The dialectics of socialization: A tentative formulation

Conclusion

A cognitive anthropological approach helps us to understand that children's conceptions are antithetical to adult conceptions. Furthermore, socialization is a dialectical process involving an interplay of these antithetical child conceptions and adult conceptions. As indicated in the field observations, change in the child is internal but the transition from one stage of growth to another occurs only through interaction with the environment. One sees elements of adult conceptions created in the child but they are and remain child conceptions until such time as the Leap has occurred. Babs' teacher, for example, misunderstood this antithetical quality in Babs and assumed her “mature” behavior indicated she was really “mature”, really an adult. Qualitatively and quantitatively Babs was still a child and had to initiate action on her own part to prove that. She exhibited behavior that was misconstrued as adult-like, but because she was still a child, her conceptions of herself, her environment and correlatively, of her behavior remained child-like.

Carol was obviously quite resourceful and adept at moving in and out of various behavioral patterns appropriate to social situations in which she found herself. This was necessary for survival, particularly when she was forced into situations where prejudicial people controlled her life and her future. The antithetical qualities of her conceptual framework and that of her teacher are overshadowed by the real historical circumstances of race relations in this society. But those antithetical conceptual qualities are still clearly evident. Adult conceptions from the outside intrude on Carol's life and her thinking. And, elements of adult conceptions are being created within her. Yet these autonomous creations will remain child conceptions as long as she remains a child. She responds to her environment, but she responds as a child, subjectified/objectified. She is still qualitatively and quantitatively a child

Clearly much of what children learn from the environment — from school — is harmful to their autonomy. Through current socialization processes, the dialectics of learning remain incomplete. The interaction whereby children's categories antithetical to adult categories are transformed into a new synthesis of adult categories is missing. Instead, the adult conceptions created in and by the children merely replicate the adult categories of their socializers. Therefore, the current socialization process is a reactionary one. Children are increasingly objectified as their “adult” categories are less and less new categories, but merely replications of already formalized adult categories. Because the dialectical process of socialization is left incomplete, incomplete adults reach physical maturity. Such people are incapable of governing their own lives, of living out the complexities and inconsistencies of adulthood.

Reformists are correct in calling for change in educational methods but not with the methods they suggest. Children should be educated for democracy, but the methods utilized should not result in chaos and disorder because they lack discipline.

In fact, although ideologically at odds with each other, methodologically conventional and emancipated teachers differ only in locus of control. Conventional teachers see socialization as a unidirectional process in which they provide the stimulus and the students provide the response. Emancipated teachers see socialization as a dialectical process and deploy that process to educate children for greater autonomy, social and self-understanding. But, in rejecting conventional modes of thought, unconventional teachers do not necessarily reject sensible pedagogical methods. The processes and methods of education are more complex than a simple liberal (soft)/conservative (strict) theoretical dichotomy of education would suggest. Children can still be respected even as their teachers realize their conceptual categories are incomplete and inferior. Relativists who insist, for example, that all speech patterns, because they exhibit internal consistency and structural regularity are inherently equal, fail to recognize or to uncover the true source of social inequality. Relativistic revelations only mystify that inequality and contribute nothing to social liberation.

Education for liberation is a slow, arduous task and will not occur by using short-cuts, or pop-psych approaches. It will come from strict adherence to exacting and demanding methods. It will be facilitated through a recognition of the dialectical nature of the socialization process and a cognitive anthropological investigation into the nature of conceptual categories of children. And it will have to be part of a general transformation of this society, while, at the same time, remaining an index of the succes of any such transformation. This means, among other things, that children must be taught to govern their own lives and to govern others. It does not mean, of course, that every person would govern; only that every person should understand the mechanics of governing — that every person, as Gramsci held, could govern¹.