Political socialization is the process by which individuals develop a relationship to the political world and acquire the knowledge, beliefs, values, and behaviors conducive to citizenship. Through socialization, people gain a sense of belonging to a society and community and are inducted into the political culture of their nation. Socialization helps people assimilate to their political system by conveying the principles and actions that make them good citizens. In the United States, the sense of being an American, which encompasses belonging to a unique nation where people share a belief in democratic ideals, is passed on through the political socialization process.
Political socialization is responsible for the transmission of political culture across generations. Political culture is “a system of attitudes, values, and knowledge that is widely shared within a society” (Inglehart 1990, 18). Common understandings about the customs, traditions, folklore, and heroes associated with a given societal community, as well as the nature and operation of government, are passed on through the political socialization process.
Evolution Of The Field
The intellectual origins of political socialization research are rooted in studies of civic education. In the early 1900s, Graham Wallas made the connection between childhood education and citizenship, highlighting the psychological dimensions of political behavior. The work of Charles Merriam and his colleagues in the 1930s advanced the field and established a focus on childhood citizenship training as a means of maintaining stable democratic political systems. Formal civics instruction was considered a vital mechanism for the development of democratic citizens who would be loyal to the state and obedient to legitimate authorities and who would recognize their political obligations, such as serving in the military, especially in times of political stress.
Political socialization scholarship flourished during the behavioral period in political science where the emphasis was placed on objective investigations into political behavior as opposed to normative instructions for the making of good citizens. From the 1950s through the 1980s, large-scale studies were conducted, scores of publications were produced, and college courses on socialization were offered routinely. The term political socialization came into vogue in the 1950s with the publication of Herbert Hyman’s synthesis of the extant scholarship related to preadult political learning. Research in the behavioral tradition sought to explain how people acquired political norms, identities, and orientations, including attitudes toward the political system, trust in government institutions, and sense of political efficacy. Scholars were invested heavily in exploring voting as the primary commitment of citizenship. Much attention was devoted to studying the development of partisan preferences that often were passed on generationally from parent to child.
By the 1990s, the field of political socialization had entered a period of stagnation, as some of the core assumptions underpinning the enterprise were called into question. Critics argued that socialization research tacitly promoted indoctrination to a particular type of citizenship that was largely passive and acquiesced to state authority. The focus on childhood as the primary locus of political learning was challenged, especially as young people who had not reached voting age could not fully participate in politics and government. Further, studies concentrated on how political orientations were passed from adults to children through a limited number of agencies, especially the family, school, and peer group. Decades of empirical research indicated that political socialization via these agencies was more limited than expected. The methodological approaches employed, which largely consisted of survey research, also were questioned for being incapable of adequately exploring as complex a phenomenon as political socialization.
More recently, the field of political socialization has been revitalized by both returning to its roots in civic education and expanding the scope of inquiry. Scholars seeking explanations for the lack of political interest and engagement among young people, especially low levels of voter turnout, are reexamining the political learning process. Studies of civic education and political engagement have proliferated along with prescriptions for improving classroom education, service learning, and extracurricular interventions. In addition, socialization research has begun more expansive investigations into the role of a larger set of agencies, including the media, digital technologies, the military, and religious institutions. Also, scholars have been looking more carefully into the process of political socialization that undergirds the creation of specific political generations.
The Political Socialization Process
Fred Greenstein describes the socialization process as, “Political learning, formal and informal, deliberate and unplanned, at every stage of the life cycle, including not only explicit political learning, but also nominally nonpolitical learning of politically relevant social attitudes” (1965, 10). While some aspects of political socialization are structured, such as classroom civics classes, socialization is largely a haphazard process. There is no standard set of goals and practices for socializing agents, such as parents, teachers, friends, and mass media, to follow, except perhaps for a vague textbook notion of the ideal citizen who keeps informed about politics and votes regularly. Although people can play an active role in their own political development, political socialization scholarship largely assumes a one-way process from agent to subject. Further, the context within which individual experiences take place is consequential for political socialization and differs based on family and social situation, school environment, religious orientations, military service, and other situational factors. Thus, the process of political socialization can be represented by the following model: who (subjects) learns what (political orientations) from whom (agents) under what circumstances with what effects (12).
