Natural socialization occurs when infants and youngsters explore, play and discover the social world around them. Planned socialization occurs when other people take actions designed to teach or train others -- from infancy on. Natural socialization is easily seen when looking at the young of almost any mammalian species (and some birds). Planned socialization is mostly a human phenomenon; and all through history, people have been making plans for teaching or training others. Both natural and planned socialization can have good and bad features: It is wise to learn the best features of both natural and planned socialization and weave them into our lives.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What is the socialization process?
Socialization is the process by which children and adults learn from others. We begin learning from others during the early days of life; and most people continue their social learning all through life (unless some mental or physical disability slows or stops the learning process). Sometimes the learning is fun, as when we learn a new sport, art or musical technique from a friend we like. At other times, social learning is painful, as when we learn not to drive too fast by receiving a large fine for speeding.
Positive socialization is the type of social learning that is based on pleasurable and exciting experiences. We tend to like the people who fill our social learning processes with positive motivation, loving care, and rewarding opportunities. Negative socialization occurs when others use punishment, harsh criticisms or anger to try to "teach us a lesson;" and often we come to dislike both negative socialization and the people who impose it on us.
There are all types of mixes of positive and negative socialization; and the more positive social learning experiences we have, the happier we tend to be -- especially if we learn useful information that helps us cope well with the challenges of life. A high ratio of negative to positive socialization can make a person unhappy, defeated or pessimistic about life. One of the goals of Soc 142 is to show people how to increase the ratio of positive to negative in the socialization they receive from others -- and that they give to others. [Some people will defend negative socialization, since painful training can prepare people to be ready to fight and die in battle, put themselves at great risk in order to save others, endure torture and hardship. This is true; but many people receive far more negative socialization than they need, and hopefully fewer and fewer people will need to be trained for battle, torture and hardship.]
Soc 142 shows that positive socialization, coupled with valuable information about life and the skills needed to live well, can be a powerful tool for promoting human development. We all have an enormous human potential, and we all could develop a large portion of it if we had the encouragement that comes from positive socialization and the wisdom that comes from valuable information about living. Information about both natural and planned socialization can be especially useful.
Our prior socialization helps explain a gigantic chunk of who we are at present -- what we think and feel, where we plan to go in life. But we are not limited by the things given to us by our prior social learning experiences; we can take all our remaining days and steer our future social learning in directions that we value. The more that we know about the socialization process, the more effective we can be in directing our future learning in the ways that will help us most.
Because we were not able to select our parents, we were not able to control much of the first 10 or 20 years of our socialization. However, most people learn to influence their own socialization as they gain experience in life. It takes special skills to steer and direct our own socialization, and many of us pick up some of those skills naturally as we go through life. Having a course on socialization can help us understand which skills are most effective in guiding our socialization toward the goals we most value.
It is important to know that we all come into life with a variety of psychology systems that foster self-actualization and favor the development of our human potential. These are the biosocial mechanisms that underlie natural socialization. We can see and study natural socialization by examining the socialization of primates and other mammals. Once we under the natural biosocial processes, we can try to build strategies of self-actualization that are compatible with the natural biosocial mechanisms we are born with to make self-development as easy and rewarding as possible.
Soc 142 shows how the natural self-actualization systems operate in everyday life so we can create as many good social experiences as possible. The study of behavior principles in everyday life is crucial to this, and that is why John and Janice Baldwin wrote a book with that name. If we understand the ways to create positive socialization experiences, we can take our human potential and develop the happy and creative sides of that potential. If we had too much negative socialization in the past and have learned to be too sad or inhibited, knowledge about positive socialization can help minimize some of the pain and allow us to build toward a more positive and creative future.
The goal of Soc 142 is to help you learn how to be most effective in directing your own socialization and self-actualization processes toward the goals that you value most. Special attention will be paid to exploration, play, creativity, wisdom, and positive reinforcement -- five centrally important aspects of positive socialization.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Socialization and Value-Orientation
The function of childbearing remains incomplete without its more crucial part of child rearing and upbringing – their education, orientation, character-building and gradual initiation into religion and culture. It is because of this aspect that family care becomes a full-time job. No other institution or even a number of institutions can take care of this function.
“ . . . and be mindful of your duty to God in whose Name you appeal to one another and to (the ties of) The womb”. [Q 4:1]
To be conscious of duty to the ties of the womb as an all-embracing demand includes obligations towards the wife, the children and other relations. “And take care of what is for you” in Surah al-Baqarah also refers to the same function. [Q 2:223] One is enjoined to take care of one’s self and the members of the family.
“O you who believe”, says the Qur’an, “strive to protect yourselves and your wives and children from the Fire”. [Q 44:6] This objective is set forth in the form of prayer in a number of places:
“Our Lord! Grant us in our spouses and our offspring the comfort of our eyes and make us a model for the heedful”. [Q 25:74]
“My Lord! Make me keep up prayer and (also) let my offspring (do so). Our Lord, accept my appeal! Our Lord, forgive me and my parents . . .” [Q 14:40-41]
The family’s role as a basic organ of socialization is referred to by the Prophet in a number of ahadith (traditional sayings) where he has said that every child is born in the nature of Islam and it is his parents who transform him into a Christian, Jew or Magian.
The Prophet has said:
“Of all that a father can give to his children, the best is their good education and training”.
“And whosoever has cared for his three daughters or three sisters and given them a good education and training, treating them with kindness till God makes them stand on their own feet, by God’s grace he has earned for himself a place in paradise”.
Although one’s first responsibility is to one’s children and younger brothers and sisters, this institution of family covers a number of relations, near and distant, according to the circumstances. Care of one’s parents and of the weaker or poorer members of the family has been enjoined again and again by the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Social and Economic Security
The institution of the family is an important part of the Islamic system of socio-economic security. The rights do not relate merely to moral, cultural and ideological aspects; they include the economic and social rights of the family members. The Prophet has said: “When God endows you with prosperity, spend first on yourself and your family”. Maintenance of the family is a legal duty of the husband, even if the wife is rich. Spending on the “relations of the womb” has been specifically enjoined. Poor relatives have a prior claim upon one’s Zakat and other social contributions. The law of inheritance also reveals the nature of economic obligations within the family structure. This responsibility extends to a number of relations. One’s parents and grandparents and paternal and maternal relations have a claim upon one’s wealth and resources. Someone once said to the Prophet, “I have property and my father is in need of it”. The Prophet (PBUH) replied, “You and your property belong to your father. Your children are among the finest things you acquire. Eat of what your children acquire”.
There are ahadith emphasizing the rights of aunts, uncles and other relatives. Orphans in the family are to be absorbed and treated like one’s children. Other members are to be looked after and treated with honour, kindness and respect, and in the same way these responsibilities extend to one’s grand-children and great-grandchildren. Even the needy relatives of any of the spouses have claims upon the well to-do members. One of the functions of marriage and the family is to extend the ties with relatives and to weld them all into a system of socio-economic cohesion and mutual support. This is not merely a system of economic security, although economic inter-dependence and support are its important elements. Islam established a system of psycho-social security.
The members of the family remain integrated within it; the aged do not go to old people’s homes. Orphans are not thrown into orphanages. The poor and unemployed are not made to survive on public assistance. Instead, all of these problems are, in the first instance, solved within the framework of the family in a way that is more humane and is in keeping with the honour and needs of everyone. It is not economic deprivation alone that is catered for; emotional needs are also taken care of.
The social role of the family becomes very clear in the context of the Qur’anic injunction about polygamy. Limited polygamy is permitted in Islam, as Islam is a practical religion and is meant for the guidance of human beings made of flesh and blood. There may be situations wherein forced monogamy may lead to moral or social incongruities with disastrous consequences. The sexual urge is not uniform in all human beings, nor is their capacity to control themselves. For a number of reasons, a man may be exposed to a situation where the choice before him could be between a second marriage or a drift towards sin. In such situations, polygamy is permitted.
Similarly there may be more pronounced family or social situations. To take only one social instance, there are periods, particularly after wars, when the number of women in a society exceeds that of men. In such a situation, either some women must remain perpetual spinsters and/or live in sin or they may be absorbed into the family system through polygamy. Islam prefers their absorption into the family. This points to the social function of marriage as a corrective of certain social imbalances.
