In classical democracy, political training of citizens has been considered as an important condition for its success. Through political training, citizens are made aware of the requirements of a democratic government and process, expectations from them as participants and their rights and obligations. People form certain opinions and collectively manifest it as part of public opinion. How public opinion is formed and manifested, how different agencies in society such as family, peer group and other social relations, schools and educational institutions, mass media, political parties, political intermediaries and power brokers, religious institutions, etc. shape and change public opinion. Similar to this, political socialization means political recruitment of citizens in a particular political culture. Political socialization is political training and political recruitment of citizens to play a political role as activists and participants. What are the aspects of political socialization? How does political socialization influence political attitudes and behaviours of the citizens as participants or passive agents?
The agencies mentioned above a play crucial role in making citizens imbibe attitudes, beliefs, feelings and orientations about the political system, policies, programmes, symbols and various political aspects. What role the agencies of political socialization play and whether the democratic state or a non-democratic state can influence the political socialization of the citizens. Alan. R Ball explains political socialization as ‘the establishment and development of attitudes to and beliefs about the political system.’28 It is obvious that generally agencies of societies do not inculcate attitudes or feelings, which are inimical or disloyal. The objective of political socialization is to help citizens imbibe a feeling of loyalty towards the nation, obedience to the political system, positive values towards authority of the political system and encourage values that help establish a stable democratic government. We shall discuss what role political socialization plays in democratic stability.
However, the emphasis on stability, obedience and values favourable to the existing set-up also has a bias towards status quo. Many observers have pointed out that emphasis on stability in the study of political socialization is a reflection of concern to maintain stability and order in the capitalist-liberal democratic societies. We shall discuss these issues and analyse whether political socialization is meant to foster non-coercive dominance and hegemony in favour of an established system.
Political socialization has been understood earlier as a citizen’s training in civic participation. Almond and Powell define political socialization as ‘the process by which political cultures are maintained and changed.’29 This means an individual’s opinions, attitudes, orientations and beliefs are formed, shaped or inculcated in relation to political aspects. Political socialization inculcates orientations (knowledge, awareness, feeling, emotions, evaluation and judgements) towards political objects (nation or system in general, political system, inputs of policy proposals, demands and pressures and support, outputs of policy and programmes and self as an active participant).
If we read Almond and Powells explanation with that of Alan R. Balls definition given above, it appears that political socialization is not only helpful in establishment and development of attitudes to and beliefs about the political system, it also encourages changes in the pattern of political culture. As such, political socialization can be a means of maintaining the current political attitudes or inculcating new ones suited for the existing political system and political culture as well as changing it by introducing new elements. For example, it is generally agreed that the British colonial educational system and administrative set-up in India was geared to support the requirements of a colonial political system. English and liberal education was to create an educated middle class elite suited to colonial requirements. However, this very element also helped inculcation of national consciousness. Dual role of the educational system as agency of political socialization, on the one hand, to provide administrative, professional and business support to the colonial political system and on the other to foster national consciousness, is a case in point. A second example can be cited in the present Indian scenario. We have come across instances when governments seek to bring change in the history textbooks. By reinterpreting history or certain perceived facts in history, an attempt is made to revive an account of history that supports a particular socio-political orientation. It is meant to imbibe those attitudes and feelings that would help establish a particular political culture suited to a specific notion of a nation, state, political process and the role of the individual as self.
Political socialization as a process can be both status quoist as well as change-oriented. In fact, there has been an all-out effort in post-colonial and developing countries to inculcate a political culture that helps in nation-building and establishment of stable and centralized political authority. This is considered important because of the presence of fragmented political culture, divisive sub-cultures and parochial political affiliations and orientations. Political socialization is aimed at bringing consensus, or at least, a reconciled attitude. Political socialization in developing countries has a dual role—one, to inculcate emotional loyalty to a centralized authority by transferring from parochial and local loyalties which is important for nation-building, and two, to imbibe a democratic-participant attitude which is relevant for democratic stability. As such, political socialization in developing countries is more of a state-driven agenda to create a harmonious political culture suitable for democracy and nation building.
Political socialization is a continuous process and goes on through out the life of an individual. From early family experiences to school and peer group influences to direct political participation, political socialization takes place. Two significant aspects of such a continuous process of political socialization are: (i) changes in the attitudes and behaviours over a period due to changed experiences and rejection of one type of political orientation in favour of the other; and (ii) political socialization in the form of political learning and non-political learning. Political learning has a manifest objective of political socialization but non-political learning, e.g. obedience to authority of the teacher or the father leading to respect to political authority, helps in latent transmission of political culture. Thus, political socialization can take the form of both manifest as well as latent transmission. Political socialization takes place through political as well as non-political learning. Political learning implies explicit and direct communication aimed at transmitting information, values or feelings towards political objects. This is manifest political socialization. An example of such political socialization is teaching the subject of civics in schools.30 On the other hand, non-political learning may also be transmitted to the political realm that will affect attitudes towards similar political things. For example, familial or peer group attitude of tolerance or conflict and cooperation or competition may affect, in the long run, one’s behaviour towards fellow citizens, political leaders and policy makers or politics as a whole. Based on non-political socialization, an analogous view of politics can be a mere struggle for power or struggle for dominance or alternatively, a means of attaining legitimate goals or as a means for equitable resource-allocation.
