Positions On Socialization

 

CHAPTER - 4

 

ANTHROPOLOGICAL

APPROACHES TO SOCIALIZATION

 

4.1. Anthropology

 

            Within anthropology, in particular, within cultural and social anthropology, two key concepts are culture and social structure.  Socialization, within cultural and social anthropology, can be viewed as acquisition of culture and placement in and skills for the manipulation of social structure.  Culture I broadly defined as that ‘complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’ (Tyllor, 1874).  It is also defined as ‘the configuration of learned behaviour and results of behaviour whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society’ (Linton, 1945).  There are, indeed, hundreds of definitions of culture.  Culture is often equated with social tradition and social heredity.  Social structure is ‘conceived to be the orderly arrangement of persons in the society according to their status rights and obligations’.  Looking into the trends of anthropological  research, such as those found in British social anthropology, one may also view socialization adopted in societies as a process based on certain special principles, which lead to special characteristics, typification, based on which men and women of a society organize themselves to continue their existence ‘in an orderly fashion through a specialized cooperation of parts in the service of the whole. Thus, culture, social structure, and specialized principles appear to be the characterization of socialization within cultural and asocial anthropology.

 

 

            Anthropology aims at an understanding of ‘the ways by which society and culture mould human behaviour through conventionalization (patterning)’. It also focuses on elucidation of culture ‘as connected directly to human needs, both biological and physiological ‘.  Earlier there were also several other trends that marked anthropology, such as ideas concerning unilinear development of culture and society that led to the construction of a linear evolutionary process linking the primitive with the modern (meaning mostly the western) societies and ideas which assume a correlation between present day primitive societies, social structures and cultures with the earliest stage of human society.  Inter-cultural transmission of elements, concentrated attention on culture traits and complexes and processes of diffusion also have attracted a lot of attention.

 

 

            There is also a shared belief among anthropologists that the ‘facts of simpler cultures may make clear social facts that are otherwise baffling and not open to demonstration’ (Benedict, 1934).  One of the philosophical justification given for the preference of anthropologists to study smaller societies and ‘simpler peoples’ is that ‘the whole problem of the formation of the individual’s habit-patterns under the influence of traditional custom can best be understood at the present time through the study simpler peoples’. To continue what Ruth Benedict had very succinctly stated.  ‘This does not mean that the facts and processes we can discover in this way are limited in their application to primitive civilizations.  Cultural configurations are as compelling and as significant in the highest almost complex societies of which we have knowledge.  But the material is too intricate and too close to our eyes for us to cope with it successfully’.

 

 

            Another anthropological assumption is that a many-sided understanding of a few cultures is more desirable than aiming at a comprehensive survey of the whole; ‘a few cultures understand as coherent organizations of  behaviour are more enlightening than many touched upon only at their high spots’.  With increase in the facilities for data collection, and collation and management of data collected, there have been significant attempts to make comprehensive studies of many and inverse cultures, and yet the basic dictum which prefers an in depth study of a few cultures rather than an extensive converge of a large number of cultures is still accepted as a valid goal.

4.2. Ruth Benedict’s View of Socialization : Custom

            Ruth Benedict (1934) proposes that anthropologists aim at understanding the way in which cultures change and differentiate the different forms through which cultures express themselves and the manner in which customs of a society function in the lives of the individuals who constitute the society.  Hence we should study socialization within anthropology, if we accept the aim of anthropology as suggested by Ruth Benedict above, by focusing on the changes that are brought in generation after generation in a culture, on how socialization processes of one society distinguish themselves from the socialization processes of another society, on what different forms through which distinct socialization processes express themselves from the processes of other societies, on the manner in which the customs come to exercise power over the individuals, and on how this power in exercised through the socialization processes.

            For Ruth Benedict, traditional customs influence every act of an individual. Accordingly, there is no escape for the individual from the traditional custom.  Hence we suggest that it is the traditional custom that should be considered as imparted by the socialization processes in any society.  (There are certain qualifications made to this statement of affairs which we shall see below.)  The individual’s cognitive world is built around him by these customs: ‘No man ever looks at the world with pristine eyes.  He sees it edited by a definite set of customs and institutions and ways of thinking’, (Benedict 1934:2).  Accordingly, we should conclude that, form the point of view of Ruth Benedict, the socialization processes are a predetermined social set an that no child can ever hope to grow into adulthood without ever being subjected to a set of traditional customs which pre-exist the birth of the child.

 

 

            Benedict looks at socialization also as a growing accommodation of the individual to the patterns and standards traditionally handed in the individual’s community.  Form the moment of the individual’s birth ‘the customs into which he is born shape his experience and behaviour.  By the time he can talk, he is the little  creature of his culture, and by the time he is grown  and able to take part in its activities,  its habits are his habits, its beliefs his beliefs, its impossibilities his impossibilities. Every child that is born into his group will share them with him, and no child born into one on the opposite side of the globe can ever achieve the thouhsandth part’, (Benedict, 1934:3).

 

 

            It may be seen form the above that Benedict considers socialization primarily as an effort on the part of the individual to work out an accommodation to the patterns and standards of the society.  The custom is all dominant and shapes the child.  Secondly, the ultimate goal of socialization is to enable the child to become the creature of his culture and to become one with the habits and beliefs of the society in which the child is born.  Thirdly, the individual will absorb the habits and beliefs of the society, sharing the same with others.  In other words, while the child is making every effort to work out a corresponding identity with the society, he also develops an awareness that he shares these habits and beliefs with others and that this sharing with others distinguished him and them from another group. Hence. Viewed from this angle, the socialization processes enable to child to become a member of an already existing society by seeking a corresponding identity with its beliefs and habits while at the same time associating

 himself closely with others of the same society to distinguish them form yet another group. 

            Benedict finds that these processes are, indeed, beyond the awareness of the child.  Likewise, for her, socialization is not biologically conditioned. That neither the culture nor the dependent socialization processes are biologically conditioned is made clearer by the following possibility: ‘An oriental child adopted by  an occidental family learns English, shows toward its foster parents the attitudes current among the child he plays with, and grows up to the same professions that they elect.  He learns the entire set of the cultural transits of the adopted society, and the set of his real parents’ groups play no part.  The same process happens on a grand scale when the entire peoples in a couple of generations shake off their traditional culture and put on the customs of the alien group. . . . . All over the world, since the beginning of human history, it can be shown that peoples have been able to adopt the culture of peoples of another blood.  There is nothing in the biological structure of man that makes it even difficult.  Man is not committed in detail by his biological constitution to any particular variety of behaviour.  The culture is not a biologically transmitted complex’, (Benedict, 1934:12-13).  Benedict suggest that what really blinds men together is their culture, the ideas and the standards they have in common.  Thus, the socialization processes should be seen aiming at binding men together through the acquisition of the community’s culture, its ideas and the standards.

            Benedict also suggests that, in primitive societies, the cultural tradition is simple enough to contain within the knowledge of individual adults.  This is a recurrent basic point in her book Patterns of Culture as well as in several articles, used to justify study of primitive society and to show the usefulness and relevance of study of smaller and presumably less complex societies.  She further suggests that the manners and morals of the group are molded to one well-defined general pattern, unlike those we find in modern, western an other complex societies.  Because of this reason, she says that it is possible to estimate the interrelation of traits in these primitive societies in a way which is impossible in the cross currents of complex societies.  This assumption is questionable’ since even in so=called simpler communities, network of information is always complex.  Even if one accepts this position., form the pint of view of the socialization processes involved in the acquisition of acts appropriate in a society, that is the steps that are gone through in the socialization, there does not seem to be much difference in the complexity of socialization processes adopted in different cultures.  That is the socialization processes adopted in different cultures.  That is the socialization processes even in a complex society shall have to proceed from one step to another form the point of view of the child who is being socialized, with restrictions of the quantum and quality of materials and rules to which the children are exposed.  The choice is guided in each society by its assumptions as regards the ability of their children in different stages and  the assumptions as regards the complexity of the tasks.  No society expects its children to become fullfledged adults all at a time.   This has validity both for the primitive societies and our complex civilization.  Hence the socialization processes in the  primitive society as well as the families of the west and other complex civilizations, may have certain similarities form the point of view of the quantum and quality as regards the complexity of the task.  This point is generally missed.  A primitive society may have a simple enough culture and a society of c9omplex civilization may have very complex cultural traditions with cross-currents. And yet both the societies will adopt strategies of socialization processes that would emphasize progression from quantitatively simpler tasks to qualitatively more complex tasks.  However, the progression should be seen form the point of view of gradual accretions, rather than from the point of view of any assumed universal simplicity for tasks.

            Benedict finds that selection is the major distinguishing mark between cultures.  Even as the course of life and the pressure of environment provides a variety of possibilities to construct one’s own culture, selection continues to be the prime necessity.  The numbers of sounds t5hat can be produced by our vocal cords and our oral and nasal cavities are unlimited.  However,  each language has to make its own selection from these unlimited possibilities and abide by the selection in order to be intelligible.  In culture also.  Benedict finds a great arc which contains all the possibilities provided by the human age cycle, environment and man’s various activities.  Every human society makes a selection of some segments of this arc.  Every human society everywhere has made such selection in its cultural institutions.  Every culture, every era, exploits some few out of great number of possibilities.  Hence, if we accept Benedict’s view, each society selects, from the variety of socialization processes, its own socialization processes which could be further selectively applied in the tiers that constitute a society.  For instance, family, caste, religion and region may be significant tiers in any Indian community.  Thus, a society having selected its own portion for adoption from the great arc of human culture, perforce has to allow certain further selections by the autonomous components that constitute it.

