an individual encounters on the basis of ideal types rather than placing the members on the basis of features they possess.  That is, an individual is assigned a place in the society on the basis of the perception others have about the individual in relation to the ideal type of that individual’s domain.  If this interpretation is correct, we suggest that in the socialization processes, the person undergoing the socialization process should acquire a sensibility to understand how others perceive him.  The ultimate goal, then, in socialization is not what you are but what others think about you in relation to the ideal type of your domain.  Our behaviour would be so modulated as to take into view the perception of us by others.  In terms of language use, more often than not, a discriminating individual would use only those utterances approved of by others in particular contexts.  Slang is to be avoided in some societies.  Spoken forms are to be avoided where more formality is required.  In some societies the language men can use to speak to women and vice versa is specifically controlled.  In many societies, not all the dialects can be used equally in all social contexts.  In other words, the perception of what is appropriate for an action controls our choice of language structure, expressions and vocabulary items, and, so, children are trained to acquire or are expected to use only appropriate language.

 

2.12. Status of Technologies and Socialization

 

What are the roots of one’s outlook and thought?  A man’s outlook and thought, Weblen (1857-1929) said, are determined by the technological and economic sphere he is in.  His outlook and thought are influenced by the state of technologies in a society.  The social customs, habits and thinking of a community grow and get established when it is engaged in wresting livelihood from nature. L these become institutional moulds the children are made fir thought the socialization processes.  Socialization is to be viewed, then, as a processes of understanding and becoming part of the institutions.  As institutions are assumed to differ on the basis of the differences in the technological status of societies, so should the socialization processes be.  The technology available to a society determines the character of its culture.  If this were so, what happens when a new technology is invented and implemented?  The new one challenges the old institutions built on the basis of old technology.  Institutions are the product of an old technology.  As they are the product of the past, they need not be, in fact they are never, in complete harmony with the present.  If the socialization process means the a absorption of an existing institution—an institution of the past as far as the person under socialization process is concerned, it would mean that the lag between the technology and the institutions would be carried out into the socialization process also to some extent.  The child has to absorb this past institution, become a member of it and then change it while becoming a member of it, to narrow the gap between the technology and the institutions.

 

2.13. Socialization as Acquisition of Self-esteem

            Weblen considered esteem as a major source of human competitiveness in human Affairs.  Self-esteem is only a reflection of the esteem accorded by one’s fellows.  This is achieved by individuals through a symbolization of their standing.  This symbolization   may be in some form of conspicuous action—such as consumption, leisure, and other ways of display of wealth, education, etc.  this symbolization elicits or forces other to show their esteem to the symbolizing individual.  There is a continuous struggle to display the symbols and to maintain, if not enhance one’s position.  When this esteem  from others is not forthcoming, the individuals suffer from a loss of their self-esteem.  The competitive culture is maintained by the fear of loss of self-esteem.  This Weblen scheme suggests, then, that acquisition, maintenance and enhancement of one’s self-esteem must be considered a goal in the socialization process of a modern competitive society.

 

2.14. Socialization and Leisure Class

 

            Continuing the model of binary opposition exploited in Western thought processes for the description, analysis and explanation of all conduct, Weblen proposes an opposition between businesses and industry, ownership and technology, and pecuniary and industrial employment.  This, in general, is a contrast between producers of goods and those who make money.  There is an opposition between those who have a creative entrepreneurship and those who thrive on the economy based only on a price system.  The latter, who are on a pecuniary employment, cultivate and are guided by magical and animistic types of thought, are governed by a system of organs and functions mutually conditioning one another.  The leisure class lives by the industrial community, and is not under industrial employment.  The inheritance of obligatory desire, conspicuous consumption and leisure mark a family distinct from another.  Originally the leisure class characteristic of high-bred manners and ways of living, conspicuous consumption leisure formed the notions of reputability and were seem in the top of the social pyramid.  But now, these tend to permeate the whole social structure.  As a result, the feeling of deprivation in one way or another comes to dominate the thinking of all social classes.  When applied to socialization processes, one should expect differences in the socialization processes between those followed in a predominantly pecuniary, leisure-oriented family and those followed in a predominantly industrially employed family.  The use of leisure certainly makes a distinction between the two.  It is not the quantity of time, but the manner leisure is exhibited and viewed that has some direct bearing.  The nature of duties has always been a source of differences in the socialization processes adopted in social classes.  Traditionally it is believed in Indian societies that the up-bringing in a business family background encourages smooth talk and better manipulation of interpersonal relations towards economic gains. 