Similarly, there may be orphans in the family or society and the family alone can provide them with the love, care and dignity they need. The verse in the Qur’an which gives permission for polygamy was revealed after the war of Uhud wherein about ten per cent of the Muslim army was killed, creating a problem of widows and orphans in the society. Although the permission is general, the historical context provides important clues to the function of the institution. The Qur’an says:
“And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans, many such women as may seem good to you, two or three or four (at a time). If you fear that you will not act justly, then (marry) one woman (only) or someone your right hand controls. That is more likely to keep you from injustice”. [Q 4:3]
Marriage has also been encouraged to extend protection for the week within the family. The Prophet [PBUH] commended the behavior of a bright young man who married an older widow because he had younger sisters, and as their mother had died, he wanted to marry a woman who could take care of them and bring them up properly.
The family, in the Islamic scheme of life, provides for economic security as it provides for moral, social and emotional security and also leads to integration and cohesion among the relations. Thus, it establishes a very wide and much more humane system of socio-economic security.
Widening the Family Horizons and Producing Social Cohesion in Society
Marriage is also a means of widening the area of one’s relations and developing affinities between different groups of the various societies – between families, tribes and nationalities. The Prophet (PBUH) has said:
“Matrimonial alliances (between two families or tribes) increases friendship more than anything else”.
Marriage acts as a bridge between different families, tribes and communities and has been instrumental in the absorption of diverse people into a wider affinity. In practice, marriage played this role in the early Islamic period as well as throughout Islamic history and in all parts of the world.
Motivation for Effort and Sacrifice
It has also been indirectly suggested that marriage increases one’s sense of responsibility and induces one to make greater efforts towards earning a living and improving one’s economic lot. This aspect is referred to by the Qur’an when it enjoins people to marry; it says:
“Marry those among you who are single and (marry) your slaves, male and female, that are righteous; if they are poor, God will enrich them out of His bounty; God is All-Embracing, All-Knowing”. [Q 24:32]
These are some of the major functions which are performed by the family in Islamic society. It provides for the reproduction and continuation of the human race. It acts as the protector of the morals of the individual and society. It increases congenial context for the spiritual and emotional fulfillment of the spouses, as also of all other members of the family and promotes love, compassion and tranquility in society.
It initiates the new generations into the culture, tradition and further evolution of their civilization. It is the sheet anchor of a system of socio-economic security. It sharpens the motivation of man and strengthens incentives for effort and social progress. It is the cradle of civilization and a bridge that enables the new generations to move into the society. It is the link that joins the past with the present and with the future in such a way that social transition and change take place through a healthy and stable process. Thus it is, on the one hand, the means adopted for regulating relations between the sexes and providing the mechanism by which the relation of a child to the community is determined and on the other, it is the basic unit of society integrating its members within and enabling them to play their ideological and cultural role in the world (both now and in the future). This is the all-embracing significance of the institution of the family. If this institution is weakened or destroyed, the future of the entire culture and civilization will be threatened.
The key role in the proper development of the family is played by the women. In an Islamic society, she is freed from the rigours of running about in search of a living and attending to the demands of employment and work. Instead she more or less exclusively devotes herself to the family, not merely to her own children, but to all the dependant relations in the family. She is responsible for running it in the best possible manner. She looks after its physical, emotional, educational, and administrative and other needs. It is a world in itself and involves a network of activities, intellectual, physical and organizational. She runs and rules this world with responsibility and authority.
STRUCTURE, PRINCIPLES AND RULES
We have discussed the salient features of the Islamic outlook on life, the foundations of the family in Islam and its objectives and functions. In this final section an effort will be made to explain briefly the actual working of the institution of the family in Islam, its structure, principles and rules.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage, as a social institution, is essentially a civil contract. And as a civil contract it rests on the same footing as other contracts. Its validity depends on the capacity of the contracting parties, which according to Islamic law, consist in having maturity (bulugh) and discretion. Mutual consent and public declaration of the marriage contract are its essentials. The law does not insist on any particular form in which this contract is entered into or on any specific religious ceremony, although there are different traditional forms prevalent amongst the ?Muslims in different parts of the world and it is regarded advisable to conform to them. As far as the Shari’ah is concerned, the validity of the marriage depends on proposition on one side (ijab) and acceptance (qubul) on the other. This offer and the acceptance can take place directly between the parties, or through an agent (wakil). In a traditional Muslim marriage, the bride’s consent is procured through her representative. Normally there are at least two witnesses to this matrimonial contract, entered into at a family ceremony. There is also a dower (mahr) which the husband pays to the wife and which is for her sole and exclusive use and benefit. This last (i.e. dower) is an important part of the scheme, but it is not essential for the legality of the marriage that its amount must be pre-fixed. As such its absence would not render the marriage invalid, although the husband is expected to pay it according to custom.
Being a civil contract, the parties retain their personal rights as against each other as well as against others. The power to dissolve the marriage-tie rests with both parties and specified forms have been laid down for it.
Marriage in Islam is not a temporary union and is meant for the entire span of life. Dissolution of marriage is, however, permitted if it fails to serve its objectives and has irretrievably broken down.
Family arbitration is resorted to before final dissolution. This has been laid down in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If this fails, then steps are taken for dissolution of the marriage. There are three forms of dissolution: divorce by the husband (talaq), separation sought by the wife (Khul’) and dissolution of the marriage by a court of an arbiter. Detailed laws and by-laws have been laid down by the Qur’an and the Sunnah in respect of these and have been codified in the fiqh literature to regulate different aspects of marriage and family life.
Muslim marriage is usually a contracted marriage. Although marriage is primarily a relationship between the spouses, it, in fact, builds relationship between families, and even more. That is why other members of the family, particularly the parents of the spouses play a much more positive role in it. Consent of the bride and bridegroom is essential; in fact, indispensable. Despite the fact that free mixing of the sexes is forbidden, it is permitted for the intending partners in marriage to see each other before the marriage. What, however, stands out prominently is that marriage in Muslim society is not merely a private arrangement between the husband and the wife. That is why the whole family contributes effectively towards its arrangements, materialization and fulfillment.
The Way Marriage is Contracted
No specific ceremony is prescribed for marriage. In principle it has been stressed that marriage should take place publicly. Other members of the society should know of this development, preferably in a way that has been adopted by the society as its usage (‘urf). Normally, the nikah (contract of marriage) takes place at a social gathering where members of both the families and other friends and relatives gather. Usually in Muslim society there are persons known as Qadi who discharge this responsibility. In the nikah-sermon they recite from the Qur’an and the Sunnah and invite the spouses to a life of God-consciousness, purity, mutual love and loyalty and social responsibility. Then the marriage is contracted where in ijab (proposal) and qubul (acceptance) are made before the witnesses. After the nikah, the bride moves to the bridegroom’s house and both begin this new chapter of their life. After the consummation of the marriage, the bridegroom holds a feast for the relatives and friends. The real purpose of these gatherings and feasts is to make the events a social function and to let the society know of it and participate in it. The Prophet has recommended the people to hold this celebrations with simplicity and to share each other’s joy. He said:
“The best wedding is that upon which the least trouble and expense is bestowed”.
And that:
“The worst of feasts are those marriage-feasts to which the rich are invited and the poor left out. And he who refuses to accept an invitation to a marriage feasts verily disobeys God and His Prophets”.
The Structure of the Muslim Family
The structure of the family is threefold. The first and the closest consist of the husband, the wife, their children, their parents who live with them, and servants, if any. The next group, the central fold of the family, consist of a number of close relatives, whether they live together or not, who have special claims upon each other, who move freely inside the family with whom marriage is forbidden and between whom there is no hijab (purdah). These are the people who also have prior claim on the wealth and resources of a person, in life as well as in death (as beneficiaries, known in the matter of inheritance as ‘shares’, the first line of inheritors). The crucial thing in this respect is that they are regarded as mahram, those with whom marriage is prohibited. This constitutes the real core of the family, sharing each other joys, sorrow, hopes and fears. This relationship emerges from consanguinity, affinity and foster-nursing. Relations based on consanguinity, include (a) father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and other direct forbears; (b) direct descendants, that is sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, etc. (c) relations of the second degree (such as brothers, sisters and their descendants), (d) father’s or mother’s a sister (not their daughter or other descendants).
