THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF

BARODA

PROJECT REPORT TITLED

“UNDERSTANDING
POLITICAL SOCIALISATION“

SUBMITTED BY: POOJA PARMAR RESEARCH PROJECT GUIDE:

SIXTH SEMESTER MS. DEEPTI ACHARYA,
POLITICAL SCIENCE (Hons.) MS. APARNA VIJAYAN,

1
 DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

(FACULTY OF ARTS, 2016-2019))

2
 CONTEXT

1. Acknowledgement (3)

2. Abstract (4)

3. Introduction
a) What is political socialization?
b) Intellectual and Historical roots (5-8)
c) The Political System and the individual
4. Building of Political Self (9-11)

5. The Political Culture (12)

6. Methods of Political learning (13-14)

7. Agents of Political Socialization

a) The Family
b) The Educational institutions
c) Peer groups (15-17)
d) Mass media
e) Political experiences
8. Survey report (18-20)

9. Conclusion (20)

10. Methodology (21)

11. Bibliography (21)

12. Appendix (22)

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

IT REQUIRED A GREAT DEAL OF IMAGINATION, RESEARCH AND

SPECIALIZED INFORMATION, WHICH I WAS FORUNATE TO
OBTAIN THROUGH THE FELLOW GUIDANCE OF MY TUTOR AND
PROFFESSOR MS. DEEPTI ACHARYA AND MS. APARNA VIJAYAN
WHO GUIDED ME IN EACH AND EVERY ASPECT THROUGHOUT
THE ASSIGNMENT. THEY KEPT ME MOTIVATED AND INSPIRED
TO PUT MY BEST EFFORTS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK OUR
UNIVERSITY LIBERARY FOR PROVIDING ME WITH THE BEST
INFORMATION, BOOKS AND ARTICLES WHICH HELPED ME A
LOT IN THE COMPLITION OF THE PROJECT. AND LAST BUT NOT
THE LEAST A VERY BIG THANK YOU WITH LOTS OF RESPECT TO
MY DEPARTMENT THAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON
SUCH A PROJECT. I THANK EACH AND EVERYONE WHO
CONTRIBUTED TO THIS PROJECT WITH GREAT PLEASURE AND
HONOR.

With regards,
POOJA PARMAR

4
 ABSTRACT

Before we as students of political science start studying any topic the most
essential and important question that we need to ask ourselves is why do we
need to study it or is it important and then we go deeper into its relevance in
our daily political and social lives. Hence understanding political socialization
seems really interesting to my understanding and knowledge. It is an
interesting topic because it happens throughout our lives whosoever we are, in
whichever country we are or whichever political system we are in. Political
socialization is a lifelong process that starts from the day we are born and
passes from generation to generations even after one dies. Political socialization
is the process by which individuals acquire their political culture, political attitudes
and develop patterns of political behavior. This involves not only learning the
prevailing beliefs of a society but also accepting the surrounding political system.
Political Socialization is a complex process and very difficult to define. In general,
it is a process by which individuals learn social patterns and agencies, as well as
their political attitudes and behaviors. Most definitions of political socialization
reference “the transmission of political culture to new generations of citizens”. The
family, educational system, peer groups, and the mass media all play a very vital
role. The study of politics is the meeting ground for many disciplines. Indeed in the
current study of political behavior, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists
seem to play as central role as traditional political scientists. Psychological tools of
analysis and modes of research are no longer private property, but today have
become the common equipment of investigators of diverse formal backgrounds
trying to understand politics. Even in the ancient writings of political theory,
doctrines about the nature of man figure, and eloquent appeals for a revival of
psychology in politics are found among the classics of political theory. This paper
will be studying the process of political socialization or the way in which an
individual gains knowledge about the political system and also it will study different
agents or institutions of the process of political socialization such as families, media,
peers, schools etc. The paper will as well address some relevant questions such as
what is socialization, how is it political, its significance and the problems that persist
in the study and so on. Also this paper involves a survey conducted on subjects of

5
different age groups to add a better understanding of the ground realities of the
subject matter.
INTRODUCTION

Political changes only vaguely anticipated twenty years ago threaten man’s capacity to direct
his future. Change is nothing new man has always lived in a heraclitian world. Twentieth
century technology, however, has accelerated change tremendously. Today political
alternatives must be measured in years rather than decades or centuries. Political maps, let
alone textbooks, become outdated almost as they printed. The students of politics
approaching the events of the last twenty years quickly discovers that many of his traditional
theories of politics are inadequate. Especially as he departs from the familiar territory of
Western Europe and North America, he finds that theories useful in analyzing stable
democracies cannot explain easily the upheavals characteristics of Asian, African and Latin
American politics. To study political participation, for instance, normally has meant to study
electoral behavior and the peaceful petitioning of office holders. Finding out why individuals
vote as they do or often do they write letters to their legislative representatives, however, is
of little use to one analyzing political participation in a country with 60% illiteracy rate and
in which violence is a time tested way of expressing grievances to political authorities. For a
student of politics a changed and rapidly changing political world means that new questions
must be asked. Raising new questions leads to new concepts and new research techniques,
“Political Socialization” is one of these new concepts. It directs attention to a political
problem only dimly appreciated in most pre-World War II political analysis.

