3.1.
Social Psychology
The individual’s behaviour in
society is the focus of study in social psychology-the study of individual’s behaviour,
both covert and overt, in thought, deed and worked in relation to the other individuals,
groups, and culture. It is also the study of the effects of society, groups and
other individuals upon an individuals. An individual’s behaviour is influenced always
by the presence, physical, immediate and/or assumed presence, of the other individuals,
social self, institutions, organizations and other cultural determinants.
The motivation, attitude, perception thing king and all the behaviour of
individuals occur in a social field. In the study of the social psychological are
incorporated and yet social psychology should not be considered as synonymous
to general psychology because the individual’s behaviour, here, is considered
in an added context—social context.
The origins of social psychology must be found in various disciplines,
of which the early masters of sociology who expounded the concepts of social,
collective—consciousness, etc., must be considered a major source. Modern social psychology explores the inter-relationships
between the individuals and society, mainly and largely through an adoption of
the designs of experimental psychology. Just as general psychology, the social psychology
is a field of diverse schools, approaches, and methods, although the concern of
all these is the behaviour of individual in a social context.
In the earlier chapter, we saw how sociological approaches—approaches
that emphasize the predominance of society over the individual—would view socialization.
We derived from the various concepts regarding society, its structure and
organization and its demands on individuals the sociological content of socialization. This chapter also continues, more or less,
to accept the dominance of the society over the individual, but proposes to discuss
the various approaches suggested to account for the individual’s behaviour of
and participation in, or, rather partaking of socialization in social context.
It discusses how an individual comes to make a compromise or adjustments
between the physical and psychical conditions he is in, and the social collectivity
that he should absorb and be a part of.
An individual gets socialized to become a member of a society. In this, he is conditioned, guided and led
by the society; the individuals themselves may come ultimately to modify the socialization
process adopted by the society. What is
more important here is that the socialization processes guide the interpersonal
interaction at various levels-individual, group, institutional and other structures
and processes; in other words, the behaviour of an individual in a social context
in relation to other individual, institutions, etc. If this were so, it is quite
clear that the socialization process should form a major part of the investigations
in social psychology. It does, indeed, form an important part of
social psychological investigations, along with diverse areas such as motivation,
attitude change, perception, personality, aesthetics, leadership, language acquisition,
mental health, etc.
3.2.
Psychosexual Basis of socialization
The overt behaviour is only a tip of the iceberg. There is a need to
distinguish between the conscious and the unconscious in analyzing individual
behavior. Generally, psychology studies,
(or psychology, until recently, has studied) the conscious psychology of the individuals
and has ignored the unconscious underlying variables of the conscious behaviour.
The psychosexual approach emphasizes the importance of the study of the
unconscious in interpreting the overt behaviour of an individual. L an individual
is a power-house of sexual urges and aggressive forces.
The Freudean depth psychology made the distinction between the surface
manifestation of a behavior and its underlying controlling variables. Under the latter come the sexual urges and
aggressive forces.
More than any other approach to the study of human behaviour, the psycho-analytic
method of Freud exploited language as an effective tool to unravel. The mystery of human behaviour. Freud explored the unconscious by the method
of free association. He allowed and asked
his patients to talk anything about their pathological conditions and to talk
about, in fact, technique—a method by which the patient was cured of symptoms
by talking about them.
An individual may be considered a bundle of three inter-connected systems. These are id, the ego, and the
superego. The id covers man’s instructive
sexual urges and suppressed tendencies. It consists of everything psychological that is inherited at birth.
This includes the instincts. The
id is governed by the notion of tension reduction or pleasure principle. The id aims at avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure though two processes,
namely, the primary processes and reflex actions. The reflex actions are inborn like sneezing
and blinking. These reflex actions are
resorted to reduce tensions immediately then and there, when a tension is built
up. The primary process, however, tries
to reduce tension not by itself, but forming an image of an object which could
remove the tension. In other words, the
primary process must be viewed as a symbolic process. By arriving at the symbols alone one cannot have his/her tension
reduced at the concrete level. So, a secondary
process is caused and this brings out the ego. The ego is required because the needs of the
organism require appropriate transactions with the objective world of reality.
Where id knows only or concentrates only on the subjects related of an
inborn nature, the ego knows only or concentrates only upon the external world.
L the ego is found to have an ability to distinguish between the subjective and
objective realities. The ego is not satisfied until an appropriate
tension reduction has been achieved with the external world, for a particular
phenomenon through the secondary process which is realistic thinking.
The super ego is an internal representative or rather the internal representation
of the social ideals, and norms of society as imparted to the child by its parents
and the environment. The super ego is
considered the moral arm of personality. The main functions of the super ego are threefold. It inhibits the impulses of the id. This inhibition is carried out mainly on the
sexual and aggressive nature. This is
so because these impulses are most severely condemned once in any society. The second function is the moral control of
the ego which goes for realistic goals. The
third function is to enable the individual for perfection. In other words the super ego is in conflict
with the id and the ego. The super ego
also aims at making the individual in its own image.
Freud and many other psycho-analysts believe that the future behaviour
of an individual is already determined by the end of the 5th year of
life of that individual. The subsequent
growth is mainly an elaboration. Accordingly,
the super ego must be viewed as coming to dominate and suppress the id and the
ego even before the 5th year. In
other words, the fundamentals of socialization have already taken place by the
5th year.
Socialization must, be viewed as a process of
conflict, as a process or efforts to suppress the original nature of the id, and
the ego, and to impose on these two the feature of the super ego, and to impose
on these two the features of the super ego, that is, the social values, etc.
The child goes through a series or source of psycho-sexual stages,
all these stages are connected with the obtaining of sexual or erotic pleasure
by stimulating the various zones of his body. The first is called the oral stage. It lasts from birth into the second year.
During this stage stimulation of the mouth is the primary focus.
Excessive optimism, sarcasm and cynicism were attributable to incidents
of this stage. The second phase is the
anal stage phase. The child derives pleasure
from anal zone. The later style of life—dirty,
wasteful, extravagance or near, clean and complacence—may be related to this stage.
In the next stage, phallic stage, which begins about the end of the third
or fourth year, the genital region is the primary focus.
Attachment to the parent of the opposite sex and fear of the parent of
the same sex take place at this stage. The
child overcomes this complex in most bases, however, his attitude to the opposite
sex in future is determined by this stage. The next stage is the stage of latency from
5 to 12 years. After the latency stage,
the genital stage begins. This begins
with the start of the adolescence. The
heterosexual behaviour is evident now.
Thus, in essence, there are three elements
found to be in interaction here—the organism, operations performed on itself by
the organism and the conjunction between the operations and consequences at the
external world or the social consequences of he personal operations performed
on the organism.
3.3.
Psychosocial Bases of Socialization
there has been a progressive disinclination
to emphasize sexual basis for all human behaviour and an inclination to focus
on the psychosocial basis of it within a general psychoanalytic theory.
Erikson suggests ‘a mutual fit of individuals and environment—that is,
of the individual’s capacity to relate to an every expanding life space of people
and institutions, on the one hand, and, on the other, the readiness of those people
and institutions to make him part of an ongoing cultural concern’. Erikson seeks the fit between ‘the approximate
sequence of stages when the nervous excitability as well as the co-ordination
of the organs in question and the selective reactivity of significant people in
the environment are apt to produce decisive encounters’.
Erikson identifies eight stages of man, with each stage as a conflict or
a binary opposition of concepts. The resolution
of the conflict result in proper growth. The
result of the conflict determines the ultimate personality of the individual.