Those based on affinity include (I) mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandmother-in-law, grandfather-in-law; (ii) wife’s daughters, husband’s sons or their grand- or great-granddaughters or -sons respectively; (iii) son’s wife, son’s son’s wife, daughter’s husband, and (iv) stepmothers and stepfathers. With some exceptions the same relations are forbidden through foster-nursing (al-rida’ah).
This is the real extended family and the nucleus of relationship. All those relations who are outside this fold constitute the outer periphery of the family. They, too, have their own rights and obligations, as is borne out by the fact that a number of them have included in the second and third lines of inheritors.
The Position of Man and Woman
n the internal organization of the family, a man is in the position of the head and the overall supervisor. In fact, it is the eldest member of the extended family who occupies the position of the head. A man’s major responsibilities lie outside the family. He is to support the family economically and materially; he has to look after the relations of the family with the rest of the society. its economy and policy and he has to take care of the demands of internal discipline within the family. A woman’s major responsibilities lie within the family. Her too, the eldest woman is regarded as the centre of the family organization but within each circle and fold the relative central position is enjoyed by that woman who constitutes its core. A spectrum of mutual rights and responsibilities has been evolved in such a way that balanced relationships are developed between all. The Qur’an says:
“Men are those who support women, since God has given some persons advantages over others, and because they spend their wealth (on them)”. [Q 4:34]
“Women have the same rights (in relation to their husbands) as is expected in all decency from them; while men stand a step above them. God is mighty, wise”.
[Q 2:228]
This is the interests of proper organization and management within the family. There is equality in rights. There is demarcation of responsibilities.
Man has been made head of the family so that order and discipline are maintained. Both are enjoined to discharge their respective functions with justice and equity.
The question of equality or inequality of the sexes has often been raised. This issue, is, however, the product of a certain cultural and legal context, and is really not relevant to the Islamic context where the equality of men and women as human beings has been Divinely affirmed and legally safeguarded. There is differentiation of roles and responsibilities and certain arrangements have been made to meet the demands of organizations and institutions not on the basis of superiority or inferiority of the sexes but in the light of the basic facts of life and the needs of society. Every role is important in its own right and each person is to be judged according to the responsibilities assigned to him or her. Their roles are not competitive but complimentary.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Family and Society
The family is a part of the Islamic social order. The society that Islam wants to establish is not a sensate, sex-ridden society. It establishes an ideological society, with a high level of moral awareness, strong commitment to the ideal of Khilafah and purposive orientation of all human behaviors. Its discipline is not an imposed discipline, but one that flows out of every individual’s commitment to the values and ideal of Islam. In this society a high degree of social responsibility prevails. The entire system operates in a way that strengthens and fortifies the family and not otherwise.
The family is protected by prohibiting sex outside marriage. Fornication (zina), as such, has been forbidden and made a punishable offence. All roads that lead to this evil are blocked and whatever paves the way towards it is checked and eliminated. That is why promiscuity in any form is forbidden. The Islamic system of (hijab) is a wide-ranging system which protects the family and closes those avenues that lead towards illicit sex or even indiscriminate contact between the sexes in society. It prescribes essential rules and regulations about dress, modes of behavior, rules of contract between the sexes and a number of other questions that are central or ancillary to it.
The finer qualities of life have been given every encouragement, but they have been torn from their carnal or sensate context and oriented towards what is noble and good in human life. A number of preventive measures have been taken to protect the family from influences that may corrupt or weaken its moral and social climate. Some of these measures are in the nature of moral persuasions, others take the form of social rules and sanctions, and some take the form of law whose violation entails exemplary punishments. All these protect the institution of the family and enable it to play its positive role in the making of the Islamic society.
Marriage and the family in Islam should be studied and understood in the context of the scheme of life in Islam wants to establish. They cannot be understood in isolation. The concept of man and the family which Islam gives is in conflict with the concept of man and the family that is prevalent in the West today. We do not want to be apologetic at all. We refuse to accept the allegedly value-neutral approach that willy-nilly fashions the life and perspective of man in the secular culture of the West today. We think the disintegration of the family in the West is, in part, a result of confusion about the place and the role of the family in society and about the purpose of life itself. If the objectives and values of life are not set right, further disintegration of this and other institutions cannot be prevented. The tragedy of our times is that changes are being imposed upon man under the stress of technological and other external developments and the entire process of change is becoming somewhat non-discretionary and involuntary. In an age in which freedom is worshipped like a god, man is being deprived of the most important freedom – the freedom to choose his ideals, values, institutions and patterns of life. One of the greatest tasks that lie ahead is restoration and rehabilitation of this freedom of choice and its judicious and informed use to set the house of humanity in order. Non-human and moral forces, be they of history or technology, must not be allowed to decide for man. Man should decide for himself as vicegerent of God on the earth. Otherwise, whatever be our achievements in the fields of science and technology, we shall drift towards a new form of slavery, and man’s forced abdication of his real role in the world. This we must all resist, at least all those people who believe in God and in the existence of a moral order in the Universe.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Muslim Youth in the 21st Century
As the twentieth century comes to an end it is time to reflect on our achievements and failures in responding to the Qur'anic challenge of creating a good society on earth. The entire human history has been a history of the struggle to bring about this ideal society. The ideal that Islam is seeking is also a universal ideal for the entire humanity. It has been a mission of all the prophets and all the sages to see that humanity through its spiritual and moral perfection brings about the establishment of a just community. But it has not been an easy task. Many a people in the world have struggled and strived to make this earth a better place to live: a place that would reveal a balanced individual exhibiting a highly spiritual life informed by absolute moral values through the primary institutions of socialization like family, community, religious centers, and so on. In this regard the Qur'an has reminded us more than once that "A man receives but only that for which he strives; that his endeavors will be judged, and only then will he receive his recompense in full." (53:39-41) In other words, humanity has to continue to strive to earn its final reward in full. How to maintain that dynamic momentum in faith by striving to remain a Muslim, that is, a person who has "submitted" his/her total being to the Divine will?
"Where shall we begin?"
However, in this endeavor to reflect upon our condition the question is: "Where shall we begin" in our self evaluation? In 1971 Dr. `Ali Shari`ati, the activist Muslim thinker of Iran and, in more than one way, an authentic voice of the Muslim youth in the 1970s, raised this question in his lecture to the students of Technical University of Tehran. The question was posed specifically to the Muslim youths of Iran. The contents of the lecture communicate Shari`ati's intent, namely, to inspire the students to think about their mission in the conditions that prevailed in the Iran of the Shah. Its relevance, however, was much wider. It seemed to include the entirety of youth in the Muslim Umma. For it was the Muslim youth who was the main target of the modernization that was taking place at an uncontrollable pace in the Muslim world. It was the Muslim youth who encountered the most serious challenge to his/her faith under the impact of godless culture of modernity. The Muslim youth was being asked to give up certain family and social values that were part and parcel of his identity, and adopt in its place a sense of self-alienation, and become a self-estranged imitator of everything "modern" (whether he truly understood what "modernity" was all about or not).In general, then, Muslim youth, belonging to Iran or elsewhere, was expected to respond to this critical self assessing question raised by Dr. Shari`ati. Moreover, Dr. Shari`ati's probing question was relevant in the framework of the particular situation of social transformations in the 1960s and 1970s that were taking place all over in the Third World societies. The two decades, that is, the 1960s and the 1970s, were marked by proclamation of independence of the new nation states in Asia and Africa that created new national identities in the post-colonial era. The period was ripe for considering the role of the past heritage, religious, moral and cultural, in the new age of rationalism and secularism.The new age rationalism was characterized by its claim as the source of all human values that could be derived by each individual, without any reference to a sacred authority like God or the revealed message like the Qur'an and the Sunna. Secularism, on the other hand, confined the role of religion to the private domain of an individual, creating the dichotomy between "spiritual" and "mundane," between "private" and "public." It denied religion and its mediating institutions like the "church" any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy. Under the domination of rationalism and secularism there were questions about the significance of religion in the modern man and woman's life. What was the place of traditional culture and system of values in determining the future direction of the educated men and women? Who was going to direct the new economic and social life of the people in view of the disestablishment of the traditional religious authority of the "church" (perhaps, in the context of Islam we should add the "mosque," keeping in mind that it was rather the madrasa -seminary- that was the religious establishment responsible to teach Islam)?These and many more questions in the context of Dr. Shari`ati's concern, namely, "Where shall we begin?" are so universal that seeking ways to encounter the state of confusion and alienation from one's religious and moral roots has overwhelmed the entire human society. In the wake of phenomenal advancement in technology in the last three decades people have experienced quantitative speed in the social and cultural change. The change is so sudden that it has generated psychological and cultural dislocations among many people. Moreover, technology, more particularly the interactive communication through the electronic devices and its aim of building the "super highway of global communication", has influenced the way we think about life in general, and interpersonal human relations in particular. Certainly, religion enters at all stages in our life. It regulates our relationship to God and fellow human beings. When religion is made insignificant and is reduced to one among many other forms of cultural expressions, then meaningful existence and interpersonal relationships that are cultivated by its presence are threatened. In its place personal greed and intensified forms of individuation breed self-centered and "first me" individualism. While there is value in "know thyself" dictum, its negative implication, if not kept in check by concern for the well being of others, as taught by religion, could lead to a self-serving, ego-centered individual .