What is Political Socialization?

Political Socialization has to do with “people oriented” explanations of political events.it is a
concept directing attention toward the knowledge, values and, beliefs of the average citizen.
What is that the citizen wants of his government? Is he willing to support the political rules
and rulers? And under what conditions? Political Socialization theory assumes that citizens
in different nations come to feel and believe differently about their political leaders and
structures. For example an average German seems to know a great deal about his
government officials and policies. The average Brazilian peasant, on the other hand, knows
little about events in Brasilia. Britons, on the whole, appear to trust their fellow citizens and
to respect their political leaders. Political Socialization theory also assumes that the various
attitudes citizens have toward political life affect the way in which the state operates. It raises
the question of how the qualities of people relate to political forms and practice. These
questions share a basic assumption that a nations’ political life is linked closely to the moods,
manners and values of its people. What citizens believe and feel about politics both reflect
and shape the politics of their nation. On the one hand a continually ineffective government
will lose the confidence of its population. On the other hand, a widespread lack of confidence

6
in a government is likely to render the government ineffective. A perspective nineteenth
century French visitor to the USA, Alexis de Tocqueville analyzed the social foundations of
democratic processes in America, emphasizing just these relationships. His explanations is
as instructive today as it was years ago. He singled out the attitudes and values of the
American people. The country’s physical conditions and legal structures were important, he
allowed, but the manners and customs of the inhabitants were of the greatest import. The
‘common truth’ that political customs ‘regulate and direct’ political life is an assumption
political socialization theory shares with Tocqueville. Working with this assumption,
students of politics are asking about the sources of political customs and values. So the
important questions here to ask is that what social mechanisms provide a nation with its
peculiar political customs.
“Political Socialization” is the name given to the processes through which a citizen acquires
his own view of the political world. For example, the schools child pledging allegiance to the
national flag each morning or learning from experiences with teachers that authorities
command obedience is being politically socialized. Social experiences of a wide varieties
become relevant for the ways in which the child, the adolescent, and the adult will view
political matters. Viewed from another perspective Political Socialization is the way in which
one generation passes on political standards and beliefs to succeeding generations. “Cultural
Transmission” is the phrase that best describes this process. Through both deliberate official
political education programs and the passing on of political norms in less deliberate and
more informal groups such as the family and peer groups, societies ensure inter-
generational continuity in political attitudes and values. These efforts and processes are the
crux of political socialization and are the major subjects of Political Socialization study.

Intellectual and Historical roots

Like other concepts recently added to the vocabulary of political science, the expression
“Socialization” predates its direct application to political study. We can identify three broad
topics which help us understand the roots of the concepts: 1) the classical literature of
political theory; 2) intellectual issues in other behavioral sciences; and 3) contemporary
political events. In briefly tracing how the term “Political Socialization” has come into use we
will be aided by understanding the various problems with which it deals in each of this areas.
1) The classical literature of political theory:
Though the phrase “political socialization” is of recent vintage, the ways of preparing
individuals for citizenship and the consequences for such preparation for the state
have long been of interest to political theorists. For instance, The Republican, Plato
much attention to education and childhood experiences as the arena and means for
installing appropriate citizenship values. Plato argues that citizens’ values affect the
stability and order of political institutions. Aristotle likewise emphasized political
education. He stressed the relationship between character types and constitutional
structures. Different political structures require different types of political values and
predispositions. The study of political training, on the one hand, is not a departure fro

7
 intellectual themes raised by centuries of social theorists. How people acquire their
political views and how political regimes maintain themselves by ensuring
appropriate political outlooks are issues which continue a long tradition of scholarly
inquiry. On the other hand, the self-conscious attention to political masses and their
views is a departure.

2) Roots in other behavioral sciences:

