What Is Socialization and
What Kind Do We Want For Our Kids? By Wendy Priesnitz
What do we mean when we use the term “socialization”
as it relates to schooled and unschooled kids? And what kind of socialization
do we really want for our kids...if any?
I thought that we’d long ago lost the concern about
home educated kids and socialization. But in the past two weeks, I’ve been
asked about how kids who learn outside the school system “get socialized,”
had a reporter knowingly tell me that home-educated kids become “overly
dependent” upon the parent who stays at home with them, and read too many
blog comments suggesting our kids will turn into ill-functioning dolts without
exposure to school.
Whenever I am asked a question about unschooling
socialization, I ask some questions about schooling socialization in return.
(Unless I’m subjected to a know-it-all rant, when I just walk away.) Using
questioning to point out that school isn’t often what it’s cracked up to
be – and that the school experiment is, in fact, failing – is a useful way
of turning the conversation around and encouraging people to think outside
their boxes. I ask about things like this:
How much social interaction do children actually require?
What is the quality of the socialization at school compared to what
is available out of school?
In school, is a free verbal exchange allowed among the students,
or is the emphasis on preserving the quiet?
Do shared group learning experiences and discussions regularly take
place in school, or is it more efficient for the teacher to talk and
the students to listen?
Is there at least as much cooperation as competition?
Do young people interact across class, gender, and racial lines,
or do cliques and bullying predominate?
Do speaking skills get as much attention as listening skills?
How does regimentation encourage creative thinking?
Does compulsion help or hinder an understanding of democracy?
How does standardization contribute to self-esteem?
Does school’s systemic lack of trust in children hinder the development
How do people become self-regulating without practice?
Does mandated volunteerism create involved, compassionate citizens
Okay, so some of the questions present my bias! But
there’s lots of research to support that bias…and also strong suggestions
that parents, teachers, and school administrators are in denial about the
negative socialization that happens in schools. And, yes, all those questions
relate to socialization, which is much more than knowing how to relate to
others without fighting.
According to environmental psychologist Maxine Wolfe,
the problem involves both the physical surroundings of the typical school
setting and entrenched ways of adults relating to children. In her paper
entitled Institutional Settings and Children’s Lives: An Historical,
Developmental and Environmental Perspective on Educational Facilities
(presented at the Edusystems 2000 International Congress on Educational
Facilities), she describes her twenty-year study of the use of space and
educational practices in a variety of schools with different educational
philosophies. She writes,
“Daily life in schools is an unvarying series of events taking place
in an endless repetition of similar spaces, built into an unvarying
time schedule, all defined by some outside power. The overriding goals
of these settings take precedence over children as people...Very little
time or space belongs to the child…Spontaneity is viewed as impulsivity,
as disruptive to ongoing plans and as expendable in light of more important
educational goals...Life for children in school is public. They have
virtually no time or space to which adults can be denied access...Privacy
is so antithetical to the institutional goals of order, control, and
enforced sociability, that children’s attempts to seek out privacy are
defined as their problem...Children who find psychological privacy by
daydreaming are labeled as inattentive or disinterested....”
In contrast, life learning situations are much more
active and positive. And, not being segregated into age ghettos, kids spend
time with older and younger children, as well as a variety of adults within
the family and out in the community. Developmental and social psychologist
Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University wrote in his book Two
Worlds Of Childhood, U.S. and U.S.S.R. that young children can greatly
benefit from the modeling and reinforcement that results from relationships
with older children, but laments the lack of such opportunities in the education
systems of the western world.
One of the socialization-related comments I hear
the most is that kids should be pushed out of the nest early so they can
learn to fly on their own. You may also have been told to cut the proverbial
umbilical cord or the apron strings, to let your child go out into the world
and toughen up.
I don’t know where this unfortunate idea comes from
other than parental convenience and the economic benefits of the childcare/education
industry. In reality, feelings of security and self-confidence are best
developed when children have the freedom to venture into sophisticated social
situations at their own speed.
