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.