Students of political socialization also have drawn upon other behavioral, especially
social anthropology, psychiatry, social psychology, and sociology. Anthropologists,
studying diverse cultures, discovered early that social behavior varies greatly from
society to society. Tradition has been a major guide to behavior, and ancestors are
model for behavior. Cultural values are transmitted from one generation to another.
Children are ‘socialized’ into the norms appropriate for their own society.
Anthropologists labeled the process of social learning or cultural transmission as
‘Socialization’. The work of cultural anthropologists on socialization has been
relevant to contemporary interest in political socialization for several reasons. The
specific anthropological findings about socialization, cultural transmission, and
personality development are often applicable to more specific political socialization.
The field of psychiatry is another source of hypothesis about socialization. The
various psychoanalytic schools with their emphasis on personality development are
particularly rich in ideas. Reflecting Freudian roots, much psychoanalytic theory
stresses how early childhood experiences influence adult social values. The two most
important notions that psychoanalytic theory has contributed to an understanding of
political socialization are the conceptualization of personality and attitudes as
structured developmental phenomena and attention to the significance to the early
childhood experiences in the formation of political attitudes and values. Sociology and
social psychology emphasis has been on how group standards are passed on to
individual members. Groups pass on norms and train their members for positions in
society. These sociological notions of group influence have been used by political
scientists studying political attitude formation and political behavior. Corollary area
of sociological theory relevant for understanding political socialization is social role
analysis. For example father role, mother role or son role are based on what society
expects of them. Hence their behavior gets influenced accordingly.
For George Herbert Mead, the socialization process involves discovering what it is
that society expects of us in our various roles. “The child discovers himself as he
discovers what society is.” He forms a ‘social self’ in response to the expectations
directed towards him from parents, peers, teachers and other significant others. He
forms a generalized other which is quite more than a package of expectations about
how he, the child, should behave. A socialized child is one who has discovered and
behaves in a manner consistent with society’s expectations.

8
 3) Recent developments:
We have remarked that a rapidly changing political world has brought about a rapidly
changing political science i.e. the past two centuries witnessed a “participation
explosion” in politics. Beginning in the 1990s students of politics began to investigate
voting behavior, party identification and political ideology, attitudes, and opinions.
The role of the family, school and, group experiences in forming these political
orientations became an important subject of investigation. In the early 1950’s, the
name “political socialization” was introduced to refer to this process of political
learning. The first systematic review of the findings appeared in Herbert Hyman’s
Political Socialization (1959). In 1960, Fred Greenstein and David Easton with Robert
Hess reported almost simultaneously on the results of their respective research on
the development of political orientations in school children. Concurrently with this
focus on how individuals acquire their political orientations the expression “political
socialization” came into use in research and theory focusing on political systems and
political developments. Socialization as a political system function was used by
Almond, Coleman and others in the “The politics of the Developing areas” 1960, by
Lucian Pye in “Political Modernization and research on the process of political
socialization” (1959), and was discussed by David Easton and Robert Hess in a paper
entitled, “Some problems in the study of political socialization” (1958). By the mid -
1960’s the term was widely used by students of individual political behavior and by
students of general political systems.

The Political System and the Individual

Political socialization processes operate at both individual and community levels. At
the community level it is best understood as cultural transmission. Nations
perpetuate their political standards by inducting new generations into established
patterns of thought and action. Political socialization also has to do with the way in
which the individual acquire his political views. Most political socialization
researchers have asked: Under the tutelage of what social agencies and through
which social processes does the child form his “political self”? In this way, political
socialization directs attention to the politically relevant learning experiences of the
individual, for instance, how pledging allegiance to the flag each morning might
stimulate a patriotic feeling in the school child.
These two perspectives- political socialization as cultural transmission and as
individual learning- are complementary. Studies should proceed at both levels, each
type of study drawing on the findings of the other. The payoff in political socialization
theory is not with the questions posed on individual learning. More important are
questions about the consequences of political socialization processes for the society.
Issues of political violence, governmental deception, aggressive national behavior,
social stagnation, or racial injustice, will be better understood when we have become
more knowledgeable about political socialization. Whether the future holds peaceful

9
 politics, honesty in government, international cooperation, social progress, and racial
tolerance is in part being answered in the classrooms, churches, families, and youth
groups of today. The next generation of citizens is being fashioned in the present.

Building of Political Self

Political Socialization is a special form of the more general phenomenon of

Socialization. We have studied that the concept of socialization has been borrowed in
recent years from other behavioral sciences. Cultural anthropologists who were
among the first to study socialization, were influenced greatly by Freudian
assumptions. These assumptions fashioned socialization analysis. Childhood
socialization – frequently referred to as child-rearing or training – was viewed
primarily as a mechanism through which the child’s “antisocial” tendencies were
controlled. Civilized society is possible, the Freudians argue, only to the extent that
the child learns that he cannot replace his father, marry his sister, take his neighbor’s
belongings, or engage in other often tempting antisocial behavior. Society and its
representatives, through their socialization mechanisms, suppress the child’s
“natural” tendencies. Socialization channels, constrains, limits, restricts, suppresses.
Further, it helps individual rationalize and justify the sacrifices he must make to join
or become part of society. Socialization ushers the individual into society as it forces
him to shed antisocial inclinations.
Field researchers point out that the child is developed as he is socialized. He is taught
the technology of his society, is introduced to its cultural lore, is instructed in his right
as well duties, and is engaged in a new world of social relationships. As George Herbert
Mead wrote, “a self is formed.” On the one hand, socialization is the closing up of
certain behavior options. But on the other hand, socialization is to “make social” in
such a way as to open up and develop, not only to constrain the self. Political
socialization has been viewed largely as opening up the world of politics for the
individual. The emphasis has been upon how the child becomes emotionally attached
to the political community and how he is provided with the information and
predispositions appropriate to citizenship. Political socialization develops the citizen
as it opens up a social world to the individual – the world of political allegiances and
alliances, political rules and rituals, political personalities and policies, political
symbols and behavior. this emphasis on political socialization as “introduction to” is
a subtle, but important, break from the use to which the term was put by the earlier
students of culture and personality from whom it was borrowed. For the most part,
however, political socialization is the developmental process through which the
citizen matures politically by acquiring a complex of beliefs, feelings, and information
which help him comprehend, evaluate, and relate to the political world around
him/her. His/her political views are a part of his/her more general social views.