"What is to be done?"
Earlier in 20th century, `Allama Iqbal, the great Muslim philosopher, had raised somewhat similar question, emphasizing the sense of urgency in an essentially different social-political setting faced by the Umma in the 1930s. It was the period of foreign domination and blatant Western imperialism. The future destiny of the Muslim youth growing up in this turmoil faced a different kind of danger. It was the danger of being politically and morally indifferent and not doing enough and in time to resist the European political and cultural hegemony. It was the danger of submissiveness in the face of all powerful forces of the imperialist colonial powers. In Iqbal's view such a feeling of resignation fostered even a more dangerous attitude than the actual hegemonic designs of the colonizing government. In order to defend itself the Muslim community had to search for ways to overcome the weak culture in which it found itself. Muslims had to resolve to become both internally and externally capable of defending themselves. Internally they had to revive their spiritual heritage to regain the dynamism of early Muslims. Externally they had to acquire modern sciences and technological skills to subdue the feeling of powerlessness. Hence, Iqbal's cry, asking Muslim community: "What is to be done, o people of the East?" "What shall we do to remain muslim?"As I begin to assess the social and religious needs of our youths in North America, I discern the fact that questions asked by Dr. Shari`ati and `Allama Iqbal are not only relevant today but have assumed critical urgency. But it is a different sense of urgency as we prepare to enter the 21st century, and, obviously, under different social- political circumstances. We have come a long way to this state of our own development. As we have journeyed from continent to continent in search of new, secure homes for ourselves, and from culture to culture in search of a new identity, we have experienced social and religious upheavals of immense proportion, both as individuals and as a community. Thanks to the opportunities that were provided under the aegis of the commemorative religious gatherings to remember the sacrifices and the heroic deeds of the Prophet and his Family, and their excellent companions (peace be upon them all). We have, in these gatherings, pondered about our goals and articulated them, although imperfectly, as a community. On certain issues, I believe, we have communicated well. These include critical assessment of some aspects of our religious rituals and manifestations of cultural life. On other matters, like the future of our religious orientation under the impact of the social challenges that face us individually and collectively, we have failed to create proper channels of communication with each other.I still await to see a well-intended dialogue between groups and individuals representing different ways of approaching life in North America. I still long to see an intelligent, tolerant and civil approach to our pluralistic, both religious and cultural, reality in North American social universe. The plurality is so integral to our existence in North America that ignoring it could lead to neglect in creating proper strategy to deal with it effectively and to our advantage as American Muslims. At the end of the twentieth century, the fact remains that after some thirty years of our saga - from being uprooted from our native lands and trying to reroot in North America - we are still faced with many unresolved questions related to our approach to living and our identification in the new social environment. These unresolved questions include our perception about our integration in the North American social universe as one among many religious communities and its impact upon the religious future of the next generation. As we prepare to enter the 21st century we have no choice but, once again, to take up the question that was asked by Dr. Shari`ati, and perhaps rephrase it to underline the urgency of Dr. Iqbal's question: "Having found ourselves here and now what shall we do to remain muslim (in the literal rather than the cultural sense of the word meaning "one who submits to the will of God)?" Such a question should lead us to investigate realistically the sources at our disposal that can increase our capability in remaining "those who submit to the will of God.
Traditional Institutions of Socialization
Traditionally, we have depended upon the family, the school (secular and religious - the madrasa), and the mosque - in that order - as the principal channels and primary institutions for the transmission of the necessary information about the Islamic way of life. The family not only nurtured with love and commitment those values that brought out the noble in a person enabling him/her to establish healthy interpersonal relations; they also provided with means of standing firm to uphold these values of socialization in times of fear and anxieties. This caring role of the family was continued in the schools where the teachers, through their commitment to inculcate intellectual curiosity in a child, went a step ahead and demonstrated those values of nobility in materials and methods they chose to teach. Through interpersonal relations and exemplary conduct in its staff the school engendered confidence and a sense of security in dealing with unknown situations and circumstances in life. The mosque or now the "Islamic Center" in North American context, on the other hand, provided the link between this world and the next in a subtle way by creating a community of the believers brought together by a single purpose of serving the spiritual goals of Islam. By emphasizing the spiritual dimension of humanity, the mosque became the source of spiritual strength that is so critical in facing the harsh realities of human life full of contradictions. Furthermore, it reminded individuals to seek balance between their mundane pursuits that sought to distract them from their original goals, and the demands of spiritual and moral purposes of life.Consequently, the leader, the Imam, in the mosque functioned (at least, in theory) as a spiritual- moral guide through his knowledge and upright conduct. Nurturing the good human society, in brief, was the role that was assigned to these three important social institutions. They -the family, the school, and the mosque - mediated between individual and collective interests of Muslims. Let me hasten to add that it was precisely these three institutions that were regarded as the most cohesive forces in raising the Muslim youth to become a constructive individual for the betterment of the society. The central role assigned by Islam to the family in bringing up the future generation of Muslims underscores the heavy burden that the family shoulders at all times in dealing with the question: "What is to be done?" I will come back to the family below.The Adverse Impact of Mass Communications Through Television In North America as well as other places in the "global village" today a large role played by mass communications, especially television, as moral and spiritual broker for individuals, has replaced the traditional institutions like family, school and mosque as the sole channels through which values were transferred to the coming generation. These three institutions were expected to ensure continuity and stability in times of severe social transformation. Television in particular has gone beyond its mandate to assist the family and the school in providing visual aid and education to the young. It has taken upon itself to appeal to the destructive and disintegrative instincts, to provoke greed, unlimited self-gratification, and absence of moral restraint in its young audience. It is sufficient to recall the ongoing debate among the legislators and the providers of the television entertainment to gauge the seriousness of the negative impact these programming are having on the youth in the society in which family relations are in shambles. It has alarmed people in all walks of life who care for their children. The situation has reached a level of crisis created by extreme forms of consumerism and the indifference to all moral values. It is not an exaggeration to say that the North American society as a consequence of the mass communication through the television has become self-indulgent and hedonistic, without a moral imperative to conduct its affairs. The control of mass communications is so thorough going that it is hard to imagine other means of countering its negative impact and once again taking charge of the process of developing of moral consciousness in our community. There is no home that can escape the intruding impact of the television on the moral development of our youth. The situation has taken a worst turn in the absence of parental supervision that was at one time available to the young ones when at home.The situation has given rise to the global crisis of value indifference. No one can escape the damaging impact of the mass communications that has resulted in widespread moral illiteracy. In his critical study about America's most pressing problem, namely, failure to pass on the moral heritage to the young, William Kilpatrick has shown "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong" (actually the title of his study). He has convincingly made the case for character education in American school system through codes of conduct and responsibility, through its teachers and quality of their examples. Even when majority of Kilpatrick's recommendations are for the schools to adopt, it is obvious that the roots of this moral illiteracy could be traced to the absence of healthy family life for the young. We, Muslims, could and should participate in the educational programs by exerting our influence through the Parent- Teacher Association (PTA) and demand that the schools develop curriculum that would enhance character education.
