Public Sociology: An Introduction To Australian Society. Chapter 5

CHAPTER 5
How we become who

and what we are:
Copyright © 2019. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Socialisation and the

new genetics
Marilyn Poole
Germov, J., & Poole, M. (Eds.). (2019). Public sociology : An introduction to australian society. ProQuest Ebook Central <a
onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>
Created from csuau on 2021-03-29 19:46:43.
Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 98 10/9/18 10:40 am

H o w w e b eco m e w ho and w hat w e a r e : S ocialisation and the ne w g enetics 99
The link between nature and nurture

Genetic information is passed from parents to their children, and its most obvious
manifestation is when characteristics such as hair and eye colour, height, nose and ear
shape are shared by family members. Epigenetics—Greek for ‘around the gene’ (Spector
2012, p. 8)—is the term used to describe changes in gene expression; that is, whether
certain genes remain active or inactive in response to environmental factors that may cause
some genes to switch ‘on’ or ‘off’. Although inherited DNA cannot be changed, access to the
DNA can undergo biochemical changes that can be passed down to future generations.
One well-documented example of this was the Dutch ‘Hunger Winter’ of 1944 to
the Spring of 1945. During World War II, the Germans cut food supplies to parts of the
Netherlands, causing further hardship during a bitterly cold winter. Thousands of
people died of starvation. Children born to women who were malnourished early in their
pregnancy had a lower birth weight. However, when those babies grew up they had higher
rates of obesity. Even more surprising was that when they had children of their own, these
children also had problems with obesity and diabetes. Despite the horrific conditions, the
fact that excellent medical records were kept on this well-defined population has made it
possible to track the effects of the famine over generations.
The 2013 Australian Medical Association (AMA) report on Indigenous disadvantage,
The Healthy Early Years—Getting the Right Start in Life, tried to explain why the cycle
of disadvantage is so often hard to break. The report points out that stressful early
experiences, such as biological and social adversity in early life, can cause changes in
the function of genes that are influential in how the body copes with social and
educational functioning throughout life, as well as increasing the risk of chronic illness.
Maternal ill-health through living in poverty, not getting the right foods to eat, stress,
alcohol use, and smoking, can affect a neonatal and subsequent child development,
resulting in detrimental effects throughout life.
According to the AMA report, ‘Early life experiences become hard-wired into the body,
with lifelong effects on health and well-being’ (2013, p. 3). The report continues ‘[r]ecent
breakthroughs in neuroscience, molecular biology and epigenetics explain how early
experience can have life-long impacts on health and development’ (p. 3). In presenting the
report, the then AMA president said that ‘providing stable and healthy life experiences in the
early years can help break the cycle of adversity. That is our task and our challenge’ (p. 3).
INTRODUCTION
Socialisation is the process through which we learn to fit into society; that is, we
‘learn all aspects of the customs and behaviours of the social groups’ to which
we belong, or are joining (McCarthy & Edwards 2011,
norms
p. 184). It begins at birth and continues throughout
The dominant expectations about how
people ought to act or behave, which our lives. Through the socialisation process, we learn
may not be shared or accepted by all the norms or rules of society and the patterns of
members of society. our culture; we internalise society’s values, and play

100 SOCIAL IDENTITIES
out a variety of social roles in life. It enables us to

culture
fit into social groups and make adjustments to new
The values, assumptions, and beliefs
shared by a group of people that situations. Learning to become a member of society is
influence the behaviour of group not a one-way process, though. While we are shaped
members. and moulded by our social environment, in turn we
interpret and give meaning to that environment.
agency
We have what is termed agency. We do not simply
The ability of people, individually and
collectively, to influence their own lives
replicate our social roles but, rather, redefine them.
and the society in which they live. Socialisation is one of the means by which social
reproduction occurs—that is, cultural values are
transmitted and reproduced across the generations, enabling these values to
continue over a period of time.
CHANGING IDENTITIES IN A CHANGING WORLD

A key product of socialisation is a sense of self or
identity
identity. Socialisation plays a major role in shaping
How we see ourselves, how we define
ourselves, and how others see us.
our identities. The concept of identity has become
very important in both sociology and the other social
sciences. Identity is ‘the sum of those characteristics which determine who a
person is. This includes a person’s perception of themselves as similar to, or
different from, other people’ (Foresight Future Identities 2013, p. 3). Personal
or individual identity is what makes us feel unique and different from others,
but identity also has a group or collective dimension, marking similarity with
others (Giddens & Sutton 2013). These collective identities are often based on
common interests or group solidarity, such as barracking for a particular football
club or being a supporter of a social or political movement. Nicole Ellison (2013,
p. 2) writes: ‘How we see ourselves and our role in the larger social environment
can have consequences for the way we behave, what we believe, and who we
affiliate with.’
Erving Goffman (1975; see Chapter 3) suggests that we have multiple
differentiated identities, depending on the social context in which we find
ourselves. Identity formation has been made more complex by the growth
of the internet and the many ways in which social interactions take place via
email, web pages, social media, blogs, discussion groups, and so on. Sherry
Turkle (1995, p. 180) writes that ‘[t]he Internet has become a significant social
laboratory for experimenting with the constructions and reconstructions of self
that characterize postmodern life’. These experiments have become so much a
part of our everyday lives that ‘[p]eople have become accustomed to switching
seamlessly between the internet and the physical world, and use social media
to conduct their lives in a way which dissolves the divide between online and
offline identities’ (Foresight Future Identities 2013, p. 4).
‘On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog’ was a caption to a popular
and widely quoted cartoon depicting a dog seated at a computer speaking to

another canine companion. This cartoon by artist Peter Steiner, published in
The New Yorker in 1993, exemplified the new freedom to explore different
forms of identity on the internet with relative anonymity: ‘Creating an avatar—
perhaps of a different age, a different gender, a different temperament—is a way
to explore the self ’ (Turkle 2011, p. 12).
In contrast, the social media site Facebook offers a different form of identity-
construction, as it allows individuals to create a persona through the sharing of
personal information such as photographs, videos, and accounts of their daily
lives and interests: ‘We can write a Facebook profile that pleases us. We can
edit our messages until they project the self we want to be’ (Turkle 2011 p. 12).
Indeed, ‘[p]eople are now more willing to place personal information into public
domains, such as on the Internet, and attitudes towards privacy are changing,
especially among younger people’ (Foresight Future Identities 2013, p. 2). The
popularity of social media on which people post accounts of their daily lives,
and the advent of widespread mobile technology and email that enable people
to be connected to their work 24/7, have led to a blurring of public and private
identities (Foresight Future Identities 2013).
NATURE AND NURTURE: HOW WE BECOME WHO WE ARE

How do we become who we are? Human babies are helpless at birth. So how
do we develop as individuals? Is the development of our personality and our
behaviour due to nature? Do we inherit our behaviour? Or should we attribute
these things to nurture and our social environment? There are no simple answers
to these questions, and for years the relative importance of nature or nurture in
human development has been the subject of intense and sometimes acrimonious
debate.
The debates around nature and nurture have varied over time. Few would
forget the extremes to which hereditary theories were taken in Nazi Germany,
and it is not surprising that, even in the 1960s and

biological determinism 1970s, there was a backlash against biological
A belief that individual and group determinism. The prevailing view at that time was
behaviours are the inevitable result that environment, lifestyle, and social interactions
of biology.
were what made people who and what they were. In
the 1960s, many studies on twins and adoptees were criticised by social scientists
vigorously opposed to any suggestion of genetic influences on personality and
IQ (Spector 2012). As sociologists, we should be aware that our views on
biology and science are subject to cultural, social, and economic interpretations,
reflecting the times in which we live.
One of the major themes of this chapter is what it means to be a human
being. This is not a new question, but rather one that has been debated for
centuries, and this seems a particularly good time to revisit the issue. The Human
Genome Project was completed in 2003, and since then advances in genetics and
molecular biology have been rapid. This chapter will address the increasingly