10
 Adopting Mead’s expression, we can say that each individual has a political self. This
term refers to entire complex of orientations regarding his/her political world,
including his/her views toward his/her own political roles. In suggesting “political
self” as a shorthand reference to an individual’s package of orientations regarding
politics, we are borrowing purposefully from Mead’s notion of the social self. Through
his/her relationships with the social world an individual develops a political self. So
using this terminology I can suggest that political socialization produces a political
self. The attitudes, beliefs, and feelings citizens have regarding the political world are
extremely diverse. It is difficult to envision a classification scheme that would
encompass them all. Not all individuals have political orientations; that is not all
individuals have developed a political self. The infant is the most obvious example.
One is not born with an awareness of the political world, and indeed does not develop
much of an awareness for a number of years following birth. In addition, some adults
living in social, geographic, or psychological isolation from the rest of society may
actually never develop a political self. At the most they will have a partially formulated
one. Some awareness of the political world on the part of an individual is the minimal
requirement for the existence of a political self. The political self, then, is made – not
born. Political maturation is a process through which a person without a political self
begins to acquire and subsequently to develop complex and varied political
orientations. It is political socialization which molds and shapes the citizen’s
relationship to the political community.
Acquiring a political self is a natural corollary to general social maturation. As with all
social learning, political learning is gradual and incremental. There is no magic point
in youth when the when the “political self” is suddenly acquired. Each citizen’s
political views result from lifelong experiences. Political socialization is the gradual
molding of the political self. The earliest and, and under normal conditions, most
durable political orientation a child acquires is his/her identification with his/her
political community. Very young children the world over know to what nation they
belong. This identification is often accompanied by a strong sense of loyalty. At the
same time as the child is acquiring his/her sense of loyalty, he is also being taught the
virtues of obedience. For the child, loyalty to authorities and obedience to authorities
are not easily distinguished. Goodness equals compliance. In the same way, children
learn to express their loyalty to the political order by obeying its laws. Insofar as
loyalty – that strong and persistent sense of attachment to the state – is a major
component of the political self, it is likely that the political self will be characterized
by a sense of the appropriateness of obedience. At about the same time the child is
learning loyalty and obedience to the political state, he is also developing attachments
to the other important political symbols. As he acquires basic loyalties and
identifications with political symbols, the child learns to sort people into social
categories – linguistic, racial, class, tribal, occupational, or geographical. In large part,
socialization is teaching a child the “social category system.” Learning his/her
society’s category system and identifying with particular categories are not in

11
 themselves political orientations. They do serve as important reference and
interpretation points. A child’s sense of belonging to one rather than another social
group is the basis for important perspectives regarding the political world. Not only
are basic identifications and loyalties the earliest acquired by the child, they are also
among the strongest and the most resistant to change in later life. These feelings serve
as the foundation upon which subsequently acquired orientations are built. Political
events and experiences later in life are interpreted within the context of these basic
orientations. They serve as “political eyeglasses,” through which the individual
perceives and makes meaningful the world of politics.
The more advanced childhood and early youth, the individual begins to fill in these
vague attachments and identifications with more precise knowledge and information.
The individual learns how his political world is structured and where he fits into it.
Identifications with political parties or other partisan groups begin to take on
ideological meaning. The political self is never “finalized.” A citizen is confronted
continuously with new political configurations and events. Attitudes towards specific
policies and personalities are, on the whole, less strongly held than general political
loyalties and attachments. The development of political orientations is cumulative.
Early orientations greatly influence later acquisitions. The range of beliefs,
information, and attitudes one adopts in later life are limited by early political
learning. The patterns suggested here, of course, are merely approximate. Political
learning is less rigid and firmly set than this. Under some circumstances fundamental
political loyalties developed in early childhood may be abandoned, and new basic
attachments may develop late in life. Attachments to symbols encountered in adult
life may take on greater importance for an individual than his primary orientations.

