Socialization involves the process of individuals internalizing the norms and expectations of the group (Berger 1967). Furthermore, social institutions as key agents of socialization play a significant role in this process. The family is one of the most important agents of socialization. Consider all the bits and pieces of your identity that came from you parents and other relatives, siblings, and other significant people in your life. It is our background, and often goes unnoticed even though family influences are so important.
Another agent is the school. Among other functions, schools categorize students by ability and then sort them into “fields” appropriate to their station in life (Bourdieu 1990). As students internalize this process, they, too, plan their careers by assessing their position within the academic arena relative to their peers (Alwin and Otto 1977; Davis 1966; Jacobs, Karen, and McClelland 1991). This is also true for minority and poor students (Brown and Gary Summer; Grace Kao 1998; Hauser and Anderson 1991). Thus, this interactive process leads students down different post-secondary educational paths.
Our peers are part of the socialization process. Peers and self mutually validate each other. In other words, we want to be like our friends. Mark Twain held everybody’s private motto is “It is better to be popular than to be right.” This may be especially true for teenagers. Interestingly, there is abundant social science literature on the role peers for adolescents engaging in deviant activities—not so much for positive activities.
You may remember sociologist Charles Horton Cooley’s notion of the looking glass self.[1] He is also known for the concept of the generalized other. The generalized other the group of people that we associate with and that we reference our sense of self against. Again, you might get a sense that the concept of the generalized other follows the logic of the process of social construction of reality. We engage with others in some activity (externalization), realize that the activity is happening and fit it within our language (objectification), and then we internalize that objectified reality. So, individuals get a sense of an outside group and how they think about him or her. That person then fits those feelings, feedback, etc. into some meaningful language (group assessment of me). Finally, the individual internalizes those feelings, statements, etc. others have of him or her.
Stages of Development
There is a long history that has focused on the developmental stages of people: Mead’s preparatory/play/game stage, Piaget’s various stages of cognitive development, Erik Erikson’s stages of social development, etc. Each scheme assumes that with age, the child develops some additional ability (cognitive, social, etc.). Some considerations are in order when reviewing any developmental framework. First, people do not pass through the stages en masse—some people develop earlier than others. Second, some people do not complete every phase. The third point is that these are models used to explain in a very broad way development of one kind or another. Given all the above caveats, please review Table 1 below:
Table 1: Stages of Development
| Developmental Stages | Religious Development | |||
| George Mead | Jean Piaget | David Elkind | James Fowler | |
| Birth to 2 | Preparatory | Sensorimotor
Cause and effect |
Stage 1
Identity Formation |
Stage 1
Intuitive-Projection |
| 2-7 | Play | Preoperational
Symbols/language |
Stage 2
Concrete Conception |
Stage 2
Mythic-Literal |
| 7-11 | Game | Concrete
Operational Analytical Reasoning |
Stage 3
Abstract Conception |
Stage 3
Synthetic-Conventional |
| 11+ | Formal Operational
Abstract Reasoning |
Stage 4
Independence |
||
| Stage 5
Interdependence |
||||
| Stage 6
Unity |
||||
To understand Elkind’s Stages of Religious Development, I have included the following quotes by stage from his article.
Stage 1 for Elkind: “Lin (5-10) Are you Jewish? ‘Yes.’ And is your dog Jewish? ‘Yes, well, all except my dog; he’s a French Poodle.’” And “Bob (6-4) Are all boys and girls in the world Catholic? ‘No.’ Why not? ‘Cause some are Irish and some are Russian.’”
Stage 2. “Hal (8-7) Are all boys and girls in the world Protestant? ‘No.’ Why not? ‘Because some are Catholic and some are Jewish.’” And “Will (8-2) How can you tell a person is a Catholic? ‘If you see him go into a Catholic Church.’”
Stage 3. “Tom (11-7) Can a dog or a cat be a Catholic? ‘No.” Why not? ‘Because they don’t have a brain or an intellect.”