prominent role given to our biology—specifically our

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)
genes and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Many of
The molecule within cells that
transmits hereditary information. our characteristics are increasingly being explained
by our genetic inheritance.
In On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin (1859)
argued that each species evolves over many generations, during which genetic
variations occur. These variations can be passed down from one generation to
the next by means of heredity. Through a process of ‘natural selection’, which
acts as a kind of filter, those biological traits that enhance the survival of the
species are passed down through the generations. Classical Darwinian theory
describes how organisms adapt to their environment, gradually developing new
traits and evolving into new species. Traits that foster survival and enhance
reproduction are said to be adaptive (Lippa 2002). In 1865, Gregor Mendel
‘turned the study of the way traits are inherited into a science’ (Pilnick 2002,
p. 8). Following Mendel’s work, genetic science began to develop—although it
was not until 1909 ‘that the term gene was coined to describe Mendelian units of
heredity’ (Pilnick 2002, pp. 9–10).
Herbert Spencer (1873) was also interested in evolution, defining ‘the study
of Sociology as the study of Evolution in its most complex form’ (cited in Ritzer
& Goodman 2004, p. 112). He formed a viewpoint of ‘the survival of the
fittest’—also referred to as social Darwinism—as
social Darwinism
an explanation of individual and social progress rather
The incorrect application of Darwin’s
than how ‘living things adapt to an ecological niche’
evolutionary laws of natural
selection to allegedly ‘explain’ social (Pinker 2002, p. 15).
organisation, inequality, and human Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin and
behaviour. friend, was influenced by Darwin’s theories. Galton
applied the principles of agricultural breeding to humans, and suggested that
evolution needed some kind of helping hand by discouraging less fit individuals
from breeding—a policy he named ‘eugenics’ in 1883 (Pinker 2002, p. 16). In

fact, it was Galton himself who coined the alliteration ‘nature and nurture’, the
saying that has fuelled debate for well over a century: ‘The phrase “nature and
nurture” is a convenient jingle of words, for it separates under two distinct heads
the innumerable elements of which personality is composed’ (Galton 1874,
p. 12).
The influence of Galton’s ideas was widespread. In the first decades of the
twentieth century, laws were passed in a number of countries that called for
the involuntary sterilisation of ‘delinquents’ or the ‘feeble-minded’. Eugenics
was only really questioned when the policies of the National Socialist
(Nazi) Party in Germany began in the 1930s, culminating in the murder of
thousands of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other so-called ‘undesirables’
in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied Europe (Pilnick 2002). Since the
Holocaust, there has been a sense of revulsion towards theories of human
nature that seek to explain and justify racism, sexual differences, and social
inequalities in biological terms.

Still, the concept and discourse of eugenics remain. Couples facing the
information that their offspring have a high risk of inheriting a severe genetic
disorder may well take up the option of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
Such couples can use in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques to create embryos
and then use genetic testing to ascertain which of them are free of the disease
in question. Some children are conceived deliberately so that they can be
bone-marrow donors for existing siblings who are seriously ill; these babies are
popularly known as ‘saviour children’ (Reilly 2008, p. xv).
There seem to be good reasons why social scientists should distrust biological
explanations of human behaviour. Simon Williams, Lynda Birke, and Gillian
Bendelow (2003, p. 2) suggest that biological explanations have ‘too often served
dubious ends: called upon to legitimate inequalities and to limit freedoms. So
why invoke the biological, we might ask? Surely social and cultural change
outstrips biological evolution by far?’
THE CASE FOR NATURE

Why should we invoke the biological in order to explain who we are? Darwin
accumulated a great deal of evidence from his expeditions and ‘from discussions
with domestic animal breeders in order to develop his ideas of evolution through
selection’ (Hinchliffe & Woodward 2000, p. 13), but it was not until the mid-
twentieth century that important evidence on inheritance was provided. In 1952,
it was established that genes were made of DNA, and in 1953 Francis Crick and
James Watson discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, a basic structure
held by all organisms (Pilnick 2002). The genetic material in all humans is
99.9 per cent identical, but that tiny difference of 0.01 per cent of DNA accounts
for the differences between individuals, which are larger than those between
groups. We know that people who share the same ancestry are likely to have
genes more similar to each other than to those who are not related. For example,
the gene linked to Tay Sachs disease has been identified in Ashkenazi Jews. We
also know that, when looking at the medical history of families, certain people
can be identified as being likely to develop heart disease, some cancers, and
diabetes; however, these diseases are not always the product of a single gene, as
is the case with Huntington’s disease, nor of the interaction of multiple genes;
rather, they represent a complex combination of genetic factors, lifestyle choices,
and environment.
Genes are inherited from both parents; however, children from the same
family inherit a different mix of genes. It was considered that the answer to
questions about the importance of heredity and environment might lie with the
study of identical twins. Identical twins—also known as monozygotic (MZ)
twins—are always the same sex and share an identical genetic inheritance.
Since MZ twins share the same genetic background, any differences in
their behaviour, intelligence, or other characteristics might be attributed to
environmental and social factors. Studies were attempted on identical twins

who had been separated at birth, but this proved limiting due to the research
population being rather small (Pilnick 2002). More commonly, MZ twins
have been compared with non-identical (fraternal), dizygotic (DZ) twins.
Twin studies tend to give rather similar results: ‘Identical twins reared apart
are highly similar; identical twins reared together are more similar than non-
identical (DZ) twins reared together, biological siblings are far more similar
than adoptive siblings’ (Pinker 2002, p. 374).
While this seems to support the case for heredity, twin studies do provide
interesting insights into the effects of environment. For example, there is the
shared environment of parents, homes, schools, and neighbourhoods, and there is
also the unique environment of each person—who has perhaps suffered an illness
or accident, did not get along so well at school, or had a different set of friends
(Pinker 2002). Taking all this into account, the findings are that ‘identical twins
are no more similar than one would expect from the effects of their shared genes’
(Pinker 2002, p. 379). In other words, the unique environment that each twin
experiences has a significant impact, over and above their shared environment
and their biological sameness.
Twin studies have provided us with some interesting ideas about the
differential effects of genes and the environment. Take, as an example, the case of
schizophrenia. Until the 1960s, schizophrenia was thought to be environmental
in origin, and various theories were put forward, many of them blaming
mothers and poor parenting for its onset. Schizophrenia runs in families, but this
was considered to be supportive of environmental causes rather than genetics.
However, ‘twin and adoption studies successfully changed this view’ (Plomin
& Asbury 2005, p. 2). In arguing the case for heredity, if one member of a pair
of MZ twins is schizophrenic, the risk is 45 per cent that the other twin also
will suffer the condition. For DZ twins, the risk is 17 per cent. The important
point is that the concordance rate for schizophrenia for identical twins is only
45 per cent. The discordance cannot simply be explained genetically: ‘it must
be due to environmental factors’ (Plomin & Asbury 2005, p. 2). This example
demonstrates the effects of both genetic inheritance and environment.
Twin studies continue to play a major role in evaluating the relative
contributions of genetic traits and the environment. Epigenetics is seen as
being important in studies of MZ twins. For example, autism (along with
a group of disorders known as Autism Spectrum Disorders, or ASDs) was
viewed until the 1990s as a rare childhood disorder, due perhaps to ‘birth
trauma, infections, child abuse or poor parenting’ (Spector 2012, p. 204);
again, studies of MZ twins changed these views. Autism and ASD have high
heritability—if one twin has autism, there is a 70 per cent chance that the
other twin will also be affected (p. 205); however, this means a discordance of
30 per cent (p. 205). According to Spector (2012, p. 214), there is now good
evidence of the influence of epigenetics on ASD, and that environmental and
epigenetic factors play a role in ASD susceptibility. Epigenetic modifications
are known to be affected by various environmental factors, such as diet,

famine, stress, or drugs. It is believed that ASDs are caused by genetic defects
and through environmental factors mediated by epigenetics.
THE CONCEPT OF THE GENETIC SELF