12
 The Political Culture

A visitor to another country, especially if he/she has been observant and inquisitive
will often return home to report that “politics sure are different there, they don’t do
things as we do.” He refers, in concrete words, to the political values, styles, norms,
and behavior patterns of the society as a whole. He recognizes that a state has a
distinct “political culture.” The phrase “political culture” summarizes a complex and
varied portion of social reality. Among other things, a nation’s political culture
includes political traditions and folk heroes, the spirit of public institutions, political
passions of the citizenry, goals articulated by the political ideology, and both formal
and informal rules of the political game. It also includes other real, but elusive, factors,
such as political stereotypes, political style, political moods, the tone of political
exchanges, and finally, some sense of what is appropriately political and what is not.
Political Culture, conceptualized roughly, is the pattern of distribution of orientations
members of a political community have toward politics. This patterned collectivity of
orientations influences the structure, operation and stability of political life. Political
Socialization shapes and transmits a nation’s culture. More specifically, Political
socialization maintains a nation’s political culture insofar as it transmits that culture
from old to new constituents. It transforms the political culture insofar as it leads the
population, or parts of it, to view and experience politics differently from the way in
which they did previously. Under exaggerated change or special occasions, such as
the bringing into existence of a new political community, we might even say that
13
 political socialization processes create a political culture where none had existed
before. These three terms – “maintaining,” “transforming,” and “creating” –
summarize the variety of tasks political socialization performs for the political
culture. There is no society in which political socialization processes involve solely
maintaining, transforming, or creating, in the pure meaning of these terms. Any
society has a mixture. The real world is composed of countries in which political
socialization agencies are simultaneously protecting certain traditions, transforming
other aspects of the political culture, and creating new values appropriate to new
political conditions.

Methods of Political learning

People learn about Politics in a variety of ways. Political learning occurs through
direct teaching or indoctrination, through imitation, observation, and identification,
and as a result of experiences in the political world, among the many possibilities. The
nascent literature on political socialization identifies two very general process
through which political characteristics are acquired and developed. Indirect forms of
political socialization entail the acquisition of predispositions which are not in
themselves political, but which subsequently influence the development of the
political self. Nonpolitical orientations are acquired and later directed toward
specifically political objects to form political orientations. The formulation of thus
learning pattern is in the development of attitudes toward authority. Its major tenets
are follows: the child, as a result of his relationships with parents, teachers and other
nonpolitical authorities, develops certain expectations from the persons in authority.
He/she acquires a general disposition toward authority; not particular authorities,
but authority in general. Later this predisposition is directed toward more particular
political authorities; it is said to be transformed into a political orientation. If parents
are permissive, political leaders come to be regarded as permissive. If parents are

14
 rigid and doctrinaire, the same qualities are expected of the authorities in the political
world.
Indirect political learning involves two steps, acquiring a general predisposition and
transferring it to political objects. This abbreviated statement greatly simplifies the
notion, but it indicates the dynamics of direct political socialization. The idea of
indirect learning is broader than the specific structure outlined by Almond and Verba,
as they go on to point out. Indirect political socialization includes the following more
specific methods of learning: (1) “Interpersonal transference,” (2) “Apprenticeship,”
and (3) “Generalization.” LeVine argues that orientations toward political authority
result from a direct transference of family oriented attitudes to authority structures
in the primitive political systems. Two important aspects suggested here are: first,
indirect political socialization is not arrested in childhood but continues throughout
life, second, indirect political learning is not restricted to transference of expectations
from nonpolitical role models to political persons. It includes also the acquisition of
skills, habits, behaviors, and practices appropriate for political activity. It helps in
forming political self, hence, it is an important form of political learning.
The second general category under which we can distinguish modes of political
socialization is the notion of Direct Learning. The phrase “direct political
socialization” refers to processes in which the content of transmitted or developed
orientations is specifically political. This idea refers to experiences in which learning
is explicitly political. Whereas indirect political socialization entails the type of two-
step process outlined above, this mode involves the direct transmission of political
outlooks. The individual learns explicitly about the structure of his government, the
virtues of a political party, or the superiority of a particular political ideology. The
orientation acquired is directed toward a political object without intermediary
general predispositions. Just as we identified several variations of indirect political
socialization, there are several forms of direct political learning as follows: (1)
Imitation, (2) Anticipatory political socialization, (3) political education, and (4)
political experiences. The direct and indirect learning notions should not be confused
with distinctions between intentional and unintentional teaching. There is a
temptation to pair indirect with unintentional socialization, and direct with
intentional transmission. Such pairing is erroneous and impairs the utility of both
distinctions. Direct political socialization may be intentional and overt, as when the
schoolteacher urges her charges to be a good citizens and to abide by the laws. Or it
may entail unintentional transmission, as when the child acquires a fear of the police
by overhearing older peers recount how they were chased or beaten by a policeman.
Indirect socialization may be intentional, as when the child is told that the “good boy
or good girl” is one who always obeys what adults tell him; or unintentional as when
the child learns the necessity of rules by participating in school sports. The critical
distinction between the two modes of learning is not the overt intent of the
socialization agent, but the degree to which the socialization experience is infused
with specific political content.

