CC BY
29SOCIALIZING FACTORS - A TRY FOR ACTUAL REVIEW
Assist. Professor Georgieva Violeta Bulgaria, Stara Zagora, Trakia university, Faculty of education
Abstract. The article is a theoretical review of the essence and factors of socialization. It outlines the fundamental interpretations given by the classics in the pedagogy and shows the actual trends of the external socializing factors (family, school, peers, street, mass communication) caused by the society development and evolution.
Keywords: socialization, socializing factors, social media
SOCIALIZATION - CLASSICAL ESSENCE AND ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING
Socialization is an independent interdisciplinary field of research and it is interesting for sociologists, pedagogues, psychologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers, political scientists, ethnographers. Some of the authors dedicated their work on socialization process are Freud, Erikson, Morgan, scientists in the field of sociology and pedagogy Park, Parsons, Thomas, Mead, Dewey, Mudrik (Мудрик), Mardahaev (Мардахаев), Andreev (Андреев), Bizhkov (Бижков), Kouteva (Кутева), Andreeva (Андреева). All these researchs and many others compiled a rich and fundamental literature revealing verbal different but relatively semantic understanding about the essence of the concept and the process "socialization". The etymology of the word "socialization" allows reading in advanced parameters in terms of the range of reflections on the process. The word has a Latin origin (socialis) and means public connection with the life and relationships in the society. The term "socialization" is used in the modern scientific sense in the 90s of XIX century by Durkheim, Siemmel, Dubar, Bernstein and Habermas.
Eighty years later there are more intensev interpretations about socialization given by Clausen who explans the process as a tool which provides "social and cultural continuity". Another interpretation given by Kohn (Кон) defines the socialization as "acquiring by the individual a system of social roles and culture", after that Parygin (Паригин) characterizes the same process as "social knowledge, a social communication, acquiring of habits for practical activities, which include the material world of objects and the total of social functions, roles, norms, rules and obligations; a metamorphose and a quality transformation of the human, his comprehensive and harmonious development". In the end of 90's Karagyozov (Карагьозов) explains the socialization as a permanent process of personality's development in the aspects of its social determination and activity for public helpful functioning, reproduction and human progress. In 2003 the socialization is defined by Mardahaev (Мардахаев), as a process of converting the individual in a personality, a process of acquiring by him the specific for the society, community and groups, language, values, experience, culture, norms, attitude, pattern of behavior. In the same year Desev (Десев) exposes the socialization as a complicated process of interaction between the human individual and the elements of the social environment and the result of such interaction which is social regulation of the individual behavior reflecting the established cultural values and norms.
All these interpretations given by the established classics is a fundamental basis which allows the author to shape his definition for the process "socialization" - complicated process relating to the structural transformation of the personality through its conscious activity and self wished engagement with the human culture, social knowledge, skills, social roles, moral norms, rules of behavior and all necessary for a social success in the society.
According to Mudrik (Мудрик), Bizhkov (Бижков), Valkanova (Вълканова) and more the socialization is the general process including in itself another two processes - social adaptation (a process of adaptation to the conditions and changes in the social environment) and social individualization (a process of keeping the personality's autonomy, own view, values, emotions, independence while solving problems, a possibility for self-determination, self-realization and self-actualization). The both processes are the two components which realize the big process of socialization in entirety. If the social adaptation means that the well socialized person is inscribed in the society, the second one process guarantees that the same well socialized person has kept his own specific individuality, authenticity, colourfulness and originality. The author understands the actual socialization as remaining an inimitable and unique personality, no matter how deep he is socialized.
The process of socialization is a tool which only facilitates the entering the society and ensures a social success in the social spaces.
In order the place of the person in the process of socialization there are two main courses -conditioning paradigm (the person as an object) and interactive paradigm (the person is a subject). The first paradigm (subject-object approach) focuses on the processes of adaptation and temporal development and the second one (subject-subject approach) on the adaptation to a certain social structure.
In order the duration of the socialization in human's life there are again two main positions. Some authors claim that the process ends about 20 years of age and concerns only the period from childhood to adolescence, but according to others the socialization is a permanent lifelong process. We believe that the process occurs most concentrated in the ages of organized education, which imprint for life but we cannot agree that it ends then. Meaning the new horizons for people in the face of new employment and the environment, globalization, multiculturalism and conceptuality for lifelong learning, we tend to think that the process socialization prolonged throughout the life time of man.
SOCIALIZATION - CLASSICAL FACTORS AND ACTUAL TRENDS
In the scientific literature the conditions where people interact in the process of socialization can be found as socializing "factors", "agents", "institutes". Bronfenbrenner (Бронфенреннер) separates them in a four groups: micro-environment (family, parents, living conditions, games, books), mezzo-environment (family, school, street), ekzo-environment (public organizations) and macroenvironment (culture of the society). Later there is a familiar interpretation given by Mudrik (Мудрик), who differentiates four groups of factors: mega-factors (space, planet, world), macro-factors (country, ethnicity, society), mezzo-factors (region, type of settlement, mass communication, subculture) and micro-factors (family, neighbors, peers, educational organizations). Other authors divide only two but fundamental groups: internal factors (related to the personality) and external factors (related to the social environment). Through this approach Mardahaev (Мардахаев) separates the factors in two groups: personal factors and environmental factors; Ivanov (Иванов) also differentiates two similar groups: individual-personality factors and social institutes of socialization.