The concept of a person as an individual is increasingly being defined in terms
of their genetic makeup—their ‘genetic self ’ (Petersen & Bunton 2002, p. 13).
Supporters of the ‘new genetics’ argue that the reductionism present in earlier
biological determinist arguments has been superseded, and that, today, the
interplay of genetics and the environment is taken very seriously (Kerr 2004).
Others, such as Alison Pilnick (2002, p. 36), disagree, pointing out that the
major advances in genetic science at the end of the twentieth century have made
the gene a kind of ‘cultural icon and . . . given rise to genetic essentialism, where
individuals and their traits and characteristics are reduced to genes’.
The Human Genome Project identified the 30,000 genes that make up human
DNA. Diagnostic gene testing is becoming common for a range of diseases, as
are predictive self-administered direct-to-the-consumer DNA kits that test for
various conditions or traits ranging from baldness to blindness. Advances are
being made in pharmacogenomics (which studies how an individual’s genetic
inheritance affects responses to drug therapy) in order to develop personalised
therapeutic drugs rather than the current ‘one size fits all’ pharmaceuticals, thus
making the treatment of diseases much more effective.
The availability of information on our genetic makeup presents both
individuals and society with problems. Consider for a moment the concept
of ‘private troubles’ and ‘public issues’ in C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological
Imagination (1959; see Chapter 1). Health experts now recommend that people
planning on starting a family (irrespective of known family history) should
consider testing for recessive genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Fragile X
syndrome, and spinal muscular dystrophy. In early 2009, the first British baby
genetically screened as an embryo to be free of the gene BRCA1 (which renders

a person highly susceptible to breast cancer) was born (Quinn 2009). If we have
information about genetic conditions that predispose people to certain kinds
of cancer (such as the inherited gene mutations BRCA1 and BRCA2), or to
Huntington’s disease, or sickle-cell anaemia, what do we do? What decisions do
we make? How far should we go down the route of embryonic screening? This
raises the question of ‘designer babies’, where parents and doctors may select for
a range of traits, or identify and eliminate altogether those genetic factors that
make people vulnerable to diseases (Giddens & Sutton 2013).
In May 2013, Angelina Jolie, the American film actor and director, made
headlines by explaining why she had undergone a double mastectomy. The
reasons she gave were that doctors had found that she carried the gene mutation
BRCA1, which (according to her medical advisers) gave her an 87 per cent risk
of developing breast cancer and a 50 per cent risk of developing ovarian cancer.
She wanted to tell others of her decision to undergo mastectomies and breast

reconstruction to inform other women who may carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2
genes that they have choices, and that they need to make informed decisions
about what to do ( Jolie 2013).
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are genes linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in
women, while men who inherit them are at increased risk of prostate cancer.
Genetic testing can be helpful in terms of catching the disease early, but there
are concerns that, should such testing become common, patients will demand
screenings and may undergo treatments and procedures for diseases that never
develop, at great cost to themselves and to the community (Rochman 2012).
Prenatal screening and testing present other dilemmas. It is routine for
pregnant women to have at least one ultrasound scan. Serum testing at Weeks
15 to 18 of a pregnancy may be used to estimate the risk of foetal abnormalities
such as Down syndrome and spina bifida. Alison Pilnick (2002, p. 72) comments
that ‘prenatal testing fundamentally involves contested choices and rights. At
the forefront of these are: a woman’s right to choose; the civil rights of people
with disabilities; the postulated rights of the unborn child; and the rights of the
individual versus the rights of society.’ There seems to be little doubt that our
genetic background counts. We are not born a ‘blank slate’. Stephen Pinker
(2004, p. 7) points out that ‘the existence of environmental mitigations doesn’t
make the effects of the genes inconsequential. On the contrary, the genes specify
what kinds of environmental manipulations will have what kinds of effects and
with what costs.’ We know that children often resemble their parents in such
aspects as hair, eye, and skin colour. We know that certain talents, such as sporting
abilities, run in families. A large-scale study of 37,000 pairs of European twins
showed clear results: ‘Participation in sports was influenced 70% by . . . genes
after the age of 21’ (Spector 2012, p. 78). Before that age, school and parents
were more influential, but after they left home ‘people returned to their genetic
tendencies of laziness or sportiness’ (Spector 2012, p. 78).
The old arguments that our personality traits, our abilities, and our
susceptibility to various conditions are entirely due to environmental factors

are no longer regarded as true. New research and new discoveries point to the
interplay of genetics and environment in determining who we are, and what
we become.
THE CASE FOR NURTURE: THEORIES OF SOCIALISATION

In the past, social scientists generally supported the
social construction/ism
concept that our sense of self and our identities are
Refers to the socially created
characteristics of human life, based on
socially constructed. They ‘sought to explain
the idea that people actively construct all customs and social arrangements as the product
reality, meaning it is neither ‘natural’ of socialisation of children by the surrounding
nor inevitable. Therefore, notions of culture: a system of words, images and stereotypes,
normality/abnormality, right/wrong,
and health/illness are subjective
role models and contingencies of reward and
human creations that should not be punishment’ (Pinker 2004, p. 6). Socialisation is a
taken for granted. complex process, and important contributions to our

understanding of the processes involved have been detailed by a number of
theorists.
Cooley and Mead: The development of self

One of the key issues in the socialisation process is how we produce a sense
of self. As we saw in Chapter 3, Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929), an
American sociologist, used the term ‘looking-glass self ’ (Cooley 1964, p. 184)
to explain how we use others as a kind of mirror in order to construct a self-
image. Our self-concept develops through our interactions with others. If we
are defined as ‘ugly’ or ‘fat’ or ‘stupid’, then we may begin to see ourselves in
that way and behave accordingly.
The philosopher George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), who spent most of his
working life at the University of Chicago, is regarded as the founder of a branch
of sociology called symbolic interactionism. Mead (1934) believed the sense of
self is developed from our very first social interactions, and that the acquisition
of language is essential for the development of self. He suggests that babies
learn a repertoire of behaviours and gestures that produce certain responses.
For example, they may learn that crying brings the presence of a parent and
results in being held in the parent’s arms. Smiling often produces smiling
responses in others. Through symbolic interaction, children learn what behav
iours to expect in others, and also learn to adjust their own accordingly. Mead
(1934) suggests that the self has two parts: the ‘I’ and the ‘me’. The ‘I’ is the
impulsive, uncontrolled, and unsocialised self, whereas the ‘me’ is, in a sense,
the censor—it is the social self or the self in a specific social role. Mead (1934)
maintains that we ‘talk’ to ourselves, holding a sort of internal conversation in
which we develop a sense of ourselves and how others see us. Only when we learn
to differentiate between the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ do we achieve self-consciousness
and self-awareness. According to Mead, the development of a sense of self is
essential to our becoming human beings.

Mead (1934) uses three stages of child development to explain how this
sense of self develops. The first stage is a kind of preparatory or ‘pre-play stage’,
in which children imitate the actions of family members or others who are
important to them. Mead stresses that at this stage children are merely imitating,
without understanding the meaning or social relationships of the roles they
adopt. Later, at about age three or four, they enter the ‘play stage’, in which
they give meaning to these actions and roles. For example, they may take on the
role of parents when playing with dolls or soft toys. One of the most important
aspects of socialisation is that of role-taking. Mead explains that when children
take on roles they are not simply playing or imitating others; role-taking enables
them to adopt another’s perspective, and through
generalised Other
these activities they become aware of their own sense
Occurs in the final stage of the
development of self when a child can of self and learn to see themselves through the eyes of
take on and understand the roles and others. The development of what Mead terms the
attitudes of others. concept of the generalised Other occurs in the final

stage of development—the ‘game stage’. In the game stage, school-age children

can be involved in organised, complex games, such as team sports like football or
netball, in which it is necessary to anticipate, understand, and take on the roles
and attitudes of others.
The work of both Cooley and Mead is important in that they explain how
our sense of self emerges, although Mead has been criticised for his view that
the development of the self is social—a result of our social interactions and
experiences—rather than being based on biological foundations.
Piaget and the four stages of cognitive development

Jean Piaget (1896–1980), a Swiss psychologist, was influential due to his studies
of children’s cognitive development. His work has influenced those concerned
with the education of young children. Many concepts such as ‘discovery
learning’, ‘learning through play’, and ‘reading readiness’ were developed
with reference to his work (Hinchliffe & Woodward 2000, p. 30). Piaget was
interested in how children think and how their thinking is different from that of
adults. He noted that the very young children he observed took little notice of
other children’s speech; he termed their speech ‘egocentric speech’. This refers
to the fact that young children tend to see the world from their own viewpoint,
and as centred around themselves (Hinchliffe & Woodward 2000). Based on
his observations of children and their language patterns, Piaget identified four
major stages of cognitive development that also reflected biological maturation
and chronological age (Piaget & Inhelder 1969). Although there may be some
variation in the ages of the child at various stages, the stages themselves always
follow the same sequence:
1. the sensorimotor stage from birth to age two, when the world is
experienced through the senses such as touching, sucking, and biting
2. the preoperational stage from two to seven years, which sees the
development of language and symbolic play

3. the concrete operational stage from ages seven to eleven, the time when
children can logically connect causes and events; they lose their egocentric
outlook and see the world from the point of view of others, and
4. the formal operational stage, which occurs after the child reaches the age
of twelve. It involves the ability to engage in abstract thoughts and
complex activities.
It was Piaget’s view that all human beings proceed through these sequential
stages, irrespective of their culture and social background—although he
conceded that not all children reach the final formal stage.
According to both Piaget and Mead, children pass through developmental
stages. Both stressed the importance of the acquisition of language, and believed
that once they reach the final stage of development, children are able to think
in an abstract, complex, and logical manner. Like Mead, Piaget believed that
individuals have the power to shape their social world.