Identifying the point in the life course that is most consequential for political socialization has been a source of ongoing debate. The political socialization of children and adolescents has been the subject of the majority of research. The early theoretical justification for the focus on youth was based on persistence theories, in particular the primacy and structuring principles, which assume that childhood learning is robust and carries over to significantly shape adult political orientations. Scholars maintained that early learning provides a foundation for future political thinking and action. Studies indicate that the development of a political identity begins in the preschool years as children realize that they belong to a particular town and eventually that they are part of a larger nation. Young children tend to personalize their relationship with government and to idealize political figures, such as police officers and the president, who is seen as a “benevolent leader.” The level of idealization differs from one era to the next; children today have a somewhat less positive view of political actors than in the past due in part to parents and the mass media conveying more negative messages about politicians. As children and adolescents gain greater exposure to and experience with public officials, they grow more skeptical about them. Young people gradually develop attitudes toward the political system as a whole. Patriotic values are reinforced through rituals, such as singing the “Star Spangled Banner” as tribute to the nation’s military at sporting events. As children mature, they become increasingly sophisticated about their place in the political world and their potential for involvement. They learn to relate abstract concepts, such as the requirements of democracy and majority rule, to the right to vote when they come of age.
The primacy and structuring principles are difficult to validate empirically, and their basic premises have been challenged. Alternative models posit that recent political learning is most relevant because it is fresh in the subjects’ mind and more readily applicable to current situations. Researchers contend that politics become meaningful when people approach adulthood and can participate fully, especially by voting in elections. They contend that people are most politically impressionable during the period from high school through the mid-twenties because their political orientations are not yet completely formed. Older adolescents and young adults have greater opportunities to become actively involved by joining organizations advocating for a cause and volunteering in the community, and they may perceive that they have a greater personal stake in the political system.
Lifelong learning models examine stages of political development throughout the life course and present a more comprehensive approach to understanding socialization. A landmark study initiated by Theodore Newcomb tracked women who attended Bennington College in the 1930s over the course of fifty years. Newcomb discovered that the political attitudes of the Bennington women shifted based on their associations with particular reference groups. Many of the young women had grown up in well-off, conservative families, and became more liberal at the progressive college. A good number of them maintained these liberal beliefs throughout their lives, while others returned to their conservative roots after school.
Scholars studying adults note that milestone events in people’s lives, such as attending college, taking a job, getting married, starting a family, and retiring from the workforce, can influence political socialization, especially when personal priorities shift and reference groups change. This type of transition is illustrated by 1960s student protestors who developed a strong distrust of government officials. The political orientations of some of the most strident activists changed after they entered the job market and started families. Some became public officials, lawyers, and business executives—the very types of people they had opposed. People who have been politically inactive their entire lives can become motivated to participate as senior citizens when they find themselves in need of health care and other benefits and have more time for involvement.
Agents Of Political Socialization
Political orientations are learned through interactions with agents of socialization, such as the family, school, peer group, and mass media. Agents convey cognitive, affective, and behavioral political orientations to subjects. The cognitive dimension of political learning represents people’s knowledge and understanding of the political world and how it works. Once people have foundational knowledge of government and politics, they are more likely to become active. The affective dimension reflects people’s feelings about political symbols, objects, myths, and personalities and is related to attitudes like patriotism and trust in government. Finally, the behavioral dimension concerns people learning to take part actively in politics or by abstaining from involvement.
