The S Word
Sorry I haven’t been posting for awhile — family issues, basically.
Anyhow, I thought this week I’d return to a favorite topic for homeschoolers, specifically the S word: socialization.
See, like every other homeschooler on the face of the planet, I’ve been asked the “What about socialization?” question, but (possibly) unlike every other homeschooler on the planet — or other school-ers, for that matter — I’ve never really been clear on the concept of what other people mean by “socialization.”
I’ve also never been clear on the concept of why people think school is the only place to acquire it, either.
I guess they think so because of John Dewey, the philosophic founder of the modern school, whose ideas changed school from a place where knowledge was acquired to a place where socialization occurred. In his definition of his educational philosophy, Dewey stated,
“The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.”
Okay, I’m not a genius here, but am I the only one who doesn’t know what Dewey really means here? I rail at my students about being clear, using few abstract nouns where concrete nouns would do, avoiding anything that smacks of jargon or essayspeak, and I think that’s trained me to turn off my brain and say, “Blahblahblah…” when I run into prose like that, or like Dewey’s. I didn’t know, for instance, that education was a social process. I thought it was the act of imparting knowledge. And how can something be a “process of living,” but not a “preparation for future living”? Like, it’s only good for right now, not next week?
I don’t get it.
Anyway, I’m calling out to ma homies across the Interwebz here to help out here. What is YOUR definition of “socialization”? What do you think people really mean when they use this word?
Just wonderin’.
~ by adsoofmelk on May 18, 2008.
Posted in Public Schooling, homeschool
Tags: Dewey, education, homeschooling, Public Schooling, socialization
No new knowledge here, but I think people are inclined to think that relating to one’s age-peers is important. I’m not really sure why.
I don’t see how understanding one’s age-peers is more pertinent than simply being able to relate to people politely, which is probably better learned through adult interaction. Actually, as a high school teacher, I think it’s pretty easy to argue that relating to age-peers is detrimental in many cases. I think the common term for that is “peer pressure.”
It’s nice when kids can play with other kids the same age, but I’ve noticed that my son interacts significantly better with people at least three or four years older. In high school these might be his peers, but at four years old, they are not. (My son likes to converse, which I think puts off his peers a bit, but he relates well to adults.)
My own observations tell me that positive interaction with other people is important, but not necessarily with age-peers. So, socialization can come from parents, family, neighbors, and other kids. It doesn’t have to come from peers at school.
My observations also tell me that avoiding unsupervised peer interaction (e.g. during recess) can also be good. I’ve seen kids both young and old learn some pretty horrific behavior from their peers: pettiness, bullying, name-calling, poor sportsmanship, thievery, and a myriad of other terrible things. It would be one thing if kids were learning to deal with these character flaws in others, but that’s not what happens. They often learn to emulate these behaviors. I think kids are better off learning how to deal with these behaviors through discussion and interaction with adults, which can come in a number of ways: questioning, observation, education, literature…
As a father I’ve seen my son pick up a couple of bad habits from his age-peers. Things that took a while to unlearn. As a high school teacher, I’ve seen some potentially great students ruined by their peers. This year alone, I can think of one student who began the year working hard and producing thoughtful work. She began hanging out with a group of rather shallow girls (aka “mean girls”) about Christmas. Now she’s barely passing, and the work and writing she does produce has the depth of plastic swimming pool. Her socialization this year has done her wonders. 8-/
The most important socialization comes from parents. Interaction with other kids has many benefits, sure; but socialization needs to come from responsible adults.
Mr. W.
P.S. I hope things are okay with the family.
They’re much better, Mr. W. — thanks for asking. Looks like things will be okay.
I think you’re bringing up a crucial issue about socialization, Mr. W., which is that — at least in my opinion — it comes from interacting with a wide core sample of people in, well, society: not just peers, but adults, older children, infants, older people, family, and strangers. I know that I certainly tend to approach that whole “socialization” thing with skepticism, but I think I do so partly because I HAD some of those (let’s say) less-than-productive experiences during recess you were talking about. When did we come to the conclusion that “socialization” could only be accomplished by one’s immediate peer group? Like, what did people do *before* then?