The first social unit with which everybody has contacted is the family. Park characterizes four major types of families depending on their structure: nuclear (elementary) family - universal in all human societies contains a married couple and their children while they are independent; mixed (extended) family - contains several married couples and their children, who live together in the same household; a family with three generations - contains representatives of three generations; "broken" family - parents are separated, one parent has died, both parents are deceased. Depending on the structure of relationships in the family, Andreev (Андреев) distinguishes three types of families: adults - children oriented (children's behavior is similar to that of adults), child-friendly (parents are doing everything possible for the welfare of children), leadership by adults (emphasis on individual development). The functions of the family according to Mardahaev (Мардахаев) are: reproductive, socializing, educational, economic, recreational and communicative.
In 2014 Kouteva (Кутева) outlines the radical changes in the demographics of family life: growth of gay couples of extramarital cohabitation; single parent families; frequency of divide and divorces; second marriages; poverty and changes in models of childcare. The author assumes that the family is the main institution for socialization, but stresses that the different family models are not common to the majority of people.
Another socializing agent approved by the classic pedagogues is the school. According to Nemov (Немов) the impact of the school upon the students unleashes their potential very intensive because they systematically spend a considerable part of its time for about 10 years (from 6-7 years old to 16-17 years old). Regardless of the change of society and understanding of the new pedagogical paradigm for personal oriented education, where the student is the subject of education formed as capable of experiences and the teacher has new roles (mediator, moderator, facilitator, catalyst, mentor, tutor, consultant, manager, supplier of resources, etc.) entering modern educational technologies (such as project-based, interactive-based, computer-based and web-based learning, etc.), with focus on the principle of cooperation in training, digitization of learning, transition from school of "reproduction" to school of "active learning" and other changes forming a different picture compared to the school decades ago, we are adamant that the school remains a fundamental source of systematic knowledge about the world and the role of the teacher, although nuanced rich, remains the most significant and could not be replaced, as well as his emotions, professional and personal skills, proactivity, and the live interaction between teacher and student.
Another factor of socialization is the group of peers - at school, in the neighborhood, in the virtual world. According to Andreev (Андреев) in the group of peers adolescents feel comfortable
because they are distant from adults. On the one hand this group protects adolescents from accelerated socialization and rapid assimilation of adults, on the other hand it is definitely a factor of ongoing socialization, albeit in a more specific way in which adolescents feel emancipated, full in their contacts by the opportunity for reflection to construct friendly and emotional relations with the equals.
In connection with the previous factor years ago the researchers examined the street as an independent factor of socialization because it is the open environment where teenagers are concentrated to communicate. The observations show that today the street is uncertain social environment and that is why it is a recessive factor for socialization. The actual trends for this factor are alienation and escapism among teenagers on the one hand because of the dangers of this environment and secondly because of the virtualization of communication in the new attractive social platforms.
Autonomous factor of socialization researched by Dong, Berns, Croteau & Hoynes, Ritzer, Gordon, Curran, Andreev (Андреев), Mudrik (Мудрик), Mardahaev (Мардахаев), Valkanova (Вълканова) and others are mass media. The influence of mass media upon adolescent is in the focus of pedagogical studies very long time and as a result of this interest there is a direction in the general pedagogy called "digital pedagogy" or "media pedagogy". In 2007 Qvortrup outlines clearly that kind of pedagogy as: theory of media education and theory of media socialization. Media education is the scientific field concentrated on the range of issues relating to media learning. At first glance this theory of special and extraordinary opportunities for learning through radio, television and new digital media. But this theory in essence has a much broader scope. Media pedagogy and its supporters (Hirsch, Bauer, Morrell, Scholle & Denski, Schwoch & White, Angelov (Ангелов) and others) seek relation mass media (radio, TV, internet) and training, education and socialization of people.
SOCIAL MEDIA AS FACTOR OF ACTUAL SOCIALIZATION OF Z GENERATION
As the researchers from the past years have registered the temporal conditions of the time they have lived in and developed effective prescriptions for human saving and prosperity, it is appropriate and expected to be reported and described the actual changes and dynamics of the present society. Such understanding lights the idea of reverberation of social media upon the adolescents (called "Z generation" - initiated in the digital technology generations who were born, raised and grown up in the digital "New Age", after 1991) and their socialization. Due to evolution of the society dictated by the new technologies, the previously described factors and their influence also meet changes. If decades ago some of the mentioned factors are categorically leading, today they have recessive impact and others or new dominate and richly nuanced. Such factors' dynamic raises scientific interest and illuminates some new directions and proliferations while measure the socialization.
Social media (any digital and virtual platform bringing together the three components in itself - technology, real users and the possibility of instant interaction between them) are natural daily living environment of million people around the world. Researching the essence and effects of social media these new media can be thought as separated socializing factor but also as a socializing multivalent agent with a synergistic effect. The second comes from the observations showing that the social media are an area where all the mention classic factors have a virtual presence. In other words the syncretism of all described in the literature factors is leading to a sharp synergistic effect of social media. It is not so important in which direction researches would work the fact is that social media transfer the prerogatives of technology and have a direct influence on the personality and its actual socialization.