The Family and the Mosque in North America
At the community level in North America we are actually left with only two institutions that can provide the desirable moral imperatives and an operational criterion for defining what is right or wrong for our youth: the family and the mosque. Islam regards family as the most important institution in maintaining the healthy state of an individual's moral and spiritual life. The commonly heard motto that "the family that prays together stays together" reflects a reality founded upon human experience of many generations of families that have prayed together and stayed together. The parents can do more than just provide the means to sustain the family and educate their youth. They have been made responsible for character development of their children by setting good examples. Those examples include not only performing the religious rituals together. They also entail involving children in helping develop a moral sense by helping the poor and hungry, in respecting the rights of others, and so on. The culture of disbelief that dominates American social universe has trivialized religious devotion and relativized moral commitment. The youth today does not have the moral guidance to be able to pursue the right course when faced with a moral dilemma. The school, in view of its insistence in developing an autonomous individual who knows what is good and bad through his/her own intellectual development, has created a moral wilderness in which an inexperienced youth without adequate guidance in dealing with complex human situations is supposed to find his/her way to moral resolutions.The parents, consequently, have to assume an active role in the moral development of their children. This can come about in two ways in the North American framework: first, by becoming fully involved at every stage in the child's mental growth until he/she attains maturity. This involvement includes learning to communicate with the younger generation through their books and reading materials, that is, the sources of their mental and moral education. Second, by providing constructive entertainment through personal involvement in the selection of the types of entertainment (whether at home or outside). Involvement in this aspect of moral education is very critical and almost inevitable because there is enormous pressure on the children from outside their home to participate in these apparently neutral activities. Moreover, it is precisely at this stage when the images created by the mass communications through television and video production will put their permanent imprint on the child's character to detract it from its moral development. It behooves the parents to understand fully the impact of the mass communication technology like the videos and television on our young ones. Parents who succeed to communicate with their youth in these two areas also enable the youth to make moral decisions based on their personal communication of the situations confronting them with their parents.The key is to develop relationship with the youth who is under constant external pressure to conform to the demands that smack culture of disbelief and meaningless existence. In the age when both parents are in the work force, whether through economic necessities or personal choice, very little attention is paid to this aspect of family relationship which goes towards cultivating a personal history full of valuable experiences that go towards creating a source for tough moral decisions. The ability to recall this personal history gives meaning to our lives and actions. The most shocking aspect of the culture in which we live today is to discover how badly behaved American children are. This is attributed to the lack of communication between parents and children. According to the Wall Street Journal (April 6, 1990), on the average American parents spend less than fifteen minutes a week in serious discussion with their children. American fathers spend an average of seventeen seconds per day of intimate contact with their children. As a result, children and adolescents are increasingly ignorant about the ways of communicating with their parents, and appear to be disrespectful and disobedient to adults. The bad behavior of the children, in most cases, has caused the adults to shun the company of children. Mothers are anxious to get a job simply in order to get away from the children.I mention these observations because I think they help us to understand our problems in rearing our children in the American environment. It also makes us realize the difficulty of our task in helping our children acquire character. It is for this reason that Islam created a reciprocal responsibility between parents and children: the parents will love their children as they bring them up with care and concern, and the children will obey and respect their parents to deserve that love and care. The parents have the right to instill their values in their children. They cannot be bystanders when others in the society (TV, video, etc.) insist on their values to children. Character formation is a serious matter and no parent can afford to be indifferent about it. A Muslim father has to put his family first and guide the child through difficult stages of moral growth. For a young son, a father and a mother in a stable family setting are the source of understanding what it means to be a moral person with the sense of honor, loyalty and fidelity. Likewise, for a young daughter, a father and a mother are the source of love and comfort that can help her avoid surrendering her virtue in a fruitless search for love outside her home.Religious activities in the mosque provide the structural route for bringing meaning in lives and actions of the Muslims. Religious establishment (mosque and madrasa) shares the responsibility of generating strong familial relationships necessary for the healthy upbringing of the future generation. It is through marriage and parenthood that Islam seeks to impart moral education. As an institution of socialization among Muslims the mosque therefore assumes a central role in the development of Muslim character. Is the mosque delivering what it is supposed to do? As a person intimately aware of the ways in which the mosque has or has not performed its expected function in the North American context, I can say that ultimately it is the community that decides what it wants from the religious institution. If the membership becomes satisfied only with the rituals that have been traditionally performed in the mosque, then the mosque will stop at that. However, if the community expects the mosque to deliver more in terms of moral and spiritual growth of the youth then it has to plan the activities in accord with such expectations. It is here that I find the Muslim leadership, both religious and administrative in the community, has failed in recognizing the importance that should be given to attract and hold the youth to Islam. Despite the fact that it is the youth that faces the moral peril in his/her everyday contact with the world outside the security of home, the Muslim community has continued to neglect to develop programs that would specifically benefit the youth.The young Muslim girls face even greater challenge in maintaining their moral fabric in tact when out in the society. There is very little understanding of the ways in which a Muslim girl's existence and human rights are regularly violated in the society that looks down upon her Islamic moral outlook as "old-fashioned" and "retrogressive." It is not an exaggeration to point out that, according to Islam, a threat to a woman's personal and moral security in any society is a threat to the family, community and even the nation's moral and social fabric. It is my hope that the present survey undertaken to assess the intellectual as well as social-religious needs of our youth in North America will make adequate recommendations to correct the prevailing negligence in this sensitive area. More importantly, it is my sincere hope that community leaders will take necessary steps to implement these recommendations to strengthen the Muslim youth by instituting creative programs in the Islamic centers that would solicit Muslim family participation at all levels of their planning and implementation. The key is to create an interactive atmosphere in the community and not wait for crisis to require reactive and less organized effort to correct the situation. May God guide us all to the Path of True Prosperity, "Submission to the Will of God," al-islam.
Unidirectional Models of Socialization
Who are these agents—or forces—of socialization? Early twentieth century models of socialization ignored the fact that parents can be socialized, too, and only looked at the effects of parents on children. This approach is known as a parent-effects model (i.e., a unidirectional or one-way effects model from parent to child). This model of socialization stems from a mechanistic paradigm (e.g., Reese and Overton 1970), in which the individual is the unit of analysis. In particular, models of this kind focus on the parent as actor, or agent, and the child as reactor. Research conducted from this perspective follows the social mold tradition, in which parents are seen as the agents that mold children's behavior. The best example of research in this tradition is Diana Baumrind's (1971) typology of parenting styles—in which parent effects (i.e., parenting styles) determine child outcomes.
Parent effects. For much of the twentieth century, Western parenting theorists and researchers have focused primarily on two essential dimensions of parenting style: support (also known as warmth or acceptance) and control (Baumrind 1971; Peterson and Haan 1999). It is hypothesized that parenting style falls anywhere along the continuum of support, from low support of children to high support of children. At the same time, parenting style can also fall anywhere along the independent or orthogonal dimension of control, from low control to high control. Thus, parenting style can be categorized as low in support and control (i.e., permissive-neglecting); low in support but high in control (i.e., authoritarian); high in support but low in control (i.e., permissive-indulgent); or high in support and high in control (i.e., authoritative).