            Selection of a portion of culture from the great arc of human possibilities does not end the process of culture development.  ‘Within each culture there come into being characteristic purposes not necessarily shared by other types of society.  In obedience to the purposes, each people further and further consolidates its experience and, in proportion to the urgency of these drives, the heterogeneous items of behaviour take more and more better shape’.  That is, selection from the great arc of human possibilities is followed by development of distinct markers which identify the selection as distinct form to these selections from the same great arc of human possibilities.  But selection and subsequent specialization are also followed by yet another characteristic, namely, pattern configuration and integration.  Benedict finds that, in addition to selection and specialization, ‘the diversity of culture results not only from the ease with which societies elaborate or reject possible aspects of existence.  It is due even more to a complex interweaving of cultural traits’.  ‘A culture, like an individual, is a more or less consistent pattern of thought and action’.  For Benedict, each culture has a purpose.  This purpose selects certain traits for use and certain others for discarding.  This process is never conscious.  All the behaviour is made into consistent patterns in accordance with this unconscious choice.  Culture is the result of a unique arrangement of its traits and the interrelation of the traits which bring forth a new entity.  Benedict also considers culture to be more than the sum of its traits. She suggests that the whole determines its parts, noe only their relation but their very nature. ‘between two wholes there is discontinuity in kind, and any understanding must take account of their different natures, over and above, a recognition of similar elements that have entered into the two’.

            From the description given above of a nature of culture, we may derive that there are several human possibilities in terms of contents, forms and processes of socialization.  From this great arc of human possibilities each society selects its own socialization contents, forms and processes and work them out more and more specific to the society with emphasis on selected purposes and traits.  We may also suggest that each society.  Also we find that the selection and specialization process of socialization may be so formed as to distinguish one se t from the processes, forms and contents of socialization adopted in another society.

 

 

           

            While the socialization process may or may not be conscious, the break in the socialization processes will be seen conscious by the members of the society.  There are conscious efforts at amending such breaks in behaviour.  In other words, while the selection may not be a conscious process, the acquisition of the selected traits may or may not be consciously pursued.  However, conduct in opposition to the assumed attainments of socialization would, however, be noticed consciously, and attempts are made to repair such conduct in a conscious manner.  Also one of the aims of socialization processes is to attain self-identity and to distinguish the membership in one society from the same in another society.

            Benedict also finds that every society justifies certain favorite traditional form.  When these traits are negated even by the vast majority, and when these traditional traits do not have relevance any more, there is always lip service given readily to the traditional form will continue to be held in high esteem, whether, in reality the same is adopted for socialization purpose or not.  This position is more clearly seen in societies such as those of ours which have been influenced by values from other societies.

 

 

            Changes are brought in from within the society as well as from without. The institutions that we build up do not keep as close to the original reason which brought them into existence.  The final form of any traditional institution goes far beyond the original human impulse that brought that institution into existence.  Hence Benedict suggests that what is more important is to find out how on trait has merged with other traits from different fields of experience.  In other words, when applied to socialization, we should conclude that the original purpose of a socialization practice.  In addition, the present purpose of a socialization process may have come into existence because of the instigation of another socialization purpose.  It is also possible that the socialization purposes may form a pattern.  Hence, if we understand Benedict correctly, we should aim at understanding the interrelationship between the individual socialization practices and see how one socialization practice is related and/or instigated by another socialization practice.

 

 

            While changes are bought in, the processes by which changes come in are always suspect and cloaked.  Institutions do not give a free hand to individuals, in most cases.  In some societies, individuals may be given a free hand.  But even here the authority of custom remains usually unchallenged.  Individuals everywhere make only minute changes.  ‘most human beings take the channel that is  ready-made  in their culture.  If they can take this channel, they are provided with adequate means of expression. L if they cannot, they have all the problems of the aberrant everywhere.’ From this we see that Benedict views socialization as one of the acquisition of the norm of society and utilization of the channel for expression that is ready-made in a culture.  Socialization processes thus also aim at protecting the individual from indulging himself I the aberrant behaviour.

 

            While Benedict argues in favour of identification of the patterns of culture in a society, she also finds that not all cultures have shaped all these items of behaviour to balanced ethnic patterns.  ‘Like certain individuals, certain social orders  do not subordinate activities to a ruling motivation; they scatter’.  This  lack of integration, according to Benedict, occurs often on the border of well-defined culture areas.  ‘These

Marginal regions are removed from close contact with the most characteristic tribes of their culture and are exposed to strong outside influences.  As a result, they may very often incorporate into their social organization or their art-techniques most contradictory procedures.  Sometimes they  refashion the inharmonious material into a new harmony achieving a result essentially unlike that of any of the well-established cultures with which they share so many items  of behaviour’.  This observation of Benedict truly characterizes the situation that we have in India.  For example, linguistic minorities within a state share so many features common with the dominant linguistic group which derived from the dominant linguistic group.  While this has been going on for ages, the linguistic reorganization of the Stages and Union Territories in India have brought in several additions and deletions in the last 30 years.  There are pulls towards the dominant culture patterns of a State, and pulls away from the dominant culture patterns with which these linguistic minority groups had original contacts.  At the same time, a faster development of means of transport and communication have, in recent  years, sought to restore the original contract with their own group outside the State.  However, such efforts are always modulated by the exigencies of the situation within a Stage.  The culture of the bilingual in India sis one of growing integration with the dominant society for the last several centuries.  The lack of means of transport and communication with their original group, acceptance by the dominant group of the minority’s special identity, placement of these communicates in some appropriate manner within the caste hierarchy of the dominant linguistic group, religious identity, religious tolerance and, in general, acceptance of distinctiveness of individual communities have led to certain integration processes and loyalties with the dominant linguistic group.  This context of situation has led to several identical socialization processes, while at the same time specific identify marking processes were not dropped.  From the point of view of an outsider, just as Benedict, these conditions may seem as if these communities lack integration within their own culture pattern, since at some level they retain their own cultural and social patterns and at another level they seem to have adopted the patterns from another community.  However, form within, the process must be seen as one of growing integration with the dominant linguistic group.  In fact, approximation towards the dominant norm of the overall linguistic group, while retaining the specific characteristics of the region and one’s own caste, have always been the dominant trend in the organization of cultural and social patterns.  Hence even these communities bordering on culture areas cannot be seen as having lost integration within their culture.

 

 

            Benedict also finds that it is not only the marginal tribe whose culture may be uncoordinated, but the tribe that breaks off from its fellows and takes up its position in an area of civilization may also show this tendency.  This characterizes the migrant population from the rural regions to urban cities in India as well as the emigrant population of India origin.  Benedict also suggests that not all cultures are by any means the homogeneous and hence no society will have homogeneous socialization processes.  The socialization processes may be affected by the lack of integration within every culture.  If anything is to be said definitely about the socialization processes, it is that while the processes approximate towards the norm, since the norm itself is fluctuating, the socialization process would also be of a fluctuating nature.

 

 

            Another important point is about the relationship between spatial distribution and social stratification.  Originally the different warps of living were primarily a matter of spatial distribution in primitive society.  However, in societies such as ours we stratify, and different social groups of the same time and place live by quite different standards and are actuated by different motivations.  Hence when we study socialization we should carefully choose the unit in which the socialization processes can be studies.  As already pointed out, social stratification, irrespective of geographical distribution, linkage through voluntary groups characteristic of urban cities, certain variables such as religion which cut across other groups will all have to be considered carefully.  While such a consideration of all the factors is insisted upon in the study of social processes as per the definition of culture by Benedict, she also insists that in all studies of social custom, the characteristic of matter is that the behaviour under consideration must pass through the needle’s eye of social acceptance.  In other words, from the point of view of Benedict, while the socialization processes aim at approximation towards the norm, itself could be recognized or rather acquisition of the norm would be recognized only if such an acquisition meets social acceptance.  That is, for socialization acceptance becomes the most crucial yard stick.

 

 

            Benedict often insists upon the configuration or patterns of culture.  It is not a single trait nor is it a single quality that characterizes a culture.  The purpose leads to  a pattern and this patterns covers several spheres of activity in a culture.  The concept of configuration suggested by Benedict is not a type in the sense that it represents a fixed constellation.  ‘Each one is an empirical characterization, and probably is not duplicated in its entirely anywhere else in the world.  Nothing could be more unfortunate that an effort to characterize cultures as exponents of a limited number of fixed and selected types.  Patterns of culture which resemble each other closely may not choose the same situations to handle in terms of their dominant purposes’.  Benedict finds that the significant social unit is not institution, but the cultural  configuration. The behaviour of an individual is to be seen not in terms of the overall cultural configuration he exemplified. She suggests that every conduct is related to the every other conduct engaged in by an individual and there may be several purposes related to one another.  She believes that it is possible to ‘isolate the tiny core that is generic in a situation and the vast accretions that are local and cultural and man-made’.  Accretions could be harder to change than even the tiny core.  Socialization, then,  is to be viewed as the mastery of the cultural configuration, which ultimately is to be seen based on the generic core of the particular. In a comparative study of three different societies, she identifies three generic types—Apollonian, Dionysian and paranoid.  The Apollonian and Dionysian types are diametrically opposed to one another in the sense that whereas  the Apollonian seeks always measure, the middle of the road, the tradition and distrust of individualism, the Dionysian way of life is one of breaking all the boundaries; to achieve excess is the basic momentum in the Dionysian.  In the paranoid type, extreme forms of animosity and malignancy dominate. It is a type in which virtue consists in selecting a victim upon whom one can rent the malignancy he attributes alike to human society and to the powers of nature.  All experience appears to him as a cut throat struggle in which deadly antagonists  are pitted against one another in a contest for each one of the goods of life.  Suspicion and cruelty are his trusted weapons in the strife and he gives no mercy, as he asks none.  From benedict’s viewpoint, then, socialization perforce reflects the tiny core which runs through all the institutions and activities of a society.  Every society selects some segment of the arch of possible human behaviour and this segment runs through various institutions of that society.