15
 Students of political socialization have given the two forms of political learning more
or less emphasis. Some have held that the most important political learning takes
place through the direct transmission of political expectations. Others have argued
that less direct acquisition and subsequent transference is the more common and
significant form of political learning. Of course, most scholars recognize that the two
modes of political learning should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Political
Maturation involves both indirect and direct forms of learning. One mode of learning
may dominate one stage of political maturation, and the second mode other stages.
We have reviewed three types f indirect and four types of direct political socialization.
These various modes of socialization suggest the complexity of the processes through
which individuals acquire their political selves. Any individual is likely to learn about
the political world in all these ways. It is difficult to examine in any systematic way
the mechanisms through which persons acquire their political views. It is easier to
study what views citizens have - the dependent variable in political socialization – or
what agencies influence their views – the independent variable. Ahead in this project
we would be learning about these agents and their roles in political socialization to
understand the process of political socialization better adjoining a survey.

Agents of Political Socialization

Political socialization is performed by a variety of social agents. All societies have
institutions that develop and transmit political knowledge, attitudes, and values
among their members. The agents taking part in political socialization varies from
society to society. Some agents are institutions set up for the specific purpose of
passing on political values or developing awareness and support of the political
arrangements. Political youth groups, political parties, civic and political education
courses in the school, and government propaganda bureaus are such special agencies.
Other political socialization takes place within institutions only marginally concerned
with transmitting political orientations. Nonpolitical agencies often pass on political
norms while engaged in other activities; the family is the prime example. Families are
neither instituted nor organized specifically for transmitting political values. Yet
almost universally the family serves as a major agent of political socialization. Peer
groups, occupational, religious, and social organizations, and general educational
institutions may be placed in this same category. These groups only occasionally are
organized for political purposes, but in many instances they are significant in forming

16
 political views. Political learning is often an unintended consequence of nonpolitical
relationships. Parents pass on political values to their offspring, not so much through
deliberate indoctrination or teaching, as though a less intentional process of imitation
or osmosis.
Political socialization occurs through both primary and secondary relationships. The
distinction between these two forms of relationship is important for understanding
political learning. Primary relationships are highly personalized and relatively
unstructured; examples are those which take place among members of a family, close
friends and work associates. Much of an individual’s time is spent in primary
relationships, and they universally serve important socializing functions. Secondary
relationships, on the other hand, are more formal and impersonal. As a rule secondary
relationships involve a less total involvement by the individual. Political parties,
labour unions, educational institutions, and mass media are secondary institutions
that socialize politically. These distinctions are important are important for
understanding the range of experiences contributing to political learning and the
relative significance of different agents of socialization. All societies have a complex
mixture of primary and secondary relationships, although secondary structures are
less extensive in more primitive societies. By and large, the relationship between
individual and his/her government is rarely highly personal unstructured. This is
particularly true of the more highly developed societies as they have specialized,
secondary institutions for carrying out political socialization. These distinctions,
however, are only relative. Primary relationships exist even in highly complex
societies. Even in the highly developed systems – i.e. those, with greatest number of
specialized secondary institutions – primary agents persist as potent agents of
socialization. I do not wish to imply that secondary institutions are unimportant in
political socialization. On the contrary, especially in the highly developed polities, a
number of secondary institutions are influential. The school system is a widespread
and important secondary institution for political learning. Occupational
organizations, political groups, and the mass media are also important. So lets us
briefly look into some of these very influencing and very important agents of
socialization to understand this relationship better.

a) The Family:

Family plays the key role in molding the character of the child and his attitude
towards authority. In the family, mother and father play the leading role in
influencing the child in his formative stage. The formative stage of the child is from 3
to 15 years. Brothers and sisters also exercise the hidden influence upon the child.
The mother and father exercise not only the hidden influence but also the manifest
influence.
The hidden influences shape his entire attitude towards authority, while manifest
influence plays a direct role in the development of his political opinion. It has also

17
 been observed that a young man defies the authority or obeys it or extends co-
operation mainly because of the attitude molded by the family.
"An early experience in participation in decision making", according to Almond and
Verba, "can increase the child's sense of political competence, provide him with skill
for political interactions, and thus enhances the probability of this active participation
in the political system when he becomes an adult".

b) The Educational Institutions:

After the family, the educational institutions exercise the strongest possible influence,
both latent (hidden) and manifest upon the child. Children getting education in a
particular institution may develop particular kind of frame of mind. The fact that
about twenty-five percent of all British Conservative MPs went to Eton is an
indication of this. As the educational institutions exercise considerable influence,
therefore the selection of courses has become important.
Consequently, Almond and Verba have pointed out that the more extensive an
individual's education, the more likely he is to be aware of the impact of Government
to follow politics, to have more political information, to possess a wider range of
opinions on political matters, to engage in political discussions with a wider range of
people, to feel a greater ability to influence political affairs, to be member of voluntary
organisations and express confidence in his social environment and exhibit feeling of
trust. Jaya Prakash Narain led the agitations of the students in Gujarat and Bihar and
it led to great political socialization of the students.