Nice article, thanks for sending it to the CoH.
If you learn socialization from children, then you will act like a child. If you learn socialization from adults, you will act more like an adult.
It’s a very simple equation and it’s also a very OBVIOUS one. Why so many people miss it is beyond me.
I remember being in college and not getting along with others, and one day being told that I acted “too much like an adult”… so my reaction was o_O and O_o with a little O_O on the side.
At least in America, ‘normal’ socialization seems to be broken. I don’t know if it’s any better or worse anywehre else.
I believe most think of socialization as being able to get along with folks. Nothing wrong with that, but the idea that school facilitates this requires the donning of rose-colored nostalgia glasses. I learned alot more about self-defense than about sharing at school, let me tell ya’.
Another aspect of this might be the desire for kids to have the same childhood experiences as the parents. I know I really enjoy watching The Jetsons or Perry Mason with my kids, jumping rope to crazy rhymes and playing Red Light Green Light. I can see why a parent would feel that a child was ‘missing something’ by not attending school and having the same experiences as they did. But this is emotional and not rational thinking. And maybe it’s just a bit selfish. Similar experiences are not an absolute necessity to form relationships or foster cooperation. Heck- I am a farm girl from WV who married a city boy from NJ, and we manage just fine. I seduced him with biscuits and gravy.:D
When I think of socialization, the word I hear in my head is ‘civility’. Being able to conduct oneself in a civil manner in a variety of situations. Thinking on one’s feet. Responding appropriately. Courtesy and respect. Compassion and courage. I wasn’t learnt none o’ them things in school.
George, why do you think it is that socialization with other children is valued *so* highly compared to socialization with adults? Obviously, there’s room for both, but when many homeschooling parents homeschool, socialization with children (or the perceived absence of it) is treated as if it’s a holy grail.
Sunniemom, it’s interesting the point you make about parents wanting to share the same experiences as one’s child. Honestly, I never thought of that before — literally, it never occurred to me. I guess it’s because I thought that school has changed quite a lot — and also because I didn’t *want* our child to have those same experience. Like you, I wasn’t learnt none o’ them things in school either.
School: (n, v) 1. A place to avoid if one strives to be skilled in the art of civility toward one’s fellows. 2. To educate another in the art of becoming barbaric.
Seriously though…
We live in one of those wonderful areas of the US which lends itself to very annoying, self-centered, anti-social people. If one wants to be “socialized” in our public/private school system, they beddah get wit da program, you know whad I’m sayin’? In other words, I believe that this term “socialization” has different meanings depending upon the sate/city of origin of the inquirer. THAT makes this conversation VERY slippery. *I* grew up in a school system that promoted things like teamwork, scholarship and loyalty–until High School;) I can honestly say there is NO sense of any of that here whatsoever. The “shared” experiences of the kids/parents here include: white lies to CYOA, going out and getting a bigger/better ( insert noun here) than your friend, visiting that friend and gloating, complaining about why the world does not revolve around you (As it should) and redoing the bedroom/kitchen/garage/pool house…you get the picture;)
So no. Thanks. I really don’t want my kid “socialized” to any of the above;)
Great post , as always, Adso.
Forte
Adso,
America is an anti-intellectual, conformist culture. Part of the reason for the focus on socializing with children is because of conformity – “that just the way it’s done!” Also, I suspect since the culture for the last 30 – 40 years has been created in this manner, the culture is trying to protect itself and keep itself alive, and it does that by enforcing the same socialization of the past. Kind of like how religious minorities preserve their cultures. The memes are trying to preserve themselves just like genes do.
America’s anti-intellecualism and conformity both make sure that “the nail that stands out is pounded down”. Instead of viewing ’smart people’ as those to be emulated because they are ahead, they are seen as a threat to be pounded down.
Like I said, adso- we often look at our childhoods through rose-colored nostalgia glasses. Even folks who proclaim that they had an idyllic childhood, when pressed, will admit to many less than pleasurable experiences in school as well as in life. I’ll grant that adversity makes one stronger, and tragedy is part of life- but you don’t have to stick your arm in a wood chipper to gain that knowledge either.