 

2.15. Socialization as Acquisition of Social Self

            The self  is not first individual and then social.  It arises dialectically through communication with other selves—through interaction with other selves.  All the selves are inter—related.  One’s consciousness of himself is a reflection of the ideas about himself is a reflection of the ideas about himself that he attributes to other minds.  This attribution has three elements : the imagination of our appearance to the other person, the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling.  “I imagine your mind, and specially what your mind thinks about what my mind thinks about and what your mind thinks about what my mind thinks about your mind.”  Cooley argues (C.H. Cooley, 1864—1929) that society is internalized in the psyche.  Society become part of the individual self through the interaction of many individuals, which links and fuses them into an organic whole.’  The unified organic whole in which what takes place in one part affects all the rest is brought out by primary groups.  The function of the primary groups is to link the individual with his society and to integrate individuals into the social fabric.  Primary groups are characterized by intimate fact to facer associations and co-operations.  These include the family, play group of children and the neighbored.  In non-primary groups, individuals are from interchange or interaction.  Thus, the self is a member of primary groups as well as a member of non-primary groups, with each category of groups having its own functions.  In Cooley’s view, society consists of a network of communication between component actor and subgroups.  This takes the form of public opinion.  The public opinion is not arrived at as the aggregate of separate individual judgments but as a co-operative product of communication and reciprocal influence which may be different from what the individuals think about in separation.

 

            Within this frame work, then, we should first of all view socialization as a process of acquiring the social self through a dialectic communication between selves.

We should also consider socialization as a psychic process, a psychic process that has its origins in the interaction of individuals, a process by which acquisition of knowledge of mental selves and exchange of the impressions and evaluations of mental selves take place.  And though socialization, an individual is made a part of the social organic whole.  Because of the classification of self as a member of primary as well as non-primary groups with separate and different functions for these groups, we should posit two stands of socializations processes—one for membership in the primary groups. These stands have their own language consequences also.  One may distinguish tow language socialization processes on the basis of the above.  One of these is related to the home dialect and the other to the dialect/language used outside.  The membership of the primary group is reflected in the use of certain specific lexical items, nuances and even syntactic constructions.  They have their own compressed content and expressions.  They are marked by a degree of informality and manner of delivery that is no expected of the persons while dealing with non-primary groups.  This does not mean, however, that the non-primary groups do not have their own scales of informality.  The mobility from the non –primary groups at a later stage or in adult socialization process is possible and yet total integration is not visualized.  This also gets reflected in language use, in different societies in different linguistic variables. One such variables in Indian linguistic communities of India is the pronominal address system.  In the American society it would be use of  first name, a shortened form of it or a nick name and so on.  Finally, within Cooley’s framework, the socialization processes must be viewed as controlled by public opinion—social self—which is social fact.  Thus, while the acquisition of social self is the goal of socialization processes, the already existing social self exercises also the control of  the socialization processes.  This double role is clearly evident in language acquisition by children.  The ultimate goal evident in language acquisition by children is the acquisition of adult language.  In this process of language acquisition children to make several attempts to approximate their approximations are controlled and guided by the model of adult langue.  Their utterances are meaningful to them, and to their interlocutors, both fellow children and adults, only insofar as these have some approximations to the adult language.  Adult language, here, plays a dual role.  It is the ultimate goal, and it is also the guiding phenomenon of the children’s language acquisition process.

 

2.16. Socialization as Acquisition of Generalized Other

 

            Apart from society, there can be no self, no consciousness of self and no communication.  Mead (George Herbert Mead, 1863-1931) views society as a structure which emerges through an on-going process of communicative social acts, through transactions between persons who are mutually oriented towards each other.  Consciousness is not given.  It and the self emerge through the gradual development of an ability in childhood to take the role of the other and to visualize his own performance form the point of view of others.   Thus, in this framework, the ultimate goal in socialization, or the socialization process itself, is the ability to be sensitive to the other.  This taking   the role of other is achieved, according to Mead, through play.  From concrete play, the child goes over to take the role through imagination.  Note that this characterization is reflected in the mastery of communicative language and in the mastery of appropriate pronouns.  It is revealed in the use of egocentric and socialized speech.  The concrete child play exploits only the simple conversations of gestures.  Form this the child acquired the mature ability to use significant symbols in interaction with many others.  The mastery and acting out of complex organized games is accompanied by an ability to relate in the child’s mind that several others play with one another outside himself.  This will result in the child having in his mind all the roles of other players and making assessments about their potential responses to one another.

