Theories of Socialisation

What is socialisation?

Socialisation is a lifelong process that helps the individual to be socially accepted. In return, their behaviour helps society function smoothly. Put another way:

Types of socialisation

There are two major types of socialisation that an individual goes through; primary and secondary socialisation. Although you may have come across these terms before, it may be helpful to have a reminder.

Primary socialisation

Primary socialisation takes place from early childhood to adolescence. The individual is strongly influenced by their primary relationships (family, siblings, peer group, etc) in learning basic skills and values. An important part of primary socialisation is being taught what is 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour.

Secondary socialisation

The process of secondary socialisation takes place from adulthood and continues throughout life. The influencing factors belong outside one's family and extend to other peer groups (such as educational institutes, and the workplace).

Cognitive theories of socialisation

There are some key theories that can be studied to compare the effects of the process of socialisation.

The development of self

C.H. Cooley emphasised that an individual's sense of self or own identity arises through social interaction. The basic forms of interaction that occur in the primary and secondary groups in the process of socialisation serve as the foundation for the development of one's personal identity.

An individual, in the midst of an interaction, takes into account how others evaluate their behaviour. Based on their reaction, the individual establishes an understanding of themselves. The process is like looking in a mirror; one tries to imagine how they appear to others and imagines how others perceive them. Cooley termed this concept the looking-glass self.

Fig. 1 - Cooley believes our identity arises from social interaction.

The theory implies that the sense of 'self' is an outcome of socialisation, and individuals adjust their behaviour according to their judgement of how others think about them.

G.H. Mead outlined the process through which the social 'self' is developed. Mead's theory is based on the concept of 'I' and 'me'.

'I' allows the individual to express spontaneously and creatively. 'Me' is based on learned behaviours and attitudes and relates to the expectation of others in society. One learns to distinguish between 'I' and 'me'. This is the process through which the 'self' is developed.

This development of 'self' is divided into different stages - imitation, the play stage, and the game stage. Let's examine these below.

Imitation

At this initial stage, young children engage in imitating the actions of others around them even if they might not understand the significance of the action.

Progressing through the imitation stage, the child reaches:

The play stage

At this stage, the child enacts a specific role in the form of play.

Mead defines the group that shares a close emotional relationship with the child as significant others.

Gradually, the child progresses into:

The game stage

At this stage, the child engages in organised games. They gain an understanding of the rules of the game and notions of fairness in order to be successful in the activity. The child takes the role of generalised others and grasps an understanding of the expectation and judgements that others may have towards the role.

Mead used basketball as an example.

The transition from the play stage to the game stage plays a crucial role in the development of 'self'. The child goes through a process of internalising external opinions and emerges with a discrete identity.

One also gets a deeper understanding of 'me' (the part of 'self' that lets one take the role of others) and 'I' (that part that is biologically driven).

Fig. 2 - According to Mead, the development of 'self' occurs through three stages: imitation, the play stage and the game stage.

Socio-psychological perspectives, identity, and cognitive development

Let's look at the perspectives of Freud, Erikson and Piaget.

Freud's explanation for behaviour

According to Sigmund Freud, human behaviour is guided towards satisfaction by two major instincts: Eros (an instinct for life) and Thanatos (an instinct for death). The former commonly represents sexual urges, whereas the latter represents the urge to act aggressively.

Freud termed the tension between these instinctual forces as id. It is the part of the human personality that acts as the source of all basic impulses and drives, solely geared towards attaining immediate gratification.

However, immediate gratification is not always possible. As children grow, they learn to cope with feelings as consequences of unmet needs. This aspect represents the conscious part of one's personality, which is called the ego.

As a result of interaction, societal norms and values become part of the individual's psyche. Freud uses the term superego as an expression to define these ethical components that reinforce the conscious understanding of the ego.

Erik Erikson's eight-stage theory of development

Freud's student Erik Erikson believed individuals go through a normative crisis, which is a struggle between what is expected of them by society and what they actually accomplish. His theory focused on the biological, social, and individual dimensions that shape a person's identity, and how they ultimately make a person physiologically healthy.

In the 1950s, Erikson created the eight-stage theory of development which is outlined in the table below.

Piaget's theory of personality development

Jean Piaget’s theory of personality development emphasised the importance of cognition rather than emotional components. The following are the four stages of development according to Piaget.

1. Sensorimotor stage (birth-2 years)

In this stage, the infant learns about the world through basic sensations and movements and develops cognitive abilities that include imitation, recognition of self, and representational play. At about eight months, the infant grasps the knowledge of object permanence, i.e., knowing that objects exist even if they cannot be seen.