Sometimes the desire for kids to share the same experiences and interests is expressed in ‘normal’ things like sports and hobbies. But sometimes that desire is blinded to harmful influences, and that is when you get some of the rabid wackjob parents who go absolutely crazy when you mention HSing, or who drag their kids from one activity to another with no regard for what the child might be interested in doing. Two words- Little League.
These conversations about socialization always remind me of the plethora of high school movies that depict bullying, sexual promiscuity, and immoral, unethical behavior as ‘normal’ and just part of ‘growing up’. Take “Romey and Michele’s High School Reunion”, of which I have seen bits and pieces. WHAT about that movie would make anyone believe that high school provides the proper socialization, if, in fact, it is supposed to be humorously reflective of the ‘high school experience’? People lying in order to be viewed as successful by their former peers, whom they have not seen in 20 years, nor have been part of their lives, while glorying in the failures and tragedies suffered by those who were pretty or popular or athletic when they were KIDS.
Hand me a bucket while I toss my cookies.
Geez, Forte, it sounds like the set of “Gossip Girls” in your neck of the woods. DANG.
George, why do you think this is? Theoretically, this is also (supposed to be?) a culture which values individual achievement, the freedom of intellectual thought, the capacity to create and invent. When did we — and why did we — become so anti-intellectual in general, do you think?
Sunniemom, you’re basically describing why I didn’t go to my high school reunion — I had absolutely no ethical motives in going there, since the only reason I might have been marginally interested in going would be to see who succeeded, who failed, who got chubby, who got bald. Former air guitar contest winner, now current middle manager for Midstate Office Supply, KWIM? There was no purpose in going, so I didn’t.
I realize too that it’s silly to judge school by movies — heck, I see the daily discrepancy — but movies do reflect at least some form of reality, maybe a hyper-reality or a selective reality that stresses those parts we consider valid. To be honest, I’m worried about the meanness, the laziness, the lack of interest in learning — and I’m worried because that’s a terribly pernicious attitude.
I confess, I’m a “socialization” skeptic.
One of the reasons that I don’t like the socialization of the traditional school method, even in a private school, is the adversarial relationship that develops between the students and teachers. It seems inevitable that when you put children together, and peer dependency develops, the natural result is to view any authority figure as the enemy, and then this attitude leaks into the home and creates rift in the parent child relationship.
This contributes, IMO, to the attitude that it is sick or weird for families to be close knit and enjoy being together. Many feel rather ambivalent toward their parents, gained most of their identity from friends, and felt most gratified when recognized by their peers. Home was little more than a motel where they ate and slept, and parents were those annoying people that forced them to make their beds and take out the trash.
It’s just a personal theory of mine, and one that I can only validate with anecdotal evidence. But it makes sense to me, and I like it.
Re: American anti-intellectual conformist culture…
Well for me to go into all of the details required would probably take a book, but I’ll try and sum it up here. Please note that I am making certain assumptions I think most people aren’t.
1.) There is a strong genetic basis for behavior.
2.) That basis influences temperment and personality to the point that you could probably predict political affiliations even in young children.
3.) Human beings don’t have free will in the way is commonly accepted. Instead our wills are boxed in by our biologies. This doesn’t mean we don’t have choice so much as it means our choices are limited by our biology.
I think that if we could examine large political movements in history we would also see an underlying shift in genetic populations. The kind of personality and temperment that thrived on the American frontier, and one day the Martian frontier, wasn’t the same that thrived in the collectivist cities. Independant people don’t wait for the cavalry to arrive, they get up and save themselves.
That being said, I think that as civilization expanded it became inevitable that genes and behaviors shifted away from independance towards dependance and conformity. Yes a proper education could probably lessen this effect, but the personal leanings would still be there.
All of this being said I’d like to propose an idea that I have no evidence for, but a strong intuition’s hunch. I think that the “gifted” are a competing genetic line within homo sapien and somewhere deep in our Darwinian brains we all know it.
Or maybe I’m just the final Cylon.