Ó
1999 – 2000 by Mary Bold
Debate between
Group Socialization Theory and Traditional Socialization Theory
Speaker for GS Theory is Mary Bold.
Speaker for Traditional Theory has varied. This
script was used by Cathy Brown, a columnist for the Arlington Morning News,
Arlington, Texas. She presented the debate with Mary Bold at a workshop in Fort
Worth, Texas, on August 2, 2000.
Traditional
theory:
Thank you for joining us today to debate GS theory.
Mary and I will take on the roles of advocates of opposing theories: group
socialization and traditional socialization. As you listen to our debate, you
may hear frustration in our voices, maybe some anger, maybe even some disgust.
Because we are human, we often attach emotion to our “scientific” work. You
will get a taste of the fervor social scientists feel toward their theories.
Don’t worry that we might come to blows—we are good friends and we are
intentionally taking on roles for this debate. Following our debate you will
have a chance to ask questions.
GS theory:
Even though GS stands for “group
socialization,” this new theory actually addresses two processes: socialization
and personality development. The basic question here is how do children develop
into adults—and the answer is found in an age-old debate of nature versus
nurture. Do children inherit the traits that they carry into adulthood, or do
they “get socialized” and turn into the adult the environment creates? GS
theory holds that nature probably accounts for about 50% of most traits, and
that environment accounts for the rest.
Traditional
theory:
Let’s not spend our time together today debating the
nature part of your premise. Obviously, we’re learning enough about heredity to
say 40% of one trait is determined or at least suggested by genes, and maybe
70% of another trait is “heritable.” But I’ll accept your general statement of
about 50% of most traits. Let’s leave that in general terms. I’m more
interested in what you have to say about nurture—the environment part of the
equation.
GS theory:
Yes, nurture seems to be the crux of our modern debate of nature versus
nurture. You obviously want me to get straight to my point, so I will:
nurture—environment—has a single greatest component, and that is the childhood
peer group. GS theory says that the greatest determining factor on the child’s
development of adult personality is the peer group. The elementary school years
are the most influential, followed by the adolescent years. The child’s peer
groups in those years determine adult personality.
Traditional
theory:
Thank you for finally getting that said. You are
presenting the child’s peers as more important than the child’s parents. Have I
stated that correctly?
GS theory:
Yes. The major determinant of adult personality is the childhood play
group, understanding that it may not be a single group. Some children grow up
in one place and perhaps go through a small number of peer groups, or possibly
only one. Other children may move frequently and be exposed to many peer
groups. So, when I say “peer group” I mean one or several or many groups to
which the child is exposed from the age of 5 or 6 on.
Traditional
theory:
I think we understand your meaning of the word
“group.” I’m much more interested in how you can simply ignore the fact that a
child lives in some type of family that must have more influence than a play
group! You can’t just ignore that!
GS theory:
Oh, I know family has influence—but it’s limited to the confines of the
family. And for all practical purposes, the influence ends with the preschool
years.
Traditional
theory:
Meaning, at age 5 or 6 the child enters the play
group and leaves family behind?
GS theory:
That about sums it up.
Traditional
theory:
So you would agree with me that parental influence
is paramount for babies and young children?
GS theory:
You know I do.
Traditional
theory:
You agree that what we know of infant attachment is
correct? That the work of researchers such as Bowlby and Ainsworth have
accurately assessed infant needs for primary caregiving?
GS theory:
Yes. Research and experience show conclusively that babies who don’t
attach properly grow up to be pretty miserable people.
Traditional
theory:
So, you admit that attachment theory is sound—but
you then tell me that the result of attachment ends when the child is 5 or 6
years old. But children don’t come with on-and-off switches!!!
GS theory:
Attachment theory is sound, yes. But it is not complete, universal. In
fact, it is contextual. Babies and children learn what they need to in one
context, and then go on to learn what is needed in the next context. They do
not transfer the learning—and that includes the model of the relationship with
the mother.
