{"id":190,"date":"2023-08-10T16:17:45","date_gmt":"2023-08-10T20:17:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/introductiontosociology3\/chapter\/5-2-why-socialization-matters\/"},"modified":"2024-01-15T13:34:06","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T18:34:06","slug":"5-2-why-socialization-matters","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/introductiontosociology3\/chapter\/5-2-why-socialization-matters\/","title":{"raw":"3.2. Why Socialization Matters","rendered":"3.2. Why Socialization Matters"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nSocialization is critical both to individuals and to the societies in which they live. It illustrates how completely intertwined human beings and their social worlds are. First, it is through teaching culture to new members that a society perpetuates itself. If new generations of a society do not learn its way of life, it ceases to exist. Whatever is distinctive about a culture must be transmitted to those who join it, in order for a society to survive. For Canadian culture to continue, for example, children in Canada must learn about cultural values related to democracy: They have to learn the norms of voting, as well as how to use material objects such as a ballot. Of course, some would argue that it is just as important in Canadian culture for the younger generation to learn the etiquette of eating in a restaurant or the rituals of tailgate parties after baseball games. In fact, there are many ideas and objects that Canadians teach children in hopes of keeping the society\u2019s way of life going through another generation.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_187\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"400\"]\"Two<\/a> Figure 5.12<\/strong> Socialization teaches us our society\u2019s expectations for dining out. The manners and customs of different cultures (When can you use your hands to eat? How should you compliment the cook? Who is the \u201chead\u201d of the table?) are learned through socialization. (Photo courtesy of Niyam Bhushan\/Flickr.) CC BY 2.0<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSocialization is just as essential to individuals. Social interaction provides the means by which people gradually become able to see themselves through the eyes of others, learning who they are and how they fit into the world around them. In addition, to function successfully in society, people must learn the basics of their culture, everything from how to dress themselves to what is suitable attire for a specific occasion; from when to sleep to what to sleep on; and from what is considered appropriate to eat for dinner to how to use the stove to prepare it. Most importantly, people have to learn language \u2014 whether it is the dominant language or a minority language, whether it is verbal or through signs \u2014 in order to communicate and to think. As discussed earlier with the case of Danielle, without socialization, an individual would literally have no self. An individual would be unable to function socially.\r\n

Nature versus Nurture<\/h1>\r\nSome experts assert that who<\/em> people are is the result of nurture\u00a0<\/b>\u2014 the relationships and caring that surround them. Others argue that who people are is based on genetics. According to this belief, a person's temperaments, interests, and talents are set before birth. From this perspective, then, who people are depends on nature<\/b>.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_187\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"250\"]\"Twins\" Figure 5.13<\/strong> Identical twins may look alike, but their differences can give us clues to the effects of socialization. (Image by John Everett Millais (1829-1896), Fitzwilliam Museum PD.36-2005\/ Wikimedia Commons.) Public Domain<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nOne way that researchers attempt to prove the impact of nature is by studying twins. Some studies followed identical twins who were raised separately. The pairs shared the same genetics, but, in some cases, were socialized in different ways. Instances of this type of situation are rare, but studying the degree to which identical twins raised apart are the same or\u00a0different can give researchers insight into how our temperaments, preferences, and abilities are shaped by our genetic makeup versus our social environment.For example, in 1968, twin girls born to a mentally ill mother were put up for adoption. However, they were also separated from each other and raised in different households. The parents, and certainly the babies, did not realize they were one of five pairs of twins who were made subjects of a scientific study (Flam, 2007).\r\n\r\nIn 2003, the two women, by then age 35, were reunited. Elyse Schein and Paula Bernstein sat together in awe, feeling like they were looking into a mirror. Not only did they look alike, but they behaved alike, using the same hand gestures and facial expressions (Spratling, 2007). Studies like this\u00a0point to the genetic roots of our temperament and behaviour.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, studies of identical twins have difficulty accounting for divergences in the development of inherited diseases. In the case of schizophrenia, epidemiological studies show that there is a strong biological component to the disease. The closer our familial connection to someone with the condition, the more likely we will develop it. However, even if our identical twin develops schizophrenia we are less than 50 percent likely to develop it ourselves. Why is it not 100 percent likely? What occurs to produce the divergence between genetically identical twins (Carey, 2012)?\r\n\r\nOne explanation combines sociology and genetics. The growing field of epigenetics reveals that the expression of our genetic inheritance depends much more than we have thought on environmental conditions (Segal et al., 2017). Cellular variations in gene expression between identical twins can lead to large differences in health, personality, and even physical appearance. For example, the impact of astronaut Scott Kelly's stay on the International Space Station meant that 7 per cent of his genes changed their expression, even months after his return to earth, although his genes themselves remained the same as his identical twin Mark (also an astronaut). With epigenetics, gene activity reacts in response to environmental stimuli at a cellular level. In other words, environment and lifestyle influence how genes are expressed.\r\n\r\nIn the end, however, as we noted in Ch.3, sociologists generally consider this a false debate.\u00a0 It is possible to acknowledge that humans are biological creatures with genetic predispositions and biological needs and<\/em> to recognize that human behaviour is much, much more than this.\u00a0 The huge variations in human cultures that the anthropological record reveals that our socio-cultural environment has a significant impact.\u00a0 Whatever the similarities based in shared genetics, the lives of\u00a0 Elyse and Paula were each profoundly marked by their social environments.\u00a0 The life chances of these women and their very sense of self can only be fully understood by examining their social class, the gender expectations of their society and their interaction with parents, peers, co-workers ... and each other.\u00a0Whatever the role of genes or biology in our lives, genes are never expressed in a vacuum. Environmental influence always matters.\r\n
\r\n