 

 

            In essence, one could report that from the point of view of Ruth Benedict, traditional custom reflects the possible contents of socialization, that socialization is a growing accommodation of the individual to the patterns and standards of his society, that the socialization processes may be easier to identify and isolate in simpler societies, and that the socialization process reflects the tiny core that very society selects for itself from the great arc of possible human behaviour.

 

 

 

4.3. Radcliffe-Brown : Socialization as Norm with Inherent Deviation

 

 

            coaptation, culture, social structure and social usage are the key concepts of Radcliffe-Brown that could used to characterize the content and form of socialization.

 

 

            Social coaptation refers to the ways the individual members of a society fit their behaviour together to maintain a social life.  Coaptation is brought in by instinct and culture in human societies; it is brought in by instinct in animal societies.  Nature of society is not deducible form individual human nature, but from social coaptation only.  The main requirement for social coaptation is that the behaviour of the individual members of a society is standardized in some way.  Standardization takes place by culture, and, in fact, Radcliffe.  Brown considers that culture is standardization—culture is standardization of behaviour, both inner and outer, within a society, a group of human beings.  Portrayal of culture is derived by a description  of the standardized modes of behaviour—of thinking, feeling and acting.  This standardization of behaviour consists of a set of specific and general rules of behaviour.  These rules produce certain uniformity of action, social coaptation. The reality of these rules is found in their recognition by the members of a society.  Hence the contents of socialization are those which are recognized by certain number of people as the proper procedure; social coaptation becomes the target of socialization.

 

            Certain common set of ways of feeling and a certain common set of way of thinking are the other characteristics of standardization.  Standardization also comes through the cultivation, maintenance and existence of certain common symbols and common meaning attached to those symbols.  A certain body of accepted symbols is used by certain persons and understood by others, and this process brings social coaptation.  Universal human symbols, a society’s own particular sets of symbols all go into the social coaptation process.  Some of the symbols  may not be culture symbols at all.  For example, the symbols which people use to communicate with themselves are not culture symbols (according to Radcliffe-Brown).  In any case, symbols bring in standardization, and , as such, we should consider acquisitions of the three types or levels of symbols enunciated by Radcliffe-Brown as forming yet another set of contents of socialization process.

 

 

 

            An important concept of Radcliffe-Brown that should be considered in working out his idea of socialization is the concept of social structure.  Social structure involves localized groups such as households collected in villages, kinship groups which also include items such as a moiety organization, clans, etc., and regulated and standardized dyadic relations.  In addition, it involves description of characteristic inner behaviour, the beliefs, sentiments, ideas current in the society the description of the “psychology of the society”.  Social structure consists of all the social relations of all the individuals at a given moment in time.

 

 

            The  function of social structure is to adjust  the interests of different individuals and groups.  A chief characteristic of social structure is that it is ‘a natural persistent system’; there is a structural continuity despite accruing internal changes.  When changes occur, the social structure may either make a readjustment of the equilibrium pass from one type of social structure to another, when there are sufficient changes.  An important precondition for the continuation of a social system in the maintenance of a particular body of cosmological beliefs—‘the body of beliefs current in a society and which have a certain recognition in that society or one of its groups’.  Note that time and again Radcliffe-Brown emphasizes the role of body of beliefs, of thinking and feeling in characterization of the social structure and process.  Localization, inner beliefs, adjustment of interest of different individuals and groups, structural  continuity despite accruing internal changes, thus, characterize social structure, and, when applied to socialization, membership in localized groups, acquisition and sharing of inner beliefs and acquisition of processes of adjustment of interest of different individuals and groups become targets of the socialization process.  Structural continuity and possibility for internal changes become the characteristic of the process.

 

 

            Social usage is another concept developed by Radcliffe-Brown.  It is the norm with a difference-it reflects the average distribution and has a certain standard deviation in its observance.  It is characterized by what people say about them.  Note that, here, the norm has a certain standard deviation in its observance; there is also a likelihood of difference between what people say and do about what the say, and the norm need not be shared by all in an equal measure.  Social usage is that which is found both in the behaviour of the given individual, outside that individual in the behaviour of other individuals, and in the relationship between those behaviour.  This is what we observe and recognize as proper, and we call its breach improper.  Applied to socialization, this key concept of social usage implies that although the identified s socialization process of a society can be viewed as the norm of a society or group, we should make provisions for these processes to have only an average distribution.  These need not be shared in an equal measure by all.  Also the socialization processes must allow for a certain degree of standard deviation in their observance by the members of the group.  In other words, we should view the standard deviating as n integral part of  socialization process.  (What causes this deviation is an interesting area to explore. What functions does this deviation perform is still another interesting area.)  The most  important characteristic of social usages is that these do not function as classes of acts of behaviour, not related, not interdependent, with no coherence, etc.  All  these  social usages function a  system of complex relations and dependence. Thus, in addition to provisions for standard deviation and average distribution, we should also look for coherence within a social usage and across social usages.  Then, in a way, the admissible/observed deviance in the norm, which is inbuilt in the norm, according to Radcliffe-Brown, should also be seen having its own structural function in the social structure of a society.   Likewise the inequal sharing/distribution of the norm also must be seen as having its own function and placement in the social structure.

 

 

            Radcliffe-Brown characterizes the social systems as follows: The social  system is localized in a suitably selected collection of individuals.  If consists of the social structure.  The totality of all social usages and ‘the special modes of thinking and feeling which we can infer or assume (from behaviour and speech) to be related with the social usages and the social relations that make up the structure’.  A social system provides a certain adaptation to a particular environment.  It also provides a certain integration.  That is, the function of a social system is to unite individuals into an orderly arrangement, according to Radcliffe-Brown.  In this sense, the function of social system and the function of socialization process become identical.

 

 

            Another interesting point made by Radcliffe-Brown is as follows: ‘Analyzing a society as a whole with respect to one aspect, you find everything tying up with that one aspect……A  society is a system that in every description we could make of the society, or of what constitutes the culture, all characteristics to a greater or lesser extent function together consistently.  The degree of consistency varies from society to society’.  When applied to socialization process, each socialization process must be viewed as a microcosm of the entire body of socialization process.  The processes may be seen tied to one another, together constituting the society.  Each practice reflects the society, and all the practices together constitute the society as a whole.  Since a norm is already visualized as something in which there is an inherent provision for deviation and as something which is only of an average distribution, the processes may not all have the same degree of consistency in relation to the overall social system.

 

 

            Radcliffe-Brown implies a picture of socialization in which the contents of socialization  are those which are recognized by certain groups of people as proper.  He also emphasizes common feelings and ideas that govern the life of a group.  Furthermore, interdependence of all the acts is emphasized.  He makes a provision also for deviance as an essential characteristic of the norm itself.

 

 

4.4. Raymond Firth : Socialization as Reliable Guide for Action

 

            Raymond Firth, a British social anthropologist, works within the principle that ‘what people do must be taken as the index to what they think and feel’. For the description of a society one must take into account (i) main pattern of human behaviour in a society, (ii) conformity to these patterned relationships which draws people  together in groups, (iii) processes and contents of groups as a society, (iv) the controls for group action and for individual action of an interpersonal kind, (v) rational and other considerations that regulate the controls, (vi) the relationship between loyalty to a group and self-interest, (vii) the sets of values which give meaning  to the behaviour of people in social circumstances, (viii) the symbols employed to express these values, (ix) the functions of changes in relation to the established patterns, (x) the manner in which changes are faced by the patterns, (ix) the functions of changes in relation to the established patterns, (x) the manner in which changes are faced by the patterns, (xi) the authority and guidance supplied, (xii) kinds of strains that are most severe on human relationships.  The contents and goals of socialization may be assumed, then, drawn from heads such as the above.

 

 

            For Raymond Firth, there are three major parts, society, culture, and community; society is an organized set of individual s with a given way of life and culture is that way of life.  Society is an aggregate of social relations and culture is the content of relations.  Culture is the component of accumulated resources, ideational as well as material.  This inherited by people who employ, transmute, add to and transmit it.  Part of the culture is only ideational, but all the same culture acts as a regulator to action.  Culture is all learned behaviour, socially acquired.  Culture also has the residual effects  of social action, even as it plays  the function of an incentive to action.  There is the third element in the description of human behaviour and that is community which emphasizes the space-time component, the aspect of living together in a particular space and time.  Thus, while society is viewed as an aggregate of human individuals and culture as the component of accumulated resources, both material and ideational, or content of social relations, community particularizes both society and culture.  They are major isolates; but involve one another.

 

 

            When interpreted with regard to socialization, community must be seen consisting of those  elements of socialization which are governed by the saptio-temporal constrains of living in a particular space and time; culture must be considered accumulated material and ideational aspects beyond and inclusive of spatio-temporal constrisnt, in particular referring to the product of the past which  governs the present, and society as consisting of aggregate aspects of individuals being together and the consequences of such an aggregation for culture and community.  A three-pronged context of community, culture and society must characterize, then, the concept socialization in Raymond Firth’s view.