Goffman and social interaction
Erving Goffman (1922–82), a symbolic-interactionist theorist, extended role
theory in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). As we saw in Chapter 3,
Goffman likened the individual to an actor ‘who puts on a performance in
order to communicate to others a certain kind of impression of himself or
herself ’ (Cheal 2005, p. 146). Goffman was interested in how we interact in
the presence of others, and he used what he termed
dramaturgical analysis/dramaturgy dramaturgical analysis to investigate how we
The term used by Goffman to describe behave in social situations. According to Goffman,
how people take on social roles, just as people take on social roles just as actors perform roles
actors do in the theatre.
in the theatre. The interactions we have with others
are a kind of dramatic production in which we present ourselves in the best
possible light. Goffman’s insights can usefully be applied to computer-mediated
communication. Although the presentation of self electronically is obviously
not done as face-to-face interaction, Goffman’s concept of self, and the ways
in which we choose and present that self, nevertheless seem relevant in the
context of popular social networking sites such as Facebook, or when people
play interactive computer games—especially when they use ‘avatars’ (online
characters) and ‘handles’ (screen names) to represent themselves.
Learning gender
How do we learn how to behave in an appropriate way as a man or a woman?
Debates about whether our gender roles are biologically or culturally produced
have continued over the last 30 or so years. Is our
gender behaviour as a man or a woman innate and biologically
The socially and culturally specific determined, or does the culture of a society exert
meanings associated with biological pressure on individuals to behave in certain socially
sex and categories of ‘masculine’ and acceptable ways? Many sociologists believe that gender
‘feminine’ that define norms, roles,

and behaviour.
roles are socially constructed, in that we learn how
to be a man or a woman in our society—or, more
specifically, how to be masculine or feminine. Both gender differences and
gender dominance are often explained as ‘differential socialization—the nurture
side of the equation’ (Kimmel 2004, p. 3, original italics).
Let us take an example: a couple is expecting a baby and starts planning
for the birth of their child. At birth (or, more commonly, following a prenatal
ultrasound scan), the first question is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’ Names, type and
colour of clothes, decoration of the child’s room, and toys are all predicated on
whether the child is male or female. The biological sex of the child is used as
one of the major sorting mechanisms upon which to base the future allocation
of roles within the social structure of society.
Children learn their gender roles at an early age: they identify with and
imitate the same-sex parent, and the parents often reinforce gender-stereotypical
behaviour through clothes, books, and games. From birth, girls are often dressed

in ‘pretty’ clothing, while boys’ clothes are more practical and rugged. Even
children’s dress-ups reflect this: girls wear fairy dresses with spangled, wispy
skirts, but when boys dress up it is often as a superhero. Boys are given building
sets, electronic toys, balls, cars, and train sets—toys that are activity oriented
and technical. Girls, on the other hand, are still given toys that reflect the sexual
division of labour in many households, such as dolls, miniature household
appliances (vacuum cleaners or stoves), and toy prams—toys that lead to a quieter
kind of play. Despite the level of awareness of the gendered social world of
children, a visit to a toyshop or the toy section of a department store, or a glance
at a toy catalogue, reveals marked differentiation between what are considered
appropriate toys for boys and girls.
Are boys and girls treated differently by their parents? Certainly there are
differences in the kinds of toys children are given. There is also evidence that
fathers in particular tend to play in a rougher and much more physical way
with their sons than with their daughters. Other studies indicate that fathers
react negatively when they see their sons engage in what might be termed
‘cross-gender play’. Fathers also seem to expect their sons to be tougher, both
physically and emotionally, than their daughters; however, in such areas as
‘affection and everyday speech with infants and toddlers’, few differences in
parental interactions have been revealed (Wharton 2005, pp. 125–7).
Although the processes discussed above seem a straightforward way in which
children are socialised into gender roles, Raewyn Connell and Rebecca Pearse
(2015, p. 97) are critical of such a view, pointing out there are ‘multiple patterns
of masculinity and femininity to complicate the picture of learning’. They
consider that learning gender is not merely a matter of ‘acquiring traits’, nor are
children passive learners. As they state, ‘Boys and girls . . . are not lying back and
letting gender norms wash over them. They sometimes accept gender divisions
supplied by adults and sometimes they don’t’ (2015, p. 97).
Young children are the targets of socialisation from parents and others, but
socialisation is a two-way process, and children are active and energetic agents
in learning ‘appropriate’ gender roles (Wharton 2005). Although parents play
a major role in the socialisation of young children, children themselves are
‘very skilled at de-coding gender messages from the world around them’ (2005,
p. 127). As soon as children can identify themselves as male or female and
acquire a gender identity, they very quickly learn to apply these labels to others.
Amy Wharton (2005, p. 127) points out that as early as the age of three, when
young children are asked to sort things as male or female, they will pick out
shirts, ties, razors, shaving cream, and footballs as being male and items such
as cosmetics, handbags, vacuum cleaners, and pots and pans as female. In
fact, children learn very quickly to apply gender labels to objects, which is
sometimes referred to as ‘gender-centric reasoning’. Wharton (2012, p. 153)
points out that children ‘are aware of the expectations their society attaches
to gender and can associate these expectations with a wide variety of cultural
objects and activities’.

Many studies indicate that young children prefer to play with a child of the
same sex. This preference for gender-segregated interaction manifests itself as
early as the age of three, and continues strongly until at least age eleven (Stockard
2006). The years from five until eight have been described as the most ‘sexist’
period of life, when children view any deviation from a gender label as not just
misguided but ‘wrong’ (cited in Wharton 2005, p. 128). Children in this age
group use ‘gender to organize information about people and things’ (Wharton
2012, p. 153); they have, in fact, learned ‘some of their culture’s messages about
gender’—they have become gender socialised (p. 153).
Early writings on socialisation tended to ignore the importance of peers
for younger children. Today, most children in Australia attend playgroups,
kindergarten, or child-care centres before they begin primary school. In these
settings, they have the opportunity to play with other children their own age.
From an early age—around two or three—many children seek out and seem to
prefer same-sex playmates and choose to play with different toys (Stockard 2006).
Gender segregation is something that intrigues researchers because it is not
only spontaneous, but occurs across cultures—including non-industrial societies
(Wharton 2012). Gender segregation is more likely to happen when adults
are not present or not in charge, such as in the playground rather than the
classroom. Because of gender segregation, ‘much of what children learn from
peers is acquired in a same-gender context’ (Wharton 2012, p. 155). In other
words, boys are socialised by other boys and girls by other girls. Although gender
segregation is not total, and boys and girls do interact with one another, they
tend to be ‘familiar strangers’, and form their closest friendships and bonds with
same-gender peers (p. 155).
Ethnographic studies of children and adolescents
ethnography/ethnographic document the nature of gender-segregated peer
A research method based on direct groups, and reveal the importance of interactions with
observation of the social interaction others of the same sex in enabling children to develop
and culture of a particular social group, ‘their gender identity and definitions of appropriate
involving detailed description and
evaluation of behaviours, activities,
gender roles, as children actively discuss and develop
and events. definitions of masculinity and femininity’ (Stockard
2006, p. 221).
Many Australian children participate in organised sport through a school, club,
or association outside of school hours. In the twelve months to April 2012, about
60 per cent of all children aged five to fourteen participated in sport outside of
school hours, with those aged between nine and eleven years having the highest
participation rate (66 per cent) (ABS 2012a). The Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) 2012 figures show that, across all age groups, boys had a higher participation
rate in sport (66 per cent) than girls (54 per cent). For boys, the most popular sport
was outdoor soccer, with a participation rate of 22 per cent, while 19 per cent
of girls participated in swimming and diving, followed by netball (16 per cent)
(ABS 2012a). A higher proportion of boys are involved in non-organised sporting
or active recreational activities such as skateboarding, rollerblading, and riding

