Socialization of Child - Article Example

Socialization of Child Abstract/Summary: The debate on whether nature or nurture plays a role in the socialization of the child has been raging strong for several years. Behaviorist psychology has largely guided the prevailing view on how a child is socialized. Parents, peers and the child’s environment have been viewed as significant factors affecting the child’s behavior and development. However, several studies have also shown that a child’s socialization patterns may be biologically conditioned rather than being dependent upon environmental factors. But neither nature nor nurture alone can serve to explain a child’s socialization patterns; rather both nature and nurture play a role in influencing the child’s development. Introduction: The socialization of a child has long been assumed to be the result of nurture, or the effects of the environmental factors including the impact of parents, in shaping and fashioning child behavior patterns. There is also an opposing view that genetic factors predispose certain behavioral aspects in children, particularly those related to gender, rather than social conditioning. The debates rages fierce but on an overall basis, it appears likely that both nature and nurture may play a role in child socialization. Analysis: Baumrind and Black (1967) conducted a study on parenting and socialization in children and arrived at the conclusion that parents who are both responsive and firm tend to have children who are competent and can function well in social situations. On this basis, the inferences that have been drawn are that a somewhat authoritarian style of parenting may in fact be beneficial to the child in the long run. However, as pointed out by Harris (1988) on the basis of several research studies that have been conducted into this subject, early interpretations of Baumrind and Black’s study as well as other studies have neglected to take into account the fact that it may in face be parental behavior that is driven by children, rather than vice versa. The parenting style will be conditioned by the nature of the child and it appears that to a great extent, the nature of the child’s socialization patterns may be driven by its genetic predisposition rather than the influence of parenting. According to Harris (1988), the way children behave at home may be the only area where the impact of parenting styles may demonstrate some effect; while the behavior of children in contexts that are not home related may be quite different and cannot be explained on the basis of parenting styles or the nurturing aspects. Freudian theory also tends to lean in the direction of nature as the governing element in shaping the personality of a child as it grows. Many of the concepts upon which Freud based his ideas on personality are derived from neuro-anatomy and physiology, especially in terms of the concept of id, which is the governing factor in development of personality.(Freud 1923). According to Freud, the id is the central and basic element that conditions a child’s personality and influences its development. On this basis, he presents specific stages in child development and growth which are biologically determined and occur in all individuals of all cultures, irrespective of where and how they are raised. (Freud, 1923). Several studies on atypical human reproductive development have been finding that the existence of sex dimorphic behaviors may increasingly be explained on the basis of the biological process of sexual differentiation, which occurs in the brain, rather than being subject to the explanation of gender specific social conditioning.(Berenbaum and Resnick, 1997; Meaney 1988;Breedlove, Cooke and Jordan, 1999). Such studies have shown that high levels of prenatal androgen in girls may influence their conduct, such as for example in their preference for masculine toys as well as the display of more aggressive, male behavioral patterns. Such studies would appear to suggest that child development and socialization is likely to be affected by biological factors rather than environmental ones. As opposed to the studies above which demonstrate the effect of nature on influencing child socialization and development, researchers such as Maccooby (1988) on the other hand, view the development of gender appropriate behavior in children as being a factor arising out of social conditioning. According to Maccoby, there are three major agents that may be held to be responsible for the socialization of children, especially in Western societies. These three factors are families, peer groups within which the children move and day care centers. As the child’s gender identity develops, the mental representations that take place in children and fashion their future conduct. These mental representations are based upon the internalization of norms that exist in society, instilled into the child through social conditioning that takes place within the framework of the groups the child moves around in, whether parental or peer based. The Theory of Social learning out forth by Bandura (1977) is also premised upon the impact of the environment in fashioning child development and behavior. According to Bandura, the child’s socialization process takes place through cognitive learning, which represents a synthesis of stimuli absorbed from the external environment which are then processed in the child through imitation and role modeling. Therefore these theorists appear to support the view that nurture plays a more significant role in a child’s socialization process. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it may be noted that there is support offered for both sides of the debate. The views of behavioral psychologists such as Bandura and Maccoby have supported the belief that environmental factors play a large role in shaping the child’s socialization process. The kind of parental influence a child receives, the kind of peer interactions and external stimuli that a child is exposed to, will inevitably have an impact on shaping the socialization process. This may serve to explain why in some instances, males may reveal female patterns of socialization, especially if they have been brought up by single mothers for instance and have no male influence to shape their socialization process. However, the studies in support of the nature view of socialization, also offer evidence to support the position that biological factors may play a role in shaping development, especially where gender related behavior is concerned. It appears that atypically introducing androgen into the prenatal stage may impact upon the gender specific behavior of little girls and make them more aggressive, so that their socialization processes are more typically male than female. However, to what extent can this process be said to be influenced only by nature? The kind of environment that a child is exposed to and the parental influences are also likely to play a role in influencing the child’s choices and patterns of socialization. For instance, Freud has laid out distinct stages in a child’s socialization process which are determined on a biological basis. However, to some extent, the transition into different stages may also be influenced by the child’s environmental stimuli. As the child grows and learns how to behave, the selfish impulses of the id are toned down and refined through a child’s interactions with its environment and its peers. A child will need to learn how to interact effectively with its environment in order to function effectively in a social environment, and this process will be refined through the influence of nurture or the environment. In conclusion, it therefore appears that no single view can adequately explain child socialization when standing on its own. Rather, an integrated approach may be most useful in this aspect, so that the significance of both nature and nurture in affecting child socialization are acknowledged. References: * Bandura, A, 1977. “Social Learning Theory”, New York: General Learning Press. * Baumrind, D and Black, A.E., 1967. “Socialization Practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls”, Child Development¸ 38: 291-327 * Berenbaum, S.A and Resnick, S.M., 1997. “Early Androgen effects on aggression in children and adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia”, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 22: 505-515 * Breedlove, S.M., Cooke, B.M and Jordan, C.L., 1999. “The orthodox view of brain sexual differentiation”, Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 54:8-14 * Freud, S, 1923/1961. “The Ego and the id” IN “Standard Edition” (Vol 19) London: Hogarth Press * Harris, J.R., 1998. “The Nurture Assumption: Why Children turn out the way they do”, New York: Free Press. * Maccoby, E.E., 1988. “Gender as a social category”, Developmental Psychology, 24: 755-765 * Meaney, M.J., 1988. “The Sexual differentiation of Social play”, Trends in Neuroscience, 11:54-58 Read More