 

 

            Firth distinguished between social relations of structure, function and organization—structural study gives us the principles on which form depends; by functional aspect, one refers to the way the social relations serve given ends; and the organizational aspect, refers to the directional activity which maintains the form of social relations and serves their ends.  When applied t o socialization, while the functional aspects relate to ultimate specific goals of every of the socialization process in a society, the structure refers to the specific underlying principles that constitute a particular form of a  activity indulged in for socialization purposes.  The form of a particular child-rearing practice such as use of address terms, a nonverbal acts for certain effects, is constituted by the mastery of various elements such as acquisition of the linguistic forms, appropriate phonetic inflections of these forms, placement in a sentential structure and the ultimate correct usage for the context, or, in the case of nonverbal effects, the form includes mastery of bodily expressions as well as manipulations of  space between individuals appropriate to the context.  There are principles of choice and distribution, mastery and use of which contribute to the appropriateness of a from for a particular context.  All these must be viewed  as the structural aspects.  Organizational aspect is directional activity and, when applied to socialization, may be viewed as processes of approximations to the norm on a situation of acquisition on the one hand, and, on the other, as those steps that go into the maintenance and perpetuation of the structure (form).  That is, the organizational aspects must be assumed to consist of parameters of admissible deviance from the norm, and those characteristics which deliberately cultivate and preserve unification, ‘a putting together of diverse elements into common relation. It also includes elements of representation and responsibility, ‘ an ability to envisage a situation in terms of the interests of the widest group concerned, to take decisions which shall be conformable to those interests, and willingness to be held accountable for the results of those decisions’.  In the study of socialization, then, we must look for the structural, functional and organizational characteristics.  The structural characteristics focus on the constituents that give form, and explicit one, to an activity; the functional aspects relate to ultimate contents, the ultimate goals, whereas the organizational aspects relate to approximations to norm and the dynamics of maintaining the norm while allowing for deviance and change.

 

 

            There are two aspects stated by Firth as following members of a society to carry on their activities.  There are the minimum conditions of agreement on common aims, common ways of behaving, thinking and feeling, ‘their expectations, or even their idealized beliefs, of what will be done, or ought to be done to other members’.  In addition, pattern of realizations of these ideational also is to be looked into.  There may be gaps between the expectation and the patterns of realization, some of which may be acceptable and some may not be.

 

 

            The second important element is the persistence of behaviour which gives the continuity to social life.  ‘Members of a society look for a reliable guide to action, and the structure of the society gives  this through its family and kinship system class relations, occupational and so on’.  In the persistence and continuity process structural systems as listed above play a crucial role.  Firth places a greater emphasis on the role of family in socialization—‘one of the most valuable functions of parenthood lies in handing on to the child by example, as well as by instruction, a very great deal of the cultural heritage of the group to which the parents belong.  So far, no substitute, whether communal nursery or enlightened school system, has been able to replace the family entirely in this respect’.  Firth lays greater emphasis, thus, on the role of family for socialization processes.

 

 

            Firth visualizes two important parts of continuity—as people are born they must be incorporated into a group upon some principle, and as people die the things that they possess must also be handed over according to rule’.  This is achieved thorough mediating institutions such as class, lineage, kinship, religion, statuses/social stratification of various grades.  Some societies do have these codified, and some do not. Whether codified or not, ‘by such means a great deal of the education of young people is done’.  Interpreted in terms of socialization then, continuity is socialization which covers the spectrum of life from birth to death with implications for social relations.

 

 

            A major concern is with regard to the identification of a society’s dominant character and its assignation to a “type’.  But ‘the ethnic type is a combination of averages, an abstraction, and very few individuals in population conform precisely to the standard type’.  The environment sets broad limits to the possibilities of human life in a society. Raymond Firth draws a distinction between tow types of rules—between what people actually do, the rule in the sense of a statistical average, and what they ought to do, rule in a normative sense of a standard to be aimed at.  While these two rules a clear cleavage can be noticed in social practice.  Firth’s view of social relations thus often emphasizes the fact of the cleavage, and cautions the investigators to proceed carefully in the description and explanation of social relations.  When used for an understanding or socialization, this concept of cleavage between two rules would ask us to keep apart the ideal and statistical averages, but include them in a total description of socialization processes of a society.  In sum, study of socialization can be made, within Raymond Firth’s social anthropology, by studying the manifold patterns of human behaviour in a society in relation to conformity to these patterned behaviour and such other matters listed community—which should govern also a study of socialization.  In addition, there are three major angles—structural, functional and organizational—that will focus on the formal, content and directional activity aspects of socialization which has inherent provisions for deviations from the norm even as it is a process of acquisition and approximations towards the norm. continuity through common ways of thinking, behaving and believing and though persistence or repetition of behaviour, what people actually do, what they ought to do and the cleavage between these two also should be seen as integral parts of the socialization process.

 

 

4.5. Levi-Strauss : socialization as Underlying, Hidden and Formal  Reality

 

            The structural  anthropology of Levi-Strauss aims at studying the unconscious and overt manifestations.  It shifts from the conscious to the unconscious; it focuses not on the terms of concepts per se, but on the relations between the terms; it also aims at identifying the underlying system between the relations; ultimately, the goal is to identify the general laws through the study of several particular phenomena, either by induction or by logical deduction.  Generation, collaterally, sex, relative age, affinity, etc., form part of the scope of study.  According to Levi-Strauss, it is both necessary and sufficient to grasp the unconscious structure underlying each institution and each custom, in order to obtain a principle of interpretation valid for other institutions and other customs.  The first step in the structural analysis is the definition of the constituent units of an institution; this is followed by the definition and characterization of the relationships of opposition, correlation, permutation and transformation among the constituent units.  It is not the overt manifestation but the underlying form and processes of these overt manifestations, rather the abstract underlying parts of these overt manifestations which are sought to be identified, described and explained in the structural anthropological analysis.  In terms of socialization, thus, the overt processes in a society are to be further probed into to identify the abstract layers of these activities.  Form the overt and conscious manifestations, the covert and conscious are to be deduced.

 

 

            Levi-Strauss distinguishes between two attitudes.  In the first category we have the diffuse, uncrystallized and non-institutionalized attitudes, and, in the second category, we have attitudes which are stylized, prescribed and sanctioned by taboos or privileges, expressed through fixed rituals.  Levi-Strauss finds that the second category consists of attitudes which are rather secondary elaborations of the former and which have the function to resolve the contradictions and overcome the deficiencies inherent in the former.  The system is based on four basic attitudes of mutuality, reciprocity, rights and obligations.  Levi-Strauss also emphasizes that, in most cases, a bundle of attitudes operates.  Contents of socialization, thus, must be seen as having both the diffuse, uncrystallized and non-institutionalized attitudes as well as the stylized, and prescribed ones.  Their regulation within the socialization processes is to be seen guided by the four basic attitudes of mutuality, reciprocity, right and obligations, however, as enunciated and modified in individual societies  consciousness  is no more than the expression of the universal laws in the individuals in a particular time and space.  Since the whole theory aims at abstraction of the underlying processes, it is understate that the position of Levi-Strauss focuses more on the universality, here represented by the collective consciousness, than on the individualistic efforts.  When interpreted in terms of socialization processes, Levi-Strauss appears  to emphasize more the role of the social/collective consciousness than individualistic efforts.  Also note that there are similar underlying processes, homologies, between institutions within a society and even across societies.  Hence, a deeper analysis of a particular institution as to its operations and constituents,  and the society.  In other words, the various institutions that are covered sought to be mastered by the socialization process in a society all operate under a single abstract plan and hence the socialization process will be successful to the extent that the underlying abstract plan is understood and incorporated in the socialization process.  Logically, then, the varying socialization processes also must be governed by a single set of abstracted rules, although overtly there will be many and varied institutions covered by these processes.

 

 

            Levi-Strauss also finds that there is a dichotomy between what the natives of a society imagine about the working of their society and the actual functioning of the society.  That is, the natives’ theory about their society may, indeed, be different from the reality prevalent.  It is more likely that the investigations done by scholars resemble more natives’ image of their own society.  However, what the natives imagine their society to be could be different from what their society is in actual reality.  Note that this position of Levi-Strauss is to be seen in conjunction with I his views as regards the two types of attitudes that a society has, which we already referred to.  Interpreted in terms of the socialization processes, we should be aware that there may be gaps between what the members of a society state as the purpose of a socialization activity and its real purpose; it is also possible that the description of a purported act of socialization by the members of a society could be different from its actual constituents.  In others words, there may be several intervening variables that do not allow the natives to see their socialization process in their original abstract plan.  Accordingly, we may suggest that a study of socialization processes should also include those aspects of culture which mark or transmute the manifestation of these processes in the perception of the members of a society.

 

 

            Society is interpreted, in the theory of Levi-Strauss, as a process of communication in three levels—rules of kinship and marriage, economic rules and linguistic rules: Viewed in this perspective, we may suggest that socialization process would focus on the rules of kinship and marriage, economic rules and linguistic rules.  Since there is no separate identity proposed for the individual in the scheme of things in the Levi-Strauss’ position, the very personal needs of individuals as biological organisms also will have to be seen forming part of these three levels.  The very personal needs of toiletry, for instance, would be linked with both the kinship and marriage levels on the one hand, and the economic rules on the other.  There are several other features that also appear to have a direct bearing on the social structure.  Consequently these may also be assumed to have a bearing on the process of socialization.  These include the spatial structure of settlement, villages or camps, numerical properties related to the absolute size of the population.  In all these, there is scope to arrive at subsets based on discontinuities that are inherent within a population and that are directly related to kinship and marriage, economic and linguistic levels.  It is the discontinuity that distinguish one from the other.  Hence, one may surmise that when we study socialization process we should seek to identify the discontinuities between subsets that constitute a society.

 

 

            The reality and autonomy of the concept of culture depend on the discontinuities—culture is a fragment of humanity and there are significant discontinuities between fragments.  This does not allow the same individual being a participant in more than one fragment, more than one culture.  Viewed in this fashion, culture, then, becomes not so significant a concept, an all embracing concept for the study of socialization, as we find in the studies of cultural anthropologists. The function of discontinuity is to isolate and distinguish one culture form the other.  It the other processes, as already outlined above, that are highly emphasized for an understanding of a society. 