It has been helpful to me to apply James Fowler’s 1995 book Stages of Faith as a guide and template to understand the human response to theistic concepts. Fowler’s religious developmental scheme involves six stages beginning with Stage 1 Intuitive-Projection and ending in Stage 6 Unity. Scotty McClennan (1999) constructed an interesting checklist following Fowler’s stages.
A Faith Stage Checklist by Scotty McLennan
Stage One (Magic)
1. Is your world full of spirits and demons? 2. Are fairy tales your favorite kind of literature? 3. Do you think God makes everything happen, for good and bad
Stage Two (Reality)
1. Do you spend a lot of time trying to determine what’s real and what’s not? 2. Are scriptures true in a concrete and literal sense, rather than being stories and maxims that may or may not be real? 3. Do you feel you can influence God’s actions by being good?
Stage Three (Dependence)
1. Do you have a very important peer group or leader who is primarily responsible for shaping your faith? 2. Is it important to you to understand and follow religious doctrine and
moral rules? 3. Is your main image of God that of a perfect parent?
Stage Four (Independence)
1. Is your spiritual life unique and personal? 2. Do you often find yourself wanting to demystify scripture? 3. Do you think of God or Ultimate Reality primarily as an impersonal force or spirit (or as nonexistent)?
Stage Five (Interdependence)
1. Do you find a spiritual community important to you at the same time that you maintain your own distinctive faith? 2. Do you experience spiritual power in religious symbols and myths that you can also analyze objectively? 3. Do you conceive of God or Ultimate Reality both as a person and as an impersonal force?
Stage Six (Unity)
1. Do you sense yourself in community with religiously committed people of any and all traditions? 2. Is your consciousness ego-free and beyond paradox and ambiguity? 3. Do you often feel that God or divine spirit is in everything and that everything exists in God or divine spirit?
The Life Course Perspective
1. Historical Context
[Karl Mannheim’s] eloquent argument, that generations can be identified in terms of events experienced during the years of adolescence and early adulthood—ages 17 to 25…and the suggestion that such generational or cohort effects are comparable in importance to effects based on social class—Schuman and Rieger (1992:315).
In 1997, William Strauss and Neil Howe’s The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy was published. In that book, they defined every 2 decades as an era or a turning. Then, they divided much of the Twentieth Century into four turnings. They termed a set of four turnings as a saeculum. The table below provides descriptive information for each turning.
| 1st Turning | 2nd Turning | 3rd Turning | 4th Turning |
| High | Awakening | Unraveling | Crisis |
| + institutions, – individuals; new civic order; old values regime decay | Spiritual Upheavel; old civic order under attack; new values regime | + individual, – institution; new values regime implants, old civic regime decays | Secular upheaval; values regime pushes out old civic order with new |
| Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy | 1960s BB | Reagan 80s | |
| Silent Generation | Baby Boomers | Generation X | Generation Y |
| Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter |
Each of these turnings has an accompanying generation. For the rest of the book the authors describe each generation as they progress through each turning. The generations they focus on are (except Gen Y): Lost Generation (1883-1900), G.I. Generation (1901-1924), Silent Generation (1925-1942), Boom Generation (1943-1960), 13th Generation (1961-1981). Later I will talk about a generation not covered in their book, the Millennium Generation (1982-Present).
Generation X
The question “What is a Generation Xer” is quite circular because by definition they seek to defy categorization. Many of my comments and descriptions originate from the now defunct magazine American Demography devoted a May 2004 issue to Generation X. After reviewing the various articles in that issue as well as some other material, I am still wondering how to describe this generation which is, as Christopher Reynolds suggests, between a rock (Baby Boomers) and a hard place (Gen Yers).
One major descriptive meme given to Gen Xers is their alienation and critical outlook on life. They are concerned with outsourcing and other marketplace issues that were so eloquently addressed in Thomas Friedman’s recent book The Earth is Flat. It didn’t help that Boomers tended to label Xers as slackers as they were coming of age. Moreover, it wasn’t true because they became the dot.commers and entrepreneurs of the late 80s and 90s. They tended to move to Atlanta and other emerging information centers.
When reflecting on Boomers, some Xers see an enormous generation bent on self-reflection. Xers were the latchkey kids as well as large-scale family disruption. This cohort’s time span “corresponds precisely to a doubling of the annual American divorce rate, from 2.5 to 5.0 per 1,000 population (Hamilton and Wingert 1998:56). Out of this many felt angst and were critical of social institutions. Alternatively, Xers are searching for recreating a sense of family and community. They tend to be more conservative than their Baby Boomer parents or even their own Gen Yer children.
Marketers are finding it hard to exploit Gen Xers. This generation doesn’t fit nicely into niches. They don’t like malls but do like smart growth developments of mixed-use living spaces with store fronts and sidewalks. Such arrangements foster community.
Consider this table from Hornblower (1997:63):
| Matures | Boomers | Gen Xers |
| Flattops | Hair | Skinheads |
| Sunday Drives | Drive-Ins | Drive-bys |
| Mom, Dad, Grandma, Granddad | Mom and Dad | Mom or Dad |
| Grapes of Wrath | Strawberry Fields | Smashing Pumpkins |
| This is Your Life | Candid Camera | America’s funniest Home Videos |
| Air Raids | Panty Raids | Fear of Aids |
| Peyton Place | Dallas | Melrose Place |
| Doubleheaders | Super Bowl | Dream Team |
| Outer Space | Inner Space | Cyberspace |
| First Kiss | First House | First Computer |
Generation Y
Gen Nexters report having very close relationships with their family. In Not Everyone Gets a Trophy, author Bruce Tulgan (2009:7) observed that Generation X as children were “the great unsupervised” whereas Gen Yer children are the “great oversupervised.” Another way this has been expressed is the “helicopter” parents who constantly hover over their children. Perhaps because of close family ties, Nexters are more likely to cite a family member, teachers, and other people close to them as their hero. Their views on family life and particularly gender roles are less traditional than past generations. One area of family friction noted in the report was that this generation is much more likely to get a tattoo or body piercing than previous generations. According to Straus and Howe (1997:249) “Millennials will provide a focal point for the renewal of the American family.”
Nexters are the most technologically oriented generation. This cohort makes continuous usage of various forms of messaging as well as social networking sites. Although they may appear to be overly dependent on this IM, Twitter, Facebook, etc., they are very much aware the rewards and pitfalls associated with this technology. Because of their reliance on these social networking sites, the report’s authors have labeled Gen Nexters the “Look at Me” generation. Tulgan (2009:6) noted that “if you liked Generation X, you are going to love Generation Y. Generation Y is like Generation X on-fast-forward-with-self-esteem-on-steroids.” Indeed psychologist Jean Twenge found that Gen Yrs are “more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors.” Twenge contended that Facebook and similar sites may foster this view that Nexters have of themselves.
Strauss and Howe accurately predicted Millennials would be politically active and focused on the environment, war, and other issues. The social wedge issues the GOP capitalized in previous elections will not gain traction with this generation. They are much more supportive of immigrants, gay rights, and interracial dating than past generations. Moreover, their views of government and business are less critical. Finally, Gen Nexters identify more with the Democratic Party than prior generations.
Every fifth Gen Nexter reports being of no religious affiliation, atheist, or agnostic. If this bears out as a trend, then evangelical conservatives, the base of the Republican Party, will have to modulate their stances on American religious life or risk further marginalizing themselves with Gen Nexters. These trends seem to be counter to Strauss and Howes (1997:245) prediction that this would be the generation that led to a “rediscovery in moral standards and spirituality.” Or maybe, the moral standards and spirituality of this generation are aligning more with compassion, empathy, and social justice than was the case in the past.
In terms of work, Nexters, are disconcerted with the manifestations of globalization in the workplace. Their main goals in life are to become wealthy and famous. Tulgan (2009:17) warned employers that “…if you want high-performance out of this generation, you better commit to high performance.”
2. Timing
The cliché “timing is everything” is really important in the case for socialization. Not only do we pass through phases (cognitive, social, etc.) we encounter events over time that shape who we are. Life-course shifting events are epiphanies. In class I discussed my dramatic shift away from a apolitical stance brought on by what I saw in combat nearly twenty years ago. Denzin (2001) described four types of epiphanies. They are 1) major—like war, divorce, a death, 2) cumulative—something that builds up over time, 3) minor—a look, an object—anything that triggers a change, 4) Relived—reminiscing about something in the past.
3. Linked Lives
Once I recited to you Martin Luther King’s statement ‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny (Hornsby, 1986:39; see also McWhorter, 2001:589).” What we do impacts those closest to us as well as people far removed from our day-to-day lives. This almost magical aspect of social life means that we should consider carefully how our actions benefit and hurt others.
4. Agency
People, unlike rocks and puppets, can make decisions. The choices we get, however, are dependent on the class we belong to, our race, and a whole set of other factors. It is not all or nothing in terms of biology, sociology, and any other discipline. There is a complex interplay between numbers of factors. That we are able to predict as well as we do (generally speaking) in the social sciences still amazes me—given the vast array of potential influencers.
RESOURCES
Alwin, Duane F., and Luther B. Otto. 1977. “High School Context Effects on Aspirations.” Sociology of Education 50(4):259-273.
American Demographics Staff, James. 2004. “OrthodoX.” American Demographics, May.
Berger, Peter L. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin P.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. 1990th ed. London: Sage in association with Theory, Culture & Society, Dept. of Administrative and Social Studies, Teesside Polytechnic.
Brown, Diane R., and Lawrence E. Gary. Summer. “Religious Socialization and Educational Attainment Among African Americans: An Empirical Assessment.” The Journal of Negro Education 60(3):411-426.
Davis, James A. 1966. “The Campus as a Frog Pond: An Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of College Men.” The American Journal of Sociology 72(1):17-31.
Denzin, Norman K. 2001. Interpretive interactionism. SAGE.
Dillon, Michele, and Paul Wink. 2007. In the Course of a Lifetime: Tracing Religious Belief, Practice, and Change. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
Elkind, David. 1964. “Age Changes in the Meaning of Religious Identity.” Review of Religious Research 6:36-40.
Engebretson, Joan. 2004. “Odd Gen out.” American Demographics, May.
Fowler, James W. 1995. Stages of faith: the psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. HarperCollins.
Francese, Peter. 2004. “In the Shadow of the Boom.” American Demographics, May.
Frey, William. 2004. “Generational Pull.” American Demographics, May.
Grace Kao. 1998. “Educational Aspirations of Minority Youth.” American Journal of Education 106(3):349-384.
Hamilton, Kendall, and Pat Wingert. 1998. “Down the Aisle.” Newsweek, July.
Hauser, Robert M., and Douglas K. Anderson. 1991. “Post-High School Plans and Aspirations of Black and White High School Seniors: 1976-86.” Sociology of Education 64(4):263-277.
Hornblower, Margot. 1997. “Great Xpectations: Slackers? Hardly. The So-called Generation X Turns out to be Full of Go-Getters Who are Just Doing it-But Their Way.” Time, June.
Jacobs, Jerry A., David Karen, and Katherine McClelland. 1991. “The Dynamics of Young Men’s Career Aspirations.” Sociological Forum 6(4):609-639.
Kohut, Andrew. 2007. How Young People View Their Lives, Futures, and Politics: A Portrait of “Generation Next”. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/300.pdf.
McLennan, William. 1999. Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost its Meaning. Harper: San Francisco.
Morrow, James. 2004. “X-It Plans.” American Demographics, May.
Reynolds, Christopher. 2004. “Gen X: The Unbeholden.” American Demographics, May.
Schuman, Howard, and Cheryl Rieger. 1992. “Historical Analogies, Generational Effects, and Attitudes Toward War.” American Sociological Review 57(3):315-326.
Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. 1997. The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. 1st ed. New York: Broadway Books.
Tulgan, Bruce. 2009. Not Everyone Gets a Trophy. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Zolli, Andrew. 2004. “ParadoX.” American Demographics, May.
[1] A British survey from 2006 found that women spent to years of their lives primping to men’s six months (The Week, October 6)