Traditional
theory:
Without debating how contextual learning may or may
not be, you are still suggesting that children are influenced by parents for
only 5 or 6 years of their life. We have decades of modern research that says
otherwise, besides a whole lot of common sense: children live with their parents and family—many more hours than they spend
with their peers. To dismiss that daily time, with its inevitable interaction,
is ludicrous!
GS theory:
OK, I won’t dismiss it. Yes,
children spend time with their family in the home. But what they learn there,
what they do there, stays there.
Traditional
theory:
You think the child who receives encouragement from
a parent—on homework or baseball—isn’t affected by that encouragement?
GS theory:
It may be an important part
of the relationship between that child and that parent. But it’s not important to how the child turns out
as an adult. What will be much more important is how much encouragement the
child’s peers give him. We’d probably
put it in terms of group acceptance, though, rather than encouragement. If the
peer group accepts the child’s ability to spell or hit a ball, that behavior
will be reinforced. If the peer group does not value the ability, the behavior
will be rejected—and the child will drop it.
Traditional
theory:
You describe a scenario that may fit some adolescent experience with peer
groups, but I don’t believe it describes the whole of childhood. The child’s
behavior, in spelling or baseball, will reflect values that the parents have instilled in the child.
GS theory:
Now, there, you’re wrong. If
the child spells well, it’s probably the result of spelling genes inherited
from parents. If the child likes to
spell, that’s probably inherited, too. If the whole family is a virtual
spelling bee, it’s because of their nature
connection. Spelling feels good to everyone in that family—it makes sense
to them—it has value for them, because they’re all built for it, genetically
built for it. The parents didn’t instill anything through nurture, only through
nature. But take the spelling gene down the road—will the child develop the
spelling talent? GS theory says: only if
the child’s peer group values spelling. If the child lives in a
neighborhood where the spelling bee is a big deal and all the children aspire
to win it, then the child will explore that potential. If the neighborhood
children aspire to be sports stars, and don’t care about spelling bees, then
the child will stop spelling. Or, at
least, stop spelling well.
Traditional
theory:
There you go again, with that on-and-off switch.
Children do not stop doing what their
parents encourage them to do!
GS theory:
OK, I can agree with
that—partially. Some children will
continue to do what their parents encourage—but only within sight of their
parents! In the peer group, around the other children, the behavior will be
dropped. How many parents have ever said: “We know he has it in him, but his
schoolwork does not reflect his potential.”
Traditional
theory:
I’ll actually give you a few points on that one.
I’ve raised a boy, too.
GS theory:
Yes, me, too! We make jokes about boys not caring about homework or
grades or honors. We know that’s a stereotype with many, many exceptions. But
the stereotype hints at what GS theory predicts for children’s behavior: what
the peer group values, the child will act on. If the boy’s peer group values
high grades, he will study and perform. If the boy’s peer group does not value
grades, he will not study. Performance will depend on genes, luck, the teacher’s
curve, whatever. But you cannot count on study habits for that child.
Traditional
theory:
Again, I think you are describing adolescent
behavior for some adolescents.
GS theory:
No! It starts much earlier than adolescence. Thomas Kindermann looked at
school motivation among 4th and 5th graders over the course of a school year.
What Kindermann found, as he traced children’s movement through social groups,
is that their school performance changed according
to which group they happened to be in at the time. These elementary school
social groups may not call themselves the “brains” and the “burn-outs” (the way
teenagers might) but the result is the same. By moving into a new social
group—a normal activity among children in elementary school—a child moves up or
down the grade book.
Traditional
theory:
You come close to describing what we already have
theory to describe: labeling and self-fulfilling prophecy. Children in the
“bluebird” reading group, throughout the history of education, have always
known they were the worst readers in the room—and for most, the label sticks.
They stay the worst readers.
GS theory:
We’re on the same wavelength, if you’ll just accept that the bluebirds
are found throughout the child’s life. Social life, school life, everywhere.
Traditional
theory:
But you stress the importance of the group over importance of the family and the
parents.
GS theory:
Right. It’s the group influence that the child reacts to in forming
adult personality.