 

             

            Within the Median framework, thus, the following stages may be suggested as the processes of socialization.  The first stage is the stage of simple conversations of gestures.  No oral language is involved in the expression.  For example, a child’s running away when chased.  In the second stage, we have simple role-taking.  This leads to the gradual transformation from conversations of gestures to the mature ability to use significant symbols in interaction with others.  In the text stage, the child has in his mind all roles of other players and make assessments about their potential responses to one another.  In this stage, the child must know and take the role of the generalized other.  That is, each player in the game must have an idea of the behavior of every other player towards each other and towards himself.  A complex network is established.  In the final stage the individuals takes the role of the generalized other.  That is, he absorbs the attitude of the whole community.  The fully mature individual does not merely take into account the attitudes of other individuals towards himself and towards one another.  He must also take their activities towards the various phases or aspects of the common social activity, in which as members of an organized society or social group, they are all engaged.  Only then does he develop a complete self.  Hence, according to Mead, the mature self arises when a generalized other is internalized so that (and that is how) the community exercises control over the conduct of its individual members.

 

2.17.Socialization and Marginal Societies

 

            Park’s position (R.E.Park, 1864-1944) is directly relevant to socialization processes in multi-ethnic and multilingual communities, or more correctly, relevant to the processes of socialization undergone by ethnic and linguistic minorities of a society.  Park said that marginal men, like American mulattoes, Asiatic mixed bloods, or European Jews, have their anchorage in two distinct groups while not belonging fully to either.  As a result, their self-conceptions (which, in Park’s framework, are rooted in the status we occupy and in the roles we play in the social set up, which in their turn are anchored in division of labour) are likely to be fairly inconsistent and ambivalent.  Yet park found that this marginality brought not only burdens but also assets.  The marginal man becomes an individual with wider horizon. 

 

            There are very many implications of the concept of marginal man for the socialization in bilingual communities. To begin with, we suggest that it is wrong to assume that the self-conceptions of members of marginal communities are “fairly inconsistent and ambivalent”.  If there are any self-conceptions that are realistic, consistent and goal-oriented, these must be found in the members of marginal communities.  Early in their childhood, these members come to grips with the reality and develop functional distinctions between domains of their lives.  But their success or failure in the sociao-economic conflicts with the other segments of their larger society does not depend on the functional distinction they have developed for the domains of their lives.  They depend more on other factors than they being “marginal men”.  There is also no need to glorify the “marginal men” as relatively more civilized.  While Park seemed to identify marginal me on racial grounds, we suggest that marginal men are to be found in all spheres and in every race.  Marginality in the sense of being a member in more than one cultural group at least on mental levels is now considered the goal in many modern societies.  The formal instructional processes, which contribute more significantly in modern time to set the content and tenor of socialization processes, contain marginality, in at lest non-racial meanings, as a major goal.

 

2.18. Distribution of Human Instincts and Socialization

 

            human affairs are largely guided by nonlogical actions, by certain human instincts.  These are the instinct for combinations, group persistence (persistence of aggregate), need of expressing sentiments by external acts (activity, self-expression), sociality, integrity of the individual and his appurtenances and sex.  Individuals are molecules; they are like chemical compounds; they are wholes just as the social system.  The factors of the system are interdependent so that a change in one part of the system leads to corresponding adjective changes in other parts.  The proportion by which these instincts are districted in a population has serious consequences for the population’s belief system, intellectual life, polity and economy, according to Pareto (Vilfred Pareto, 1848-1923).  For him, that people are unequal physically and morally is an axiom.  In society as a whole, and in any of its particular standard groupings, some people are more gifted that others, because of the proportion of distribution of the instincts.  Furthermore, obstacles such as inherited wealth, family connections and the like prevent the free circulation of individuals through ranks of society.  This could lead to a divergence of governing and nongoverning elites.  Pareto also made a distinction between the maximum utility of and the maximum utility for a community.  The latter is the point where each individual has attained the maximum possible private satisfaction.  The former refers to the maximum utility of the group or society as a whole, not of individuals.

 

           

            Socialization must, then, be viewed as the distributing of human instincts in a proportion as found in a particular society.  In every society, an urge to move to an upward class is imparted through socialization process of the higher class aims not only at obtaining the membership of a still higher class bu5t also at stopping (distinguishing it from) the lower class (from reaching the higher class).  In a caste society, however, caste mobility is prohibited.  While maintaining one’s own caste, a lower caste many absorb the characteristics of a higher caste.  Or, a determined economic advancement may place the caste in a position above the other castes.  The mobility of the entire caste to a higher position may depend also on the members wielding a greater power—political or otherwise—than members of other castes.  These are subjects not directly relevant to our study.  But, one thing is certain—unless a caste adopts appropriate socialization process for its younger members so as to enable them to meet fully the requirements of emerging status and roles, their upward mobility as a caste cannot be sustained. 

