Relationship between education and socialization

User:Philbartle/Rants02 - WikiEducator

relationship between education and socialization

Free Essay: Education and Socialisation Sociologists from various schools of School provides the future workforce with the basic skills required to "enable. Both socialization and education involve learning, but there is a difference important in sociology. Socialization is what happens every day of. Distinctions between educating and socializing have been made a number of .. of a sense of real difference, was achieved by the use of leisure and education.

In stressing the absolute importance of a society to human beings and the role of education in initiating the young into particular societies, he is, incidentally, trying to expose the shallowness of notions of education -- such as James Mill's -- which focus on the cultivation of the individual as though people had free choices about what characteristics they would encourage in the young: But this is not to say that society inhibits the development of the individual; society both makes it possible and, given man's social nature, it is only within the collectivity that the individual can develop properly: Whereas we showed society fashioning individuals according to its needs, it could seem, from this fact, that the individuals were submitting to an insupportable tyranny.

Sometimes those who see education as entirely an instrument of social initiation and who thus categorize individual cultivation entirely within a social context, tend towards conclusions about "society's" rights and duties in governing individuals' education that can make others distinctly uncomfortable. Thus "since education is an essentially social function, the state cannot be indifferent to it. Even in private schools; "the education given in them must remain under the State's control.

One way of viewing the history of schooling over the past century and a half in the West is as a generally successful struggle waged by the centralized states against church, family, locality, and class interests for control of the schools.

Prominent among the weapons of the State have been the slogan "equality of opportunity" and arguments such as Durkheim's. We might be wary, however, of Durkheim's easy move from his general, normative concept of society to seeing particular centralized nation-states as instantiations of that normative concept.

Education and Social Change

The problem with that move is summed up by Dewey though not referring especially to Durkheim: Some might think that a lot of confusion might be avoided if Durkheim and Dewey used a distinction between education and socialization. The previous quotation might then be written something like this: Those who want to distinguish education from socialization need to define the two terms.

For the person who wishes to distinguish between education and socialization, Dewey's claim might well be true for socialization, but not for education. Those philosophers of education who labor to clarify their "concept of education" without constant reference to the particular social context in which it is to be embedded are, in Dewey's view, engaged in a futile scholastic exercise.

Rather, what we have to do is so describe the qualities of a truly democratic society such that socialization to such a society would encompass all that anyone might wish to include in a proper concept of education.

Given such a vision of a constantly educating social experience, the desire to distinguish socializing from educating threatens to drive apart aspects of social initiation which Dewey was most concerned to hold together. The means of overcoming these dangers was to tie both formal instruction and vocational education to the living reality of present social experience.

Thus there follow those pedagogical recommendations for preserving the social character of all learning which became, or were perverted in, the program of progressivism. In the literature of progressivism, then, we find no form of the traditional distinction between education and socialization because education is seen as having a fundamentally social character. Its role is seen as preparing people to be at home in the social world that is constantly coming into being, in order "to naturalize, to humanize, each new social and technical development" Goodman, l, p.

To ignore that social reality and to try to "educate" children into a dead or dying culture is to guarantee the preservation of ignorance and helplessness for the many and a dehumanized exploitativeness for the few.

Similarly the institution which is primarily charged with the more or less formal part of this initiation needs to be closely integrated with society's experience; it is not to be a place apart where students undergo an artificial and difficult initiation to a culture not alive in the society at large. The society must constantly invade the school so that children may grow easily into that social experience by directly doing things which are a part of its reality. Education as Distinct from Socialization Above, then, is an attempt to sketch in general terms why some people do not distinguish between educating and socializing.

It may be useful here to try to sketch in a similarly general way how and why others do make the distinction. Socializing and educating have been distinguished in a variety of ways, sometimes quite casually and vaguely.

To try to uncover the main grounds for the distinction it may be useful to begin with the strong distinction suggested above: The first great socializer, then, is learning a language. Those who share a language share a considerable part of their view of the world, which is encoded at a level of presupposition in the terms, distinctions, grammatical structure given in that language. Teaching people to be functionally literate is, in this form of the distinction, to socialize, in that it teaches conventions which are shared by everyone who aims to communicate by writing.

Teaching to write with style, talk with eloquence, and read with critical awareness is, then, to educate. A homogeneity in conventional forms of expression serves social utility; there is less complexity, less ambiguity, less likelihood of misunderstandings, and also less richness and diversity.

