Whatever Happened to Socialization?

Abstract

Socialization is a key mechanism of social reproduction. Yet, like the functionalists who introduced the concept, socialization has fallen out of favor, critiqued for ignoring power and agency, for its teleology and incoherence, and for its link to misguided “culture of poverty” arguments. In this review, we argue for renewed, post-functionalist use of socialization. We review the concept’s history, its high point under Parsons, the reasons for its demise, its continued use in some subfields (e.g., gender, race and ethnicity, education), and alternative concepts used to explain social reproduction. We then suggest that something is lost when “socialization” is avoided or isolated in particular subfields. Without socialization, conceptions of social reproduction face problems of history, transferability, and power. We close by outlining a post-functionalist agenda for socialization research, building off sociological work engaging cognitive science, linguistic anthropology, pragmatism, the re-interrogation of values, and the development of ideology in political socialization.

When I say… socialisation

“…Socialisation originated (perhaps unsurprisingly, given its name) from the field of Sociology. Within Sociology, socialisation is similarly defined as within health professions education, as ‘a central set of mechanisms for early models of social reproduction, representing the social processes that bring people in line with the status quo’ 7 . The term is most famously associated with the ‘structural functionalist’ Parsons 7 .…”

“…Within Sociology, socialisation is similarly defined as within health professions education, as ‘a central set of mechanisms for early models of social reproduction, representing the social processes that bring people in line with the status quo’ 7 . The term is most famously associated with the ‘structural functionalist’ Parsons 7 . Structural functionalists, or simply ‘functionalists’, conceptualise society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of individuals 8 .…”

“…These ‘parts’ are generally seen to represent social institutions like education, health care and family. For Parsons, socialisation is what integrates individuals into a society and allows societies to function, as there is consensus regarding important values and social order—the status quo 7 . Within health professions education, socialisation has been conceptualised largely from a functionalist perspective 1 .…”

“…However, functionalist socialisation is not without critique. Indeed, Guhin et al highlight that there has been a demise of the theory within Sociology, with continued interest most evident within sociological sub‐fields, such as education 7 . Given the prominence of socialisation within health professions education publications, and orientations within these publications towards functionalism, it would seem our field is one such area—an area in which popular critiques of the theory are yet to permeate.…”

“…Given the prominence of socialisation within health professions education publications, and orientations within these publications towards functionalism, it would seem our field is one such area—an area in which popular critiques of the theory are yet to permeate. Critiques of functionalist socialisation include an inattention to issues of power; the way in which the theory implies passivity of participants—culture is ‘downloaded’ passively from society to an individual; the way in which the theory implies fixity—values and norms are framed as static when they are fluid; the lack of attention to conflict between influences within socialisation; and the unacknowledged heterogeneity of the process 7 …”