Traditional
theory:
No! It’s the home to which the child returns each
day that forms personality. Your view would suggest that it doesn’t matter
where the child returns home each day.
GS theory:
That’s right! It practically doesn’t matter! If you switched all the
parents around the neighborhood, the children would turn out about the same.
Traditional
theory:
If you and I had changed places 15 years ago, our
children would have turned out about the same?
GS theory:
Yes.
Traditional
theory:
But I know
what I gave to my children. You surely gave your children certain parenting,
certain values. Your children are what they are today because of what you gave
them.
GS theory:
They are what they are partly because of their genetic makeup.
Yes, I gave them that much. They are what they are partly because of what the
adult community gave them—but you and I are so similar in that regard that it
doesn’t really matter which of us reared them. Your children and mine grew up
in the same neighborhood. They went to the same schools! You and I are in an adult peer group that
establishes high standards for our children’s education; our peer group also
spends a lot of money sending our children to computer camps and sports
leagues. Our adult peer group includes people like Cathy Brown coaching season
after season of youth sports. And, no, it didn’t matter which parent was doing
the coaching, as long as you and a few others were there to make the season
happen. As long as our children’s peer groups are influenced by this adult peer
group, it also doesn’t matter which of us is in the home monitoring the curfew
or paying for the prom dress.
Traditional
theory:
You’re saying that parents are important!
GS theory:
You’re trapping me! OK, parents
are important in that young people still need parents around. Young people need
some care, they certainly need financial support, and, so, yes, parents are
necessary components of family. But…as
long as an adult peer group is in place, it doesn’t matter who the individual
parents are.
Traditional
theory:
Are you going back to your point that your and my
children would be the same regardless of which of us reared them? That my
daughter would be the same, regardless of having you or me as a parent?
GS theory:
That’s right. She would have turned out just about the same. Well,
except that her tastes in food might be different. Religion, different.
Holidays, different. Maybe how you cook would be the major influence in terms
of daily lifestyle.
Traditional
theory:
You see cooking as being a parenting influence?
GS theory:
That’s right. Things like cooking and religion do get handed down from
parent to child—but only because the childhood play groups don’t have an
interest in those behaviors. Anything not covered in the peer group can still
be influenced by the family.
Traditional
theory:
You are suggesting that a parent’s cooking style has
more influence than his or her parenting style!
GS theory:
What a clever way of putting it! Thank you, I may use that in future
lectures.
Traditional
theory:
My intent is not to be clever, but to point out that
in the family field we have been able to study parenting behavior. We can
identify styles of parenting and we can recommend effective parenting skills.
We can and do help people be better parents.
GS theory:
Perhaps that information can be of some help, as long as we admit its
limitations. First, we have to admit that parenting skills affect only one
thing: how the parent and child get along in the home. Second, we have to admit
that parenting style, even parental warmth, will not greatly impact the child’s
adult personality.
Traditional
theory:
Hold it. It sounds as though you have dismissed work
like Diana Baumrind’s on authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting
styles. Are you dismissing it?
GS theory:
Perhaps Baumrind’s styles
accurately describe parenting in a limited subculture—well-educated, middle
class, white America—but it definitely is not
cross-cultural. Try applying her styles and their expected outcomes to
different groups, such as an Asian-American community. The typical parenting
style might be described as authoritarian, but the children’s outcomes wouldn’t
match the expectation of discontented, withdrawn, or aimless. No, Baumrind’s
model doesn’t really work across the board.
Traditional
theory:
I don’t want to debate Baumrind’s work here. I want
to address the general topic of parenting styles and skills. Surely you do not
suggest that it doesn’t matter what style or level of parenting goes on in the
home!
GS theory:
Well, it doesn’t matter very much, if at all.
Traditional
theory:
A cold, stern parent is equal to a warm,
understanding parent? A closed-communication style is equal to an
open-communication style? Considering the possible range of just these traits,
I can plot a continuum from highly abusive to highly supportive. You have
suggested that it doesn’t matter where on that continuum the parent falls.