In Erikson’s first stage (in Freudian framework,
oral sensory stage), the conflict is essentially between the acquisition of trust
or the lack of it (‘the basic mistrust’). Trust means rather the confidence of the organism—the
recognition by the organism of the correlation or transfer of the outer population
or familiar and predictable things and people to (the evolution of) an inner certainty
in the form of consistency, continuity and sameness of the two.
(A functional characteristic of language—usability of language with variation
in time, space that is, the use of language to refer to things and events of past,
present and future, and of physical, immediate and imagined presence, may be compared
with this.) The state of trust has another function as
well—that of gaining confidence in the capacity of one’s own organs to cope with
urges.
The second stage is the stage of autonomy vs.
shame and doubt (in the Freudian framework, the anal-muscular stage).
The gradual and well-guided autonomy of free choice or the meaningless
and arbitrary experiences of shame and of early doubt is the dichotomy at this
stage. While autonomy concentrates on keeping potential rival out, in the
third stage (genital loco motor stage of Freud) initiate brings with it anticipatory
rivalry with those who have been there first. The child is in the process of becoming a carrier
of tradition. The child develops a sense
of paternal responsibility. This helps
him gain some insight into the institutions, functions, and roles for responsible
participation. He finds pleasurable accomplishment
in wielding tools and weapons and in caring for young children.
The danger of this stage is a sense
of guilt over the goals contemplated and the acts initiated in one’s exuberant
enjoyment of locomotor and mental power. The fourth stages (latency period in Freudian
framework) is industry vs. inferiority. He adjusts himself to the inorganic laws of the tool world. His danger lies in a sense of inadequance and
inferiority. The fifth stage (adolescence)
is the stage of identity vs. role diffusion. Here childhood proper ends and youth begins.
Now the organisms are primarily concerned with what they appear to be in
the eyes of others as compared with what they feel they are and with the question
of how to connect the roles and skills cultivated earlier with the occupational
prototypes of the day. The danger of this stage is role diffusion
(an inability to settle on an occupational identity). The sixth stage (young adulthood) is the stage of intimacy vs. isolation.
Intimacy is the result of the ability to face the fear of ego loss.
Ego loss leads to intimacy between individuals. Avoidance of such a loss leads to a sense of
isolation and consequent self-absorption. The
next stage is that of generativity vs. stagnation (the stage of transmission of social values in Freudian
work). Generativity is primarily the interest
in establishing and guiding the next generation, whereas a regression from generatively
leads to a pervading sense of individual stagnation and inter-personal impoverishment.
The eighth stage is the stage of ego integrity vs. despair. This is the stage of the ego’s accrued assurance
of its proclivity for order and meaning. Ego integrity implies an emotional integration which permits participation
by fellowship as well as acceptance of the responsibility of leadership.
Note that the consecutive stages are not a chronological
schedule. Each stage gets integrated into
next stage and contributes to the formation of the succeeding stage.
3.4.
A Brief Critique of Psychosexual theories
vis-à-vis Socialization
Within the above two approaches, the revolution
of the conflict caused by diverse goals of psychosexual determinants and social
compulsions must be considered as the socialization process.
The psychosexual determinants get ultimately repressed or have a manifest
existence only in a manner, space and time the society allows for their play and
display. The successful repression means
the expression of psychosexual elements as given above, while the unsuccessful
repression leads to abnormally in individuals. The socialization processes must be sought,
then, in the successful repression of the psychosexual elements in all or major
part of behaviour. It should also be sought
in the canalization of the psychosexual elements in a manner, space and time allowed
by the society for their play and display.
How do societies bring about this? In every society we notice an assignment of
distinct roles for both the sexes, even through there could be some merger and
identity of roles at some level. Cultures
prescribes different types of dress for men and women. Societies prescribe different games and plays
for them. These games an plays help the
organisms in taking roles appropriate to their sex within their cultural group.
There are rituals, festival and religious activities prescribed for organisms
of each sex. These have the function not only to distinguish
members of one sex from those of another but also act as stages for becoming full
members of the particular sex by providing participatory opportunities.
In some societies, a clear-cut cleavage between man’s and woman’s speech
is maintained, whereas in most societies the manner of speech of one sex (in terms
of the choice of words, address terms, taboos of expression, etc.) is different from that of the other sex. In the former, man’s speech and woman’s speech
must be considered as the different dialects,
with women or both men and women having knowledge of both the dialects.
In the latter category., what as a taboo for one sex is taken even to be
a symbol of (highly admired, in some sense) full and virile membership of the
other sex. Expectations, an permissibility in term of
verbal expressions could be different for different sexes, many a time functional
discriminations in terms of social behaviour and sometimes and means of aesthetic
discrimination between men and women, based on how a particular society holds
the women in its view. For instance, in
the Malagasy language, men are expected to be skilled in speech, to adopt indirect
minas of expression o\t0 blame and accuse and to be very subtle in all the verbal
expressions. Women, however, are expected
to express directly and are given for open expression of all sort.
White men hesitate to initiate speech with the others, women and expected
to start the speech encounters even with strangers.
In general, the differences between men’s and women’s speech are sometimes
reflected in choice of vocabulary items and sometimes in the pronunciation of
particular words. Some linguists have
found it easier to set up the forms used by men as derivatives form the forms
used by women. Perhaps children acquire
the forms used by mothers earlier than they acquire the forms used by male parents.
Differences are found also in the verbal paradigms.
While quoting each other’s speech the men may use women’s forms and women
may use the men’s forms. In the socialization
process, it is also found I these communities that the parents correct the speech
of children of either sex to enable them to acquire the correct speech behaviour
appropriate to the sex of children.
It would be interesting to see how mastery of these dialects is achieved
and how this mastery is interlinked with the mastery of separate and distinct
rules for each sex. Can here be common
social roles for children of both sexes in the beginning, with progressive discrimination
built into the processes of socialization? Is the commonness
of roles similar in its function to that of the core language structures?
That sexes has a dominating influence in our behaviour is not questioned,
but that sex is the basis of all behaviour is taken now generally with a pinch
of salt, even when one does not attack the various psychoanalytic theories for
their methodological infirmities. This
relationship is more or less similar to the relationship between language, though
and culture. While language and culture
condition thinking, man can still go beyond them and think interculutrally, without
language, and in languages other than his own. As has been said, resolution of psychosexual
conflicts is made by assigning separate roles in society, the play and display
of sexual behaviour in the manner, space and time prescribed for the same by society
and by awarding punitive measures for not following the permitted manner, time
and space. That resolution of psychosexual
conflict is aided by language in “abnormalcy” is evident in the method of talk-cure
of psychoanalyst. But the point that language
does play a significant role in the resolution of the psychosexual conflict in
normal socialization process is often missed. Language is a manifest symbol shared by both
men and women and, thus, it is, indeed, a symbol and hope of resolution in a sense.
The psychosexual manifestation of language use must be sought in two
directions—in the expression and suppression of abusive terms and nuances in day
to day language firstly and, secondly, in opposition to the first, in the elevation
of the reference to and description of sexual organs and sexual play in literature
which crowns the aesthetic function of languages use. The language use in myth and reality is rich
with imagerie4s, metaphors and expressions relating to the psychosexual bases—endearments,
querulous abuse, jokes are and post coitus talk, stand bagging, bringing together
the newly wedded through verbal games and songs, graphic description of body parts
in details in literary works, metaphors and imagery based on sexual acts, sexual
organs an body parts an feel, classification of grammatical gender on the basis
of sexual organs, the use of grammatical gender itself, the concept of Arthanaareeswara
as the model of the resolution of psychosexual conflict, the higher intensity
and incidence of insults through abusive phrase indicating
sexual relationship between tabooed categories of individuals and knsolk,
and the Nayaka. Nayaki bhava
in literature as the sublimation of psychosexual conflict at a higher level of
human experience.
