SOCIALISATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH: ROLE OF THE HOMEANDTHESCHOOL

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER2 SOCIALISATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH: ROLE OF THE HOME AND THE SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION

Although the functions ofhome, school and community have long been acknowledged as essential in the socialisation of children and youths, only recently has this function seemed vital and indispensable towards society at large. According to Clune (1995) the function of parents and home is crucial towards teaching children and youth prosocial behaviour and prevention of antisocial and violent behaviour. Maria Montessori, an educator, spoke of the importance of education as a socialisation process, and in her schools she set up a continuing, natural social environment that was effectual and conducive for learning. Montessori abstracted the socialising qualities ofthe home, school, peers and community and synthesised them into a highly-controlled, well-structured environment where the teacher plays a non-dominant role, but as a facilitator of classroom activities (Montessori 1988 :204-205). The non-dominant role of a teacher took its roots from constructivist pedagogy which had spread to schools throughout the world (Brooks & Brooks 1993; Bruffee 1993).
Epstein{l998) questioned Montessori teaching methods by asking how her pupils could possibly be socialised given the non-dominant role ofthe teacher? After her study she found that the subtle power of educative environment and the power of a group itself in socialisation supports non dominant .roles of the teacher (Epstein 1998 :25). Montessori’s understanding of a child’s social life and her innovation of classroom teaching style were in contradiction with the teaching of pedagogies that reflect the dominance of and reliance on the teacher as the sole method of classroom instruction and socialisation of children (Wheelock 1986; Finch 1993 ).
Of late, however, most professional literature on antisocial behaviour reveals that educative models do not place an emphasis on socialisation, but on medication and retributive measures. Medication measures have gradually been perceived to be increasingly valuable as a treatment for students’ antisocial behaviour. The popularity of the drug Ritalin is an indicative of this perception (Klein & Goldston 1977 :vii). In addition to medication measures, retributive (punitive) measures, have also come to be seen as an appropriate treatment for antisocial and violent behaviour. Even more popular than medication, reliance upon punitive, criminal justice measures have become popularly seen as effective (or as the only) measures to address serious problems like antisocial behaviour and violence. Whereas some medical and criminal justice measures may be fitting responses to antisocial behaviour and violence once those behaviours have occurred, such measures stand apart from the preventive (and thus, educative) measures in child and youth socialisation. In a discussion of primary prevention, some teachers and parents were against the inclusion ofpotentially disruptive and violent students in regular education classrooms and schools (Gottfredson 1987). While some antisocial behaviours are unpredictable (especially some forms of violence), and even not preventable, a great deal of antisocial behaviour is clearly preventable.
Non-punitive prevention, which occurs prior to an undesirable act and involves no punitive measures, is deeply rooted in the centre ofsocialisation. Recent research showed that non-punitive measures have dramatic value in preventive efforts and youth behaviour. Hartley (1977: 72) in his study of sixty teachers who received intensive training over a lengthy period of time in ways to foster socialisation in their classes, found that teachers can change antisocial behaviour of a child in high school without involving punitive measures.
Research has identified risk factors that contribute to the development of antisocial behaviours as well as protective factors that help children and youth to develop resiliency to overcome risk. This is more so in regard to Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADIHD) and learning disabilities (LD). Hawkins presents a model that promotes prosocial behaviour; and it suggests considerations for preventive practice (Hawkins 1995: 10-18). This view was also held by Hartley (1977:72) who argues that, « schools could do something about what happens to a child in high school, in terms of social behaviour, by teaching certain skills to a sixth grade teacher ». However, preventive rather than punitive measures, with respect to students’ antisocial and violent behaviour, have been the subject of very little investigation. Hawkins (1995:13) pointed out that much research has taken for granted that repercussions (rewards and punishments) are inherently motivating, especially regarding preventing antisocial behaviour in at-risk students.

