activists in Canada, and Craig received an International Human Rights Award and has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (World of Children 2012). This type of altruism clearly seems to be developed by an environment that fosters understanding, tolerance, and caring for the plight of others, yet many children are not exposed to this type of upbringing.
In this chapter we examine the process of socialization, how it involves development of our selves, and the many directions that process can take, depending on one’s experiences in life.
▲ Unlike Craig Kielburger, who was socialized to create a gentler and more humane world, some children grow up in a world of hostility and violence. Children as young as 5 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been kidnapped or sold to be child soldiers in rebel armies. They are socialized through abuse by their captors and forced to obey and kill “enemies” in order to survive themselves. They do not look at the world as a friendly place.
© Finbar O’Reilly/Reuters
Socialization is the lifelong process of learning to become a member of the social world, beginning at birth and continuing until death. It is a major part of what the family, education, religion, and other institutions do to prepare individuals to be members of their social world. In some cases, a negative socialization experience from peers or adults results in a damaged self-concept.
From the day they are born, infants are interactive, ready to be socialized into membership in the human social world. As they cry, coo, or smile, they gradually learn that their behaviors elicit responses from other humans. This interaction is the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages. These form the basic building blocks of socialization through which a child learns his or her culture and becomes a member of society. This process of interaction shapes the infant into a human being with a social self—the perception we have of who we are.
▲ Socialization starts at the beginning of life as babies interact intensively with their parents, observing and learning what kinds of sounds or actions elicit response from adults.
© iStock.com/Tatiana Dyuvbanova
Three main elements provide the framework for socialization: human biological potential, culture, and individual experiences. Babies enter this world unsocialized, totally dependent on others to meet their needs and completely lacking in social awareness and an understanding of the rules of their society. Despite this complete vulnerability, they have the potential to learn the language, norms, values, and skills needed in their society. Socialization is necessary not only for the survival of the individual but also for the survival of society and its groups. The process continues in various forms throughout our lives as we enter and exit social positions—from school and work to retirement to death.
In this chapter, we explore the nature and importance of socialization and how individuals become socialized. We also look at development of the self, who or what socializes us, macro-level issues in the socialization process, and a policy example illustrating socialization. First, we briefly examine an ongoing debate: Which is more influential in determining who we are—our genes (nature) or our socialization into the social world (nurture)?
Nature Versus Nurture—or Both Working Together?
What is it that makes us who we are? Is it our biological makeup or the family and community in which we grow up? One side of the contemporary debate regarding nature versus nurture seeks to explain the development of the self and human social behaviors—violence, crime, academic performance, mate selection, economic success, gender roles, and other behaviors—by examining biological or genetic factors that are the basis for social behavior (Harris 2009). Sociologists call this sociobiology, the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, including sexual and parental behavior, in all kinds of organisms including humans (Wilson 1978). Researchers in these fields claim that our human genetic makeup wires us for social behaviors (Pinker 2002; E. Wilson 1978, 2000, 2012).
The idea is that we perpetuate our own biological family and the human species through our social behaviors. Human groups develop power structures, are territorial, and protect their kin. Examples of behaviors that sociobiologists see as rooted in the genetic makeup of the species include a mother ignoring her own safety to help a child, soldiers dying in battle for their comrades and countries, communities feeling hostility toward outsiders or foreigners, and people defending property lines against intrusion by neighbors. Sociobiologists say that these behaviors continue because they result in an increased chance of survival of the family, one’s group, and the species as a whole (Dennis 2017; Pinker 2002; E. Wilson 1980, 2000, 2012).
Most sociologists believe that sociobiology has flaws. Sociobiology is a reductionist theory; that is, it often reduces complex social behaviors to single inherited traits such as an altruism gene, an aggression gene, or any other behavioral gene. However, evidence for such inherited traits is weak, at best. Sociologists point to the fact that there are great variations in the way members of different societies and groups behave. People born in one culture and raised in another adopt social behaviors common to the culture in which they grow up, not based on inherited traits (S. Gould 1997). If a specific social behavior is genetic, then it should be present regardless of the culture in which humans are raised. What sets humans apart from other animals is not so much our biological heritage but our ability to learn the ways of our culture through socialization.
Most sociologists recognize that individuals are influenced by biology, which limits the range of human responses and creates certain needs and drives, but they believe that nurture is far more important in shaping the individual. Some sociologists propose theories that consider both nature and nurture. Alice Rossi, former president of the American Sociological Association, has argued that we need to build both biological and social theories—or biosocial theories—into explanations of social processes such as parenting (Rossi 1984). One group of sociologists has developed a theory called evolutionary sociology, which takes seriously the way our genetic makeup—including a remarkable capacity for language—shapes our range of behaviors. However, biological research also shows that living organisms are often modified by their environments and the behaviors of others around them—with even biological or genetic structure becoming modified due to social interaction and experiences (De Waal 2016; Dobbs 2013; Machalek and Martin 2010).
Biology influences human behavior, but human action and interaction can also modify biological traits. For example, our cultural values shape what we eat today and whether we share food with the less privileged in our society. Further, as the Sociology Around the World above describes, recent research on Holocaust survivors has shown that trauma experiences can be so severe that they are passed on genetically to the next generation (Sample 2015; Thomson 2015; Yehuda et al. 2015). The bottom line is that even our biological traits may be shaped by social factors. Socialization is key in the process of becoming human and becoming humane.
Sociology Around the World
The Intriguing Case of Genes Versus the Environment
Can we pass on major life events, especially traumatic ones, through our genes to the next generation? Recent research suggests an expanding field of research may provide insights into this genes (nature) versus environment (nurture) question. Until recently, most related research focused on animals, but