Research in the United States, cross-sectional and longitudinal, has consistently found that a parenting style high in both support and control (i.e., authoritative parenting) is associated with children's and adolescent's higher academic achievement and social competence (e.g., Peterson and Haan 1999). A permissive parenting style (i.e., permissive-neglecting or permissive-indulgent) is associated with children who are lower in both academic achievement and social competence, and higher in aggression or impulsiveness. These children may be either neglected by parents who are unwilling or unable to meet the developmental needs of their children, or spoiled by overly indulgent parents who cater to their children's wants instead of their needs. Finally, a parenting style low in support but high in control (i.e., authoritarian) is associated with lower academic achievement and social competence in children. As an extreme example of control, the use of corporal punishment, either at home or at school, is a hotly debated topic. Although many parents and teachers around the world follow religious and traditional dictums such as "spare the rod," and "an eye for an eye," corporal punishment of children is contrary to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), ratified by every country in the world except Somalia and the United States. Sweden, followed to date by eight other European countries and Israel, was the first country in the world to make spanking or other corporal punishment of children illegal in 1979. According to Swedish law, "Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." Nevertheless, corporal punishment remains widespread in many homes and schools (e.g., Kenya; Human Rights Watch 1999) around the world.
Child effects. Richard Bell (1968), reacting against parent-effects models, suggested that children also influence parents. Thus, a unidirectional child-effects model (i.e., from child to parent) was developed. In this model of socialization, the child is the actor and the parent is the reactor. Children's individual differences in age, gender, and personalities can evoke different behaviors and treatment from parents in addition to other socialization agents. An example of research based in this tradition is Alexander Thomas and Stella Chess's (1977) classic work in child temperament. Children can be classified as easy, slow-to-warm-up, and difficult based on nine dimensions of temperament (e.g., activity level, emotional intensity), with easy children being the most compliant to parental requests and difficult children the least. Subsequently, many researchers have focused on qualities of infants and children that evoke different responses in parents, or different parental outcomes.
window.google_render_ad();
Of all the factors that influence how children are treated (e.g., temperament, health status, aptitude), gender is arguably the most salient. For example, in several South Asian countries, there is a clear preference for male children due to economic and religious factors (Khan and Khanum 2000). Strong preferences exist for sons in Bangladesh, China, India, Korea, and Pakistan, although no such preferences are found in Sri Lanka or Thailand (Abeykoon 1995). Parents view sons as economic assets (e.g., old-age security) and daughters as economic liabilities (e.g., dowries). Both Confucianism and Hinduism have been cited as religions that foster preferences for male offspring (Abeykoon 1995). In the Hindu tradition, only sons can pray for the souls of dead parents. Indicators of gender preference in South Asia include abnormal sex ratios at birth (i.e., more female fetuses aborted), and higher mortality rates for female offspring (e.g., infanticide, higher rates of malnutrition, less access to health care).
Gender inequality also exists in education, with the greatest gender disparity occurring in developing countries with overall low rates of enrollment. UNESCO tracks gender parity in education, with a goal of worldwide gender parity for the year 2005. Since 1980, gender disparity in education has widened not only in Afghanistan (i.e., under the Taliban regime, although this pattern would be expected to reverse now that the Taliban are no longer in power) but also in Pakistan. The countries with the worst record for gender parity in education are found primarily in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Chad, Guinea, and Senegal) and in the Arab states (e.g., Yemen and Sudan). In these countries, only six to eight girls are enrolled in primary school for every ten boys enrolled in primary school. Countries with a more moderate gap in gender disparity include Angola and Mozambique in sub-Saharan Africa, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, China and Indonesia in South Asia, and Brazil and Guatemala in South and Central America, respectively.
Age is another factor that influences how children are socialized. Psychologists and anthropologists have concluded that the transition from informal parental socialization to more formal socialization (e.g., education) typically occurs during the period known as the 5-to-7 shift, which marks the end of young childhood and the beginning of middle childhood (Konner 1991). Among other things, changes in brain development (e.g., myelinization, or the coating of neurons with myelin sheaths, resulting in better motor coordination and memory) occur between the ages of two and six, paving the way for formal learning. Not surprisingly, UNICEF reports that, around the world, compulsory education begins between the ages of five (e.g., Barbados and United Kingdom) and seven (e.g., Ethiopia and Sweden).
Around fifteen years of age, adolescents are deemed ready to leave school to enter the work force as adults (i.e., compulsory education ends at age fourteen in Turkey, fifteen in Japan, sixteen in Canada). Addressing child labor, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set the General Minimum Age for full-time labor participation at age fifteen, or not less than compulsory school age. In highly industrialized societies, which require longer periods of education and training, adolescents often attend post-secondary institutions for anywhere from two years (i.e., a two-year diploma) to four years (i.e., a four-year degree), and in some cases for several additional years (for graduate degrees, e.g., M.S., Ph.D.). Educational demands of technological societies are so high, that at least one researcher proposed an additional stage of the life cycle: Emerging adulthood (age eighteen to twenty-five)—a period distinct from both adolescence and young adulthood—which entails on-going formal socialization (Arnett 2000).
Parent effects. For much of the twentieth century, Western parenting theorists and researchers have focused primarily on two essential dimensions of parenting style: support (also known as warmth or acceptance) and control (Baumrind 1971; Peterson and Haan 1999). It is hypothesized that parenting style falls anywhere along the continuum of support, from low support of children to high support of children. At the same time, parenting style can also fall anywhere along the independent or orthogonal dimension of control, from low control to high control. Thus, parenting style can be categorized as low in support and control (i.e., permissive-neglecting); low in support but high in control (i.e., authoritarian); high in support but low in control (i.e., permissive-indulgent); or high in support and high in control (i.e., authoritative).
Research in the United States, cross-sectional and longitudinal, has consistently found that a parenting style high in both support and control (i.e., authoritative parenting) is associated with children's and adolescent's higher academic achievement and social competence (e.g., Peterson and Haan 1999). A permissive parenting style (i.e., permissive-neglecting or permissive-indulgent) is associated with children who are lower in both academic achievement and social competence, and higher in aggression or impulsiveness. These children may be either neglected by parents who are unwilling or unable to meet the developmental needs of their children, or spoiled by overly indulgent parents who cater to their children's wants instead of their needs. Finally, a parenting style low in support but high in control (i.e., authoritarian) is associated with lower academic achievement and social competence in children. As an extreme example of control, the use of corporal punishment, either at home or at school, is a hotly debated topic. Although many parents and teachers around the world follow religious and traditional dictums such as "spare the rod," and "an eye for an eye," corporal punishment of children is contrary to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), ratified by every country in the world except Somalia and the United States. Sweden, followed to date by eight other European countries and Israel, was the first country in the world to make spanking or other corporal punishment of children illegal in 1979. According to Swedish law, "Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." Nevertheless, corporal punishment remains widespread in many homes and schools (e.g., Kenya; Human Rights Watch 1999) around the world.
Child effects. Richard Bell (1968), reacting against parent-effects models, suggested that children also influence parents. Thus, a unidirectional child-effects model (i.e., from child to parent) was developed. In this model of socialization, the child is the actor and the parent is the reactor. Children's individual differences in age, gender, and personalities can evoke different behaviors and treatment from parents in addition to other socialization agents. An example of research based in this tradition is Alexander Thomas and Stella Chess's (1977) classic work in child temperament. Children can be classified as easy, slow-to-warm-up, and difficult based on nine dimensions of temperament (e.g., activity level, emotional intensity), with easy children being the most compliant to parental requests and difficult children the least. Subsequently, many researchers have focused on qualities of infants and children that evoke different responses in parents, or different parental outcomes.
window.google_render_ad();
Of all the factors that influence how children are treated (e.g., temperament, health status, aptitude), gender is arguably the most salient. For example, in several South Asian countries, there is a clear preference for male children due to economic and religious factors (Khan and Khanum 2000). Strong preferences exist for sons in Bangladesh, China, India, Korea, and Pakistan, although no such preferences are found in Sri Lanka or Thailand (Abeykoon 1995). Parents view sons as economic assets (e.g., old-age security) and daughters as economic liabilities (e.g., dowries). Both Confucianism and Hinduism have been cited as religions that foster preferences for male offspring (Abeykoon 1995). In the Hindu tradition, only sons can pray for the souls of dead parents. Indicators of gender preference in South Asia include abnormal sex ratios at birth (i.e., more female fetuses aborted), and higher mortality rates for female offspring (e.g., infanticide, higher rates of malnutrition, less access to health care).