c) Peer groups:

Peer groups also create a particular influence on the mind of individual more than in
or outside the school. Peer group is a group of people of the same age sharing similar
problems. Peer group is thus a friendly group.
Changes in one's mental attitude from hostility and aggression to co-operation or
vice-versa are registered while in the company of friends. The courses of study,
debates, discussions and extra-curricular activities have their own impact upon the
attitudes of their grown-up students.
According to James S. Coleman, "In developed countries like the United States and
Sweden, the socializing influence of parents and teachers begins to decrease in early
adolescence and from then Peer groups exercise increasingly important influences on
political attitudes and behavior". As the person grows older, some Peer groups that
were highly influential in his adolescence are superseded by them required by the
circumstances of his new life, such as work-associates, neighbors and above all
husband or wife.

18
 d) Mass Media:

Mass media plays a significant role in molding the views of the children. A controlled
mass media may bring out a sort of uniformity of views and a special like for the
existing political system but free mass media (Television, radio, and free press) may
create a special dislike and resentment in the mind of the individual against the
dictatorial political system. According to Lucian Pye, "Socialization through the mass
media is the best short-run technique available and it is crucial to modernization". It
was perhaps on this account that mass media controlled by the Congress Government
during Internal Emergency (1975-77) but it was extremely disliked by the people and
they voted the Congress out.

e) Political experiences:

They are important particularly for the early stages of political maturation.
Political events and experiences are obviously most important for those who have
interest in politics. Political events are less likely to influence people who are
isolated from the political mainstream and those who have only minimal
perceptions of the political world. Experiences serve to correct or complete the
political learning that took place during the pre-adult years. Learning from
poltical experiences and events is most important for the individual politically
attentive and active. These sometimes even leads to changes in the values and
beliefs of the person formed earlier through his new experiences and events
influencing him.

Survey Report

1) According to the survey conducted in the faculty of Arts at M.S.University this is the
graph showing which agents influence the political actions and ideas of the
individuals between the age of 18 to 30.

19
 According to the following graph we can say that mass media is the most influential agent
of the other agents of political socialization in the faculty of Arts at M.S. University. And
after mass media we see that education and schooling is another important influencing
factor as the survey is conducted among students it becomes more evident how even
education plays very vital role in building their political understanding perspectives. And
then is the political events and their experiences followed by the family as also major
important factor and in the end we see peers playing important part as an agent of political
socialization in the life of a student.
Hence, we assume that in the faculty of arts Mass Media and Education plays the most
important and affective agent of political socialization. But this information cannot be
generalized for faculties or institutions or all individuals for that say because for every
other person the importance and influence of agents differ and changes they are never
constant. Even age, the background, time and space all factors affects equally in this
process.

20
 2) When asked what are the topics that they discuss with their peers to the students in
the question no. 13 of the survey question paper following is what the result came
out:

NO.OF PEOPLE
56

20
17
13

2
S O C I A L I S S U E SR E L I G I O U S I S S U EPSO L I T I C A L I S S U E SS P O R T S E V E N T S OTHER

According to the graph 56 number of students discuss mostly about social issues and
happenings with their friends and peer groups and 17 number of students discuss about
political events and issues in their friend circle. We see that 20 number of students discuss
about sports and 13 which is the least they discuss about religious topics and issues.

3) According to the survey following is the number students who are aware of their
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

STUDENTS
60 55 Hence, we see that 55% o students in
50 the campus are aware of their
40 fundamental rights and, 23% know
30 23
some of these fundamental rights while
20 only 2% don’t know their fundamental
10
rights guaranteed by the constitution of
2
India.
0
yes no some of them

21
 4) When asked to the students which factor or agent affects their voting behavior the
answer was as shown the graph:

NO. OF STUDENTS

37
31
15

15
10

According to the above study we can conclude that political events and experiences
affects the voting behavior of the students in the faculty of arts, M.S.University,
Baroda the most. Even mass media plays a very vital role after political events and
experiences in the voting behavior of the students. Education and family we see play
equal role accordingly and then the peers.

Conclusion:
According the survey hence we can conclude that mass media and political events
and even education plays a very vital role in the formation of the political ideas and
orientations of the student in the ages between 18 to 30 which is very crucial to my
assignment because this is that stage of an individuals life we he develops most of
his political and social experiences and forms his ideas of a political world and
hence actually forms his political self. The intensity and importance of these agents
increases an a person enters the political space as a voter. And educational
institutions provides them with the understanding of their rights and duties and
hence make them understand and build their political self. Hence we see that how
age and different stages of learning of political socialization affects or political
understandings and orientations and they keep on changing according to time and
space. A persons political orientations can never be stagnant they change, reform
and may even just extinct altogether. Political socialization hence is a lifelong
process and is needed to be studied and understood.