 

 

            Levi-Strauss distinguished also between the actual and potential types of order of elements and process of social structure and organization.   In human societies, the actual forms of social order are practically always of a transitive and noncyclical type.  For example, if A is above B and B above C, then A is above C; and C cannot be above A.  however, in mental constructs in every society, this scheme may be obliterated in several ways.  When applied to socialization process, it could mean the confirmation of the dichotomy between actual practice and belief systems and the need to seek both actual   practice and belief systems for an understanding of the socialization process in a society.  Levi-Strauss considers the whole social fabric as a network of different types of orders—‘The kinship system provides a way to order individuals according to certain rules; social organization is another way of ordering individuals and groups; social stratifications, of ordering individuals and groups;  social stratifications,  whether economic or political, provide us with a third type; and all these orders can themselves be ordered by showing the kind of relationships which exist among them, how they interact with one another on both the synchronic and the diachronic levels’.

 

 

            Levi-Strauss aims at unraveling the underlying reality of phenomena in his studies : Understanding consists in the reduction of one type of reality to another; the true reality is never the most obvious; and the nature of truth is already manifest in the care it takes to remain hidden.  In all these cases, the same problem arises, the problem of the relationship between the sensible and the rational, and the goal sought after is the same : a sort of super rationalism, which seeks to integrate the first with the second without sacrificing their properties’ (Levi-Strauss), 1963).  Thus we are required to study socialization process in more abstract terms—we start from empirical facts, generalized and extract the general laws which are abstract facts and then go back to the empirical facts for validation of the generalizations and abstractions..  while this is , indeed, the accepted/proclaimed basis of every modern research, what distinguishes the approach Levi-Strauss suggests from others is that the nature of abstraction in the Levi-Strauss’ approach is much deeper and is purely formalistic.  The aim is to seek formal properties of social structure and social process that underlie a society and compare the same with those of other societies in order to arrive at still deeper formal bases of human society in general.  Interpreted for an understanding of socialization the focus within the Levi-Strauss approach should be for the identification of the formal properties of socialization process.  It is not particular event or even the series of particular events that should be considered or that should be taken as the goal of study of socialization.  Across different socialization process may lay the similar pattern which is formal in nature and hence it may be useful if one first describes individual socialization process on individual activities, identify the formal properties of each individual socialization activity, compare the formal properties of one activity with those of another to arrive at general formal properties.

 

 

            Levi-Strauss suggest that understanding of any reality in achieved by the reduction of one type of reality to another.  The true reality is never the most obvious.  Very often the truth remains hidden and its is the investigator who should identify the most relevant activity to get to the underlying and hidden, pattern  of reality.  In this approach, rationalism, rather, plays the most crucial role and, through rationalistic activity, one links the most  oblivious  and hidden underlying pattern.  In other words, the manifest socialization process  may perform functions that are not easily accessible to and understood by the layman.  A deeper analysis of particular socialization process would reveal the underlying purpose of such processes, and the purpose need not be readily recognized by the participants in the socialization process.  Levi-Strauss clearly envisages a gap between the understanding of the functions of a social process by the layman of the society and the functions that would emerge after a deeper formalistic analysis.  Further , the validity of the findings for the formalistic analysis will have to be demonstrated only through the manifest facts.

 

 

            One of the frequent themes of Levi-Strauss has been the differences between the primitive and the civilized.  This is very clearly revealed in his discussions of the difference between the primitive an the civilized art.  There are three differences, namely, social unity vs. Class division, art as collective expressions vs. art as individual expressions and unconscious tradition vs. self-reflective processes in the so-called civilized communities, provision for individual differences and differences in the socialization process and structure based on class division in the more complex modern societies.  Conscious self-reflection is a major element of the growing modern communities in terms of the socialization process.  It is not clear whether this self-reflective academicism is no different from the layman’s understanding of the manifest socialization process we have suggested above.  To what extent the processes identified through self-reflective academicism in the civilized societies would be closer to the formal properties which underlie hidden all the socialization process and structures.  Perhaps self reflective and conscious is an intermediary stage between the understanding of layman of the manifest empirical facts and the hidden formal patterns which would be identified after a formal analysis.  In any case, conscious and self-reflective academicism is closely related to the spread and strength of all formal education processes in Indian communities.

 

 

            Levi-Strauss outlines also two ideal types of societies. In the first type of society, human begins are tied to one another by immediate authentic relations.  In the second type of society, the relations between the individuals are distant  in this   latter society, there are impersonal institutions and ideologies that govern the lives of the individual.  Thus, one should expect two extreme forms of socialization process depending open the ideal types of society.  In the first category, we should imagine authentic socialization process that are personally transmitted form one organism to another.  That is, the socializing agent will have direct contact with the organism that the being socialized, will conduct personally the socialization activities and the recipient also will receive these socialization activities directly form the agent.  There s nointermediary form, socialization is generally indirect.  It is carried out through mediate in impersonal institutions and ideologies.  Direct socialization process are not found. While these tow may be considered extreme forms of socialization process, it may be po9inted out that there can be no single society which will have exclusively one or the other types extreme socialization process suggested by Levi-Strauss’s two ideal types of societies.  There can be no society in which there is no mediating institution for the socialization of the offspring at least for a limited period.  But, at the same time, there can be several types activities, such as the method of gathering food which can be imparted  individual to individual basis.  This individual to individual basis of imparting certain socialization process is also shared in most complex societies in which impersonal institutions and ideologies have a dominant role.  What, perhaps, we should look for is a listing of socialization activities as to which of them are carried out through immediate authentic relations and which of them are carried out through distant and mediated impersonal institutions an ideologists.  Based on this we should seek the underlying formal properties of each and every act of socialization and compare the same.

 

 

            Levi-Strauss divides  the societies also into two general types based on their flexibility for change.  Hot societies such as the western ones are given to rapid change and innovation whereas the cold societies remain static for long.  Cold societies are like mechanical machines such as clock.  These clock wear out and need readjustment since the energy stored by way of pre-winding is slowly lost.  The hot societies are like steam engines which can do more work to use up their energies more rapidly.  These would require replenishment more quickly than the cold societies.  The hot societies change very fast since they use up their energies change very fast since they use up their energies more quickly whereas the cold societies resist change and have energy conserving patterns of work.  The hot societies employ internal differences  in status and wealth.  These differences take the form of slavery, serfdom, or class distinctions.  These distinctions are created so that maximum work is extracted.   In the cold societies, the internal differences are avoided and are sought to be reduced through rituals.  While the hot societies go in for power and progress, the cold societies go in for harmony and stability.  This also is an idealization, a portrayal of extreme types.  However, the basic characterization is valid for any one to see in this modern world. There are , however, a few things that must be said.  The tendency for the power and progress is seen to influence in modern times even the societies that have been traditionally seeking harmony and stability.  This tendency towards power and progress is found much greater these days with the introduction of mediating institutions from communities that have had power and progress as their dominant tendency.  Likewise, the tendency towards harmony and stability as characterized by Levi-Strauss is also finding its way into the traditionally power and progress societies.  Secondly, even within the introduction of mediating institutions, the societies, traditionally considered to be having harmony and stability as the dominant agency, always provided for the operation of power and progress within their own native structure.  In other words, power and progress, harmony an stability, while characterizing  the basic tendencies should be cautiously interpreted when applied to a study of  socialization process.  It is likely that some activities  of the socialization process would be governed by the power and progress tendency and some others by harmony and stability tendency.

 

 

             Levi-Strauss is always in favour of decentralization in all fields so that immediate authenticity can be restored in societies which have very many mediating institutions.  He finds that it will be  to the benefit of human society if the groups are made up of man which have a concrete knowledge of each other.  Thus, when interpreted, it would mean that Levi-Strauss would prefer socialization process that would be immediate and authentic so that the agent and the recipient  in the latter day social process.  Knowledge, according to Levi-Strauss, is always the result of encountering the other.  The presuppositions of one’s own culture do not help individuals to acquire true knowledge.  One should establish a distance from one’s own culture and its concepts of reality to begin to know not only the world but also one’s own self.  For Levi-Strauss, mono culture is no ways of gaining knowledge. No mono culture is made possible through similar mediating institutions. Our relations are now built by the process of indirect reconstruction through written documents.  The oral tradition is lost.  Thus, Levi-Strauss emphasizes an element of encountering the other for better social order.  Hence a good socialization process is the one that encourages encountering the other of not only one’s own culture but also of other cultures.

 

 

 

            Levi-Strauss compares the complex civilizations such as the ones we find in western countries and in Asia with the simpler societies of no literate peoples as if the fore ones are made up of a large number of molecules, made up of combinations of many thousands of atoms and the latter ones as consisting of simpler molecules which contain only a small number of atoms.  In other words, the complexity is assigned to the lesser differentiating constituents of a culture, lesser the constituents greater is the simplicity, larger the constituents greater is the complexity.  When interpreted in terms of the  socialization process, Levi-Strauss seems to argue that simpler societies will have less complex socialization process when compared with those of complex societies.  We have already pointed out  that the complexity of socialization process can be uniform both in the simpler nonliterate societies and in the more complex literate societies, since, form the point of view of the recipient of the socialization process, the same may be of equal complexity in terms of acquisition.  However, the complexity may be also measured in terms of the consequences the socialization process has for various parts of the social structure.  It is also likely that duration of the socialization process  could vary from one society to another which may be fixed based on the concept of adulthood adapted in a particular society, especially the age in which a child is assumed to become a adult.