a scooter (60 per cent compared with 47 per cent of girls), and riding a bike
(70 per cent of boys compared with 57 per cent of girls) (ABS 2012a). Involvement
in cultural activities also varies by sex: girls have a higher participation rate than
boys in organised dancing (32 per cent versus four per cent) (ABS 2012b) and
recreational art and craft (54 and 33 per cent respectively) (ABS 2012a).
Participation in sporting and cultural activities is a means by which socialisation
occurs in same-sex peer groups. In Australia, as in many other countries, boys are
expected to participate in sports, and it is through this participation that boys’
status groups are formed. Team sports enhance physical skills, but also teach values.
Boys in particular often find a sense of identity through sports, and ‘learn that to
achieve in sports is to gain stature in masculinity’ (Henslin 2005, p. 83). According
to Raewyn Connell (2005), when boys begin playing ‘competitive sport they are
not just learning a game . . . Only a tiny minority reach the top as professional
athletes, yet the production of masculinity throughout the sports world is marked
by the hierarchical, competitive structure of the institution’ (p. 35). Similarly, girls
learn the art of achieving athletic prowess while appearing dainty and effortless
when they attend dancing classes. The clothes they wear at dance classes, such as
the tutu and ballet slippers, emphasise their femininity. However, women today
are increasingly engaged in competitive sports and establishing themselves in the
sporting world. The success of women in sporting codes traditionally considered
a male domain, such as football or soccer, will probably end the barriers which
precluded women from participation in previous generations.
Agencies of socialisation
To understand better how the socialisation process works, we must consider
where and how it occurs. Those sites and institutions that have an impact on our
socialisation are termed agencies of socialisation.
The family
In many cultures, the primary socialisation agent is the family. Initially,

children are dependent on caregivers (usually parents), who meet their immediate
needs. The bond that develops between a baby and its
primary socialisation primary caregiver (often the mother) is usually viewed
Refers to the socialisation of babies as the first and most intense part of the socialisation
and young children, and mainly occurs process. The family is a child’s first reference group.
within the family.
Yet families are diverse, and their styles of parenting
reflect cultural, class, ethnic, and religious differences. The pervasive influence
of the family in the socialisation process has also diminished as other agencies of
socialisation, such as child care, kindergartens, schools, peer groups, and the
media, have taken over or increased their impact.
The school
The period in which children attend school is usually referred to as secondary
socialisation. In this context, other children, teachers, and the wider social world

begin to influence the child. Schools have what are
secondary socialisation
termed manifest functions—that is, their purpose is
Refers to the socialisation of children
to teach knowledge and skills, and to prepare students
by their peers, and by institutions such
as schools. for the world of work and adult life; however, schools
also teach what are described as latent functions—
manifest functions attitudes and values. This question of ‘values’ is quite
Functions that are obvious and contentious in Australia, where many children are
purposeful.
taught within the private sector of education. Parents
latent functions select private schools that reflect their social situation
Functions that may be hidden. and religious background. Social class is, of course,
a significant factor in the selection of a private or state
school. More affluent parents may well select a private school where their children
will learn the ‘skills and values that match their higher position’, whereas less
affluent, working-class parents may send their children to the local state school
(Henslin 2005, p. 81).
The peer group

As we have seen, Mead, Cooley, and Goffman stress the importance of social
interactions, which often occur via the peer group. Children and young people
use peer groups to develop social skills when they are beginning to separate from
their families and seek an identity of their own. The importance of socialisation
through peer groups has grown. In the past, peer-group socialisation tended to
be geographically based in terms of neighbourhoods, schools, or universities, or
interest-based—focused on aspects such as sports, hobbies, and leisure activities.
Over the last few decades, the nature of social interactions within peer groups
has changed markedly, due to mobile phone technology, social media, and other
communication via the internet.
Jo Lindsay and JaneMaree Maher (2013, p. 52) write that ‘[t]he mobile
phone has become a vital everyday technology that is embedded in relationships

between parents and between parents and their teenage children’. Phone calls
and text messages are a way for families to maintain close contact with each
other on an everyday basis, scheduling activities, transport, and shopping, as
well as being a means of expressing love and care (Lindsay & Maher 2013).
Market research conducted by the Roy Morgan company (Morgan 2016a)
found that ‘[b]y the time children reach the age of 10 or 11, 31 per cent of girls
and 23 per cent of boys have a mobile phone. After this, mobile phone ownership
rises quickly for both boys and girls in the “tween” years of 12 and 13, when
69 per cent of girls and 64 per cent of boys have their own mobile phone. For
those aged 14 to 17, mobile phone usage is at 91 per cent, with the vast majority
using smartphones (94 per cent)’ (Morgan 2016b). Overall, ‘[t]eens aged 14–17
are around twice as likely as other mobile owners to use the device for playing
music, videos and games’ (Morgan 2016b).
There are some differences in why girls acquire mobile phones before boys
of the same age. One may be that parents may consider them more mature and

responsible; more likely, however, parents want to know where they are and
that they are safe (Morgan 2016a). Roy Morgan research indicates that fathers
with teenage daughters are more likely than fathers with teenage sons (and
more likely than the girls’ mothers) to want them to carry a phone for security
reasons. (2016a). Some researchers argue that the ‘mobile phone has become a
key device for negotiations between parents and teenagers around boundaries’,
and that parents ‘invade their children’s space via mobile phones to extend their
authority and control’ (Lindsay & Maher 2013, p. 53).
5.1 DIGITAL NATIVES

Today’s teenagers were born into a web-connected world and use it with confidence to
learn, keep in touch with friends, play games, and have fun (ACMA 2016). Teenagers stream
SPOTLIGHT
SOCIOLOGY
video and audio content from sites such as YouTube, Spotify, Instagram, and Facebook.
There are however, both public and private concerns about teenagers’ access and use of
social media. There are public anxieties generated ‘by the apparent lack of privacy and
narcissistic fascination with self-display in their use of social network sites’ (Chambers
2013, p. 83). In a private sense, the use of digital technologies and social media in particular
has reconfigured parent–child relationships (Chambers 2016, p,.65). Some view the new
technologies as offering exciting and creative opportunities, while others believe young
people are being exploited. Parents often have difficulty in understanding and supervising
their children’s digital lives as they cannot draw upon their own childhood experiences or
memories as a guide (Chambers 2016, p. 66).
Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, wrote (The Age 2017 p. 18):
‘We must stay on top of social media for our children . . . I wasn’t prepared for smartphones
and social media. Like many parents with children my kids’ age, I didn’t understand how
they would transform the way my kids grew up—and the way I wanted to parent’. Parents
have many different concerns: cyberbullying, online predators, teenage addictions to
social media, the fact that their teenage children are accessing the internet throughout
the day and often well into the night, and risks in terms of intimacies such as sexting. The
majority of Australian parents seem to be in the dark about their teenagers’ activities in
regard to sexting, with a recent Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
survey (2016) suggesting that only three per cent of parents said that their child had
sent sexually suggestive material to someone else and only eight per cent that their child
had received such material. Gates comments that ‘[p]hones and apps aren’t good or bad
by themselves, but for adolescents who don’t yet have the emotional tools to navigate
life’s complications and confusions, they can exacerbate the difficulties of growing up’
(Gates 2017, p. 18).
The socialisation theories of the mid-twentieth century, which viewed

childhood ‘as a life phase determined not by the child’s actions but by social
institutions, the family or school’ (Chambers 2012a, p. 79), were critiqued by
the childhood studies of the 1990s, which saw ‘childhood as a life phase shaped
by children’s own agency’ (p. 79). Over the past decade, computer-mediated

communication of young people has grown exponentially, and young people are
‘in the vanguard of social networking practices’ (Livingstone 2008, p. 4). Their
communication varies from social networking sites, instant messaging, email,
blogs, chat rooms, and photo- and video-sharing sites such as YouTube and
Instagram. For many teenagers, the online realm represents ‘their space’, away
from adult surveillance and control.
Sonia Livingstone (2008, p. 4) writes that ‘[y]oung people have always
devoted attention to the presentation of self. Friendships have always been made,
displayed, and broken. Strangers—unknown, weird or frightening—have always
hovered on the edge of the group’. She goes on to comment that ‘creating and
networking online content is becoming, for many, an integral means of managing
one’s identity, lifestyle and social relations’ (p. 4). Opportunities and risks arise
for young people with ‘a careful negotiation between the opportunities (for
identity, intimacy, sociability) and risks (regarding privacy, misunderstanding,
abuse) afforded by internet-mediated communication’ (p. 12).
Most young people see ‘peer networks as the foundation for their identity
formation and associations. Through gossip, flirting, teasing, and “hanging
around”, social network sites have become a normal part of adolescent life’
(Chambers 2013, p. 100). Chambers goes on to comment that ‘social media
mirrors or approximates many offline activities that were routine for young
people before the age of the Internet. Yet it is also altering the dynamics involved
in these social practices’ (p. 100).
The media: screen-based activities