 

2.19.Situatin and Socialization

 

            The distinction between psychical state, attitude and value, the desirability to develop in individuals the ability to control spontaneously their own activities by conscious reflection, organization of individuals even in a disorganized society, situational analysis and axiological standards all may characterize the socialization process within the framework of W.I. Thomas (1863-1947) and F. Znaniecki (1882-1958).  A psychical state is a state of something without social bearing, whereas the attitude is a process of individual consciousness which determines the activity of the individual in the social world.  That is, attitude has a social activity as its base.  A valued is common to members of a group.  Attitudes are subordinated to values.  Each of these must be considered having its own role in human conduct and in the socialization process.  There is a reciprocal relation between attitudes and value, between individual behaviour and the social organization and between individual behaviour and the social rules that control it.  Thomas and znaniecki argues that it was desirable to develop in the individuals the ability to control spontaneously their own activities in preference to social activities by conscious reflection.  If this were accepted, then the socialization may be viewed as making these relations brought to the conscious knowledge of the organism.  Thomas and Znaniecki also suggested that social disorganization referred primarily to a disordered state of society rater than to a condition of individuals, as even in disorganized areas one found individuals organization their lives satisfactory.  Thus, in an extreme form, one may suggest that the socialization process intends to bring in an organization in all conditions in an individual, even in a disorganized society.  The results could, however, be either way depending upon the dominant elements/content of the socialization process.

 

            The process of socialization is well amplified in Thomas situational analysis.  Humans are given to a stage of examinations and deliberation of every object, even or act. This is called the definition of the situation.  This examination and deliberation—definition of the situation—slowly builds up into a “whole life policy”.  The personality of the individual begins to follow from a series of such definitions.  When a child is born he is born into a group whose general types of situation are already defined and conduct rules already established.  There is, thus, a rivalry between the spontaneous definitions of the situation by the child and the definition of situation already available\le to the group—child taking the pleasure first approach and the society taking the utilitarian safety first approach.  This brings in the moral  code. 

 

            Znaniecki  suggested that the cultural pattern of a social system included certain axiological (value) standards which participants in the system were supposed to apply in evaluating each other and the system as a whole.  Hence the socialization be deemed to impart these axiological standards.

 

2.20. Socialization as Motivating Process to Meet Role Requirements

 

            There are certain central features or basic buildings ones of human social organism.  These are (a) actors capable of voluntary effort, (b) goals aimed at by these actors, (c) choice between alternative means to achieve these goals, (d) situational constraints, both biological and environmental, and (e) sets of norms and values that channel the actors’ choices of both means and ends.  With these in the background or as basis, Parsons holds that a social system can operate only if its component actors are sufficiently motivated to act in terms of the requirements of that system.  The central values and norms are upheld only if the actors are properly motivated through socialization to meet the role requirements.

 

            There are certain pattern variables such as affectivity affective neutrality, universalism—particularism, diffuseness, specificity and achievement-ascription.  These and such other account for the variation in normative priorities of social stems, the dominant modes of orientation in personality and values in cultural system.  They channels actions or actors though socialization and social control.   Socialization should ensure adaptation, goal attainment, integration (adjustment and co-ordination of relations within the system), pattern maintenance (component actors are sufficiently motivated to play their parts) and internal crisis management.  These flow from Parson’s suggestion that all action systems are to seek solution to the above problems if they are to survive and develop.

 

2.21. Socialization as a Process of Deprivation and as a Process of Meeting Deprivations

 

            Exchange theorists G. Homans, Peter Blau and others argue that self-interest is the universal motive that controls all our behaviour.  We modify our behaviour in terms of positive or negative reinforcement.  The social world’s chief characteristic is the exchanging of rewards and punishments between individuals .  these could be in the economic sphere or in social approval, respect and  compliance.  Maximization of rewards through competition is the main thread.  In this process deprivations are caused.  The socialization process, then, must aim art making individuals to meet or fulfill the deprivations.  The success of socialization is, then measured in terms of the extent to which the socialization processes help the individuals in meeting his deprivations.

 

2.22. Socialization as Effort for Creating Best Impression

 

            Men and women strive to leave an acceptable impression in the minds of those important to them.  They hide unacceptable aspects backstage to present an unblemished image front stage.  Our goal is to leave impressions we deem best and favorable on the audiences.  Our conduct is evolved, thus, in various encounters with various alters.  We always pretend.  We are what are pretend to be. Socialization, thus, must be  viewed as a process that equips us to build up acceptable impressions of outer own selves before others.  The encounters in external world mould our ego.  E. Gofffman (1922-1982) finds that impression management dominates our conduct.  We are imprisoned in the frames provided by the situational contingencies.  Thus, within this dramaturgic social environment, the goal of socialization should be seen as the proper presentation of self in every day life.   Drama, although has a fixed scenario, has adequate profisions for urgent and necessary repairs and modifications.  Acquisition of strategies for appropriate self presentation, along with acquisition of repair mechanisms, becomes the major goal of socialization.