Interaction with loving parents (or other primary
caregivers) who respect children is one of the main ingredients in a child’s
social development, far outweighing the contribution of plentiful social
contact in helping a child to function well in society. Like all the other
things children learn through living, they will find their own level of
comfort with exploring the world, and their own balance between public and
In contrast to this, Bronfenbrenner cites research
which found that regimented school attendance has a devastatingly negative
effect on self-worth. The researchers apparently discovered that eighty
percent of students entering school feel good about themselves; by grade
five, only twenty percent have retained that positive self-worth; by the
time they are seniors in high school, only five percent still have positive
self-worth. In his own work, he tied that lack of self-esteem resulting
from early institutionalization to increased peer dependency.
Ironically, learning to withstand peer pressure,
as well as many other negative aspects of life, is one of the arguments
people make in favor of early institutionalization!
Many years ago, one school superintendent asked me:
“How will your girls ever learn to cope with peer pressure, time limits,
restrictions, and frustrations if you remove them from these pervasive aspects
of daily living?” There are two answers to this rather sad commentary on
life. First of all, schools do not have a monopoly on pressure, time limits,
and frustration. Life learners live in the real world, which can supply
its own share of ups and downs. Secondly, if adult life is really so bad,
perhaps the best preparation for it is a positive childhood. If our children
do, indeed, have a life of frustration and restrictions ahead of them, maybe
a non-frustrating upbringing will prepare them to be patient adults. The
superintendent was really suggesting that a bad experience is a good preparation
for another bad experience. As John Holt once put it, that line of thinking
means that since adults experience a lot of headaches, we should put our
children’s heads in vices each day so they can prepare for what it feels
like to be an adult.
But Wait a Minute!
The school superintendent was right in that socialization
is the process by which we humans acquire the skills necessary to be functioning
members of society. And that’s fine if you’re happy with society’s status
quo. That status quo, unfortunately, involves war, rape, fundamentalist
hatred, cut-throat competition, corporate greed, misogyny, apathy, adultism,
racism, classism, materialism, selfishness....
I’m not satisfied with that, and you probably aren’t
either. In fact, when my daughters were born, I realized that I wanted them
to live in a very different world…and that, along with every other individual
on the planet, I had the power to help create a different world, and to
help them do the same. So one of the main reasons my husband Rolf and I
decided our kids would grow up without the influence of school was the fear
that they would be socialized into the ways of the mainstream culture, rather
than allowed to develop the tools to change it.
Of course, many educational reformers believe that
I’m wrong there, that public schooling is the best way to fix and improve
things. School is supposed to be the place where a decade or two studying
and interacting with those of diverse races and classes prepares us for
the duties and privileges of adult citizenship, and fosters social competence
and maturity. But, as I’ve written many times before, including in my book
Challenging Assumptions in Education, that utopian belief is simply
is not the reality.
Democracy is mere theory unless one is living it.
And a child attending school on a compulsory basis, with or without any
say about what is to be studied and when, is not really experiencing democracy.
Nor are children in most schools provided with the equal opportunity educators
think they are. In fact, there is a growing body of research indicating
that the system perpetuates the status quo: With a few notable exceptions,
children who enter the system poor end up poor, with many dropping out along
So, realizing that socialization – as the term is
used by sociologists, anthropologists, politicians, and educationalists,
refers to the process of inheriting societal norms, customs, and ideologies
– I question whether or not socialization is even necessary. It might provide
our children with the skills and habits necessary for participating within
their own society – or maybe not, since society is evolving pretty quickly
these days. What it doesn’t do very well is provide them with the tools
to improve society…or even themselves.
My life learning daughters both eventually tried
high school. They did well academically, but didn’t fit in, largely because
they thought of adults as equals, and didn’t know their “place.” They were
appalled at the lack of respect for young people, the manipulation, and
the power plays. They were surprised at the injustices they observed, which
others shrugged off or didn’t even notice. Speaking out and challenging
things they thought were wrong elicited many sideways looks. While they
were able to compete with their peers, they often wondered why competition
played such an important role in education, which they viewed as a personal
So when I’m asked about socialization and self-directed
learning, I ask back: Are you comfortable with a future run by square pegs
designed to fit into square holes, or by creative, robust thinkers who envision
a more humane, just, democratic social reality?
Wendy Priesnitz is Life Learning Magazine’s
founder and editor. She is also the author of thirteen
books, three of which are about life learning; and the mother of two adult daughters
who learned without school in the 1970s and '80s.
She considers herself a change agent.