Screen time is playing a larger role in children’s lives and encompasses a wide
range of activities, ranging from television viewing to internet use to the
popularity of computer tablets and mobile phones. However, there is evidence
that ‘high levels of screen-based activities during childhood’ can and do have
‘detrimental effects on aspects of children’s well-being’ (Yu & Baxter 2015,

p. 99). The Australian Government recommends that use of electronic media
for entertainment purposes be limited to two hours per day for children. These
concerns focus on the sedentary nature of screen viewing, which may cause
health problems such as obesity (2015, p. 101). There are also concerns over
the effects of advertising on children, socialising them into becoming active
consumers at an early age. Digital toys are now marketed even to very young
children. ‘A new category of childhood has been invented through consumer
advertising strategies’ aimed at ‘tweens’, with consumer goods targeting their
specific interests in toys, video games, comics, TV programs, and other interactive
media (Chambers 2016, p. 68). There is a view that the role of the family in
socialising children is declining, with the media now one of the chief ways
in which children and young people learn the customs and beliefs of everyday
culture (Chambers 2016, p. 73).
Recent research suggests that children are watching ‘over 10 hours screen
content per week, with 6.7 hours dedicated to watching children’s television

programs, movies, videos and DVDs’ (ACMA 2017a). The ACMA (2017b, p. 1)
research survey suggests that most children (96 per cent) aged 0–14 years watch
this form of screen content daily. The television set is the most common device
for children aged 0–14 years watching children’s programs (2017b, p. 1), while
the most frequently used online services are ‘YouTube, Netflix and free-to-air
television catch-up services’ (such as iView) (2017b, p. 2). The ACMA research
also indicated that the most-watched television channel for preschool children
aged 0–4 years was ABC2, while older children aged 13–17 years tended to
watch commercial television.
However, ‘the way children watch television and other screen content is
changing, with use of multiple devices and platforms becoming the norm’
(ACMA 2017b, p. 1). The use of multiple devices increases with age with
‘38 per cent of children aged 0–4 using multiple devices, increasing to 74 per
cent of children aged 10–14 years’ (ACMA 2017b, p. 7). The majority of parents
use ‘rules and restrictions to monitor or limit viewing’ for screen material they
consider unsuitable or disturbing, restricting viewing to specific programs or
a specific channel (ACMA 2017b, pp. 24–5).
Although most screen time for children is spent watching television, a
significant contributor is playing electronic/computer games (Yu & Baxter
2015, p. 113). Most children play electronic games at home and access increases
with age. For example, ‘for electronic games, access at home increased from
56 per cent at 6–7 years to 78 per cent at 8–9 years, 92 per cent at 10–11 years
and 96 per cent at age 12–13’ (2015, p. 111). At the younger age groups, such
as 10–11 years, little time (just 9–10 minutes per day) is spent on the computer
other than for playing games. This small amount of time is spent mostly on
doing homework (2015, p. 113). However, by the time children reach high
school age at 12–13 years, they spend more time using the computer for reasons
other than playing games, including homework (16–17 minutes per day on
average), social networking, and online communication (2015, p. 113).
The impact of media violence

One frequently debated issue concerns the impact of violence in the media
on children and young people. ‘Children and teens are seen as particularly
vulnerable to harm from the media—cyberbullying, exposure to violence and
porn and sexting are prominent themes in current affairs reporting’ (Lindsay
& Maher 2013, p. 49). A UK Government report, Safer Children in a Digital
World, states:
New media are often met by public concern about their impact on society and
anxiety and polarisation of the debate can lead to emotive calls for action. Indeed,
children’s use of the internet and video games has been seen by some as directly
linked to violent and destructive behaviour in the young. There are also concerns
about the excessive use of these technologies by children at the expense of

other activities and family interaction. As we increasingly keep our children at
home because of fears for their safety outside—what some see as a ‘risk-averse’
culture—they will play out their development drives to socialize and take risks in
the digital world. (Byron 2008, p. 3)
The link between violent video games and children’s aggressive or violent
behaviour is contentious. Game consoles are now common in many households
and multiplayer games have become popular. In the United States, there has
been close scrutiny of video gamers who conduct violent criminal acts. There
is consensus among video game researchers that ‘too much exposure to violent
video games increases the likelihood of aggressive thoughts, feelings, and
behaviours, [and] leads to desensitisation to violence’ (Anderson & Warburton
2012, p. 61). On the other hand, there are researchers who dispute these findings
(Anderson & Warburton 2012). A concern is that violent video games may
have a greater impact on young people because the games are highly interactive
and engaging, and players are rewarded for violent behaviours and repetition of
those behaviours.
5.2 FORGING FAMILY IDENTITIES THROUGH FAMILY-CENTRED

VIDEO GAMING
Chambers (2012b, p. 69) suggests that the concept of family-centred video gaming
SPOTLIGHT
SOCIOLOGY
emerged with the release of the Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii, and Microsoft Xbox. Prior
to this, parents had become increasingly anxious about the number of media items in their
children’s bedrooms and the consequent disconnection of children from more general
family activities. Generally speaking, ‘parents may be poorly informed about ICT and lack
both skills and expertise in comparison with their children’ (Lindsay & Maher 2013 p. 60).
They may also be anxious about ‘problems such as cyberbullying and game violence’, but
do not know how to deal with such problems (Chambers 2012b, p. 72). The strategy of
linking gaming consoles to family TV sets in the living room often ended in disagreements,
or with children (especially those in the 6–10 years age group) taking over the family
living space. As a result, gaming consoles, TVs, and DVDs shifted to children’s bedrooms.
Family-oriented gaming devices such as the Nintendo Wii were marketed as a solution
to the problem by ‘being group oriented and easy to learn’ (Chambers 2012b, p. 72). As
Chambers points out, ‘the launch of family-centred video gaming during a climate of
moral uncertainty and familial changes has tremendous appeal, especially since the new
youth leisure technology market is mostly financed by parents’ (pp. 74–5). Claims that
the Wii games fostered family togetherness were especially welcome in a period when
communication technology in the home was increasing. Chambers (2012b) comments
that ‘[f]amily gaming seems to offer parents opportunities for both family bonding and
control of children’s use of new media’ (p. 75). Such games are group activities, which
appeal to different levels of ability and skill, and are ideally suited to the spatial layouts of
family homes in the twenty-first century.

Socialisation throughout the life-course

Socialisation in adult life is sometimes referred to as tertiary socialisation.
We take on new identities through paid work, interactions with new friends
and colleagues, and changes in our personal lives.
tertiary socialisation We learn how to become parents and grandparents,
Processes of socialisation that occur and later to become senior citizens. Adulthood has
in adulthood. many transitions, some of which are negotiated more
successfully than others. Resocialisation occurs
resocialisation
when we learn new norms and values that match our
Part of the socialisation process;
it occurs during our adult years.
new situation in life. Many young adults go through
a resocialisation process when they leave high school
total institutions and go to university. Resocialisation occurs for
A term used by Goffman to refer students who are training for particular professions;
to institutions such as prisons for example, teaching or nursing.
and asylums, in which life is Much resocialisation builds on existing norms,
highly regulated and subjected roles, and values. Sometimes the transitions are more
to authoritarian control to induce
conformity.
abrupt. In Asylums (1961), Erving Goffman describes
controlled environments that he defines as total
institutions. These are usually military camps, prisons, psychiatric hospitals,
nursing homes, or religious institutions such as convents, which totally regulate
the life of the individual, attempt to strip the individual of identity, and require the
internalisation of new norms, roles, attitudes, and values. Within a total institu
tion, individuals are usually cut off from the outside world and have limited
access to their family and friends.
As Cooley and Mead pointed out, we form our sense of self and self-image
from our interactions with others—we see ourselves as a ‘good bloke’, a ‘nice
guy’, or a ‘good friend’, which often mirrors how others see us. These reflections
may be denied us in a total institution; the sense of self we know is absent.
Goffman indicates that one of the ways in which we maintain our sense of
identity is through appearance—clothes, hairstyle, or personal possessions (such
as the kind of car we drive and the house in which we live). Removal of these—
which is part of the admission procedure of many total institutions—strips the
individual of their identity. Goffman (1961) terms many of these procedures
a ‘mortification of self ’. The self is systematically degraded and humiliated.
For example, someone becoming a prison inmate may be searched, undressed,
bathed, disinfected, fingerprinted, forced to wear a uniform, and given a number
to use rather than their name. They may be forced to obey prison warders
or other prisoners, and to conform to prison rules and regulations. They are
confined, and contact with the outside world may be contingent on good
behaviour. Despite all of this, Goffman claims that for most inmates there is not
a permanent change of self; rather, they adapt to the institution and often resist
it in a variety of ways.
Adult socialisation processes are perhaps not fully appreciated in sociology.
Adults take on new family and occupational roles, and adapt to change as they