Gender inequality also exists in education, with the greatest gender disparity occurring in developing countries with overall low rates of enrollment. UNESCO tracks gender parity in education, with a goal of worldwide gender parity for the year 2005. Since 1980, gender disparity in education has widened not only in Afghanistan (i.e., under the Taliban regime, although this pattern would be expected to reverse now that the Taliban are no longer in power) but also in Pakistan. The countries with the worst record for gender parity in education are found primarily in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Chad, Guinea, and Senegal) and in the Arab states (e.g., Yemen and Sudan). In these countries, only six to eight girls are enrolled in primary school for every ten boys enrolled in primary school. Countries with a more moderate gap in gender disparity include Angola and Mozambique in sub-Saharan Africa, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, China and Indonesia in South Asia, and Brazil and Guatemala in South and Central America, respectively.
Age is another factor that influences how children are socialized. Psychologists and anthropologists have concluded that the transition from informal parental socialization to more formal socialization (e.g., education) typically occurs during the period known as the 5-to-7 shift, which marks the end of young childhood and the beginning of middle childhood (Konner 1991). Among other things, changes in brain development (e.g., myelinization, or the coating of neurons with myelin sheaths, resulting in better motor coordination and memory) occur between the ages of two and six, paving the way for formal learning. Not surprisingly, UNICEF reports that, around the world, compulsory education begins between the ages of five (e.g., Barbados and United Kingdom) and seven (e.g., Ethiopia and Sweden).
Around fifteen years of age, adolescents are deemed ready to leave school to enter the work force as adults (i.e., compulsory education ends at age fourteen in Turkey, fifteen in Japan, sixteen in Canada). Addressing child labor, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set the General Minimum Age for full-time labor participation at age fifteen, or not less than compulsory school age. In highly industrialized societies, which require longer periods of education and training, adolescents often attend post-secondary institutions for anywhere from two years (i.e., a two-year diploma) to four years (i.e., a four-year degree), and in some cases for several additional years (for graduate degrees, e.g., M.S., Ph.D.). Educational demands of technological societies are so high, that at least one researcher proposed an additional stage of the life cycle: Emerging adulthood (age eighteen to twenty-five)—a period distinct from both adolescence and young adulthood—which entails on-going formal socialization (Arnett 2000).
Human infants are born without any culture. They must be transformed by their parents, teachers, and others into cultural and socially adept animals. The general process of acquiring culture is referred to as socialization . During socialization, we learn the language of the culture we are born into as well as the roles we are to play in life. For instance, girls learn how to be daughters, sisters, friends, wives, and mothers. In addition, they learn about the occupational roles that their society has in store for them. We also learn and usually adopt our culture's norms through the socialization process. Norms are the conceptions of appropriate and expected behavior that are held by most members of the society. While socialization refers to the general process of acquiring culture, anthropologists use the term enculturation for the process of being socialized to a particular culture. You were enculturated to your specific culture by your parents and the other people who raised you.
Socialization is important in the process of personality formation. While much of human personality is the result of our genes, the socialization process can mold it in particular directions by encouraging specific beliefs and attitudes as well as selectively providing experiences. This very likely accounts for much of the difference between the common personality types in one society in comparison to another. For instance, the Semai tribesmen of the central Malay Peninsula of Malaysia typically are gentle people who do not like violent, aggressive individuals. In fact, they avoid them whenever possible. In contrast, the Yanomamö Indians on the border area between Venezuela and Brazil usually train their boys to be tough and aggressive. The ideal Yanomamö man does not shrink from violence and strong emotions. In fact, he seeks them out. Likewise, Shiite Muslim men of Iran are expected at times to publicly express their religious faith through the emotionally powerful act of self-inflicted pain.
Socialization is important in the process of personality formation. While much of human personality is the result of our genes, the socialization process can mold it in particular directions by encouraging specific beliefs and attitudes as well as selectively providing experiences. This very likely accounts for much of the difference between the common personality types in one society in comparison to another. For instance, the Semai tribesmen of the central Malay Peninsula of Malaysia typically are gentle people who do not like violent, aggressive individuals. In fact, they avoid them whenever possible. In contrast, the Yanomamö Indians on the border area between Venezuela and Brazil usually train their boys to be tough and aggressive. The ideal Yanomamö man does not shrink from violence and strong emotions. In fact, he seeks them out. Likewise, Shiite Muslim men of Iran are expected at times to publicly express their religious faith through the emotionally powerful act of self-inflicted pain.
Shiite Muslim men in Iranritually beating themselvesbloody with hands and chainsas an act of religious faithcommemorating the deathof Imam Hussein in 680 a.d.
Socialization
standard schoolcurriculum to assure a broad acceptanceof society's norms
Successful socialization can result in uniformity within a society. If all children receive the same socialization, it is likely that they will share the same beliefs and expectations. This fact has been a strong motivation for national governments around the world to standardize education and make it compulsory for all children. Deciding what things will be taught and how they are taught is a powerful political tool for controlling people. Those who internalize the norms of society are less likely to break the law or to want radical social changes. In all societies, however, there are individuals who do not conform to culturally defined standards of normalcy because they were "abnormally" socialized, which is to say that they have not internalized the norms of society. These people are usually labeled by their society as deviant or even mentally ill.
Large-scale societies, such as the United States, are usually composed of many ethnic groups. As a consequence, early socialization in different families often varies in techniques, goals, and expectations. Since these complex societies are not culturally homogenous, they do not have unanimous agreement about what should be the shared norms. Not surprisingly, this national ambiguity usually results in more tolerance of social deviancy--it is more acceptable to be different in appearance, personality, and actions in such large-scale societies.
Large-scale societies, such as the United States, are usually composed of many ethnic groups. As a consequence, early socialization in different families often varies in techniques, goals, and expectations. Since these complex societies are not culturally homogenous, they do not have unanimous agreement about what should be the shared norms. Not surprisingly, this national ambiguity usually results in more tolerance of social deviancy--it is more acceptable to be different in appearance, personality, and actions in such large-scale societies.
Socialization is a learning process that begins shortly after birth. Early childhood is the period of the most intense and the most crucial socialization. It is then that we acquire language and learn the fundamentals of our culture. It is also when much of our personality takes shape. However, we continue to be socialized throughout our lives. As we age, we enter new statuses and need to learn the appropriate roles for them. We also have experiences that teach us lessons and potentially lead us to alter our expectations, beliefs, and personality. For instance, the experience of being raped is likely to cause a woman to be distrustful of others.
Looking around the world, we see that different cultures use different techniques to socialize their children. There are two broad types of teaching methods--formal and informal. Formal education is what primarily happens in a classroom. It usually is structured, controlled, and directed primarily by adult teachers who are professional "knowers." In contrast, informal education can occur anywhere. It involves imitation of what others do and say as well as experimentation and repetitive practice of basic skills. This is what happens when children role-play adult interactions in their games.
Looking around the world, we see that different cultures use different techniques to socialize their children. There are two broad types of teaching methods--formal and informal. Formal education is what primarily happens in a classroom. It usually is structured, controlled, and directed primarily by adult teachers who are professional "knowers." In contrast, informal education can occur anywhere. It involves imitation of what others do and say as well as experimentation and repetitive practice of basic skills. This is what happens when children role-play adult interactions in their games.