Making Connections: Case Study<\/h2>\r\n

The Life of Chris Langan, the Smartest Man You\u2019ve Never Heard Of<\/h3>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_188\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"300\"]\"Christopher Figure 5.14<\/strong> Christopher Michael Langan (left), stands with a relative during the 1950's, in San Francisco, CA. (Photo courtesy of Darien Long\/ Wikimedia Commons.) CC BY 2.0<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nBouncer. Firefighter. Factory worker. Cowboy. Chris Langan (b. 1952) has spent the majority of his adult life just getting by with jobs like these. He has no college degree, few resources, and a past filled with much disappointment. Chris Langan also has an IQ of over 195, nearly 100 points higher than the average person (Brabham, 2001). So why didn\u2019t Chris become a neurosurgeon, professor, or aeronautical engineer? According to Macolm Gladwell in his book Outliers: The Story of Success\u00a0<\/em>(2008), Chris didn\u2019t possess the set of social skills necessary to succeed on such a high level \u2014 skills that aren\u2019t innate, but learned.\r\n\r\nGladwell (2008) looked to a recent study conducted by sociologist Annette Lareau in which she closely shadowed 12 families from various economic backgrounds and examined their parenting techniques. Parents from lower-income families followed a strategy of \u201caccomplishment of natural growth,\u201d which is to say they let their children develop on their own with a large amount of independence; parents from higher-income families, however, \u201cactively fostered and accessed a child\u2019s talents, opinions, and skills\u201d (Gladwell, 2008). These parents were more likely to engage in analytical conversation, encourage active questioning of the establishment, and foster development of negotiation skills. The parents were also able to introduce their children to a wider range of activities, from sports to music to accelerated academic programs. When one middle class child was denied entry to a gifted and talented program, the mother petitioned the school and arranged additional testing until her daughter was admitted. Lower-income parents, however, were more likely to unquestioningly obey authorities such as school boards. Their children were not being socialized to comfortably confront the system and speak up.\r\n\r\nWhat does this have to do with Chris Langan, deemed by some as the smartest man in the world (Brabham, 2001)? Chris was born in severe poverty, and he was moved across the country with an abusive and alcoholic stepfather. Chris\u2019s genius went greatly unnoticed. After accepting a full scholarship to Reed College, his funding was revoked after his mother failed to fill out necessary paperwork. Unable to successfully make his case to the administration, Chris, who had received straight A\u2019s the previous semester, was given F\u2019s on his transcript and forced to drop out. After enrolling in Montana State University, an administrator\u2019s refusal to rearrange his class schedule left him unable to find the means necessary to travel the 16 miles to attend classes. What Chris has in brilliance, he lacks\u00a0in practical intelligence, or what psychologist Robert Sternberg defines as \u201cknowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it, and knowing how to say it for maximum effect\u201d (Sternberg et al., 2000). Such knowledge was never part of his socialization.\r\n\r\nChris gave up on school and began working an array of blue-collar jobs, pursuing his intellectual interests on the side. Though he\u2019s recently garnered attention from work on his \u201cCognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe,\u201d he remains weary and resistant of the educational system.\r\n\r\nAs Gladwell (2008) concluded, \u201cHe\u2019d had to make his way alone, and no one \u2014 not rock stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires, and not even geniuses \u2014ever makes it alone.\u201d\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Individual and Society<\/h1>\r\nHow do sociologists explain both the conformity of behaviour in society and the existence of individual uniqueness? The concept of socialization raises a classic problem of sociological analysis: the problem of agency. How is it possible for there to be individual differences, individual choice, or individuality at all if human development is about assuming socially defined roles?\u00a0Since Western society places such value on individuality, in being oneself or in resisting peer pressure and other pressures to conform, the question of where society ends and where the individual begins often is foremost in the minds of students of sociology. Numerous debates in the discipline focus on this question.\r\n\r\nHowever, from the point of view emphasized in this chapter, it is a false question. As noted previously, for Mead the individual \u201cagent\u201d already is a \u201csocial structure.\u201d No separation exists between the individual and society; the individual is thoroughly social from the inside out and vice versa.\u00a0 This in no way entails individuals in any society are homogenous.\u00a0 Sociologists argue that individuals vary because the social environments to which they adapt vary. No two individuals have experienced exactly the same set of interactions in the same social and environmental context.\u00a0 Children gradually develop stable and consistent orientations to world, each to some degree unique because each is formed from the vantage point unique to the place in society the child occupies. Individual variation and individual agency are possible because society itself varies in each social situation. Indeed, the configuration of society itself differs according to each individual\u2019s contribution to each social situation.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_189\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"500\"]\"Rows Figure 5.15<\/strong> If socialization implies conformity, how do sociologists explain individual uniqueness? (Image courtesy of PxHere.) CC0 1.0<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\n
\r\n