The interplay of psychosexual elements in socialization and the role
of verbal art in this interplay is well seen in the Koya community of South India. From the time of their early childhood, children
of cross-sex siblings understand that they are to be wed and behave toward each
other in specified ways. This behaviour
includes a certain amount of deference toward and avoidance of each other in the
presence of adults (especially their parents), as befits their future relationships
as husband and wife. But it also includes…sexual joking and battering
… (Brukman, 1973).
In every society one could identify this interplay in various and differing
manifestations.
3.5.
Normative-Maturational Characteristic of Socialization
The normative-maturational approach to the study
of the emergence behaviour is very ancient, indeed. In recent times, its revival was due mainly
to Gesell’s prolific writings which instigated the atheoretical descriptive study
of children’s behaviour. This revival
resulted in a sound body of enormous facts providing norms useful to clinical
work. Its decline was due mainly to its
overemphasis on its domineering construct maturation, the prime lever of growth
in this framework, and also due to its atheoretical basis which provided labels
for particular norms but no explanations. Several of its methods of description and data
collection are now an internal part of almost all the approaches to the study
of human behaviour.
Gesell said that the psychologist’s task was to point out the influence
of age on the growth of behaviour. The
psychology of a child is determined by his maturity and by his experience. The experience, in turn, is determined by his
maturity as well as by the culture in which he lives every child is born with
potentialities, which are peculiar to him, or her and each child has a unique
pattern of growth determined by these potentialities and by environment.
In spite of this uniqueness, the outward manifestations of mental growth
fall in a set of lawful patterns—basic traits and growth sequences—shared by all
children. These are the normative-maturational and adulthood
for participation as member of a social group.
Gesell adopted a biographic-clinical approach to the study of child development. He suggested that a knowledge of dynamic morphology
of behaviour could be gained by intimate, consecutive, individualized contacts,
rather than mass studies. The method was longitudinal. The
progressive stages in the growth of the child’s mind were identified by means
of a series of cross-sectional characterizations. The case records included psychological examinations
based on some established/tentative developmental schedule, performance tests,
reading readiness tests, visual skill tests including pursuit, fixation, fusion,
acuity, etc., naturalistic observations of the child’s play behaviour, and incidental,
postural and tensional behaviour, and interviews with the mother.
Records were analyzed age by age, situation buy situation, and child by
child. The major question raised was ‘Does the given
behaviour have an assignable status for a growth schedule?
Gesell envisaged growth as a concrete process which produced patterns
of behaviour. These patterns can be arranged
in growth gradients—series of stagers of maturity. A child progresses towards a higher level of
behaviour in a developmental sequence. All
growth is based on previous growth. The growth process is a paradoxical mixture
of creation and perpetuation. The action system of a child develops as a unitary whole. In general, its generalization proceeds from
the central axis outward. As it matures,
the action system reconciles and counterbalances a host of opposites. Gesell suggested that he self—regulatory fluctuation
and reciprocal interweaving were outstanding methods of child development.
‘The growing action system is in a stage of formative instability combined
with a progressive movement towards stability.
Growth gains are consolidated in periods of relative stability’. The trends of developments tend to repeat themselves at ascending
levels of organization in a spiral fashion. It
is an onward spiral but the child at a given stage may show a strong resemblance
to what he was at an earlier stage.
Gesell identified seven stages
apart from the stages of senescence and senectitude.
These are the stage of the embryo (0-8 weeks), the fetus (8-40 weeks),
the infancy (from birth to 2 years), the preschool stage (2 to 5 years), childhood
(5 to 12 years), adolescence (12 to 20-24 years) and adult maturity.
The maturity traits are looked at from ten angles : motor characteristics,
personal hygiene, emotional expression, fears and dreams, self and sex, interpersonal
relations, play and pastimes, school life, ethical sense, and philosophic outlook.
The ages assigned to the growth gradients represent a verge normative trends
and are not absolutes. Gesell believed
that the ground plan of growth is a given one, that it is beyond our control and
that ‘it is too complex and mysterious to be altogether entrusted to human hands.
The normative-maturational approach has been criticized on varies counts:
for its belief that intervention is useless and unnecessary because growth is
governed essentially by endogenous regulation, for its notion that environment
has only a marginal role in the developmental process, for its minimization of
the individual experiece to ontogeny while overemphasizing the role of phylogeneritc
memory of racial culture for development, for its overemphasis on the importance
of permissiveness and self-direction in growth, for its failure to seek highly
representative experimental population for arriving at basic trays and norms,
for its conception of maturation as a process of internal ripening, for its overemphasis
on the psychology of embryology as basis for later behaviour and for its general
lack of controlled observation which imposed only general kinds of constraints
upon behaviour of the organism observed.
As regards socialization, the
emphasis of the normative-maturational approach on internal ripening indicated
that the ground plan for socialization is rather laid out much earlier than even
the birth of the organism; the ground plan is rather a psychological one than
a social psychological plan. It has some
connection with the environment and the cultural experience of the organism, but
only in some small measure, as this connection cannot alter the basic features
of the already laid out ground plan. Note that Gesell did not justify, by such
an emphasis on the ground plan, any social-economic oppressions, discriminations
and exploitations. His was an effort to
study the basic traits of maturity of human children. ‘If we wish to do justice to the child’s personality,
we must think in terms of growth in terms of his developmental maturity.
The controls of our culture must be based on a more widely disseminated
knowledge of child development… Developmentalism is the very opposite of fascism,
for it acknowledges the individuality of the child mad wisely concedes that all
his behaviour is subject to the natural laws of growth.
This view of socialization, however, has several severe limitations,
apart from the inadequacies of methodology and coverage.
The over-emphasis on internal ripening has led to a lack of interest in
fellow actors of the social drama and the developmental schedule has thus only
short and grief references to others, while the development of the historical
self of the self receives some attention, the formation of the social self in
the self cannot be said to have received adequate attention. Major aspects of social self do not receive pointed reference.
The influence of physical, immediate and assumed presence of others is
largely ignored. The cross-cultural variations are not emphasized
and cross-cultural validations are not sought. The emphasis on embryo psychology should be
pursued in relation to the interaction of genetic factors with environment, social
organization and roles of individuals encountered. Moreover, the approach does not emphasize the
need to take into account what the children say and how they view others, much
as it emphasized the perception of mothers and others about the children. Information given in schedules is based very
little on the verbal utterances of children.
A
more serious inadequacy is its lack of emphasis on language acquisition or its
role in the acquisition and exhibition of maturity traits.
The language acquisition is treated largely as yet another behaviour, rather
than as an integrated part of all behaviour. Language
acquisition is dealt with here and there in relation to acquisition of certain
cognitive elements such as the growth of ethical sense and philosophical outlook. It is not deals with as a process of becoming
a member of a social group or even as a tool to acquire the social self and cognitive
elements. While acquisition reading and
writing is inquired into, at least partly, the comprehension and speaking are
hardly touched upon. The latter are every important process to acquire the social self,
to acquire social roles and to perceive correctly the social roles of others.