Writing with elegance and reading with discrimination is not a matter of social utility. It is, however, a matter of educational importance. Eccentricity is a kind of disease of education; it focuses on the formal characteristics of distinctness at the expense of the content which might make one "distinguished".

relationship between education and socialization

In schools, then, we might expect all activities to have both socializing and educating aspects -- the degree of which will vary from activity to activity. In woodwork or metalwork, for example, learning to use tools is a matter of socializing.

Learning to use them with elegance, with individual style, and seeking therethrough an aesthetic quality in one's work above and beyond what utility requires, is an educational matter.

In learning, say, Greek there is a level of learning conventions of letters and basic expression which involve a socialization to that language, but the aim of fluency and subtlety in understanding a different view of life and the world is an educational matter.

Usually in schools the distinction can be made more easily and clearly. Those activities which are engaged in so that people can get on more easily in society at large -- can get jobs, can fulfil the basic responsibilities of citizenship, parenthood, and so on -- will tend to be mainly a matter of socialization.

Those activities which lead to personal cultivation will tend to be mainly educational. We may also distinguish between educating and socializing activities by the grounds on which we justify their place in the curriculum. Socializing activities are justified on grounds of social utility; eduational activities on the grounds of cultivation of individuals.

The distinction is important to hold, in the view of those who hold it, because we need to be able to refer to separate criteria in judging whether curriculum time be allowed for any particular socializing or educating activity. Thus, if we face a conflict between some who want to add a course in, say, Consumerism or Driver Training and some who want to add a course in, say, Greek or music appreciation, we need to be clear that we do not decide which to include and which to exclude by reference solely to a socializing criterion.

We do not ask which is more relevant to students' ability to get by in the daily adult world. Rather we need to recognize that schools both socialize and educate, and a conflict between Consumerism and Greek cannot sensibly be settled by applying a criterion appropriate to deciding which among various socializing activities should be included.

This sharp distinction, then, is seen as a defence of education in schools; a defence sorely needed in light of the erosion of educational activities in schools in favor of increasing socialization.

This erosion has been especially severe, in this view, in North America where the schools were willing instruments in the homogenizing of diverse immigrant populations -- e pluribus unum -- and where the society at large is seen as appropriately demanding that the schools pay increasing attention to socializing concerns. This perspective is expressed most boldly by Michael Oakeshott: The design to substitute 'socialization' for education has gone far enough to be recognized as the most momentous occurrence of this century, the greatest of the adversities to have overtaken our culture, the beginning of a dark age devoted to barbaric affluence.

It emerged from a project, embarked upon about three centuries ago which was neither stupid nor itself menacing to the educational engagement to provide an alternative to education for those who, for whatever reason, fell outside the educational engagement.

Since those times this alternative has been adjusted to respond to changing circumstance, it has been improved and extended to compose an apprenticeship to adult domestic, industrial and commercial life, it has generated a variety of versions of itself, and for the most part it has submitted to the direction of governments.

Indeed, it has become what the world it has helped to create can recognize as a 'service industry'. It was designed as a contribution to the well-being of 'the nation'; it has been welcomed or endured on account of the affluence it is alleged to be about to procure, and attempts have been made to calculate its product in terms of costs and benefits; and it has been defended on the ground of what it is designed to produce and upon the more questionable plea that it is the most appropriate apprenticeship for certain sorts of children.

This makeshift for education, however, was permitted to corrupt the educational engagement of European peoples; and it is now proclaimed as its desirable successor.

The usurpation has everywhere been set on foot.

But the victim of this enterprise is not merely an historic educational engagement with all its faults and shortcomings ; it is also the idea of education as an initiation into the inheritance of human understandings in virtue of which a man might be released from the 'fact of life' and recognize himself in terms of a 'quality of life'. The calamity of the enterprise is matched by the intellectual corruption of the enterprisers Oakeshott, l97l, p.

The reason for holding fast to a clear distinction between socializing and educating, as may be seen from Oakeshott's words, is that it is the only way of making clear that human beings may engage a refined culture which transcends the relationships and transactions of any particular society.

relationship between education and socialization

To use another of Oakeshott's images, this culture is like a conversation: Education is learning the language of this great civilized and civilizing conversation. We can of course live and die without engaging it, as our cats and dogs do.