During the heyday of political socialization scholarship in the 1950s through the 1980s, studies focused heavily on the socializing effects of the family, school, and peer group that were considered primary agencies. Scholars assumed that political orientations were conveyed directly through personal, face-to-face interactions with these agencies that held privileged positions in the lives of children. Parents, teachers, and friends could serve as role models for children based on respect, admiration, and even fear. The strong emotional relationships that exist between family members, for example, may compel children to adopt behaviors and attitudes that will please their parents, or conversely, to rebel against them. Nonpolitical norms and values that agents have transmitted to subjects can become politically relevant. Power relationships within the family and school that promote respect for authority, hierarchy, and compliance with rules can translate into support for political leaders and obedience to laws. It is important to note that no single agent is responsible for an individual’s entire political learning experience. However, few studies have given more than cursory treatment to exploring the interaction between and joint influence of various agents in the political socialization process.
Early research identified the family as “[f]oremost among the agencies of socialization into politics” (Hyman 1959, 69) due to its unique position in fulfilling children’s basic needs and the strong psychological and physical bonds that exist within the familial hierarchy. The family is perhaps most successful in passing on basic political identities, especially affiliation with the Republican or Democratic parties and ideological leanings. However, this trend is less robust today than it was a quarter-century ago, as more people are politically ambiguous, identifying themselves as partisan independents and politically moderate. There are significant limitations on the family as a socializing agent, especially as politics takes a backseat to issues related to daily life.
Some scholars argue that the school is the most powerful agent of socialization because its designated purpose is to promote learning. Political learning takes place through formal classroom instruction in civics and history classes, ceremonies and rituals such as the flag salute, and extracurricular activities like student government and sports, which can promote cooperation and tolerance for those who are different from oneself. The most basic socializing task of schools is in the area of cognition, especially conveying knowledge about constitutional principles and their implications for citizens’ engagement in politics. Students who master these fundamentals feel competent to participate politically. They are more likely to develop the habit of following politics in the media and to become active in community affairs. Studies consistently reveal that the effectiveness of schools in developing civic orientations is heavily dependent on teacher skills and curriculum innovations.
Students exposed to novel approaches to civic learning, such as classroom lesson plans that are linked directly to service learning programs, are more inclined to engage in political affairs during adulthood. While schools have great potential as agents of political socialization, they are not always successful in teaching even basic facts about government to students. Further, the average amount of classroom time spent on civics-related topics is less than forty-five minutes per week.
The influence of the peer group on the preadult political socialization process has received far less attention by scholars than the family or school. Still, evidence suggests that peers, a group of people who are linked by similar age, common interests, and equal social position, can be important to political development. Young people desire approval and are likely to adopt the attitudes, viewpoints, and behavior patterns of groups to which they belong. Unlike the family and school, which are structured hierarchically with adults exercising authority, the peer group provides a forum for youth to interact with people who are at similar levels of maturity. Peers provide role models for people who are trying to fit in or become popular in a social setting. Peer group influence begins when children reach school age and spend less time at home. Peers are least effective in the cognitive realm of socialization, as discussion of politics and current affairs is often limited and sporadic. Pressures to conform to peer group norms can have a more powerful impact on young people’s affective and behavioral political development than parents or teachers, especially if group members are engaged in activities directly related to politics, such as student government or working on a candidate’s campaign. Young people may change their political viewpoints to conform to those held by the most vocal members of their peer group rather than face being ostracized. Still, individuals often gravitate toward groups holding beliefs and values similar to their own to minimize conflict and reinforce their personal views.
Other agents, especially mass media, were considered to be of secondary importance to the political socialization process in that they were thought to merely reinforce political learning that had been initiated through primary agents. As the media has become more pervasive and interactive, however, its potential to promote political learning directly has increased. Most people’s regular experiences with the political world occur vicariously through the mass media. The media is the primary source of information about government, politics, and current affairs. It establishes linkages among leaders, institutions, and citizens; displays models of civic behavior; and organizes political community. Studies highlight the ubiquity of media use, finding that children and adolescents watch more than six hours of television per day and spend more than thirty-eight hours per week consuming a wide range of media outside of school. They rely more on the media for political guidance than on family members, teachers, or peers. Young people, in particular, increasingly use the Internet to learn about and participate in politics, such as engaging with social media during the 2008 presidential election. Popular media, such as entertainment programs, music, and literature, also can have a significant influence on political socialization.