3.6.
Learning Theory Approaches to Socialization
The learning theories approach the learning processes, and consequently the socialization processes, with an environmentalistic
bias and basis rather than the naturalistic ones. They are behaviour-oriented and they view behaviour
as something conditioned by stimulus-response configurations. Various contingencies such as reward, reinforcement
and punishment may sustain the stability an occurrence of behaviour.
-The lawful relations between the responses emitted by the child and the
various stimulus configurations that surround and precede these responses form
the focus of their study. Behaviour is,
thus, a function of forces applied to child. Learning theorists assume that the
same underlying processes are operative throughout the life cycle. That is, the principles of learning they identity
are applicable equally to every ontogenetic level of an individual’s life.
They may, however, change the values of the parameters from age to age.
Maturation is simply a biological given which has nothing to do with the
learning growth of an organism. They also
believe that man’s diverse human behaviour is all learned. Furthermore, a study of animal learning behaviour
is taken relevant for understanding and explaining human behaviour, including
verbal behaviour. Learning theorists do
not usually recognize any qualitative difference between the nonverbal and verbal
behaviour. They view the move responses
as utilization of learned behaviour, in some sense generalization of a behaviour
already learn. They believe that an organism
relies on its old habits for the solution of a problem, basing its decision on
common elements between the new and old problems or on the similarity between
the new situation as a whole and the one already met with.
When an organism fails in its efforts following the above steps, it resorts
to trial and error until an appropriate solution is hit upon.
More than the other approaches, the learning theory approaches are followed
in the study of socialization processes. However,
many students of socialization within this framework employ only an eclectic learning
theory approach, in the sense that they generally apply a mixture of ideas to
describe and explain the social processes and not stick on strictly to any single
school of learning theory.
The characterization given above of learning theories in general covers
the various stimulus—response theories. The
characterization should not be taken to mean that various learning, and consequently
the socialization processes for out purposes here, in identical terms. The fact that there are several learning theory
stimulus-response models should indicate that there are differences among them
(even though they share certain features, and hence may be grouped under a common
category). When the basic notion are interpreted
for an implication to socialization processes, the differences among them become
clearer.
Within the framework of learning theories, socialization has to be viewed
as having an environmentalist basis. The
child gets socialized in a manner arranged by society and desired by parents,
through stimulus—response configurations. Various
contingencies of reward, reinforcement and punishment play a crucial role in the
socialization process and influence the quality of socialization.
The stimulus—responses configurations form the basis of socialization all
ontogenetic levels, both childhood, and adulthood, and in all circumstances. The basic principles and elements of human socialization could be
found even in animals and in laboratory conditions. The novel responses one may notice in the socialized individuals
reflect only the utilization of a learned behaviour, generalization of a behaviour
already learnt
The
mastery of socially accepted behaviour is explained differently by various learning
theorists within the overall implications we have derived above for socialization
from the general characteristics of learning theories.
Form Thorndike’s scheme, mastery of socially accepted behaviour must be
seen as a trial and error effort leading to a selection of appropriate responses
form among the many, and connect the same to the social norm. from Pavolvian scheme, the mastery must be
viewed as linking the stimulus with response through rewards or punishments.
In Guthrie’s learning theory, no importance is attached to practice. It is the association between the stimulus and response and not the
motivation of the learning organism which is considered important. The function of reward is to distinguish the
correct response. Within this learning
theory, then, mastery of socialization processes does not depend either upon practice
or upon the motivation of the individual who is being socialized. The reward, both verbal and nonverbal, has
the function of the distinguishing/identifying the correct and socially acceptable
behaviour from other. The individual is
seen pursuing the socially acceptable behaviour with the help of the identification and not through rewards.
In the Hullian theory, an organism has sets of innage general responses.
These sets are activated by the needs of the organism. When a stimulus and a response occur in close
ontiguity and when the drive (need) of the organism is reduced by this occurrence,
the habit strength (a given stimulus evoking a given response) of the organism
is increased. This is taken as learning.
Socialization, thus, takes place when the needs of the individual are met
by a contiguous occurrence of a stimulus and the response behaviour, response
towards the stimulus by the individual. Socialization
is meeting the drives of the individuals which activate the innate general responses. Form the set of innate general responses, that
which occurs most contiguous to the stimulus will be strengthened and symbolic
constructs that tie the stimulus and response are developed. Socialization must be seen in the emergence
and mastery of the symbolic constructs that tie stimulus and response. Skinner distinguished between elicited and
emitted responses. Emitted responses are
called operant. These may be considered
as responses with unknown stimuli. Skinner
believes that stimulus conditions are not necessary or are irrelevant for an understanding
of operant behaviour. Operant conditioning is favored because of complexities in human
learning situations in which the stimuli cannot be specified on many occasions. The condoning of operant behaviour takes place
when, the response is correlated with reinforcement. Thus, in the process of socialization, the consequences of the response behaviour are
more important, for Skinner, than what induces or stimulates the social behaviour.
The relationship between response and reward (the reinforcement of the
response) is more important than that between stimulus and response. An elaborate
system with details of operant conditioning is arrived at within the Skinnerian
frame. These could be interpreted for aspects that
underline socialization. For instance,
rather strengthening and sustaining of one socially accepted behaviour as opposed
to the eliminating of socially censured behaviour is explained through the processes
of extinction. The emitted response is
assumed to be already in the repertoire of the organism before it is conditioned
to a stimulus. As such, extinction of
a behaviour would mean that the behaviour is brought to its original preconditioned
stage. Skinner recognizes that most of
the time we act only indirectly (symbolically) upon the environment.
From this indirect act upon the environments, the ultimate consequences
emerge. For instance, instead of going
to a water fountain for water, we may ask for a glass of water and get the same.
There is no geometrical or mechanical relation between the behaviour of
asking for water and getting it. Social behaviour is just the same. The socialization process, then, must
be viewed as the acquisition of symbolic behaviour through operant conditioning.
Within skinners frame work socialization must be seen as based on operant
conditions and as the acquisition of a series of rather interconnected operant. Extrapolating from Skinner’s work on verbal
behaviour, we could suggest that the key to the entire analysis of socialization
processes is the identification of a unit of behaviour, namely, operant.
This unit should consist of a response of identifiable form functionally
related to one or more independent variables.
The main condition is that is response must appear before it is strengthened
by any reinforcement.
The approach of learning theories to socialization of humans is criticised
for several reasons. These include the
generalization done by learning theorists for human socialization on the basis
of their studies on animal behaviour and on single human subjects, generalization
of the findings obtained in restrictive laboratory studies to freer contexts of
human conditions, failure to account for the emergence and use of novel behaviour
which is not easily relatable to conditions to which the individuals have been
exposed, failure to take into account for the emergence and use of novel behaviour
which is not easily relatable to conditions to which the individuals have been
exposed, failure to take into account and integrate one of the very few distinguishing
mark’s of humans, namely, the verbal symbols, failure to approach the problem
on the basis of the facts revealing that humans are the creators and user s of
various intricate symbols, failure to view the learning processes, and consequently
the socialization processes, in a context of humans, for assuming that the contribution
of the individuals being socialized in defining the quality of and success in
socialization processes as trivial, for failure to weave a coherent whole emphasizing
in good measure the knowledge of the external stimulation, internal structure
of the organism, and the ways in which it processes input information and organized
its own behaviour, failure to relate the socialization process in some appropriate
manner to the inborn structure, the genetically determined course of maturation
and pasts experience, for the claim that instruction and imparting of information
are matters of conditionings which, indeed , ignores matters of learning relatively
uninfluenced by contingencies of conditioning, for over –emphasizing reinforcement
while minimizing the role of casual observation, natural inquisitiveness, the
capacity of the child to generalize, hypothesize and process information in a
variety of ways and for their conflicting emphases on individuals stages in learning
on some occasion and on others the need for careful arrangement of contingencies
of reinforcement by the community.