For a human being to live and die without engaging in this conversation, however, is to miss the best that life has to offer. In North America there has prevailed a powerful resistance to seeing the schools merely as socializing institutions.

A strong statement of this view from the earlier part of this century runs: The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

Society of Sisters U.

relationship between education and socialization

What has been wrong with some parts of the traditional form of education is that this distinction has been complacently accepted and built into practice, such that it is seen as perfectly proper for the masses to be taught in a utilitarian fashion -- if indeed an acceptable proportion can be taught to use tools, read, compute, and so on, adequately for the demands of their job and social role -- and proper for others to be educated.

What is wrong with all this from the progressive point of view is the acceptance of the division between utilitarian skill and cultural achievement. The progressive program is designed to prevent precisely that traditional theoretical distinction becoming realized in social life. No-one is to be trained simply to utilitarian skills with no sense of the intrinsic value of their functions; no one is to be allowed to develop a frivolous, effete aesthetic sensitivity with no sense of social functions and utility.

The educational vision of Dewey is seen reflected in architecture by "the functionalism of Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright, that was trying to invent an urbanism and an aesthetic suited to machine-production and yet human" Goodman, l, p. There is an apparent ambivalence in progressivist thinking, which will be explored later, about traditional High Culture. Another strain of progressivism is hostile to high culture, seeing it as mis-education and a sham.

Both recognize that a product of high culture is social division; the former consider this a contingent matter, a historical coincidence that can be rectified by proper democratic procedures. In the process, the artificial aesthetic that creates for traditionalists a hierarchy of cultural objects "out there," which have to be internalized in appropriate hierarchies inside, will become purified; the artifical crud, associated with unreflective snobbery, will be wiped away, and the new democratically educated person will be able to see the contents of this high culture afresh and with a purer aesthetic make appropriate genuine responses.

So the baroque extravagance and over-sophistication, the diseased aesthetic and its associated rottenness, may be overthrown and the inheritance of high culture may be brought fresh and clean into the American democratic experience.

Frank Lloyd Wright did not ignore the traditions of architecture, what he did was see them with a clear eye, one which was alive to the present reality of social experience, and so he could fashion buildings which preserved elegance but forged that elegance in alliance with their new function, sweeping neo-gothic absurdities away.

The other strain of progressivism saw high culture and class-based divisions as necessarily connected. The stress on personal cultivation was only possible to a class that had leisure, and the money to support it, and so personal cultivation was simply a means of distinguishing, distancing, oneself from the masses and the society around one.

The distance, and the preservation thereby of a sense of real difference, was achieved by the use of leisure and education for initiating one's children into an arbitrarily chosen dead culture. It has been purely a matter of fashion which dead culture is chosen. In the eighteenth century the social division was marked and preserved by artificially resurrecting Roman culture as the differentium; in the nineteenth century the fashion shifted to Greek culture as the distinguishing criterion; in the twentieth century, ironically, it is eighteenth and nineteenth century cultures that are resurrected which, when living cultures, were derided in their time by the predecessors of those who now use them to mark themseles off from the living culture of today.

The central characteristic of this culture -- what Oakeshott so inappropriately likens to a conversation -- is that it is entirely passive; its appropriate response is "appreciation. What Oakeshott presents as an ideal of education, the progressives see as precisely the social problem.

Oakeshott approvingly quotes Ortaga y Gassett's tag: Man does not have a nature, what he has is history. The progressives would rather say: Man does not have a nature, what he has is society and thereby a future. It is only the upper and middle classes, and the male parts of these, that have a history.

The working classes, peasantry, and women are relatively history-less and, in the progressives' view of the traditionalist position on education, thus they are treated as less human.

relationship between education and socialization

Given Oakeshott's claim that we become human as we are initiated into the fullness of human culture, it is clear that some are much more human than others. The working classes and peasantries, however, have had and have a society no less than the upper classes.

And on this criterion are no less human and have no less claim on the future. So the taxes levied on the working and lower middle classes may go to state support of opera, ballet, orchestras, poets sometimes through universities -- which are themselves instuments of the divisive processwhile should hockey or football or boxing get into financial difficulties there will be no state subsidy for them.