Structural Functionalism, Critical Sociology, and Symbolic Interactionism<\/h1>\r\nSociologists all recognize the importance of socialization for healthy individual and societal development. But how do scholars working in the theoretical paradigms of structural functionalism, critical sociology, and symbolic interactionism approach this topic?\r\n\r\nStructural functionalists would say that socialization is an essential function in society, both because it trains members to operate successfully within it and because it perpetuates culture by transmitting it to new generations. Individuals learn and assume different social roles as they age because different responsibilities and tasks are expected of them. These roles come with relatively fixed norms and social expectations attached, which allow for predictable interactions between people. Nevertheless, how the individual lives and balances their roles is subject to variation.\r\n\r\nA critical sociologist might argue that the norms and behaviours that socialization teaches us are those that benefit the dominant groups in society.\u00a0 In capitalist societies socialization instills values of individuality, hard work, 'survival of the fittest' and self-reliance rather than cooperation and social responsibility.\u00a0 We learn to blame the poor for their situation and to celebrate the success of billionaires.\u00a0 Socialization reproduces inequality from generation to generation by conveying different expectations and norms to those with different social characteristics. For example, individuals are socialized with different expectations about their place in society according to their gender, social class, and race. As in the life of Chris Langan, this creates different and unequal opportunities.\u00a0 Feminist critical sociologists would note that patriarchal attitudes and behaviours, including ideas about childrearing and care work are learned and relearned.\u00a0 This perspective would also argue that it is through socialization that we learn racist, homophobic and other ideas that harm vulnerable and unequal populations. Most importantly, it is through socialization that we 'learn' to accept such inequalities as 'normal'.\u00a0 This perspective would also note that it is through interacting with others that we can be 'resocialized' to question existing social arrangements a process that happens among friends, when participating in social movements ... and in sociology classes.\r\n\r\nA symbolic interactionist studying socialization is concerned with face-to-face exchanges and symbolic communication. For example, dressing baby boys in blue and baby girls in pink is one small way that messages are conveyed about differences in gender roles. For the symbolic interactionist, though, how these messages are formulated and how they are interpreted are always situational, always renewed, and defined by the specific situations in which the communication occurs.\u00a0 Socialization is not a book of social rules that we are given but an ongoing process of interaction with others in specific situations.\r\n

Media Attributions<\/h1>\r\n