3.7.
Cognitive Theories of Learning and Socialization
While, between stimulus and response, the S-R theorist posits no more
than muscular movements, the cognitive learning theorist posits a mental operation
between the two. While the S-R theorist
believes that what are learned are habits, the cognitive theorist believes that
what are learned are cognitive structures, a scheme. Another difference is related to the position assigned to trial
and error and insight in problem solving. S-R
theorists believe that an organism relies on its old habits for the solution of
a problem, basing its decision on common elements between the new and old elements
or on the similarity between the new situation as a whole and the one already
met with. The cognitive learning theorist
does not consider that past experience has anything to do with the solution of
a present problem. It is the form in which
the problem is encountered that matters. Contemporary structuring of the problem is
an important one as it helps to development insight into the inter-relationships
which ultimately lead to proper solution. In essence, the cognitive learning theorist
believes that learning is insightful and that trial and error is only derivative
of this insightful affair.
Tolman, cognitive learning theorist, suggested that behaviour is initiated
by environmental stimuli and physiological states. There are certain processes which intervene before the emergence
of behaviour. Our problem is to infer
the intervening processes. Tolman considered
these intervening processes. Tolman considered
these intervening processes as psychobiological in nature which include cognition
and purpose. What the organism learns
in reality are signs. They learn sign-significant relations. An organism has capacity to hypothesize several ways and means to
solve a problem. The cognitive field is
a result of its hypotheses and when a hypothesis corresponds to reality, it achieves
success and establishes the cognitive field which in turn will be available to
the organism to meet the requirements of altered conditions. Tolman, while emphasis zing the importance
of cognitive fields, did not ignore the relevance of exercise and the frequency
with which the sign, the significant and the behaviour relation between the two
have been presented. But exercise has nothing to do with the selection of correct
response. It helps in making a response
firmly established after its due selection. Rewards and punishments tend a regulate the field rather than influence
the acquisition.
The organism which is being socialized must be seen striving to acquire
gestalts within the gestalt theory of learning.
Gestalt means a unified whole, a configuration or pattern, having specific
properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its component parts.
In a gestalt, the parts are distinguishable and yet it will have some characteristics
not originally found, through the formation of a gestalt.
The gestalt itself may have characteristics not exhibited by any part of
the entity. Gestalt psychologists find
that this situation permeates all human behaviour and that the universe consists
of gestalts. The psychological organization
moves always in a general direction. This general direction is towards the state of pragnanz. This state has properties like4 regularity, simplicity, stability, etc. the configuration
around the organism is considered to be always dynamic and as such maintenance
of equilibrium is very important. But a learning situation leads to disequilibria. However, once learning is over, equilibrium
is restored, to be disturbed again by further learning situations. Socialization, then, is seen as the acquisition
of a series of gestalts governed by laws of similarity, proximity, closure (the
principle that completed action brings in the closure of events) and good continuation
(the principle that when an event or object is defective, the perceptual organization
tends to make the event object a wholesome affair or thing).
As learning is considered an insightful affair, the organism is viewed
as an active participant, guiding his own sociazlition process rather than being
awayed and shaped by outside forces. He
is not also governed by negative orientations and deprivations, as visualized
in S-R theories. He is
governed by a tendency to strive towards a positive and good organization.
This is an contrast to the position of S-R learning theorists who rather
visualize the organism that is being socialized as governed by negative orientations
and deprivations and is shaped by the external forces.
3.8. Social Learning Theory and Socialization
Social learning theorists emphasize the influence of social variable
sin learning. They avoid the generalizations
based only on laboratory studies of animal behaviour and human subjects.
Learning takes place in a social context that has striking differences
from the laboratory controlled conditions. In
the learning in social context, there are several important social variables,
such as those in a verbalizing model, which make the difference between social
learning theorists emphasize that learning can take place through observation
of the behaviour of others even when the observer does not reproduce the model’s
responses during acquisition and, therefore, received no reinforcement. Acquisition
of novel responses is seen related to this.
Social learning takes place through a combination
of variable-ratio and variable interval schedules. In the former, the experimenter varies the
ratios around some mean valued instead of reinforcing every n-th response. This results in the occurrence of a varying
number of unreinforeced responses between the presentation of successive reinforces.
In the latter, the experimenter varies the interval between the presentation
of successive reinforces. That is, in
social learning, social reinforces are dispensed on combined schedules by which
the number of unreinforced responses and the time interval between the presentation
of reinforces and the time interval between the
presentation of reinforces are both allowed to vary. As a result, no direct reinforcement is easily
discernible while a “novel” response occurs. The complexity of social demands are the reason for the occurrence
and maintenance of the mixed schedules of reinforcement in social situations.
The social learning context requires more than one participant. Even when
the adult is consistent in his behaviour and is in a position to moderate all
the child’s responses, his schedule of reinforcements is dependent on the form,
timing, intensity and objects of child’s behaviour.
Specificity on every count is not possible easily and directly.
Social learning theorists focus their attention
on the roles of imitation and reinforcement patterns on the development of socially
acceptable/censured patterns of behaviour. The emergence, development and acquisition
of self-control is seen playing a key role in the stability of patterns of behaviour and the maintenance of
special control. Imitation plays is very
important role in the acquisition of conforming as well as deviant behaviour.
Observations learning has an important place in all cultures.
Models are utilized to promote the acquisition of socially acceptable behaviour
patterns.
The symbolic models are presented though oral
or written instructions, pictorially or though a combination of verbal and pictorial
devices. The recreational and aesthetic
forms exploited in a culture also provide models. Verbal instructions are widely
used. Rate and level of learning can depend
upon the mode by which the models are presented.
This could also be a function of the age.
The provision of models accelerated learning and avoids costly and dangerous
errors. The social learning theorists suggest that
social response patterns can be transmitted though the influence of a model and
that imitation is facilited if the model received rewards. If the model is know to receive punishments,
the observer may refrain from imitating the model. It does not mean, however, that the social learning theorists view
imitative view imitative modeling related only to deficits in the organism.
They, in fact, suggest this as part of cognitive components.
Bandura and walters, this as part of cognitive components. Bandura and Walters, the leading social learning
theorists, distinguish three possible effects of exposure to a model: ‘(a) a model
ling effect, involving the transmission of precisely imitative response patterns
not previously present in the observer’s repertory, (b) a inhibitory or disinhibitory
effect, reflected in an increase or decrease in the frequency, latency, or intensity
of previously acquired observer responses that are more or less similar to those
exhibited by the model, and (c) a possible eliciting effect, in which the observation
of a model’s responses serves as a cue for realizing similar observer that are
neither entirely novel or inhibited as a result f of prior learning.
Social learning theorists accept, however, that
not all learning is accounted by imitation and models. The consequences to the modeling agent largely
determine whether these responses are strengthened, weakened or inhibited.