GS theory:
Oh, I wouldn’t be able to tolerate “abusive” on the continuum. But
less-than-ideal? Sure. According to normal development expectations, the parent
need not be highly skilled in parenting. Need not be warm. Need not be
supportive. As long as the child’s peer group is receiving the benefits of a
normal adult peer group, the individual set of parents need not be perfect
parents. They can be simply adequate. Some may be less-than-adequate, although
I think the bulk of the parents would be what we could call “good enough.”
Traditional
theory:
Listen to your words: normal
development—adequate—good enough. You have not begun to define these terms and
yet you present them as a prescription for rearing children. All I’m hearing is
an excuse for parents who don’t want to do the hard work of parenting.
GS theory:
There’s no excuse in GS theory. If parents are less than adequate, they
will pay a price: they will not have good relationships with their children.
Traditional
theory:
I say that if parents are less than adequate, the
children will grow up less than adequate.
GS theory:
But most children turn out just fine! The ones who don’t, have other
problems, chief among them inherited traits such as disagreeableness.
Traditional
theory:
You don’t think parents have anything to do with bad
outcomes?!?!?
GS theory:
In normal development, no. In cases of abuse, perhaps. But remember
that about 1/3 of abused children grow up to do very well as adults, with no
intervention whatsoever. They don’t automatically become abusers themselves.
Traditional
theory:
Surely you cannot mean that abuse doesn’t matter.
GS theory:
I did not say that and I would not! You know that! I am trying to
describe normal development.
Traditional
theory:
Then we can agree that abusive parents do damage to
their children. And that GS theory does not excuse abuse.
GS theory:
That is correct. I do not mean to confuse abusive parenting with simply
less-than-ideal.
Traditional
theory:
Then you are saying that outside of abusive parents, the type of parent you are doesn’t
matter.
GS theory:
It won’t influence your child’s adult personality—that’s right. It may
influence how you get along with your child, both in childhood and adulthood, but
it will not affect how your child turns out.
Traditional
theory:
My daughter would be the same whether I was stern or
permissive?
GS theory:
Yes. Essentially.
Traditional
theory:
She would be the same whether I was neat or sloppy?
GS theory:
That’s right.
Traditional
theory:
Why is it that neither my daughter nor I see it that
way? Why do we think that my attitudes and my beliefs and my behaviors have
shaped a good part of her?
GS theory:
Well, one reason you think that is the way our society describes
parenting and family life. Our culture puts a lot of emphasis on the belief
that parents shape their children. But that’s all it is: a belief.
Traditional
theory:
A belief that is so pervasive that it permeates all
our thinking and all our research?
GS theory:
Certainly. We are not the first culture to allow a belief to direct us.
Europeans believed that the world was flat, that the heavens were perfect, that
the universe was geocentric. We humans frequently are guided by our beliefs,
and that includes scientists.
Traditional
theory:
I can agree with that. We all come to research with
some view, some “lens.”
GS theory:
But in socialization research, we have come with an assumption that nurture—the
kind parents provide in the family home—is our most important subject to
research. That assumption has determined our research questions and our
research methodology.
Traditional
theory:
I can also agree with some of that statement. No
doubt, our emphasis on parenting has
determined much of our research. But it has not been without basis. We have
emphasized parenting because we have seen it as the most important influence on
children’s development.
GS theory:
But socialization researchers have not acknowledged that parenting may
really be an interpretation of the genetic connection between parent and child.
Most of our research has been conducted on biologically related family members.
Until we extend research to include all types of families, especially adoptive
ones, we won’t be able to tease apart the nature from the nurture.
Traditional
theory:
That returns us to our start: nature versus nurture.
I’m afraid that all we’ve proved in this debate is that we don’t agree on the
matter.
GS theory:
On that, I can agree.
Traditional
theory:
Let’s end at this point and invite our audience to
pose questions for us.
Return
to Main Menu of www.marybold.com
Ó 1999 – 2000 by Mary Bold