So the artificial entertainments of those educated into dead cultural forms are preserved. Conditioning and Determining It would be possible to give an account of the conflicting positions about the appropriateness or otherwise of a distinction between socializing and educating in historical terms. In such an account the distinction between those who see knowledge, culture, and aesthetic responses as being socially conditioned and those who see them as being socially determined would come only recently into the story with any sharpness.

The conflict is prefigured in Dewey, of course, in that he seems to hold both positions, each at different points. But the arguments are all contemporary, the traditionalists have not gone away nor have the progressives conceded defeat with "back to basics. It is a necessary connection because knowledge, culture, and aesthetic responses are socially determined.

Pursuing what in other, connected, arguments is called a synchronic rather than a diachronic approach, we may lay out a continuum with two apparent discontinuities along its length. Socially, we think of races as distinct categories, yet we use variables that are inconsistent, are contradictory, and are ranges without boundaries, to create those arbitrary racial categories.

Biologically, there is no such thing as race. They have to be socialised to become prejudiced. To counteract that we need to use our educational institutions to teach values of acceptance, tolerance, flexibility and fairness. These need to be designed for the abilities and knowledge of the students, which are usually correlated with their ages.

A simpler approach, one of acceptance of all of us including our selves as valuable no matter what we look like, might be more appropriate at elementary level.

"The Relationship Between Education adn Socialization Input and Social " by Joanne Marie Higgins

There is a wide range of approaches between those two. It is important, however, that teachers are aware of the arbitrariness and superficiality of racist, sexist and ageist ideas, and that they are not based on scientific including biological facts.

I had a secondary school biology teacher who expressed his opinion that Hitler was right. Our whole educational system, orthodox and non orthodox, is a major tool for preventing and mitigating it. Culture is not static, and if we try to preserve it, we pickle it; kill it.


Culture is a living organic entity, and must grow and change to live. What we are doing, then is helping to make it stronger by adapting to the evolving world social environment. Most obviously it should be included in social studies courses. Less obviously it should be included in science courses such as biology and zoology. Debunking the notion that there are distinct categories of race, sex and age is the responsibility of the biological sciences.

A wide range of other subjects can easily have appropriate places for adding the topic. Taking the "Gardening" [2] approach to education, where "the taught" should be considered before "what is taught," should encourage us to consider the needs of societies and communities when designing and presenting educational resources. The method also works for learning a written language. True, we lose some of our language learning abilities as we get older, especially if we do not exercise them, but it is our methods, not our natural abilities, that are in focus here.

Oh we did learn grammar, but we did so by learning what felt right, not what the regulations were. I later used it for training community workers to learn a language if they were assigned to a community where they spoke a different language. The method is to pretend that you are a three year old, select only words and phrases that are useful in your daily life Please pass the salt and train your friends and colleagues as informants to repeat the term after you you must not repeat it after them.

Without telling them what you are thinking, you pretend that your informants are your older brothers and sisters, correcting your pronunciation. You choose words only each day, no more, no less. You vary the way a word is used I want water. Within three months, you aim for fluency, which means the ability to operate in the language, with a limited vocabulary, about a hundred words only what we tend to use in daily life.

While you train your informants to not think of themselves as correcting you, just repeating after you, you pretend you are three years old getting corrected.

Using text books and notebooks is efficient and convenient, and encouraged by schools and colleges that are becoming more and more like corporations. Text books and notebooks encourage conformity, monotony and homogeneity like McDonald's hamburgers.

I would like to hear from collaborators on WikiEducator their thoughts and experiences with unorthodox methods of learning.

Methods of Learning are Not the Same as Methods of Teaching —— October 10 We encourage alternative and non orthodox methods of learning, and this affects how we present them to the learners, but they are two different things, and we must be careful not to confuse the two. At first this sounds too obvious, but when we are creating alternative and non orthodox processes, it can become easy to forget. The teacher is creating the context for that to happen.

There is not one single way to create it. When the teacher organizes a literacy class into a planning meeting to decide on a project such as going on a field trip to collect fish prices information then come back to construct signs to indicate the prices of fish, it is not the teacher who engages in the doing, the students do, and the teacher creates the context for that to happen.

The teacher can choose among many ways to create it, and design new ones. The teacher, by doing, learns much about the subject, and sometimes forgets that the learners are not "doing" just listening and watchingare less stimulated, and are learning less. The teacher can easily become puzzled, even irritated, that the learners are so slow.