 

 

            One of the important points of view of Levi-Strauss as regards socialization that each child caries with him at birth the sum total of possibilities of all human culture.  A society chooses a few to retain and develop and this becomes the hallmark of that society.  Since the chosen possibilities of a society are also closer to the universal substratum, Levi-Strauss finds all children of every society may exhibit potential for acts that are considered hall-mark of another society.  This potential may not be retained and developed and may be suppressed in course of time in that particular society.  However, the view that children of one society represents the achievements of another society is false.

 

 

            In genera, Levi-Strauss’s view of socialization should be considered as one aiming at identification of the formal properties, the manifest and overt practice should not be considered as fully revealing  the meaning of a process.  One should seek the meaning of the manifest to identity the hidden relationships.  It is the hidden relationships that should be highlighted in any analysis.

 

 

 

4.6. Bronislaw Malinowski : Socialization as Acquisition of the Intangible

 

            Malinowski’s views of socialization are to be derived from his key concepts, namely, culture group and institution, symbolism, the relationship between form and function and the relationship between biological determinism and culture.  Raising the question as to that culture is, Bronislaw Malinowski (1944) defines culture as ‘a vast apparatus, partly material partly spiritual, by which man is able to cope with the concrete, specific problems that face him’.  Culture has several aspects.  It is integral.  It consists partly of autonomous and partly of coordinated institutions. There are several principles which govern and bring about the integration in culture—community of blood through procreation; the contiguity in space related to cooperation; the specialization in activities; and the use of power in political organization.  Each culture meets the whole range of basic, instrumental and integrative needs of its society.  Defined in this manner, the acquisition of culture becomes synonymous with socialization, and contents of socialization are to be derived from the components of culture.  The principles that govern and bring about integration in culture must be assumed to offer the contents and govern the processes of socialization—the community of blood through procreation, the contiguity in space related to cooperation, the specialization in activities and the use of power in political organization.  Note that when interpreted in this manner, the entire scheme of socialization becomes fully adult-oriented.  That is, the childhood socialization process also are seen to be governed by the contents and rules of the adult world, of which the child has to become a member sooner or later.  According to Malinowski, the completeness and self-sufficiency of a culture depend upon its ability to satisfy the whole range of basic, instrumental and integrative needs, thus, the socialization process adopted in a society are to be geared towards the satisfaction of basic, instrumental and integrative needs of the organisms.

 

 

            Malinowski finds that human beings are organized into permanent groups, ‘into established activity groups’.   These permanent groups are bound by certain principles, such as the fact of reproduction, social integration, law of marriage, descent and kinship, with all the consequences of these for social structure; grouping is also governed by propinquity and contiguity.  There is also the natural principle of distinction and of integration connected with human physiology and anatomy.  Yet another principle is the principle of voluntary grouping by individual initiative.  Another principle is the principle  of grouping by occupational ability, training, and preference. Specific institutions emerge even as occupational and specific functional tasks become gradually differentiated.  Integration of individuals into groups  is achieved also by the principle of authority which, according to Malinowski, means the privilege and the duty of making decisions, etc.  thus, Malinowski’s view of social organization is one of progressive differentiation based mainly on differences in activities, but such differences re found leading to grouping also in varying g bases such as reproduction, physiology and anatomy and kinship, etc.,  what we get here is a network of groups, constituent of one group can be participants, in full measure, in several other groups.  The functions of one group are very different from those of other groups, but the constituent members could be overlapping.  Thus the socialization process is now charged with the responsibility of varying functions, depending upon the groups whose membership is sought.  In other words, the socialization process is to be viewed inherently consisting of elements drawn from the various groups that constitute a society and the individuals get socialized to the individual groups depending upon the intensity of membership sought in individual groups. Malinowski emphasizes the occupational group, but does not suggest any hierarchy from the reproductive group to propinquity/contiguity and above.  Based on the principles enumerated by Malinowski, we may posit socialization process based on the fact of reproduction, social integration, law of marriage, descent and kinship, etc.; socialization process based on propinquity and contiguity; socialization process based on human physiology and anatomy; socialization process for voluntary grouping; socialization process based on occupational ability, training and preference, and socialization process based on/for authority.

 

 

            Organization is another very important concept of Malinowski which is directly relevant to the goals of socialization in a community.  Organization has a very definite scheme or structure. Organizations are institutions ‘ based o agreement on a set of traditional values for which human beings come together’.  The human beings who constitute an institution, stand in definite relation to one another and to a specific physical part of their environment, natural and artificial ‘. The hierarchy, the division of functions and the legal status of each member  as well as his relations to the others have to form part of the description of any cultured in terms  of concrete reality would consist in the listing and analysis of all the institutions into which that culture is organized.  The institution is governed by the norm; the institution is the ideal. However, the ideal and the actual performance could be at variance.  Malinowski argues in favour of clear and explicit distinction  between the deal norm and the actual activities.  Activities attitudes and objects are all organized around institutions, which cover aspects such as education, social control, economic , systems of knowledge, belief and morality, and also modes of creative and artistic expression.  In other words, institutions are the crucial parts of a society which direct every activity of the member of that particular society.  Socialization, then, should be viewed as mastering the rules of these institutions.

 

 

            Malinowski views culture as including not only the concrete, material objects and relations, but also those elements which are ‘intangible, inaccessible to direct observation, and where neither form function is very evident’.  Ideas, through and emotions are also parts of culture, both functionally and formally.  A symbol becomes real through the effect it produces.  Creating and using symbols is an integral part of human culture.  Symbols are part of the secondary environment man creates around himself.  In a symbolic act, a physiological drive is transformed into a cultural value.  Symbolism develops an as conventional act for the coordination of concerted human behaviour, according to Malinowski.  The relation between the form of the symbol and its functions conventialonlly arrived at.  A symbol is the conditioned stimulus, which is linked up a response in behavior only by the process of conditioning.  There is, always, however, a close relationship between the symbol, verbal or manual, and ‘certain physical processes linked up by biological causality’.  In other words, symbols have their own biological  bases.  A symbolic linguistic act is the influence of on the organism on another through conditioned stimulus reflexes’.  The symbolic act is formed though sociological and individual contexts.  Note that while a symbol, in its formative context, has a biological base, the formative context, has a biological base, the formative context, for a linguistic symbolic act is essentially social and individual, since culture is so defined in Malinowski’s scheme that it includes both material and symbolic, the socialization process should also be seen consisting of processes to master both the material and spiritual aspects of a society.  Symbolism, rather mastery of the symbols of a society, then, becomes an essential secondary act created by the society and is instigated mostly by the social and the individual , although it has a biological beginning.  It is though the secondary mechanism (secondary in the sense of order of emergence?) that the material culture comes to be cultivated further.  Malinowsky bases his theory of culture on function which is defined as the satisfaction of a community.  There is a difference between form and function, the same form may have several functions and a single function may have several forms.  However, Malinowski lays greater emphasis on the differences between the forms based on the  differences between the functions.  If the functions are different, the forms through which the functions are carried out would also be considered different even through there may be a lot of similarities between the two forms.  It appears from the discussions that, for Malinowski, function must have its own form which is different from the form of another function.  It is difficult to interpret the concept of function in relation to the  processes of socialization.  Do these processes work as forms?  To the extent that a socialization activity satisfies a function and the need assigned to it in an institutional framework, the socialization processes become a function of the activity.  It also can be considered as a form in the sense that it is through socialization processes satisfaction of a need is achieved.  In any case, if you make a distinction between a socialization activity and its result, then, the socialization processes may be taken as the medium or form and the result as the function of the socialization processes.  The biological needs of the organism become the most crucial aspects of study in the functionalistic approach of Malinowski.

 

 

            Traditionally regulated and standardized model behavior is taken by Malinowski  as an important constituent of cultural reality.  Biological pre-determinism combined with the secondary type of determinism through symbols and symbolic acts regulate the entire human behaviour.  Malinowski recognizes the importance of the specific determinism on human behaviour imposed by culture.  The imposition is so much so that failure in social cooperation and symbolic accuracy cause destruction.  And if allowed, it will cause attrition in the biological base itself.  Thus, the mastery of the symbolic acts becomes an essential and integral part of human existence.

 

 

            Hence the mastery of symbolic accuracy must be considered one of the major aims of socialization processes, if socialization processes are viewed as contributing to survival of the group.

 

 

            Malinowski considers that culture is the concurrent integration of several of development—the ability to recognize instructional objects, the appreciation of their technical efficiency and their value, their place in purposive sequence, the formation of social bonds and the appearance of symbolism.  Hence we may suggest that the socialization processes of a society to include the above listed items.  Material artifacts, human social ties, standardized modes of  behaviour, the symbolic acts for he things  of  one organism an another through conditioned stimulus reflections are fund to be the subject matter of the socialization processes.  Since cultural tradition has to be transmitted from one generation to another, Malinowski argues that methods and mechanisms of an educational character must exist in every culture.  In other words, socialization processes is to be recognized and used in every culture.  Order and law and cooperation arrangements for the sanctioning of custom will have to be maintained in any society.  Malinowski suggest that regulated behaviour comes into being and is sustained through the two processes of training and authority.  Thus, according to Malinowski, study of the socialization processes must focus on the methods an mechanisms of training and the exercise of authority.  He is not very much in favour of the description of various stages such as infancy, childhood, maturity an old age but rather emphasizes the manner in which the individual is gradually trained in skill, taught to use language an other symbolic devices of his culture, made to enter the ever widening set of institutions, of which he will become a full member when he reaches maturity.  In other words.  In the place of phase wise description, of various stages of life, Malinowski would insist upon the quality of training as well as the goals of training would be offered by the various aspects of culture he had earlier listed.  The major aim is to arrive at a comprehensive appreciation of how the growing organism is gradually absorbed into one institutions after the other.  The training is differentiated according to the quality of structure of the institution.  In other words, membership in various institutions, rather than stages based on age, would be emphasized by Malinowski.