(Note that these consequences pre-exist the individuals; they are part
of the society. The observations of the consequences to the
modeling agents, then, becomes a primary function of the socialization process.) Experimental exposure and direct training though
reward, aversive stimulation and other disciplinary procedures also play an important
role in shaping and in maintaining patters of social behaviour. Positive reinforcements
in the forms of verbal approval or material reward will increase the frequency
of children’s particular behaviour.
Social control in society and in individual
is maintained though both external and internal sanctions. Soon a period comes in the life of a child
when the spends more time in the company of people away from his parents and others
whose direct influence of him is much less then. And yet what he has acquir4ed earlier through
parental training continues to the maintained. Self-generated stimuli now begin to outweigh
the influence of external stimuli. The
emergence an ramifications of this self-control is an important aspect of study
by social learning theorists. The roots
of self-control are identified in the very early stages of the life history of
a young child when he begins to adjust himself to, what it would appear from his
biological needs, the delayed schedules of feeding and other vicarious matters.
Thus, according to Banudura an Walters (Banudra, 1977), even the basic
socialization processes involve the acquisition of a certain degree of self –control
and the observing of social prohibitions and requirements.
Resistance to deviation from the norm, the regulation of self-administered
rewarding resources and the postponement of immediate reinforcements in favour
of other highly valued but delayed rewards are some major forms of self-control.
The acquitting and maintenance of self–control are influenced also by direct
reinforcement, which generally takes the form of disciplinary interventions.
The social learning approach lays stress on
inter-individual differences and on intra-individual continuities, unlike the
stage theories ‘which emphasize inter-individual variability over time and similarities
among individuals at specifiable age periods. The approach emphasize the continuity of behaviour
rather than its discontinuity. Very rarely
one notices marked/abrupt changes in the behaviour of an individuals in a given
age. Whenever such changes occur they
will be found related to abrupt alternations in social training and other related
biological and environmental variables. Constitutional factors influence social learning
only insofar as they have been attributed esteem by societies and considered as
instrument in the acquisition of rewarding resources. ‘within a society that sets high value on the
possession of certain physical attributes, the frequency with which social reinforcements
are dispensed is partly dependent on the extent to which these cultural ideals
are met’.
Within the social learning theatrical framework,
we suggest then, that socialization is based mainly on imitation and modeling.
The manner and intensity of social reinforcement of a response decides
the character and the sustenance of sociazlition.
While modeling and imitation are important for the socialization process,
self-control/interval regulation soon comes to play a major role in further socialization
processes. Though self-control is found
to have its roots even in early infancy, its full play is generally taken to occur
in later childhood. This is a much more
conscious effort than other socialization processes, which demands conscious participation
on the part of the individual self. In fact it appears to be a major factor in
the formation of the individual self itself.
A progression from the social to the individual seems to be suggested there.
As regards the modeling and imitation in the
language component of the socialization process, the right model is chosen on
various counts—with emphasis on in-group membership, children are insisted upon
imitating the speech forms of the group; where parents highly value membership
in a social class they may encourage imitation of the speech of that highly valued
social class. At times this could lead to a communication
barrier between the two; imitation of a right model is detected also by the social
perception of what is the appropriate manner and content of speech for an age
group, sex, and social status. The manner of speech covers intonation patterns,
length of sentences, address terms, lexical choice, length of speech, context
in which a particular item is uttered, etc.
Children are reprimanded when they speak “like adults”.
They are also reprimanded when the content of their speech is not appropriate
to their age—the content here could include the use of abusive terms.
Children are also reprimanded when they imitate deviant being a member
of a social class other than the class of the child; when the model belongs to
the same class, sex, etc., the utterances of the (wrong) model must have been
considered deviant for some reason. From
language to language, modeling plays a crucial role in filling the gaps in expression
systems. The loan blends and loan translations, apart from direct
borrowings, are a result of modeling of one language expressions on the basis
of another. Need –filling and presige
motives have been identified as basis for imitation of expressions within and
across languages. That the socializing agents view lack of proper
labesl and reluctance and failure to give a proper description and reason for
the availability an duse of albes, as means of postponing socializing in certain
in compartments of life is seen clearly in many societies when it comers to the
description and explanation of sexual acts and organs. Even when the objects are before them, the
children are not given the linguistic tools and comprehension. The children can understand and engage in verbal
communications. Since parents fail to
label, and most of the time, they mislabel, only in later childhood come to identify
certain behaviors as sexual and palace them in an appropriate place in the social
pattern.
A series of related concepts may be inspected
here. These are the concepts of satelization,
non-satelization and the exploratory orientation. These concepts have been suggested by Ausubel
and others in connection with the different ways of interiorizing the values of
other persons or of groups. A satellitizing
individual simply habitués to a given set of norms; he accepts the norms as axiomatic. Acquisition takes place through a simple mechanical
type of imitation. The nonstatellitizing
individual interiorizes the values, the given set of norms, not blindly and uncritically
but with an aim to use them for a purpose, for obtaining the status advantages
of group reference or membership rather than as a reflection of a need for sefl-subsevient
belongingness or “we-feeling”. The individual with an exploratory orientation
acquires a set of given norms with a problem-solving approach, placing emphasis
on matters such as objective evidence, logical validity and assessment of the
acceptability of different value position. Divorcing these concepts wholly form their psychological and social
psychological implications, we suggest that the first language acquisition or
rather the acquisition of the vernacular (the mother tongue/native dialect) be
considered a stagellitizing phenomenon and that the acquisition of facility in
other dialects for instrumental purposes be considered a non-satellitizing phenomenon.
More often than not, adults learning a second and/or foreign language are
guided by an exploratory orientation which leaves a trace of interference from
the previously learnt languages.
3.9.
Cognitive Developmental Approach and Socialization
The sequential changes that one
notices in the psychological structure of the child form the focus of study by
develop mentalists. These scholars do
not seek a correlation between the responses and specific environmental stimuli,
even though there is recognition of the functional activating role of the environment
on other quality and stages of the emergence of psychological structures in the
child. They believe that child behaviour
is mediated by different processes at various stages (whereas the S-R theorists
believe that some principles govern the learning at various stages). Maturation
is not simply a function of age; it is not simply a biological given which gas
no bearing on the principles and strategies of learning adopted by an organism.
Maturation is a complex process which is wholly integrated with all aspects
and levels of human behaviour. It required
an in-depth study of its own. Maturation
and consequent growth are a concern of cognitive developmentalists. The transition from one stage to another.
The content of each stage, internal factors that influence the developmental
process and insightful interactions/experimental exploration, rather than past
experience, form the primary attention of the approach.
The developmentalists of the cognitive-maturational school, particularly
Piaget, believe that the differences between the child’s and adult’s thought processes
and also t6he differences between the thought processes of younger and older children
are qualitative. These thought processes
of younger and older children and adults are not a simple extension from the young
children to adults. Accordingly they view
development in terms of an evolution through qualitatively different stages.
Piaget at first aimed at discovering the stages
of this evolution in social factors which included language, contact with peers
and parents, etc. He soon came to emphasize
child’s own activity as the basis for any development, while not ignoring the
social factors. Piaget’s genetic epistemological
work analyzes aspects of the acquisition and use of knowledge in terms of the
relation between the individual , rather individual’s action and his environment. The knowledge thus acquired includes, ‘as a
particular instance of biological adaptation, the form of equilibrium towards
which the successive adaptations and exchanges between the organism and his environment
are directed. ‘ A system of living and acting operations. And intellectual competence
(what the intellectual can do and not what he actually does.)