grow older. More recently, those adaptations have become more challenging in a
fast-moving and globalised world. The advent of high connectivity to computer-
mediated communication technologies has enabled people of all ages to explore
and develop new identities in a way that was unknown a few decades ago.
CONCLUSION
In the past, socialisation was seen as deterministic, in that social interactions
and social forces constantly shaped us within our culture. This view ignores
agency—that is, the ways in which individuals mediate, interpret, and adapt the
messages they receive from others, and resist pressure to conform. Rapid advances
in genetics have provided us with information on the interplay of heredity and
environment in making us who we are. Technological advances in electronic
communications have had a major impact on socialisation processes. Our
connectivity and interactions with others—local and global, offline and online—
are having a profound impact on our sense of self and our identity. Perhaps the
most interesting aspect of socialisation is our flexibility, and the fact that we are
always changing as we encounter different life situations. At each stage in our
life process, we adapt to produce a distinctive and unique sense of self.
SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

11 Socialisation is a lifelong process.
11 Socialisation is the way in which we acquire a sense of self or identity.
11 Nature and nurture reflect both our biological heritage and our social environment.
11 Any understanding of socialisation must take into account the potential influence of
genetic predisposition, varied personal experiences, and the exercise of agency to
resist or modify socialisation processes.
11 Many writers believe that there are stages of development in the socialisation of
children.
11 Childhood socialisation theories stress the acquisition of language and social
interaction.
11 Gender socialisation is the process through which we acquire a gender identity.
11 Agencies of socialisation are the sites or contexts in which socialisation occurs.
11 Peer-group socialisation has been transformed in recent decades through the
extensive use of mobile phone technology and access to the internet.
11 With mobile phone technology and computer-mediated communication, identities
have become more flexible and fluid than in previous decades.
11 There is an intergenerational divide with regard to computer-mediated
communication, and parents often feel helpless because they cannot control their
children’s access to mobile phones and the internet.

VISUAL SOCIOLOGY
The photograph of the DNA molecule at the start of the chapter is a familiar biological
image. In what ways and why are sociologists interested in genetics?
1 WHAT MADE ME?

1 Would you be interested in using a predictive gene-testing service? Why or
why not? What are the risks and benefits?
1 In what ways have you resisted or challenged the socialisation processes you
REFLECTION
SOCIOLOGICAL
have encountered?
1 To what extent do you believe the person you have become is a result of
nature or nurture?
1 Have you explored the use of alternative identities such as avatars in
massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) such as
Second Life?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
5.1 Social networking is now widespread. How many ‘friends’ do you have on social
media sites? Do you think of these online ‘friends’ in the same way as you think of
friends who you meet in real life?
5.2 An old Jesuit adage is, ‘Give me a child until he [sic] is seven and I will give you
the man’. Is early childhood socialisation still so powerful, or have other forms of
socialisation become more important?
5.3 Why are some commentators and parents concerned about the negative
influence of the internet and video games on children? In what ways might these
forms of mass media be different from traditional media such as television, books,
magazines, and newspapers?
5.4 Some diseases have a heredity component—for example, some forms of cancer,
heart disease, diabetes, and schizophrenia. Consider these from the viewpoint
of C. Wright Mills’ concept of ‘private troubles’ and ‘public issues’. Discuss some of
the issues.
5.5 Would you consider predictive gene testing? If so, why? If not, why not?
5.6 Think back to your own childhood. What kinds of toys did you play with? If you are
female, were most of your friendships with other girls? If you are male, did you
play sports with other boys? Or did it not matter if your friends were of the same
sex? Do you think sociologists are correct when they speak of gender segregation
in children?

FURTHER READING
Giddens, A. 1991, Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age,
Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Goffman, E. 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York,
NY.
Pilnick, A. 2002, Genetics and Society: An Introduction, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Spector, T. 2013, Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes, Orion,
London.
Warburton, W. & Braunstein, D. (eds) 2012, Growing up Fast and Furious:
Reviewing the Impacts of Violent and Sexualised Media on Children, Federation
Press, Sydney.
Wharton, A. 2012, The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research,
2nd edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Williams, S.J., Birke, L. & Bendelow, G.A. (eds) 2003, Debating Biology: Sociological
Reflections on Health, Medicine and Society, Routledge, London.
WEBSITES
• ‘Growing Up in Australia’: <www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au>. Website hosted
by The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS).
• The Mead Project 2.0: <https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/inventory5.
html#sectM>. Everything you ever wanted to know about George Herbert
Mead.
• Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction: <https://sites.google.com/site/
sssinteraction/>. This site links to the journal Symbolic Interaction, and contains
information about its conferences and discussion forums on the sociological
perspective that has most influenced our understanding of socialisation.
• 23andMe: <www.23andme.com>. A personal genomics-predictive gene-testing

service that was Time magazine’s 2008 invention of the year.
FILMS/DOCUMENTARIES
• Predict My Future: The Science of Us, 2016, TV documentary series based on the
Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Children born in Dunedin, NZ between April 1972
and March 1973 have become perhaps the most studied people in the world in
terms of their health and development for over four decades.
• The Ghost in Your Genes Parts 1–5, 2005, BBC Horizon Films. A documentary
series on epigenetics. Epigenetics form a control system that can switch genes on
and off, suggesting that environmental experiences such as stress, famine, or toxins
can have heritable effects down through the generations.
• 7 Up, 1964, ongoing series, directed by Michael Apted, Granada Television, DVD
distributed by First Run Features (USA, 2004). A series of documentaries beginning

in 1964 that traces the lives of fourteen British children. The group of seven-year-old
boys and girls were initially interviewed about their lives, hopes, and dreams. The
children were of different socio-economic backgrounds and the documentary was
based on the adage, ‘Give me a child until he [sic] is seven and I will give you the
man’. The participants (those who are still willing and available) are filmed every
seven years, most recently the age of 56. 56 Up (2012) was thus filmed 50 years after
the first episode of 7 Up was made.
• The Life series, ABC TV. The first of the series, Life at 1, was first broadcast on
ABC TV in 2006. The series was made in conjunction with the Longitudinal
Study of Australian Children (LSAC), Growing Up in Australia. To date, the Life
series has followed eleven children to try to find out what gives them the best
chance in life: released so far are Life at 1, Life at 3, Life at 5 and Life at 7.
• L’Enfant Sauvage (The Wild Child), 1970, motion picture, directed by F. Truffaut,
distributed by Les Artistes Associés, France. A famous French film that tells the
story of a child found living like an animal in a forest, who then became the
socialisation project of a physician.
Visit the Public Sociology book website to access further resources and extra readings.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C.A. & Warburton, W.A. 2012, ‘The impact of violent video games:
An overview’, in W. Warburton & D. Braunstein (eds), Growing Up Fast
and Furious: Reviewing the Impacts of Violent and Sexualised Media on Children,
Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 56–84.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012a, Children’s Participation in Cultural and
Leisure Activities, Australia, cat. no. 4901.0, ABS, Canberra, <http://www.abs.
gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/4901.0~Apr+2012~Main+Features~
Internet+and+mobile+phones?OpenDocument>.
—— 2012b, Children’s Participation in Sport and Leisure Time Activities, 2003–2012,
cat no. 4901.0.55.001, ABS, Canberra, <www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/
mf/4901.0.55.001>.
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 2016, ‘Aussie teens
and kids online’, Research Snapshots, February, <https://www.acma.gov.au/
theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Aussie-teens-and-
kids-online> (accessed 26 September 2017).
—— 2017a, ‘Kids’ TV viewing and multi-screen behaviour’, <https://www.acma.
gov.au/theACMA/kids-tv-viewing-and-multi-screen-behaviour>.
—— 2017b, Children’s Television Viewing and Multi-screen Behaviour: Analysis
of 2005–16 OzTAM Audience Data and 2017 Survey of Parents, Carers and
Guardians, Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Medical Association (AMA) 2013, ‘The Healthy Early Years—Getting
the Right Start in Life’, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Report Card
2012–2013, AMA, <https://ama.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/