2. Pre-operational stage (2-7 years)

Children acquire the ability to represent the world using language and images. However, they do not develop logical reasoning at this stage. Their judgment remains subjective, based on intuitions, and largely egocentric.

3. Concrete operational stage (7-11 years)

Children at this stage develop the ability to think logically about real occurrences. They begin to understand shapes, the concept of conservation, how other people might think or express themselves, and the thoughts unique to themselves that others don't know about.

4. Formal operational stage (12+)

Adolescents can reason logically, think about abstract concepts, and test hypotheses rationally. This stage is identified with the emergence of scientific reasoning, as one can deduce logical explanations when faced with problems.

Moral development

In support of Piaget’s work on developmental stages, Lawrence Kohlberg proposes a three-level, six-stage theory on the concept of moral development. The table below represents this model.

However, Kolhberg’s model highlighted the stages of moral development in boys. That raises the question of whether girls go through similar stages.

Carol Gilligan stated that girls, unlike boys, take personal relationships into account during moral development. According to her, men and women go through fundamentally different patterns of interaction.

It is society's failure that it considers the male pattern as the norm, without acknowledging the difference in developmental trajectories between males and females. The theory implies that both men and women develop moral senses through the process of interaction. But societal standards create a difference in the development of their moral senses.

Fig. 3 - Kohlberg and Gilligan both studied moral development. However, Gilligan was interested in the differences in moral development in girls and boys.

Theoretical perspectives on socialisation

Let's look at some more theoretical perspectives on socialisation, including the functionalist and conflict perspectives.

Durkheim's functionalist theory of socialisation

Based on Émile Durkheim’s work, this perspective attempts to draw attention towards social institutions that help us learn the norms and values.

According to him, society shapes the individual. Shared values and common symbols are passed through generations that not only help to shape human consciousness but also maintain social stability. He also argued that society needs to create a sense of solidarity to survive over time.

Durkheim identified that traditional societies maintained mechanical solidarity through religious and family ties, which led to anomie, as such ties had less relevance in modern societies. He theorised that modern societies would eventually rely on institutions like education, work, and other organisations to gain a sense of organic solidarity.

Functionalist socialisation theory of education, religion, and work

Functionalists after Durkheim argue that educational institutions, religions, and workplaces are now crucial agents of secondary socialisation. For instance:

• Education: children are taught discipline and values like respect for authority, punctuality, and time management.

• Religion: religious faiths instil moral standards and ideals in young people that, when upheld, help to unite society.

• Workplace: young people become working adults who are responsible and aware of their social obligations. They contribute to social stability through employment and productivity.

Conflict theories of socialisation: Marxism

The conflict perspective, based on Karl Marx's conflict theory, believes that groups in society are in constant conflict over power and resources. Competition lies at the heart of social relationships, and groups in power use their resources and their influence over social institutions to exercise power over disadvantaged groups. Institutions such as schools, workplaces, and the family socialise individuals by teaching them the norms and beliefs that support the interests of the powerful.

Marxism, a perspective that argues that capitalist society is based on the conflict between social classes and the tyranny of the ruling class, asserts that both primary and secondary socialisation are vital for capitalism. Working-class children are socialised to accept the social order, and when they grow up, they assume their roles as labourers for rich capitalists.

Feminism and the socialisation theory of gender

Feminism is another conflict perspective which criticises the patriarchal nature of society. At the core of this theory lies the concept that gender inequalities are socially constructed and not determined biologically.

Feminists argue that gender roles and expectations assigned during primary socialisation by the family benefit men at the expense of women, creating gender inequality. Secondary socialisation further perpetuates these gender roles through institutions such as the media, education, and religion.

How do we evaluate the theories of socialisation?

The two main theoretical perspectives on socialisation, functionalism and conflict theories, can be evaluated as follows:

Evaluating the functionalist perspective on socialisation

• Functionalism points out how socialisation performs positive functions by establishing rules and order and creating social stability in society.

• However, it fails to mention how socialisation can be detrimental. Marxists and feminists would argue that it plays a vital role in spreading capitalist and patriarchal ideologies.

• Also, not all forms of socialisation are stabilising or create social solidarity, e.g. in the case of children born to parents with different values or who engage in criminal or deviant behaviour.

Evaluating the conflict perspectives on socialisation

• Marxism highlights how processes of socialisation maintain capitalism and the social class hierarchy and how these ideologies are ingrained from young ages and maintained throughout life.

• Similarly, feminism shows us how gender roles and expectations and issues of gender inequality are not 'natural' or due to inherent differences between genders.

• It can be argued, though, that the conflict perspectives do not pay enough attention to the stability that socialisation creates in society, and that some people are socialised differently (i.e. not in capitalist or patriarchal ways).