Piaget’s theoretical framework of development
accepts the roles played by biological factors in guiding the developmental stages, while emphasizing experimental
factors. The organism’s own activity is
governed in many respects by the biological factors. These factors would decide the hereditary transmission
of physical structures, which in their turn, decide the particular courses the
organism can or cannot take. These factors
provide the organism with automatic behavioral reaction, reflex responses.
They also decide the physical maturation, in additions, Piaget suggests
that the species are provided with two basics tendencies, namely, organization
and adaptation.
The tendency for organization helps all species
to systematize or organize their processes into coherent physical and/or psychological
systems. The tendency for adaptation helps
the species to adapt themselves to the environment.
A very important observation of Piaget for characterizing the socialization
processes is regarding adaptation. He sees inter, interspecies and individual
differences in adaptation processes
Engaged. He also finds differences in adaptation processes
from stage to state in the developmental processes of an individual.
Adaptation as an invariant function has tow complementary processes, namely,
assimilation and accommodation. The process of accommodation describes the
individual’s tendency to change in response to environmental demands. When a person eats something his digestive
system reacts to the substances incorporated by the contraction of the muscles
of the stomach, by release of acids, etc. In
the process of assimilation the individual
deals with an environmental event in terms of current structures.
In case of digestion the acids transform the food into a form which the
body can use. Accommodation and assimilation involve a series
of actions on the part of the organism. Piaget
suggests that although organization and adaptation are inherited tendencies, ‘the
particular ways in which an organism adapts and organizes its processes
depend also on its environment, and its learning history.
These tendencies lead to a number of psychological structures which take
different forms at different stages. Development
proceeds through a series of stages with each stage characterized by a different
kind of psychological structure and a different type of interaction between the
individual and the environment. An individual of any stage must adapt o the
environment and must organize his response continually, but the instruments by
which the person accomplished this-psychological structures—change from one age
level to another. Both the infant and
adult organize and adapt, but the resulting psychological structures are quite
different for the two periods. Piaget further proposes that organisms tend
toward equilibrium with the environment. The
organism—whether a human being or some other form of life—tends to organize structures
into coherent and stable patterns.
Piaget identifies four developmental stages—infancy,
the preoperational period, the period of concrete operations and the period of
formal operations. The first stage is
from birth to two years and is called the sensor motor period.
The second stage is from two to seven years and is called the preoperational
period. Concrete operations characterize the third
stage which is from seven to eleven years. The
fourth stage sees the acquisition of formal operations beginning at age eleven.
While piaget includes the emergence of social
self and socialized speech form the ego and egocentric speech, the focus is on
the individual only. From the egocentric
speech the attempts to derive the socialized speech. The is has been criticized by Vygotsky who
rightly points out that even in the very early stages of human organism socialized
speech and socialized thinking regulate the behaviour of the organism.
Piaget’s works have been criticized as
badly controlled experiments, for presenting only incomplete reports on studies
with focus on, sometimes, highly motived and selective behaviors. He has been criticized for not publishing the empirical data in
its entirety to meet the criterion of verifiability of his findings by others
in all their aspects and to drive alternative models on the basis of the data. His studies have not been fully repeated.
It has been also claimed that in Piaget’s studies the relationship between
hypotheses and observations is not clear. The
critics argue that Piaget’s researches point to important issues and represent
a rigorous psychological theory of cognitive development.
There is a high level of abstraction. One finds in Piaget’s studies, on
the basis of Piaget’s observations of children’s behaviour but a clear connection
between children’s thinking and Piaget’s abstractions is not well discernible. The relationship between pure mathematical
concepts Piaget arrives at on the basis of his
observations of children and cognitive development of children, has also been
questioned.
Piaget has been criticized for not taking into
account, or for taking into account only minimally, the cross-cultural differences,
differences within the same culture group, and individual differences, and differences
between different age groups, in arriving at his stages of child developments.
His emphasis on logical inference on a poor or inadequate sample
is considered rather excessive. He has
been criticized for adopting an ambivalent interactions view of development which,
while recognizing the role of interaction with the environment, undermines, however,
the role of social transmission and physical experience. His characterization of development as predeterministic
order has been questioned, as the order of stages of several items could be different
across cultures, etc. it has been pointed
out that the transition to the abstract stage occurs at different ages both for
different subject matter and for component sub-areas within a particular field.
Piaget has been accused of ignoring considerations such as ‘extent of intersituational
generality and relative degree of intra- and inter-stage variability and relative
degree of development.’ He has been criticized for adopting an ambivalent interaction
view of development which, while recognizing the role of interaction with the
environment, undermines, however, the role of social transmission and physical
experience. His characterization of development
as predeterministic order has been questioned, as the order of stages of several
items could be different across cultures, etc. It has been pointed out that the transition
to the abstract stage occurs at different ages both for different subject matter
and for component sub-areas within a particular field. Piaget has been accessed of ignoring considerations
such as ‘ extent of intersituational generality and relative degree of intra-
and inter-stage variability in delineating stages of development.’
He has also been said not to make/accept well established distinctions
between reflex and non-reflex activity in early motor development.
In spite of all these and many other criticism,
and in spite of the criticisms in general of stage theories, Piagets’s contribution
to an understanding of child development, and socialization in general, is stupendous.
Form the point of view of role of language in socialization, there is need
to focus on the rate, patterning and regulation in socialization after language
acquisition. This has not been highlighted.
There is also a need to link the progressive decline in abilities past
one’s prime of life with the progress of linguistic and other abilities in childhood. This has not also been highlighted. There is also a need to look into the Piagetian
dogmatism which emphasized the influence of the environment and self-initiated
action for acquisition of knowledge and which de-emphasized the focus on innateness.
Another important area that needs further focus is the constrains imposed
by the cultural ethos on the socialization processes.
3.10.
Field Theory and Socialization
Within the field theory, socialization process
is to be seen as movement within life space, impinging on the psychological environment
prevailing within life space, as interplay of psychological forces within the
psychological environment, all leading to or subjecting the child to a process
of development which ultimately ends in the emergence of realism.
According to Kurt Lewin, the primary duty of a psychologist is to describe
the life space of a person at that time in verbal, pictorial, or symbolic terms. Life space is seen as the sum of all facts
that directly influence and determine the person’s behaviour at a given time.
Causes of events include only the facts that have concrete consequences.
Explanation for any behaviour is to be sought in the dynamics of the immediate
situation. Does it mean that information
acquired in the past has no role in the present behaviour? Does it mean that the so-called social-cultural
memory that comes to control behaviour in life has no role in behaviour and no
part in the socialization process? There is no denial of the role of the past within the Lewinan theory. But the past operates only through the present; a description of
the present through verbal, pictorial or symbolic terms, hence, should give an
adequate picture of the socialization processes at any given moment.
Lewin
distinguished between the psychological and phenomenal environments. While the latter is based on what a person
perceives or believes what exists in the external world, the former is seen only
in terms of its concrete effects on behaviour. The former—the psychological environment—is, thus, a description
of the external situation as it affects behaviour. Behaviour, in the Lewinian sense, consists of the change in the psychological
environment, not in the physical. The focus of psychological environment, not in the physical. The focus psychological laws in Lewinian theory
is on this change in the structure of psychological environment. Lewin postulates the existence of psychological
forces in the environment. These psychological
forces move the person from one psychological region to another.
A force has a point of application, a strength and a direction.