 

 

4.7. Margarret Mead and Socialization : The Role of Time, Culture and Personality

 

 

            Margaret Mead emphasizes study of children as an important pursuit.  Children  have been largely ignored  in various research pursuits of social sciences : ‘Children are new comers as a subject of literature, in the study of human physiology and anatomy, newcomers I the social sciences.  Although each historical period of which we have any historical record has had its own version of childhood… childhood was still something that one took for granted, a figure of speech, mythological subject rather than a subject of articulate scrutiny’ (Mead, 1955).  Margaret Mead focuses on from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, and from adulthood to childhood, in her study of culture.  The study of child development receives a special and pointed attention in her works.

 

 

            Margaret Mead finds that Western society’s effort to understand the nature of childhood and to put that knowledge  to work in bringing up children is one of its finest achievements.  In Western academic pursuits, child studies, indeed, form an important part and have developed into an area of intense research and immense specialization.  Techniques have been developed specially an adapted from other focuses to study children.  Child psychology has grown into an area with great insights.

 

 

            Every culture, since the beginning of time, Margaret Mead Writes, has sought two achievements with regard to its children.  The first is to create an image of human  nature.  For example, according to Margaret Mead, the Russians see the child as a rough, strong individual who must be tightly swaddled to prevent him from hurting himself.  The French, on the other hand, see the child as a delicate creature, who must be loosely wrapped an kept safe.  The second point has to do with the culture’s image of the relationship between the parents and the child.  The English culture., for example, sees the parent as a gardener, cultivating the natural  growth of the child.  Germans, however, conceive of the child as a flower in a pot, with the parent constantly battling weeds an poor growth, that is, enforcing discipline.  The French see the child as a young tree, ready to branch out but also requiring careful pruning.  There are patterns and patterns, and not the single items such as the practice of swaddling which should be identified and worked out to arrive at the “Character”, according to Mead.

 

 

            There is now greater understanding of child, bought about by the child development studies, according to Mead.  Childhood is not a stage, but a process.  Margaret Mead argues in favour of a culture and personality approach to the study of socialized human being (Mead, 1937): ‘Biologists  will be asked to deal not merely with the total physiology of the human individual but will pay special attention to…...the socially relevant biological factors, those parts of the organisms whole responses are most significantly responsive to and elaborated by social conditioning.  So the biologist would be asked to turn form a recording of physiological changes in the stomach, and to take into consideration the whole mechanism by which hunger is transformed into appetite, so that the organism responds not merely to internal physiological changes, but also to a time rhythm imposed from without, and to a selection of foods which tradition has declared to he desirable.  Form the psychologist, this approach demands an orientation in two directions : that in every hypothesis made about an individual, he take into account the biological basis on the one hand and the cultural conditioning on the other.  This does not mean that the must cease to postulate hypotheses which are consistent upon the psychological level, but that such hypotheses must be firmly attached to both the biological underpinning and the cultural conditioning which shapes the individual at every turn.  Form the psychiatrist, it asks that he cease to see each case of individual breakdown either in isolation, as a function of that one individual’s past, or as a symptom only of physiological malfunctioning, or only of social malfunctioning.  In other words, the culture and personality approach asks that the psychiatrist should not reduce all cases of mental disease purely to the status of breakdowns resulting from lesions; that he should not refer them to faulty glandular functioning; or at the other extreme, that he should not regard the nonfunctioning of an individual purely as the result of his social conditioning.  Or of his peculiar so cal positioning a given social situation.  Form the student of culture, this approach demands that he cease to consider exclusively the patterned inter-relations of items of social behaviour.  The student of culture must grapple with several problems which he has traditionally ignored.  He must give due consideration to the details of the way in which the new organism is added to the group, and also to a particularistic and detailed attempt to follow given individuals’ life histories, so that he may see the way in which a given type of culture is laid down in the human organism.  The sociologist is asked, first, to add to this traditional discussion of group and group  behaviour a more thorough going recognition that this group behaviour tremendously subject to the specific Pattern laid down by the culture within which it takes place.  Second, that he make specific allowance for the interaction within group situations of identified individuals with organisms which have been specifically conditioned throughout their life histories.  Third, that he recognize each such constellation of individuals as unique…..The culture and personality approach, then, demands that these separate disciplines cease to abstract certain aspects of human life and study them without reference to the whole individual, and to the numbers of  whole individuals who make up any group.  It insists that there is a common meting ground where the hypotheses of each discipline can be tested out and made relevant to a more genuine social science (Mead, 1937). While the culture and personality approach of Mead and her colleagues, thus emphasize a reorientation to the study of socialized human being, an socialization itself by implication, Mead often emphasizes that the continuity of all cultures depends on the living presence of at least three generations.  When interpreted for a study of socializations, we may suggest that, for a comprehensive understanding of socialization, we must consider the contiguous three generations.  This point further gets strengthened when Mead typifies cultures into three categories of postifigurative, cofigurative and prefigurative cultures  relating them respectively to the dominance of the past, the present and the future (details are discussed below).

 

 

            For Margaret Mead, child remained a wondrous object of study all through her carrier.  Her scholarly works always focused upon uniformities an differences in growth patterns of children in different societies.  There are uniformities, even as there are differences : the Chinese allowed the child to see but not touch a thousand interesting and stimulating things;  the French emphasized the sound of the human voice, so French mothers talked constantly to their children.  American children are raised on the theory that physical activity and contact are the way to acquaint the child with the larger world (Cassidy, 1982).

 

 

            Study of children has not been an independent activity or entity in Indian scholastic history. The study of child as an entity in itself is a contribution from the Western science to Indian scholarship.  But, at the same time, child has always been adored, worshiped disciplined and held as a precursor of the future adult among the Tamils and other nationalities of India.  Proof for such approaches can be easily cited.  (See Balasubramanian, 1972 for a brief listing and characterization of qualities of child in some classical an medieval works of Tamil literature.)

 

            Every religion and society have its own views—codified and non codified—as regards the characteristic of children, their role as children, and the function of childhood in relation to adulthood, and even about  the characteristics of the language employed by them. The unity and diversity of views on children between religions can  be easily  seen by  contrasting the views about children held by Christianity and the Tamil  Saivite and Vaishnavite sects of Hinduism.  Jesus held children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of  such is the kingdom of god, Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive  the kingdom of god as a little child, he shall not enter therein  ( mark 10 even the  original sin to that stage (?), attaching thus the original  sin to the children’s growth  into their adulthood.  It is innocence and not divinity that marks childhood ( of ordinary children) in Christianity.  Jesus is born a divine child, and is worshipped even as a child by the ‘wise men from the east’.  The child was worshipped  not for his childhood, but for his potential  as adult god.  That divinity is attached to adulthood is revealed more clearly in holy bible in   Tamil in its choice of the PNG  (person-number-gender) markers. The Bible in Tamil refers to Jesus the child always in singular honorific or in neuter ; while the singular honorific is patently a honorific marker, use of the neuter to show respect/deference comes under the dynamic processes of downgrading as an act of elevation and of elevation as an act of downgrading.  (These processes are dealt with in Ihirumalai, 1983.)  Note also that the use of singular honorific or neuter singular to show respect and deference is not an exclusively adult reference, since the rich man’s or the master’s offspring, even in the oppspring’s young childhood, is referred to in Tamil by the people of socially and/or economically lower strata in singular honorific or with the neuter singular applying the process of downgrading as a process of elevation.  The PNG I Tamil has the twin function of denoting the adulthood of the person addressed and/or referred to as well as the revelation of the socio-economic status of the person addressed and/or referred to in relation to the speaker. A single process involving shift in use of a few PNG markers an persons (I, II and III) covers a wide range of interpersonal relations such as spousal relations, master-servant relations, elder-younger relations, adult-child relations and so on. Far as the concept  of Godhead in Christianity is concerned, the Tamil PNG system in secular use has been insightfully found fit for religious expression by translators.  Jesus is always superior and different.  The  Protestant Christian theology finds God as an adult and God’s childhood is something very quick and transitory and that the existence and relevance of childhood stage is always related to, and derives its authority from, the God head’s adulthood.  In secular terms, the child does not have his own existence except with reference to his latter day performance and competence.

 

            Not much is different, indeed, from this position, even so far as Tamil Hindu religions are concerned.  There are certain deities, generally of the elitist group, who are worshiped in their childhood stage.  Murugan, Vinaayakar and Kannan are these major deities.  There may be some folk deities (Thirumalai, 1983) who may also be worshipped in their childhood form.  We do not have much information on this account.  It appears that there is no female deity worshipped in her childhood form.  In any case, Siva is never worshipped as a child, within the belief system of Tamil Saivite tradition. The non-availability of a female child is perhaps related to the dominating function of fertility ascribed to women in Hinduism.  Women tare there to bear and rear children.  The absenc34 of a childhood stage and form for Siva is generally explained with the reason that Siva is the one who has neither the beginning nor an end.  He can take incarnations but these incarnations generally relate to his performance in his adulthood.  Even when certain deities are worshiped in their childhood stage and form, their worship is not based exclusively on their exploits and children, but are related to a wider canvas of exploits as children, but are related to a wider canvas of exploits and potential in their adulthood.  In essence, the child god derives his varaprasada (divine power) not in himself but from his own adult stage, in the reverse direction.  Perhaps one should interpret both the Christian and Hindu theistic values more positively and say that although modern science allows for an exclusives treatment and study in depth of child as an entity and an end in itself, the theistic positions would value and assess the childhood only in terms of their adulthood performance, and that, furthermore, these theistic positions, perhaps give us a lesson that, for a meaningful understanding of child, childhood should, indeed, be viewed as a dynamic continuum, with the goal of reaching the adulthood.