SOCIALISATION OF CHILDREN AND THE YOUTH

This section attempts to examine the socialisation process ofchildren and the youth by the family and the school. The term socialisation has been defined as the process whereby children become members of a social group (or the community), in the sense that they learn to behave according to the value and norms ofthe group or community (Prinsloo & DuPlessis 1998:11). Botha (1977:39-40) added that this membership includes both intimate and impersonal experiences in work, school and participation in groups. Socialisation can thus be perceived as an essential component of learning to become human. It is the general process by which the individual becomes a member of a social group, which includes learning all the attitudes, beliefs, customs, values, roles and expectations ofthe social group (O’Keefe 1997:368-376). It is a truly worldwide process.
Although there are cultural differences within different nations, there are basic and worldwide similarities in the way children are raised and socialised, apart from the influence oftheir particular culture. This cross-cultural similarity is especially true with respectto the acquisition of prosocial behaviour. Eisenberg and Mus sen (1989:32) wrote that although many behaviours and values are specific to one’s culture, « membership in a cultural group can account only for general tendencies; it cannot be used to explain individual variations within a culture in the propensity to act prosocially. » The researcher emphasises that antisocial behaviour emerges from the child’s socialisation experiences, including all the child’s interactions with parents whom are regarded as the most significant agent of socialisation when compared with peers, teachers and the mass media. These socialisation experiences are critical in moulding the child’s prosocial disposition (Eisenberg & M ussen 1989:33). Furthermore, the child or young person is « educated in particular social relationships and social situations for adequate social life, from interpersonal interaction to international coexistence » (Prinsloo & DuPlessis 1998:4). Parents, educators, and members of society usually agree in this matter: Schools’ and teachers’ efforts must be prosocial, that is, oriented towards the good of society. This holds true across different cultures. A society that does not foster prosocial behaviour will almost certainly not survive.
In 1997, the sociologist Emile Durkheim argued that in order for people to live a contented existence in society, there need to be regulative power that is respected. There need in society to be norms and values that are internalised by individuals in society and enforced by legitimate authority. The society needs to limit the expectations of the individual in accordance with the resources available in the society. Likewise, in the township there is not a moral vacuum, but rather a lack of a normal moral authority particularly in relation to youth. Of course, optimally for Durkheim, nomination of members of the youth organisation, should occur in a social order that is just and democratic. For Durkheim, the main problem of modem society is that the moral regulators of the past, for example, a strong kinship network, or a forceful church (during the French revolution in the 1800s when the church replaced the absolute monarch power), has to be seen replaced by any other moral authority. The anomie state of society is such that society has broken away from moral bonds oftraditionalism, but has not yet become subject to new and more appropriate moral regulation (Durkheim 1961).
Durkheim (1961 :233) emphasised that in order for children to learn prosocial behaviour, they must first become oriented towards the well-being of others. He wrote that, « moral behaviour demands an inclination towards collectivity ». In other words, before one can teach children good behaviour, one must first instil in them a desire (inclination) towards the well being of others. Before they learn what to do, children must first want to do well for others. Furthermore, socialisation implies that some focus must be outer; other persons, which Durkheim called collectivity. This inclination towards collectivity is the necessary precondition for socialisation to begin and to carry on. It is important to note that medicinal and criminal justice (retributive) measures are not preventive, because they do little or nothing to advance one’s inclination towards collectivity. If nothing else, criminal justice measures may actually serve to decrease one’s predisposition to d o well towards others, and work contrary to the development of prosocial behaviour. Despite universal proletariat wisdom that advocates strong measures in response to antisocial behaviour, such as ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ (Gunnoe & Mariner 1997:768-775), there is no evidence that this is truly the case. There is no evidence that through the administration of medicine, or through the imposition of criminal sanctions, a child becomes oriented towards the well being of others, or towards the well being of herself or himself.