Viewed in terms of political and non-political socialization, political socialization can be looked at from both a narrow and a broader perspective. Narrowly, political socialization aims at deliberate inculcation of values, attitudes and orientations about the political system and objects and that is done by formal institutions. Political parties, for example, mobilize and train people in a particular way. Similarly, publicly or state-owned media disseminate and spread specific political messages and trainings that are directed in favour of the political system. Contrasted to narrow political socialization, there can be broad political socialization. In it, formal and informal agencies of socialization work and both political and non-political socialization with analogous behaviour are relevant. All learning, formal and informal that has a bearing on political behaviour, in a latent or manifest way, becomes part of broad political socialization. Instead of dichotomizing narrow versus broad political socialization, it appears that political socialization can take place directly or indirectly. After all, a liberal democratic political system cannot imagine separating itself from the value of individual freedom including that of private property rights. In a liberal-capitalist society, institutions of the society, family, schools, religious institutions, etc. are geared to support and safeguard these values. Citizens brought up in such contexts would bring their behavioural and attitu-dinal orientations to bear on the political system. Sociologists like Talcott Parsons have maintained that industrial society requires a nuclear family or industrialization necessarily forces a family to become nuclear. This being the case, a nuclear family suited to industrialization and competitive urban environment would necessarily take a view of politics that is most appropriate to its vision of life style—competitive and individual-based. Schools also disseminate a culture of competition, gradation and values that are helpful to the capitalist economic system.
Agencies of Political Socialization
This brings us to the role of agencies of political socialization. If we take a broader view of political socialization, we see it takes place directly as well indirectly. Formal institutions of the state such as the state-owned or controlled media, school texts, legislators, executive and bureaucratic institutions, police and other order establishing agencies, political elites and political parties and informal agencies such as pressure, demand and protest groups, are involved in imparting various political information and direct political socialization.
Apart from communication and interaction with agencies of political socialization, some non-political agencies such as family and schools also impart direct political socialization. For example, familial attitude or disposition towards the political system, political parties and representatives can largely influence the orientation during childhood. Almond and Powell cite the example of Laurence Wylie’s study, Village in the Vaucluse of a French town where he has shown how general attitude of contempt against the political system dominates children’s attitudes.31 This is despite schools teaching on the contrary. Family can be a strong agency of imparting political attitudes directly. In fact, it can be argued that familial political disposition or orientation could serve as a strong means for continuity in party affiliations. Familial loyalty to a particular political party, to the Congress party or the Bhartiya Janata Party or a communist party amongst generations are not uncommon. V. O. Key, Jr in his study, Public Opinion and American Democracy explored the possibility of children disposed to consider themselves according to parental loyalty to Democrats and Republicans.32
The role of educational institutions in shaping political ideas and political orientation is obvious. At the direct level, there can be a course of civics telling students about political systems, their benefits and which political system to prefer and why. At various levels, students are exposed to simulated performance as legislators, bureaucrats, judges and such participants. At the latent level, values of competition, obedience, rigour of discipline, etc., influence political behaviour. Educational qualifications invariably affect the cognitive, affective and evaluative orientations. Education affects orientation of self as an active participant. An educated person may be more aware, more critical or attached and more evaluative or judgemental. An enlightened and educated middle class is considered as an important component of a successful democratic experience.
Experiences and behaviour learnt within peer and other in-groups (close social groups) also influence political views. Peer and intermediary influences on shaping of political views are also important in countries where citizenry includes those who are uneducated, peasantry and remotely settled. Shaping of public views and political opinion through third party political narration and information is a relevant in Indian villages. Though adio, newspapers and television are present, most of the political views and orientation in villages are shaped through third-party political narration. Third-party political narration implies discussion or communication about political issues and policies, programmes and leaders by relatively educated, informed and politically active persons or persons who are intermediaries between the people and the parties to those who are less informed, less educated and discerning and less connected with the media and politically active towns. Third-party political narration takes place at village tea shops, grocery and vegetable shops, weekly bazaars, marriage parties, muffasil towns, caste meetings, post-pooja or post-namaz sessions, or during the cultivation and irrigation. If one looks at the dynamics of village and rural political socialization in India, besides other agencies, the third-party political narration, provides a significant means.
Political socialization also takes place at the work place and in associational and professional interest groups. For example, trade unions are considered as an important agency of imparting political training to its members especially for demand and pressure orientation. Mass media influences the cognitive orientation by imparting information. It also provides a basis for affective and evaluative orientation. Open or controlled, mass media influences political beliefs and orientations.
Leave a Reply