In two years (2014-2016) the author made a research with 380 students and teachers in Bulgaria aiming to register the impact of social media on the cognitive, psychological and emotional sides based on 3 criteria (academic success, social influence and emotional intelligence), 7 indicators and 14 research factors, using 8 research methods. After the summary, analysis and systematization of the received in the course of research empirical data is clearly visible that the social media influence of the three of researched panels. The results of empirical data did not surprise and reflected initial assumptions and expectations regarding the impact of social media on the educational, social and emotional side of today life. The analysis of the data gave a positive weight to the hypothesis of the study and confirmed that social media is a socializing factor for representatives of the "Z" generation. More details from the results would be shared in future publications very soon.
REFERENCES
1. Ангелов, Б. (2007). Медийна и комуникативна компетентност. УИ „Св. Климент Охридски. С.
2. Андреев, М. (1988). Педагогическа социология. НП. С.
3. Андреева, Л. (1998). Социално познание и междуличностно взаимодействие. София.
4. Бижков, Г., В. Кутева - Цветкова, Б. Здравкова. (2014). Социална педагогика. Теоретични основи. Велико Търново.
5. Бронфенбреннер, У.(1976). Два мира детства. Дети в США и СССР. М.
6. Вълканова, В. (2006). Социализация на децата в технологична среда. УИ "Св. Климент Охридски". София.
7. Десев, Л. (2010). Речник по психология. Шесто поправено и допълнено издание. Булгарика. С.
8. Иванов, П. (2007). Приложна социална психология. ИК "Ахат". Русе.
9. Карагьозов, Ив., М. Русева. (1996). Увод в социалната педагогика. Слово. Велико Търново.
10. Кон. И. (1967). Социология личности. Политиздат. М.
11. Мардахаев, Л. В. (2003). Социальная педагогика. Гардарики. М.
12. Мудрик, А. В. (2000). Социальная педагогика. Академиа. М.
13. Немов, Р. С. (1988). Психология. Психология образования. Просвещение. М.
14. Паригин, Б. (1971). Основы социально-психологической теории. Мысль. M.
15. Bauer, W. (2014). Music learning today: digital pedagody for creating, performing, and responding to music. Oxford University Press. NY.
16. Berns, R. (2012). Child, Family, School, Community: Socialization and Support. University of California, Irvine Saddleback College. USA.
17. Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of Pedagogie Discourse. London.
18. Clausen, John A. (ed). (1968). Socialization and Society. Little Brown and Company. Boston.
19. Croteau, D., W. Hoynes. (2014). Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences. SAGE Publications Inc. USA.
20. Curran, J., M. Gurevitch, J. Woollacott. (1983). Mass communica-tion and society. Edward Arnold. Hong Kong.
21. Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
22. Dong, Q., A., Hansson, B. McDougall. (2012). Atlas: the archaeol-ogy of an imaginary city. Columbia University Press. New York.
23. Dubar, C. (1991). La socialization. Construction des identities so-ciales et professionnelles. Paris.
24. Durkheim, E. (1990). La Sociologie et son domaine Scientifique.
25. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York, Norton.
26. Freud, S. (1958). Civilization and its discountents. NY. Doubleday Anchor Books.
27. Gordon, T., M. Verna. (1973). Mass media and socialization: a se-lected bibliography. Radio - Television - Film Dept., Temple University. Philadelphia.
28. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhr-kamp Verlag.
29. Hirsch, B. (2012). Digital humanities pedagogy: practices, princi-ples and politics. OpenBook Publishers. Cambridhe. England.
30. Mead, G. (1964). On social psychology; selected papers. University of Chicago press. Chicago.
31. Morgan. Cl., R. King, J. Weisz, J. Schopler. (1993). Introduction to Psychology, 7/e. New York.
32. Morrell, E. (2013). Critical media pedagogy: teaching for achieve-ment in city schools. Teachers College Press. NY.
33. Park, K. (2011). Park's textbook of preventive and social medicine. Jabalpur: M/S Banarsidas Bhanot.
34. Parsons, T. (1968). Politics and social structure. NY. Free Press.
35. Qvortrup, L. (2007). Media Pedagogy: Media Education, Media Socialisation and Educational Media. http://www.seminar.net/images/stories/vol3-issue2/lars_qvortrup-media_education.pdf
36. Ritzer, G. (2014). Essentials of Sociology. SAGE Publications, Inc. Canada.
37. Scholle, D., S. Denski. (1994). Media education and the (re)production of culture. Bergin & Garvey. Westport, Conn.
38. Schwoch, J., M. White, S. Reilly. (1992). Media knowledge: read-ings in popular culture, pedagogy, and critical citizenship. State University of New York Press. Albany.
39. Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie. Leipzig: Duncker&Humbolt.
40. Thomas, D. L, et al. (1974). Family socialization and the adoles-cent. Boston. Lovington.