Most of the crucial early socialization throughout the world is done informally under the supervision of women and girls. Initially, mothers and their female relatives are primarily responsible for socialization. Later, when children enter the lower school grades, they are usually under the control of women teachers. In North America and some other industrialized nations, baby-sitters are most often teenage girls who live in the neighborhood. In other societies, they are likely to be older sisters or grandmothers.
baby in Bhutanunder the careof an older sister
North American mother informally socializing her daughter
During the 1950's, Margaret Mead led an extensive field study of early socialization practices in six different societies. They were the Gusii of Kenya, the Rajputs of India, the village of Taira on the island of Okinawa in Japan, the Tarong of the Philippines, the Mixteca Indians of central Mexico, and a New England community that was given the pseudonym Orchardtown. All of these societies shared in common the fact that they were relatively homogeneous culturally. Two general conclusions emerged from this study. First, socialization practices varied markedly from society to society. Second, the socialization practices were generally similar among people of the same society. This is not surprising since people from the same culture and community are likely to share core values and perceptions. In addition, we generally socialize our children in much the same way that our parents socialized us. Margaret Mead and her fellow researchers found that different methods were used to control children in these six societies. For instance, the Gusii primarily used fear and physical punishment. In contrast, the people of Taira used parental praise and the threat of withholding praise. The Tarong mainly relied on teasing and scaring.
location of the societies in Margaret Mead's cross-cultural study of socialization practices
Margaret Mead's cross-cultural study of socialization is provocative. Perhaps, you are now
asking yourself what methods you would use to control the behavior of your children. Would you spank them or threaten to do so? Would you only use praise? Would you belittle or tease them for not behaving? Would you try to make your children independent and self-reliant or would you discourage it in favor of continuing dependence? At some time in our lives, most of us will be involved in raising children. Will you do it in the same way that you were raised? Very likely you will because you were socialized that way. Abusive parents were, in most cases, abused by their parents. Likewise, gentle, indulgent parents were raised that way themselves. Is there a right or wrong way to socialize children? To a certain extent the answer depends on the frame of reference. What is right in one culture may be wrong in another.
How are Children Socialized?
Even seemingly insignificant actions of parents can have major impacts on the socialization of their children. For instance, what would you do if your baby cried continuously but was not ill, hungry, or in need of a diaper change? Would you hold your baby, rock back and forth, walk around, or sing gently until the crying stopped, even if it took hours. The answer that you give very likely depends on your culture. The traditional Navaho Indian response usually was to remove the baby from social contact until the crying stopped. After making sure that the baby was not ill or in physical distress, he or she would be taken outside of the small single room house and left in a safe place until the crying stopped. Then the baby would be brought indoors again to join the family. Perhaps as a result, Navaho babies raised in this way are usually very quiet. They learn early that making noise causes them to be removed from social contact. In most North American families today, we would hold our baby in this situation until the crying stopped. The lesson that we inadvertently may be giving is that crying results in social contact. Is this wrong? Not necessarily, but it is a different socialization technique.
Abstract:
Pakistan's General Pervaiz Musharraf's immediate and unequivocal support for the US-led war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11th might be a surprise to those scholars who were betting on more independent foreign policy by Pakistan owing to the possession of nuclear weapons. For others it was a case of pure power politics, which could be explained within the realist/neorealist paradigm, according to which an economically bankrupt and militarily vulnerable Pakistan had no choice but to cooperate with the United States. In this paper, drawing the arguments from the theory of hegemonic stability and constructivism, I contend that the institution of military, the main architect of Pakistan's foreign policy, was socialized in a way to accommodate and welcome politically hegemonic relationship with the United States. US hegemonic role was institutionalized in Pakistani army during the period of first military ruler General Ayub Khan in 1950s and 1960s, when the United States provided military and economic aid to perpetuate Ayub Khan's rule for more than ten years. Ever since, civil-military relationship within Pakistan depended on the hegemonic role of the United States. Military in Pakistan looked towards United States as the major source of military and economic assistance to protect it against both the domestic as well as international threats. However, military leaders in Pakistan also recognized that US help would be forthcoming only if Pakistani military's services will be needed, either to counter Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or to fight war against terrorism. Following are the major theoretical and empirical implications of this paper. First, the case under study shows that major dynamics of international relations in the post-September 11th world are not primarily different. Historical precedents can be found for the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Second, dynamics of domestic politics are important in defining the foreign policy of a country. Third, early construction of institutions (like military in the present case) is important in defining their future behavior. Fourth, argument of the theory of hegemonic stability, which mainly emphasizes socialization of economic hegemony, can be applicable to more political and security related issues. Fifth and most important, an attempt is made to prove that the road to political hegemony is not a one way road, but it depends on the desire and interest of both powerful and weak countries.
Pakistan's General Pervaiz Musharraf's immediate and unequivocal support for the US-led war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11th might be a surprise to those scholars who were betting on more independent foreign policy by Pakistan owing to the possession of nuclear weapons. For others it was a case of pure power politics, which could be explained within the realist/neorealist paradigm, according to which an economically bankrupt and militarily vulnerable Pakistan had no choice but to cooperate with the United States. In this paper, drawing the arguments from the theory of hegemonic stability and constructivism, I contend that the institution of military, the main architect of Pakistan's foreign policy, was socialized in a way to accommodate and welcome politically hegemonic relationship with the United States. US hegemonic role was institutionalized in Pakistani army during the period of first military ruler General Ayub Khan in 1950s and 1960s, when the United States provided military and economic aid to perpetuate Ayub Khan's rule for more than ten years. Ever since, civil-military relationship within Pakistan depended on the hegemonic role of the United States. Military in Pakistan looked towards United States as the major source of military and economic assistance to protect it against both the domestic as well as international threats. However, military leaders in Pakistan also recognized that US help would be forthcoming only if Pakistani military's services will be needed, either to counter Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or to fight war against terrorism. Following are the major theoretical and empirical implications of this paper. First, the case under study shows that major dynamics of international relations in the post-September 11th world are not primarily different. Historical precedents can be found for the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Second, dynamics of domestic politics are important in defining the foreign policy of a country. Third, early construction of institutions (like military in the present case) is important in defining their future behavior. Fourth, argument of the theory of hegemonic stability, which mainly emphasizes socialization of economic hegemony, can be applicable to more political and security related issues. Fifth and most important, an attempt is made to prove that the road to political hegemony is not a one way road, but it depends on the desire and interest of both powerful and weak countries.
MLA Citation:
Khan, Waheed. "Socialization of Political Hegemony: Defining US-Pakistan Relations in the Aftermath of September 11th" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004. 2008-10-10 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p74359_index.html
APA Citation:
Khan, W. A. , 2004-03-17 "Socialization of Political Hegemony: Defining US-Pakistan Relations in the Aftermath of September 11th" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2008-10-10 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p74359_index.html
Khan, Waheed. "Socialization of Political Hegemony: Defining US-Pakistan Relations in the Aftermath of September 11th" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004
APA Citation:
Khan, W. A. , 2004-03-17 "Socialization of Political Hegemony: Defining US-Pakistan Relations in the Aftermath of September 11th" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Socialization of Political Hegemony: Defining US-Pakistan Relations in the Aftermath of September 11th
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished ManuscriptReview Method: Peer ReviewedAbstract: Pakistan's General Pervaiz Musharraf's immediate and unequivocal support for the US-led war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11th might be a surprise to those scholars who were betting on more independent foreign policy by Pakistan owing to the possession of nuclear weapons. For others it was a case of pure power politics, which could be explained within the realist/neorealist paradigm, according to which an economically bankrupt and militarily vulnerable Pakistan had no choice but to cooperate with the United States. In this paper, drawing the arguments from the theory of hegemonic stability and constructivism, I contend that the institution of military, the main architect of Pakistan's foreign policy, was socialized in a way to accommodate and welcome politically hegemonic relationship with the United States. US hegemonic role was institutionalized in Pakistani army during the period of first military ruler General Ayub Khan in 1950s and 1960s, when the United States provided military and economic aid to perpetuate Ayub Khan's rule for more than ten years. Ever since, civil-military relationship within Pakistan depended on the hegemonic role of the United States. Military in Pakistan looked towards United States as the major source of military and economic assistance to protect it against both the domestic as well as international threats. However, military leaders in Pakistan also recognized that US help would be forthcoming only if Pakistani military's services will be needed, either to counter Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or to fight war against terrorism. Following are the major theoretical and empirical implications of this paper. First, the case under study shows that major dynamics of international relations in the post-September 11th world are not primarily different. Historical precedents can be found for the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Second, dynamics of domestic politics are important in defining the foreign policy of a country. Third, early construction of institutions (like military in the present case) is important in defining their future behavior. Fourth, argument of the theory of hegemonic stability, which mainly emphasizes socialization of economic hegemony, can be applicable to more political and security related issues. Fifth and most important, an attempt is made to prove that the road to political hegemony is not a one way road, but it depends on the desire and interest of both powerful and weak countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