AMA_Indigenous_Health_Report_Card_2012_2013.pdf> (accessed
26 September 2017).
Byron T. 2008, Safer Children in a Digital World: The Report of the Byron Review,
Department of Children, Schools and Families, London.
Chambers, D. 2012a, A Sociology of Family Life: Change and Diversity in Intimate
Relationships, Polity Press, Cambridge.
—— 2012b, ‘Wii play as a family: The rise in family-centred video gaming’,
Leisure Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 69–82.
—— 2013, Social Media and Personal Relationships: Online Intimacies and Networked
Friendship, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
—— 2016, Changing Media, Homes and Households: Cultures, Technologies and
Meanings, Routledge, Abingdon.
Cheal, D. 2005, Dimensions of Sociological Theory, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Connell, R. 2005, Masculinities, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Connell, R. & Pearse, R. 2015, Gender: In World Perspective, 3rd edn, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Cooley, C.H. 1964 [1902], Human Nature and the Social Order, Transaction Books,
New York, NY.
Darwin, C. 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, <www.literature.org/
authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species> (accessed 3 August 2009).
Ellison, N. 2013, ‘DR3 social media and identity’, in Foresight Future Identities,
Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK: The Next 10 Years, Government
Office for Science, London.
Foresight Future Identities 2013, Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK:
The Next 10 Years—Final Project Report, Government Office for Science,
London.
Galton, F. 1874, English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture, Macmillan,
London.
Gates, M. 2017, ‘We must stay on top of social media for our children’, The Age,
5 September, p. 18.
Giddens, A. & Sutton, P.W. 2013, Sociology, 7th edn, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Goffman, E. 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York,
NY.
—— 1961, Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
—— 1975, Frame Analysis, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Henslin, J.M. 2005, Sociology: A-Down-to-Earth Approach, 7th edn, Pearson,
Boston, MA.
Hinchliffe, S. & Woodward, K. 2000, The Natural and the Social: Uncertainty, Risk
and Change, Routledge in association with the Open University, London.
Jolie, A. 2013, ‘My medical choice’, New York Times Opinion Pages, 14 May,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html>.
Kerr, A. 2004, Genetics and Society: A Sociology of Disease, Routledge, London.
Kimmel, M.S. 2004, The Gendered Society, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press,
New York, MA.

Lindsay, J. & Maher J.M. 2013, Consuming Families: Buying, Making, Producing
Family Life in the 21st Century, Routledge, New York, NY.
Lippa, R.A. 2002, Gender, Nature and Nurture, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Livingstone, S. 2008, ‘Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation:
Teenagers use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-
expression’, New Media and Society, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 393–411.
McCarthy, J. R. & Edwards, R. 2011 Key Concepts in Family Studies, Sage,
London.
Mead, G.H. 1934, Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Mills, C.W. 1959, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Morgan, R. 2016a, ‘Girls given phones before boys (thanks, Dad!)’, Roy Morgan
Research, October 2016, Finding No. 7026, <www.roymorgan.com/findings/
7026-girls-given-mobile-phones-before-boys-australia-june-2016-201610310956>
(accessed 26 September 2017).
—— 2016b, ‘9 in 10 Aussie Teens now have a mobile (and most are already on
their second or subsequent handset)’, Roy Morgan Research, August 2016,
Finding No. 6929. <www.roymorgan.com/findings/6929-Australian-
teenagers-and-their-mobile-phones-june-2016-201608220922> (accessed
26 September 2017).
Petersen, A. & Bunton, R. 2002, The New Genetics and Public Health, Routledge,
London.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. 1969, The Psychology of the Child, trans. H. Weaver,
Basic Books, New York, NY.
Pilnick, A. 2002, Genetics and Society: An Introduction, Open University Press,
Maidenhead.
Pinker, S. 2002, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Viking
Penguin, New York, NY.
—— 2004, ‘Why nature & nurture won’t go away’, Daedalus, Fall, pp. 1–13.
Plomin, R. & Asbury, K. 2005, ‘Nature and nurture: Genetic and environmental
influences on behavior’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, vol. 86, pp. 52–67.
Quinn, B. 2009, ‘Cancer gene test stirs ethics debate’, The Sydney Morning Herald,
11 January, <www.smh.com.au/world/cancer-gene-test-stirs-ethics-debate-
20090110-7e17.html>.
Reilly, P.R. 2008, The Strongest Boy in the World: How Genetic Information is
Reshaping Our Lives, Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press, Cold Spring
Harbour, NY.
Ritzer, G. & Goodman, D.J. 2004, Classical Sociological Theory, 4th edn,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Rochman, B. 2012, ‘The DNA dilemma: A test that could change your life’,
Time, 14 December, pp. 26–31.
Spector, T. 2012, Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes, Phoenix,
London.
Spencer, H. 196I [I873], The Study of Sociology, University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor, MI.

Steiner, P. 1993, ‘On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog’, cartoon in
The New Yorker, vol. 69, no. 20, 5 July.
Stockard, J. 2006, ‘Gender socialization’, in J. Salzman Chafetz, Handbook of
the Sociology of Gender, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 215–27.
Turkle, S. 1995, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
—— 2011, Alone Together: Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each
Other, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Wharton, A. 2005, The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research,
Blackwell, Oxford.
—— 2012, The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research, 2nd edn,
Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
Williams, S.J., Birke, L. & Bendelow, G.A. 2003, ‘Introduction: Debating
biology’, in S.J. Williams, L. Birke & G.A. Bendelow (eds), Debating Biology:
Sociological Reflections on Health, Medicine and Society, Routledge, London,
pp. 1–12.
Yu, M. & Baxter, J. 2015, ‘Australian children’s screen time and participation in
extracurricular activities’, The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children Annual
Statistical Report 2015, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Public Sociology: An Introduction To Australian Society. Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Sociology: An Introduction To Australian Society. Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 5

How we become who

Socialisation and the

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 98 10/9/18 10:40 am

The link between nature and nurture

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 99 10/9/18 10:40 am

out a variety of social roles in life. It enables us to

CHANGING IDENTITIES IN A CHANGING WORLD

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 100 10/9/18 10:40 am

NATURE AND NURTURE: HOW WE BECOME WHO WE ARE

and it is not surprising that, even in the 1960s and

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 101 10/9/18 10:40 am

prominent role given to our biology—specifically our

from breeding—a policy he named ‘eugenics’ in 1883 (Pinker 2002, p. 16). In

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 102 10/9/18 10:40 am

THE CASE FOR NATURE

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 103 10/9/18 10:40 am

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 104 10/9/18 10:40 am

THE CONCEPT OF THE GENETIC SELF

genetically screened as an embryo to be free of the gene BRCA1 (which renders

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 105 10/9/18 10:40 am

susceptibility to various conditions are entirely due to environmental factors

THE CASE FOR NURTURE: THEORIES OF SOCIALISATION

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 106 10/9/18 10:40 am

Cooley and Mead: The development of self

essential to our becoming human beings.

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 107 10/9/18 10:40 am

stage of development—the ‘game stage’. In the game stage, school-age children

Piaget and the four stages of cognitive development

development of language and symbolic play

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 108 10/9/18 10:40 am

‘feminine’ that define norms, roles,

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 109 10/9/18 10:40 am

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 110 10/9/18 10:40 am

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 111 10/9/18 10:40 am

In many cultures, the primary socialisation agent is the family. Initially,

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 112 10/9/18 10:40 am

The peer group

phone has become a vital everyday technology that is embedded in relationships

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 113 10/9/18 10:40 am

5.1 DIGITAL NATIVES

The socialisation theories of the mid-twentieth century, which viewed

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 114 10/9/18 10:40 am

The media: screen-based activities

‘detrimental effects on aspects of children’s well-being’ (Yu & Baxter 2015,

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 115 10/9/18 10:40 am

average), social networking, and online communication (2015, p. 113).

The impact of media violence

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 116 10/9/18 10:40 am

5.2 FORGING FAMILY IDENTITIES THROUGH FAMILY-CENTRED

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 117 10/9/18 10:40 am

Socialisation throughout the life-course

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 118 10/9/18 10:40 am

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 119 10/9/18 10:40 am

1 WHAT MADE ME?

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 120 10/9/18 10:40 am

• 23andMe: <www.23andme.com>. A personal genomics-predictive gene-testing

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 121 10/9/18 10:40 am

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 122 10/9/18 10:40 am

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 123 10/9/18 10:40 am

influences on behavior’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Public Sociology_4e_M2C05.indd 124 10/9/18 10:40 am