Political Socialization and Traditional Norms
The first part of my reaction will focus on the Freedman and P. Freedman article specifically. From this article, I was able to extract an understanding that conveyed the importance of political socialization, but that the act of socialization itself was in fact dependent on a number of variables, such as the time period to which citizens are born, family attitudes, peer attitudes, and traditionally accepted political norms to which the child citizen is born into. The Freedmans’ article mentioned other socio-economic characteristics as playing an integral role in the development of the political self. As Marx said, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
While I may be inherently biased in my opinion on the implication of class consciousness as a vital (if not the most important) aspect of political socialization, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, I feel as if I’m making an objective statement in asserting that the Freedman article doesn’t take into consideration that class consciousness, particularly in capitalist societies, can break social norms and (upon further political awareness, as we can see that not all proletarians are in fact class-conscious), the lack of class consciousness leads to the acceptance of traditional social/political norms; an acceptance of the status quo which is exactly the purpose of bourgeois political socialization of the working class, middle class (petty bourgeois), and other remnants of the socio-economic class structure.
However, I don’t feel as if we are to blame any society for the attempted socialization of the public; after all, it is after all in the state’s best interest. Perhaps the most perplexing question of political socialization is the threat of contradictory elements (subversion) breaching the success of the socializing agents as to which society is subjected. The role of the family should be that of direct political socialization tool of the state, in raising “subordinate” yet critical future citizens who are willing to accept the punitive results of misbehavior, and social subversion. I agree with the statement, “âÂ?¦it is the parents’ sacred duty to instill in their childrenâÂ?¦.precious qualities as conscious love of the socialist homeland and devotion of the cause of communismâÂ?¦” (Pravda 1969).
However, the point of this statement isn’t just to signify my own socialist tendencies, but rather to expound upon the point and significance of the parents’ active role of socialization agent for the state. In America, we’ve witnessed the less active role of American parents raising politically aware children, except in the most extreme situations (assassinations, 9/11, etc.). Not surprisingly, we find that parents discuss these matters in a positive tone for American interests; such as the emphasis of the tragedy of the assassination of JFK; or the tragedy of 9/11. The rarity of finding parents who would treat these two events as effective anti-regime behavior is extreme; however, not impossible.
The Freedmans’ article emanates a familiar tone, although more generalized and modern in actual substance, Machiavelli’s The Prince. The modes of political socialization demonstrate the necessities of any regime to stay in power; while the key aspect of The Prince is the acquisition and maintenance of power (albeit determined by morally indifferent ruler). The article outlines the processes and agents as to which culture and social values of society are internalized by either direct or indirect means. The learning process that is political socialization is important for any ruler, whether the system by bourgeois democratic (America) or proletarian dictatorship (Soviet Union); the necessity of the utilizing socializing agents to further the social values that reinforce loyalty to the state is undeniable.
At this point I’d like to transition into the second article of my focus, which is the McClosky, Zaller, and Chong article, Social Learning and the Acquisition of Political Norms. The emphasis on this article as to how the public is politicized, according to the trends amongst social and political elites is of the utmost interest to me personally. The interesting thing about this study is that it demonstrates how malleable the public really is; a fascinating aspect of elitist manipulation of social trends that explain the political culture of modern America.
The study itself seems quite comprehensive, and shows the basic political breakdown of the American political realm. However, there are some distinctions which I have particular questions to, and would’ve liked to have been addressed. For instance, we are led to believe that the more politically sophisticated an individual is (regardless of whether or not the norms are contested or clear), a greater appreciation and support of traditional American values is presented, not only in theory, but according to recorded statistics from the study. Thus, the article concludes that those whom traditionally reject both democracy and capitalism (the traditional social norms of the United States) do so out of lack of political sophistication. I don’t necessarily disagree with this, as political sophistication in the United States typically revolves around the acceptance of these norms; I do, however, reject the consensus amongst McClosky, Zaller, and Chong that it perhaps isn’t outright rejection of these staples of American political culture, but rather a misunderstanding of what these terms really mean.
The study indicates that most of American elites find themselves in general agreement over nominal acceptance of both capitalism and democracy, although variances as to how these are to be applied (welfare state vs. classical liberalism vs. conservatism). While I’m also not challenging the authors’ own authority and highly dedicated research on the subject matter (at the same time I’m not accepting their stance as political elites), I question their understanding of the nature of which these people who would classify as belonging to the antiregime pattern; and would likely see their disposition as contention with these accepted norms. Could it possibly be that the farmer or miner working in remote parts of the country, are rejecting capitalism and democracy not due to their own ineffectual understanding of these concepts, but because they have become alienated from a society that is built upon individualism, the profit motive, and other such amoral characteristics? This is a question I would like to have seen answered by McClosky, Zaller, and Chong.
Personally, I reject both democracy and capitalism; however, I would not consider myself to be “politically unsophisticated.” On a second note, I also accept the malleability of the public at the hands of political elites. The authors mention ideology playing a role, and my embracing an anti-capitalistic ideology would explain this, but they don’t seem to take into consideration the vast amount of sophistication which goes into accepting such an ideology, and fail to even consider the dialectical approach (as advocated by Marxian philosophy). While I understand that resources are limited, especially time and finances, I would’ve liked to have seen more in depth study going into the antithesis approach to the traditional social norms of American political culture (democracy and capitalism).
In conclusion, the overall methodology of the study was adequate, and the conclusions interesting (if not at all predictable). But the conclusions drawn by the authors (politically sophisticated = accepting at least one of the traditional patterns OR politically unsophisticated = more support for the antiregime pattern) doesn’t offer an adequate explanation as to why there is such support for the antiregime support amongst the public, other than lack of political sophistication and basic understanding of these principles themselves. To me, this is unsatisfactory and clearly shows a “centrist bias” and only goes to further demonstrate how non-traditional political beliefs are so quickly marginalized in mainstream American political discourse.