 

 

            Some societies have elevated stages of childhood for a special treatment in their literature, as pointed out by Margaret Mead.  This is done in two ways in Tamil—children’s literature meant for children themselves in which children, their fantasies and such related objects and events play a major role.  There is also a distinct form of literature, in poetic form, which is different form the literature, generally called children’s literature meant for children, and is done imagining a celebrated adult, god, or godly human as a child.  Tamil has a literary genre in poetic form, called pillaittamil in which a celebrated individual is imagined to be a child and this child’s activities are narrated in a poetic form commencing from the child’s third month to the twenty first month, dividing this period into 10 stages with two months for each stage.  The first seven stages are common to both female and male children.  The stages common are (i) Prayer to a specified god, beseeching him/her to protect the child, (ii) the Lullaby stage, (iii) the Crawling, (iv) the stage of being able to sit down with folded legs and clapping hands, (v) the Fondling-kissing stage, (vi) Allative-calling sate, and (vii) the stage in which the moon is pointed out to the  child as a wondrous object.  The three stages ascribed as  peculiar to male child are (viii) playing the drum by the child, (ix) Going out on the road and disturbing the games played by girls, and (x) Pulling/dragging/playing with the small toy chariot.  The three stages ascribed as peculiar to female child are (viii) and (ix) relating to games played only by girls and (x) swinging.  Some grammarians have assigned periods, second, third and fourth year respectively, to the last mentioned three items.  This genre generally covers the physical appearances and the stages of physical growth for a child.  The physical growth is, no doubt, seen from the division of the period into several stages and also in nomenclature assigned.  Note also that the stages identified are in relation to what the child and care giving adult do.  And, although the stages of childhood are made a subject matter of a specific genre of literature, the contents of these poetic works are more or less of a stereotype nature.  The contents are generally derived from contemporary belief systems as found in ordinary language.  This genre has not led to the development of child studies as an independent and comprehensive activity in Tamil literature. 

 

 

            To us it appears, the distinction between offspring and child is generally in Tamil and other Indian communities.  The concept of offspring contains, even in the adulthood of the offspring, always—‘once a child, always a child’ is, to some extent, the attitude of the elders, and, in particular, the parents.  This is borne out in the ordinary language expressions.  The offspring can be either addressed and referred to as son or daughter, or also simply a child.  The enmeshing of the concepts of offspring and child requires further linguistic and psycholinguistic investigation in Indian languages (Thirumalai, 1986) and offers some new dimensions to the study of socialization..

 

 

            There are two aspects to the study of children, to the study of how children get inducted into the society in which they are born and reared.  Mead suggest that ‘children in each society develop some kind of character which enables them to function within that society’.  Naturally, then, the acquisition, development and utilization of this character should be considered the focus of socialization process.  This character, however, is tow fold, rather many-faceted, according to Margaret Mead.  Mead emphasizes the likely uniformities between childhood among the various communities.  The uniformities come form the same biological needs of children all over the world and to the belief everywhere that children ‘represent something weak and helpless, in need of protection, supervision.  Training, models, skills, beliefs, “character”.’  There are recurrent biological similarities of growth, parent-child relationships, etc. ‘Problems of food supply, shelter, and protection from sun, rain and cold; of sexual jealousy and permanence of mating for the care of children; of social order, protection against enemies, disease, and catastrophe; of a relationship to the world around them and to the conceived universe which gives them spiritual tolerance, patterns their fantasies. Stylizes their aspirations, and releases their capacity to invent, create and change’ offer another set of uniformities.  This does not mean, a closer and change’ offer another se to uniformities.  This does not mean, a closer reading of Margaret Mead’s writings suggests, that Mead ignores the differences that arise and are attested in the particulars.  The details of differences must be identified in behaviour may give rapid clues to important differences in the whole pattern, it is important to realize that it is not any single item of child—rearing practice or of culturally patterned child behaviour’—‘which is significant in isolation.  It is the way in which all these thousands of items, most of which are shared with other cultures, are patterned or fitted together to make a whole’,  Margaret Mead, time and again, emphasizes the uniformities which are a closed system of reference, dependent on the species-specific characteristics of human beings, and differences,  an open system ‘in which we may expect to find entirely new patterns of behaviour, depending on different historical circumstances and utilizing hitherto unguesed potentialities of human nature.’  Mead also emphasizes that concentrating on selected themes, such as the oedipal, complex in all cultures will not be rewarding.  It is necessary that the themes should spring form the natural ground plan of processes found in a society, and not be imposed form without.

 

 

            Socialization is the process of acquisition of the great body of tradition of a particular society.  ‘Our capacity to accumulate and build upon the inventions and experience of previous generations’ is all what counts.  Mead lays greater emphasis not on the ability of humans to learn, but on the human ability to teach and store that others have developed and taught.  Thus,  there is a subtle shift on emphasis—it is not the child’s ability to learn that receives pointed attention, but the ability to teach and store what others have developed and taught him.  In other words, the processes of continuity are to be stressed in the study of socialization, rather that the specific contents of the process.  This shift in emphasis from dependent learning by children to the almost adult behaviour of man’s ability to teach and store what other have developed and taught him is necessitated by the currently witnessed wild scenes of generation gap all over the world.  This shift in emphasis looks as through it were a prescription form Margaret Mead, but is, in reality, based on a sound description of the process of change, as revealed in her typifications of societies based on how Time is seen and incorporated in individual societies.

 

 

            Margaret Mead makes a distinction between three kinds of culture—postifigurative, cofigurative, and prefigurative.  These three kinds of culture offer and demand different contingencies of learning both to children and adults.  In facts, beginning with an emphasis on child learning –teaching  in the postifigurative culture, one is forced to emphasize adult learning in the prefigurative culture, thus indicating the emergent need for a change of focus in the socialization process.

 

            In the postifigurative culture, ‘children learn primarily from their forbears’ (Mead, 1970), whereas  in the configurative culture, children and adults learn form their peers.  Adults learn also from their children in the prefigurative culture.  In the postifigurative culture, the change is slow, in fact, it is imperceptible.  ‘The  children’s future is shaped in such a way that what has come after childhood for their forbears is what they, too will experience after they  are grown’.  In the postifigurative cultures, there is a lack of questioning and a lack of consciousness and this lack helps the maintenance of a postifigurative culture.  Socialization process, then, in a postifigurative culture focuses mainly on transmission  of the past, and a training of children in what the forebears did.  While the postifigurative culture, thus, focuses on the past, the configurative culture,  focuses on the present.  In configurative cultures, whose occurrence in a pure form is rare, according to Mead ‘the prevailing model for members  of the society is the behaviour of the contemporaries there are few societies in which cofiguration has become the only form  of cultural  transmission and none is known in which this model alone has been preserved through generations’.  When interpreted for an understanding of socialization processes, we may, perhaps, take configuration as one of the many processes of socialization adopted in a society which does not play a continuous and dominant role; it is the elders who continue to ‘set the style and define the limits within which configuration is expressed in the behaviour of the young’.  The present is always transitory, then, in a socialization process.  We must seek the function of configuration, present socialization steps, in what the steps are meant to achieve in future.  The achievement intended may, generally, be the absorption of the past in the present and in three future.  Margaret Mead suggest that the bringinning of the configuration is to be found in the breaks one notices in the postifigurative system.  The break in the continuity of contact with the postifigurative system, for reasons such as annexation and subjugation through was and other more subtle means, conversion, immigration, etc.  A cofigurative society, in its pure form, is one in which no grandparents are present : ‘With the removal of the grandparents form the world in which the child is reared, the child’s experience of his future is shortened by a generation and his links to the past are weakened.  The essential mark of the postifigurative culture—the reversal in an individual’s relationship to his child or his relationship to his own parents—disappears’.  Thus, whereas the maintenance of reversals of relationship becomes the focus of socialization in a postigurative culture, the weakening and subsequent loss, if possible, of the very same reversal of relationship becomes the focus in the configurative socialization process.

 

            The prefiguration is one of future transferred to the present.  It is a type that is not easily recognized and approved, but Mead finds signs of its emergence in societies all over the world, wherein the youth is in turmoil and seeks persistently a break from the postifigurative and cofigurative contents of the adult world and insists upon a world of their own in which the future comes to play the role of  the present.  That is, the dependence of societies on postifigurative processes of learning in no more tolerated, no more accepted by the youth, and hence it is the turn of the adult who is to be socialized to adjust to the demands of the transfer of future to the present by the youth. L one part of the prefigurative is already here in existence in the sense that the revolt of the youth for a futuristic present, for a total independence from the past, is achieved and the youth have acquired freedom in several aspects of social structure and culture.  But the other part of the prefigurative culture, that is, the participation of the adult in the prefigurative culture through acceptance of and adjustment with the ways of the youth, attempts at bridging the generation gap, is not yet accomplished.  ‘In the past, men relied on the least elaborate part of the circular  system, the dependent learning by children, for continuity of transmission and for the embodiment of the new.  Now with our greater understanding of the process, we must cultivate the most flexible and complex part of the system—the behaviour of adults.  We must, in fact, teach ourselves how to alter adult behaviour so that we can give up postifigurative upbringing, with its tolerated cofigurative components, and discover prefigurative ways of teaching and learning that will keep the future open.  We must create new models for adults who can teach their children not what to learn, but how to lean and not what they should be committed to, but the value of commitment….If we are to build a prefigurative culture in which past is instrumental, rather coercive, we must change the location of the future….The Future is Now (Mead, 1970).   Thus, one may suggest that the function of socialization includes not only the transmission of the past, and conduct of the present, but also accommodating the future, even when the future is in direct contrast to or in direct conflict with the past and the present.  Margaret Mead looks for a futuristic socialization process.