22
 Methodology

The type of research that will be used in this study is qualitative

research and quantitative research. Qualitative research aims to
gather an in-depth understanding of the political orientations of the
individual and the formation of a political self throughout person’s
life. The discipline investigates “why” and “how” is the political
socialization happening. Besides this, I have also analyzed and
examined the phenomenon of political socialization in the youth
between age 18 to 30 in the faculty of arts, Maharaja Sayajirao
University of Baroda to see how this process affects the students
through observations in numerical representations and through
statistical analysis. Along with questionnaire that was gives to the
students for the statistical representation of the findings in the
study, data collection was done in the university itself and only in
the faculty of arts through a survey. The qualitative data was
gathered from the university liberary and in-depth study was done
of the topic. Excel sheet was used for the making of graphs and
tables to represent the data collection and to make its study easier,
interesting, more understanding.

Bibliography

(prewitt, 1969), (dekker, 1991), (greenberg, 2009),

(greenstein, 1970), (greenstein f. I., 1975), (manjit, 1992)
(habashi, 2018), (stacey, 1978), (Ichilov, 2004), (millei,
2015)

23
 Appendix
Sample questionnaire
UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
A SURVEY

This is a survey conducted in the Faculty of Arts, The Maharaja Sayajirao University
of Baroda by Pooja Parmar of Political Science department pursuing B.A (T.Y). Here I
will study which agents of political socialization influence political behavior and ideas
of the students the most and which of these agents communicate and provide them
with the political information the most. The age group limitation for this particular
survey is from age 18 to 30 and the total number of students is 80 from the Faculty of
Arts of The MSU Baroda. It is to study the importance and influence of political
socialization in the educational institutions and among students
NOTE: This information is only for the survey purpose and will remain confidential
so fill up your personal data correctly. Also the fields with (*) are compulsory to fill
up.
Fill up the following fields regarding your personal data and information.

*Name: ____________________________________________________
*Age: ____________________________________________________
Gender: _________________ Religion: ________________________
*Occupation: ___________________________________________________
*Organization: ___________________________________________________
*Faculty: ____________________________________________________
*Department: ___________________________________________________
*Year: ___________________________________________________
Marital status: ___________________________________________________
*Signature: ____________________________________________________

Read the following questions carefully and tick mark most preferred and best suitable
answer below.

Q1. According to you which of the following agents affects your political ideas and
actions the most.
a) My family [ ]
b) My peer group [ ]
c) Education and schooling [ ]
d) Mass media and communication [ ]

24
 e) Political events and experiences [ ]
f) If other specify ______________ [ ]
Q2. Where do you get your political information easily and regularly from?
a) My family [ ]
b) My peer group [ ]
c) Education and schooling [ ]
d) Mass media and communication [ ]
e) Political events and experiences [ ]
f) If other specify _____________ [ }

Q3. Are you politically active at your space? If yes how.

a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ]
Explanation:____________________________________________________________

Q4. Which of the following make themselves more influential or appealing?

a) My family [ ]
b) My peer group [ ]
c) Education and schooling [ ]
d) Mass media and communication [ ]
e) Political events and experiences [ ]
f) If other specify _____________ [ ]

Q5. Do you take interest in political changes happening in the state?

a) Yes b) No

Q6. Which helps you form your political ideas/ideologies if any?

a) My family [ ]
b) My peer group [ ]
c) Education and schooling [ ]
d) Mass media and communication [ ]
e) Political events and experiences [ ]
f) If other specify______________ [ ]

Q7. Do you vote regularly for the state elections and/or union elections?
a) Yes b) No
c) Sometimes

Q8. Which factor affects your voting behavior?

a) My family [ ]
b) My peer group [ ]
c) Education and schooling [ ]

25
 d) Mass media and communication [ ]
e) Political events and experiences [ ]
f) If other specify _____________ [ ]

Q9. Are you influenced by the party preference of your parents?

a) Yes b) No

Q10. Do you discuss political happenings and issues with your parents.
a) Yes b) No

Q11. Where do you have most of your discussions on political issues?

a) Family [ ]
b) Peer groups [ ]
c) Social media [ ]
d) Public space [ ]
e) If other specify_______________

Q12. (1) Do you regularly watch news / read newspapers.

a) Yes b) No

(2) If not where do you get your political information from specify.
(3) If yes which media do you use specify
________________________________________________________________________

Q13. Which of the following do you discuss more with your friends?
a) Social issues [ ]
b) Religious issues [ ]
c) Political topics [ ]
d) Sports events [ ]
e) Other specify __________________ _ [ ]

Q14. Are you aware of your fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
a) Yes b) No
c) Some of them

Q15. Do you have any interest in politics?

a) Yes b) No

26
 Thank you!

27