In addition to the identification of such forces, Lewin asks for a knowledge of conditions they
operate. Thus, within Lewinian theory,
the identification of psychological regions, movement from one region to another,
the forces that instigate and guide such movement and the interplay of forces
upon one another form the backdrop for the characterization of the socialization
process. The process itself, like any
behaviour, is to be seen in its dynamics and as a process of conflict.
The process of socialization is much more clearly
conceptualized, within the Lewinan theory, in the characterization of what constitutes
development. Development is viewed as
a process of differentiation. Children become more differentiated as they
develop. Differentiation is viewed as
an increase in the number of regions in the person. This may be brought about in several ways. While differentiation is an increase in the
number of psychological regions, rigidification, another important ingredient
of development, helps increase the strength of the boundaries between regions. Both these processes are seen occurring simultaneously.
Some have suggested that rigidity increased with chronological age, while
differentiation increased with mental age.
Lewin distinguishes the following aspects of
development. Firstly, a growing child
exhibits a variety of behaviour, emotional expressions, needs and interests, knowledge
and social relations. While some of these
are dropped as part of this growing process, many more are added to his repertoire.
Secondly, the increase in repertoire is accompanied by a greater organizations
the repertoire, guided by a governing purpose, a main theme or a leading idea.
The organization has certain features such as the composition of larger
units through a series of sub parts leading to greater complexity in the structural
whole of a behaviour unit, the hierarchical arrangement in which deahc level provides
guidance to the level below, and the arrangement to carry out an activity in spite
of interruptions, to carry out more than one activity simultaneously and ‘ a to
devise a strategy that fits two different purposes.’ Third characteristic of the developmental process is the expansion
in the psychological environment of the child in the area covered and the time
span as regards the life space. It appears
to us, then, that, within the Lewinan theory, the current qualitative and quantitative
status of the child as regards its life space is the measure of its socialization
condition. The life space of a young child
has certain immediacy restraints, even when the psychological regions are already
in the repertoire of child. The life space of a young child also does not
have psychological spaces for psychological environments for distant futures and
long past events. As the child grows up,
the life space of the child as well as the space of free movement increase. Note, however, that the Lewinian theory does
not posit any necessary relation between the regions of the life space and the
physical activities. The quality of the
psychological environment is to be determined on the basis of the quality of connections
between regions.
Fourthly, the growth of a child or the development
process is characterized by a growing independence and interdependence.
The process of differentiation of one act from another is a mark of the
increase in the independence of one action form others.
The inter-dependence comes to the force when the activities of the child
are organized into complex purposive patterns.
This inter-dependence may also be seen as a process of integration.
Lewinian theory recognizes two types of inter-dependence—simple
interdependence and organizational inter-dependence.
Easy mobility form one psychological region to another and the ease with
which one psychological region influences another religion or the ease with which
tension, etc., in one region spreads to another region of the same person is viewed
as an illustration of the simple inter-dependence.
In this view, then, simple inter-dependence becomes an integral facet of
the dynamics of behaviour. The organizational
interdependent, on the other hand, is viewed as a hierarchical organization of
the life space, characterized by very many complex means and relationships in
the psychological environment.
The fifth characteristic of the developmental
process is the emergence of realism, which is seen to increase with age.
Realism is seen as having a number of levels, or degrees of reality.
‘Levels of realism’ is an important dimension of the life space. Rigidity develops where realism is high; the
organism does not allow itself to be easily influenced by what it wishes, it always
makes a distinction between what it wishes and how things are. Realism is not defined in terms of external
reality, but only in terms of psychological properties. Here is a concept within the Lewinian theory
that requires a careful interpretation. A
spectrum of realities is recognized and a variety of sources for the same reality
requires to be pointed. In as much as
it represents ‘the child’s acquiring the concept of an objective world external
to himself’, the attainment of realism appears to be the ultimate state of the
socialization process.
Another relevant Lewinian concept for the characterization
of the socialization process is the concept of a selective gate keeper or
filter. The function of the gate keeper is to determine
the quality and kinds of situations an individual is to be confronted with.
The parent is a gate keeper of the child’s environment. In fact one should
assume a variety of individuals and institutions in the external world to play
the role of a gate keeper in the process of socialization of the child.
In identifying and describing functions of the gate keeper and in identifying
and describing the specific kinds of experiences allowed, not allowed or partly
allowed by the gate keeper, we would draw a picture of the socialization process
within the theory, while drawing this picture on the basis of the role of the
gate keeper, a proper modulation of the picture is called for, based on the internal
dynamics of behaviour development detailed above.
A practical exemplification of a method of research
within the field theory is provided in Barker and Wright’s description of the
psychological environment. The same can
be followed (and, in fact, is followed) in development studies and in the description
of the socialization process. In this method, episodes of a running behaviour
are the units of description. Episode
is a running behaviour, rather a sequence of behaviour, all working towards the
game goal. The description of the episode
may be done in several ways-identification of each of the episodes and the sub-episodes
as self-initiated or externally initiated classification of the episodes and then
parts according to the number and kinds of participants; description of the episodes
and the constituents as gratifying, frustrating, need-filling, etc., description
of the episodes on the basis of successful completion or otherwise; characterization
of the episodes based on the power hierarchy and the contents of the interaction
and so on. The description is generally used to identify
and describe and assess the function of the objects of the psychological environment
on the behaviour of the child.
The child’s environment is also described in
terms of the behaviour setting. A behaviour setting prescribes or anticipates
certain behaviour within that setting. This setting is both spatial and temporal. One behavioral setting may be distinct from
another behavioral setting. A setting
is rather independent of the person, in the sense that one may enter and leave,
but once in, the behaviour setting prescribes to some degree a measure of behaviour
to be adhered to by the individual. From
this prescription flows the constrains imposed on the individual in the
particular setting. One should, however, realize that behavior
settings cannot be separated as distinct ones.
It appears to us that the notion of entering and leaving a setting requires
further clarification, at least as far as young children are concerned.
Barker and Wright had also foreseen these problems
and had suggested that two setting are dependent to extent:
(i) the same people enter both
settings,
(ii) the same power figures
or leaders are active in both settings,
(iii) both settings use
the same space,
(iv) both settings occur
at the same or close together in time,
(v) the same objects and equipment
are used in both settings,
(vi) the same action
units span the two settings, and
(vii) the same behaviour
mechanisms occur in both settings.
Note
that language interaction is not viewed as important at all there in an explicit
manner.
In every setting there may be six levels of participation. These are (i) onlooker, (ii) audience or invited guest, (iii) member
of the group, (iv) active functionary, (v) joint leader, and (vi) single leader.
The language consequences of each of these levels will be worth investigating. Barker and Wright did not concern themselves with these. They were interested in the description of
participation by different age levels of children, etc. They were
interested in the levels of participation of these age levels in communities of
different sizes. From the participant’s
view such a characterization of participation would also give us an idea about
the accessibility and inaccessibility of the various settings, claimed
Barker
and Wright.
Inaccessibility in language interaction is revealed through the participant’s
deliberate silence borne out of a conscious analysis or of an appreciation of
his role in the current setting. It may be due to his inability to decipher as
to what is going on. It may be due to
the successful ‘silencing of his voice’
in several ways including use of authority and a manifest neglect of the individual.
these are apart from the influences of the sociazlition processes in individual
may have gone through thus far and the individual’s personality as a speaker and
as a listener. It appears to us that the quality and quantity
of language interaction would be a relevant and easy measure to determine to accessibility
and inaccessibility of various settings.