 Primary socialisation of the child: the role of the home

Primary socialisation of a child is usually provided by the family and home, while secondary socialisation is bestowed by school, peer groups and the media (Allais & McKay 1995: 126). The first social relationship of each child lies within the family, it is the parent-child bond. From the very first hours oflife an infant engages in behaviours that complement and become synchronised with actions ofthe parent (Gormly 1997:127; Reissland 1988). The « I-you » relationship (also called attachment) is a tie of affection that the infant forms with one specific adult caregiver (usually, the birth mother) that binds them together in space, endures over time, and fosters survival (Bowlby 1980:3 9-41). This bond forms the foundation for future social development, by creating a secure base from which the infant can explore the physical and social environment and gradually develop a sense of autonomy. Ultimately, the « relationship between parent and child is characterised by a common orientation towards a common goal, namely the child• s becoming an adult » (Prinsloo & DuPlessis 1998:7). This relationship is bidirectional; the child and parent are each oriented towards and attracted to the other and the way the child responds to the parent will in turn influence the way the parent reacts to the child.
The trusting relationship by the parents provides the child with physical security as well as the child’s social education. According to Prinsl oo and DuPlessis ( 1998: 11 ), this signals » awakening of a positive attitude to fellow human beings and awakening a sense of social conscience ». This awakening of a tendency or inclination towards prosocial behaviour is facilitated by a secure maternal attachment. As the child grows, he or she moves on to display this tendency with non-parental adults. In total, ifthe « primary relationship is affectionate and nurturing, the child is more likely to imitate the parent’s or teacher’s prosocial behaviour when interacting with others » (Eisenberg & Mussen 1989:78). Studies of parenting and African adolescents reveal that this prosocial effect probably decreases as children age. Vilakazi (1962) added that among Africans « staying away of children from parents increases as children grow, although girls’ relations with parents remain generally closer than the relationship of adolescent boys and their parents. » If that secure bond has not developed early in life, it is likely that the adolescent years will indeed be more turbulent. This will place the adolescent at a greater risk for displaying antisocial and violent behaviour.
In contrast to a strong bond created by warm, secure, caring and loving primary attachment, abusive and harsh treatment of the infant can inhibit the development of pro social behaviour and foster antisocial behaviour. For example, in a study of homeless children housed in a place of safety (Twilight Children Centre in Hillbrow), fifteen homeless boys (adolescents) were observed how they react when one was in some form of distress. Homeless children responded with fear, anger or aggression as opposed to empathy. Normally, children who have not been abused will show numerous pro social behaviours such as concern, sadness, and empathy, when in the presence of a distressed child. Vuchinich, Bank and Patterson (1992:512) also discovered that regarding antisocial behaviour, there is a symbiotic relationship between parent and child and it is as if »ineffective parent discipline and child antisocial behaviour mutually maintain each other ».
Harsh, neglectful, abusive treatment of children, or indifference on the part of the parents can inhibit the development of pro social behaviour. Uninvolved parents refer to those parents who are neglectful and indifferent to the child’s need for affection, structure and not regulated discipline. Children ofuninvolved parents show greater impulsivity, earlier sexual behaviour, greater use of drugs and lower self-esteem (Fuligni & Eccles 1993; Kurdek & Fine 1994; Lamborn, Mounts. Steinberg & Dornbusch 1991). According to Gormly (1997:225), uninvolved parents tend to « produce children who are aggressive and show disagreeable behaviour ».
Moving from primary to secondary socialisation, it is tempting to consider, for example, how closely the findings about the effects of moral decay of African family values in townships apply to the students’ anomie lawlessness in township schools. This is particularly relevant given the situation that in many township secondary schools teachers are unprepared to teach overcrowded classrooms, and to prevent students’ antisocial and violent behaviour.

Secondary socialisation of the children and the youth: the role of the school

The process of secondary socialisation is necessary because it represents the way children and the youth start to learn about the nature of the social world beyond the primary contacts. Although the main emphasis of schools is academic instruction, it still remains the key agent of socialisation, complementing the role of parents and the community. The importance of the role ofthe school in socialisation is universal; it is exemplified by the action of government in establishing public schools. With the collapse of the apartheid system of education, South Africa, like many nations introduced a mandatory, compulsory education for all its citizens (Bengu 1997). Compulsory education has more recently come to Asian and other African countries. Recently, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo instituted Universal Basic Education (UBE), a compulsory and free education programme for all Nigerian children from age six through fifteen, because the nation’s system of education declined rapidly during the 1990’s (Reuters World News 1999).

CHAPTER! INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL ORIENTATION
1.2 ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.4 RESEARCH AIMS
1.5 DEFINITION AND EXPLANATION OF CONCEPTS
1.6 RESEARCH METHOD
1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY
1.8 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS
1.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER2 SOCIALISATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH: ROLE OF THE HOMEANDTHESCHOOL
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 SOCIALISATION OF CHILDREN AND THE YOUTH
2.3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE SOCIALISING ROLE OF THE SCHOOL
2.4 SOCIO-EDUCATIONAL FACTORS THAT LEAD TO STUDENTS’ ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
2.5 SOCIALISATION OF AT-RISK STUDENTS: THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER
2.6 SUMMARY
CHAPTER3 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND ITS MANIFESTATION IN SCHOOLS-A SOCIO-EDUCATIONAL ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 VIEWPOINTS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3.3 THE PRIMARY POINTS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3.4 PATTERNS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3.5 THE VARIETY OF STRAIN THEORY AND YOUTH ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3.6 MANIFESTATION OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR OF CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS: A SOCIO-EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
3.7 STUDENTS’ ANTISOCIAL AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR IN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS
3.8 SUMMARY
CHAPTER4 THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4. 2 RESEARCH AIMS
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4 RESEARCH METHODSservation and the informal conversational
4.6 DATA ANALYSIS
4.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTERS DATA ANALYSIS 
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 SUPPOSITIONS GUIDING THE RESEARCH
5.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS RESTATED
5.4 DATA ANALYSIS: PHASE 1
5.5 DATA ANALYSIS: PHASE 2
5.6 DATA ANALYSIS: PHASE 3
5.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER6 CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERRENCE OF STUDENTS’ ANTISOCIAL AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.5 AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
BffiLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT