SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIABILITY

by socialization is meant:

the non-spontaneous process, reiterated from generation to

generation, by means of which individuals internalize norms,
knowledge, information, symbols, beliefs, and behavior shared
by members of the group to which they belong (Curcio, 2005, p.
98).

Socialization aims at gradually transmitting to every new

generation the hereditary values, the sets of rules, the life styles,
knowledge and knowhow, as well as the psychological traits
typical of the social group into which it is born (which Durkheim
called social type or social species), with a view to guaranteeing
the stability and continuity of relations between members within
a given social system. In actual fact, it conjugates people’s social
and personality systems; therefore, it permits individuals to
recognize themselves as fully-fledged members of a certain
society, while, at the same time, and to equal measure,
determining them as “moral beings” with a sense of identity
capable of distinguishing themselves from others and entering
into appropriate relations with them.

The concept of sociability (in Latin sociabilitas, a characteristic of

the social doctrines of the Christian churches) was presented in
a new light by Simmel and in exclusively sociological terms, on
the 19th. October 1910, in his opening speech to the first
congress of the German Association of Sociology. In reality, on
that occasion, he added this category to his paper on sociality,
its “purest” and most ludic derivative (Simmel, 1917).

The term sociability – Geselligkeit – enjoys a distinct semantic

weight of its own which distinguishes it decidedly from that of
socialization, because it is devoid of any kind of judgemental,
evaluative or prescriptive connotation; this term, expresses, in
fact, the following concept:

both the generic ability of human beings to establish some kind

of social relationship with others, which, depending on
circumstance, may be spontaneous or organized, supportive or
conflicting, instrumental or simply gratifying, and the manifold
concrete forms this inclination assumes as groups, associations,
communities, crowds, on the basis of certain types of needs and
interests (Gallino, 1993, pp. 592-593).

In a nutshell, contrary to the external action of the social control

proper to socialization, sociability indicates an internal tendency
on the part of people. At the same time, this concept is also
distinguishable from that of association, the one closest to it,
because, being more comprehensive than the latter, it also
includes the dynamics both of “approaches between subjects”
and of “dissociation, separation and distance” (Gallino, 1993).

Furthermore, it is not possible to overlook the fact that,

according to the thinking of Simmel, there is an inevitable
closeness, an evident “affinity” nexus between sociability and
religiosity, as the former founds society, which in his view is “the
cultural product par excellence”, while the latter creates religion
(Cipriani, 2009).

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

ethnocentrism can lead to negative judgments of the behaviors

of groups or societies. It can also lead to discrimination against
people who are different. For example, in many countries,
religious minorities (religions that are not the dominant religion)
often face discrimination. But on the other hand, ethnocentrism
can create loyalty among the same social group or people in the
same society. For example, during the World Cup or Olympics,
you may tend to root for your own country and believe that the
players or teams representing your country are much better.
National pride is also part of ethnocentrism.

To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are

different to yours, we can use the cultural relativism approach.
Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture to our own
standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead,
we should try to understand cultural practices of other groups in
its own cultural context. For example, instead of thinking, “Fried
crickets are disgusting! ” one should instead ask, “Why do some
cultures eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or
grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous
Oaxaca regional cuisine and have been eaten for thousands of
years as a healthy food source!

Some people worry that the concept of culture can also be

abused and misinterpreted. If one culture behaves one way,
does that mean all cultures can behave that way as well? For
example, many countries and international organizations
oppose the act of whaling (the fishing of whales) for
environmental reasons. These environmental organizations say
that there are not many whales left and such fishing practices
should be stopped. However, other countries argue that whaling
is a cultural practice that has been around for thousands of
years. Because it may be part of a country’s oceanic culture, this
country may say that such a cultural practice should not be
opposed based on cultural differences, say, by an inland country
that does not understand. Who gets to define what a moral
cultural behavior is? Is whaling immoral? Two different cultures
may have very different answers, as we saw in the above
example. Another more extreme instance would be female
genital cutting in some parts of the world. Locally, it is argued
that the practice has cultural roots, but such a practice has raised
concerns among many international human rights organizations.

Anthropologists say that when we think about different cultures

and societies, we should think about their customs in a way that
helps us make sense of how their cultural practices fits with their
overall cultural context. For example, having several wives
perhaps makes economic sense among herders who move
around frequently. Through such an understanding, polygamy
makes cultural sense.

Acculturation vs Assimilation

Cultural assimilation (often called merely assimilation) is a

process of integration whereby members of an ethno-cultural
community (such as immigrants, or ethnic minorities) are
"absorbed" into another, generally larger, community. This
implies the loss of the characteristics of the absorbed group,
such as language, customs, ethnicity and self-identity.

Assimilation may be spontaneous, which is usually the case with

immigrants, or forced, as is often the case of the assimilation of
ethnic minorities (see forced assimilation.

A region or society where several different groups are

spontaneously assimilated is sometimes referred to as a melting
pot.