Group Differences In Political Socialization
People for m group identifications based on their position within networks of people sharing similar backgrounds, such as social and economic status, educational level, and racial and ethnic characteristics. Political learning and socialization experiences can differ vastly based on subgroups differences. Group members frequently share political viewpoints, as their political demands are similar.
Certain groups are socialized to a more active role in politics, while others are marginalized. Political learning is more likely to be a priority for people from privileged backgrounds than for those who struggle economically. Historically, men have occupied a more central position in the American political culture than women, who were not granted the right to vote in the Constitution by the founding fathers. While strides have been made to achieve political equality between the sexes, differences in sex-role socialization still exist. Girls more often are socialized to play supporting political roles, such as volunteering in political campaigns, rather than leading roles, such as holding higher level elected office. The result is that fewer women than men seek careers in public office beyond the local level.
Generations And Socialization
The political socialization of distinct generations of citizens can be shaped by particular political experiences. A political generation is a group of individuals similar in age who share a general set of political learning experiences. Typically, a generation emerges when people in their impressionable years—from late adolescence to early adulthood—are exposed to a significant political or societal upheaval, such as severe economic crisis or a major war, that results in their developing common cultural bonds. While everyone in a political system is influenced by cataclysmic events in some way, younger people, whose political orientations are not well defined, are affected the most as they begin to think seriously about politics.
In the United States, the generation born between 1900 and 1924 was heavily influenced by World War I (1914–1918) and the Great Depression. This generation tended to trust government to solve programs as they perceived that the New Deal programs helped the country recover from the depression. The generation born between 1922 and 1945 experienced World War II (1939–1945) and the 1950s during their impressionable years. They believed that government could get things done, but were less trusting of leaders. The Vietnam War (1959–1975) and the civil rights and women’s movement left lasting impressions on the baby boomer generation born between 1946 and 1960. The largest of the generations, this cohort protested against the government establishment in its youth and still distrusts government. Generation Xers, born between 1965 and 1980, came of age during a period without a major war or economic hardship. This generation developed a reputation for being unknowledgeable about and disinterested in politics. The political development of the Millennial Generation, born between 1981 and 2000, has been influenced by changes in security and surveillance following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the revolutionary developments in technology and communication.
Bibliography:
- Alwin, Duane F., Ronald L. Cohen, and Theodore M. Newcomb. Political Attitudes over the Life Span. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
- Calavita, Marco. Apprehending Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.
- Campbell, David E. Why We Vote. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006.
- Conover, Pamela Johnston. “Political Socialization:Where’s the Politics?” In Political Science: Looking to the Future:Volume III, Political Behavior, edited by William Crotty, 125–152. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1991.
- Dawson, Richard E., and Kenneth Prewitt. Political Socialization. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969.
- Delli Carpini, Michael X. Stability and Change in American Politics. New York: New York University Press, 1986.
- Easton, David, and Jack Dennis. Children in the Political System. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
- Greenstein, Fred I. Children and Politics. New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press, 1965.
- Hahn, Carole L. Becoming Political. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
- Hess, Robert D., and Judith V.Torney. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
- Hyman, Herbert H. Political Socialization. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959.
- Inglehart, Ronald. Culture Shift. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990.
- Jackson, David J. Entertainment and Politics. New York: Peter Lang, 2002.
- Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. Generations and Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.
- Merriam, Charles E. The Making of Citizens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931.
- Sigel, Roberta S., ed. Political Learning in Adulthood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
- Wallas, Graham. Human Nature in Politics. New York: Knopf, 1908.
- Youniss, James, and Miranda Yates. Community Service and Social Responsibility in Youth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
This example Political Socialization Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.
See also:
- How to Write a Political Science Essay
- Political Science Essay Topics
- Political Science Essay Examples
ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER
Always on-time
Plagiarism-Free
100% Confidentiality
Special offer!