--------------------------------------…

Acculturation is the exchange of cultural features that results

when groups come into continuous firsthand contact; the
original cultural patterns of either or both groups may be
altered, but the groups remain distinct. (Kottak 2007)

However, anthropologist Franz Boas (1888, pp. 631-632) argued

that all people acculturate, not only "savages" and minorities:
"It is not too much to say that there is no people whose customs
have developed uninfluenced by foreign culture, that has not
borrowed arts and ideas which it has developed in its own way",
giving the example that "the steel harpoon used by American
and Scotch whalers is a slightly modified imitation of the Eskimo
harpoon".

Subsequently, anthropologists Redfield, Linton and Herskovits

(1936, p.149) developed the oft quoted definition:

"Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result

when groups of individuals having different cultures come into
continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the
original culture patterns of either or both groups".

Despite definitions and evidence that acculturation entails two-

way processes of change, research and theory have continued
with a focus on the adjustments and changes experienced by
aboriginal peoples, immigrants, sojourners, and other minorities
in response to their contact with the dominant majority.

Thus, acculturation can be conceived to be the processes of

cultural learning imposed upon minorities by the fact of being
minorities. If enculturation is first-culture learning, then
acculturation is second-culture learning. This has often been
conceived to be a unidimensional, zero-sum cultural conflict in
which the minority's culture is displaced by the dominant group's
culture in a process of assimilation.

Evolution and human culture

When sociologists talk about culture, they are referring to customs, knowledge,
and behaviors that are learned and socially transmitted. It includes the ideas,
values and even objects that are meaningful to a group of people. And because
culture is typically learned through observation and interactions with those
around us, it might surprise you that there is actually a biological component to
culture as well, and that it has actually been shaped through evolution.
Remember that the Theory of Evolution was put forth by Charles Darwin, and he
noticed that small variations in species, we'll use the beaks of finches as an
example, he noticed that they varied over different locations. So these finches
would have short beaks on one island and long beaks on another. And he
theorized that this occurred because of interactions between the organisms and
their environments. That the animals who are best suited for living in certain
environments would have the greatest likelihood of both surviving in that
environment as well as passing on their genes. So let's imagine that we have an
island full of finches, and let's say that because of a drought the only plants that
now thrive are ones that happen to have seeds at the bottom of flowers with very
long petals. And there's natural variation in beak size within our finch population,
exactly how there's a natural variation in height in the human population. And
before the drought, that didn't matter at all because seeds were available on all
types of flowers so it didn't really matter what kind of beak you had, you could
always get them. But because this type of flower happened to thrive after the
drought, now suddenly the birds with long, thin beaks are much better adapted
to their environment than the birds with thick, short beaks. And because our
long-beaked birds are the ones that can reach the seeds and eat, they are more
likely to survive and, importantly, they're able to survive to an age where they can
reproduce. And so over time, if these same environmental conditions continue,
the population will eventually trend towards long, thin-beaked birds. And what
Darwin realized was that if the environment could select for small, individual
traits, then slowly, over hundreds and thousands of generations, nature could
shape an entire species. And as always, when we're talking about evolution, we're
talking about the whole population, not about individuals or even smaller groups
within that population. So let's take this and think about social behavior. So
before we said that some kind of physical attribute might be selected for if it
helps the animal fit in with its environment. Well here we're talking about the
same thing, but we're talking about behavior. So we're saying that certain
behaviors can also be selected for if they contribute to the fitness of the species.
And at this point you might be saying to yourself, "There are lots of different
human behaviors. "How would we know if one is being selected for?" And the
answer is to think about this in terms of cultural universals. And these are
common practices and beliefs that are shared by all human cultures. Think about
this in terms of medicine. Cultures might have very different ways of dealing with
illness, but what they have in common is that they all have systems or rituals or
actions in place for how to deal with illness within their community. Another
example would be partnership ceremonies like marriage and also funeral
ceremonies or some ritual associated with death. Or think about language and
the ability to communicate with others in your group. The fact that these aspects
of culture seem to exist in all human cultures, even if they're expressed very
differently, it indicates that they might have been selected for as the human
species evolved. So these are examples of how evolution can shape culture, but
we can also think about how culture might shape human evolution. So think
about the transitions from humans as a hunter-gatherer society to one in which
crops are planted and raised and animals are domesticated about 10,000 years
ago. Because these groups didn't move around so much, because they stayed in
one place, populations began to grow. And because of this, people became more
exposed to outbreaks of disease within these populations. And since the only
people who survived and reproduced were those who weren't killed off by the
diseases, our culture, these communities, have helped to shape our immune
systems. Or think about lactose intolerance, or the inability to digest milk
product. During the first year of life, most humans get all of their nutrition from
milk. But the genes that allow us to digest this milk are typically switched off
soon after children are weaned. But it turns out that northern Europeans who are
descendants of cattle-rearing cultures that existed in the region about 6,000
years ago, they don't show this effect. Their genes that code for the enzymes that
break down lactose in milk, they don't turn off. And so think about what might
have happened if there was a particularly hard winter. The individuals who are
able to digest milk proteins, the ones who are able to get the extra nutrition, they
were more likely to survive and reproduce. And consequently they left more
surviving offspring that could also digest milk. So while the rest of us tend to get
stomach aches if we have too much dairy, these individuals are able to eat all of
the ice cream they want because of how their ancestors' culture directed their
evolution.