Midwest Journal of Political Science, pages 229-246
The view of Easton and Hess, which was contrary to the research on political socialization at the time, was that an adult could escape, or change early political inheritance. The research data that they used was collected from 1956-1961, in 12,000 American elementary schools. The family was discovered as the influence of political learning during the preschool period by being observing his or her parents obeying laws, or authority. The importance of any functioning political system and source of stability was viewed by the authors as the political orientation of its youth. The research problems were seen as: how to make better citizens coming of age, how to educate children so that they will be better informed about politics and more highly motivated to take an interest in public affairs, and at last, how can we secure them more tightly to a set of democratic beliefs? (231)
The research noted several factors that contribute to political socialization of children. One of these is the use of verbal and physical symbols, such as the flag, the policeman, the President, and words such as freedom and democracy, (which are understood in the early teenage years more clearly). Between the ages of 12-13 it was found that “America” itself becomes a more highly political community learned from abstract symbols. (238) Any political system must seek to imprint its image on each new generation, and that success is the determinant affecting the probability of a system that will last.
Comments
I agree with the authors’ comment of the ritual of saluting the American flag and its religious meaning and impact it must have on the child’s mind. The repetition of pledging allegiance to the flag in a brief, ritualistic atmosphere by saluting it in a solemn atmosphere was found to be in the child’s mind as pledging allegiance to God. This ceremony was found to be the link that tied American children to their political community. The idea that the emotional rather than the rational processes are at work of forming and developing favourable feelings for authority long before children have a concrete knowledge about it.
As far as the processing methods that were applied, it was said that interviews and questionnaires were the main source of data. (240) Throughout the article the research is broken up into age groups such as children in 7th and 8th grades, or that the earliest testing was done in grade 2. (241) The conclusion was that what is learned early in life is hard to displace in later years, and political socialization is linked to religion, family, and internal needs of every child but that this attachment to the political community begins at an earlier age than we would expect. The research seems to be very vast, covering a few years and thousands of children and it is thought provoking and well described. I do not agree with the authors in a couple ways; as you may or may not have noticed the authors describe the child in masculine form only, ‘he’. In my opinion it is out of place to write in that method, but considering that the women’s movement was during the 60’s it makes more sense why this kind of jargon was used. It only enables other men to think that women are no part of politics, or ever can be. I also do not agree with the idea on page 243 that “adaptation is not the chosen venue for a small minority. Rebellion, aggression, and mistrust are a chosen venue towards authority.” This comment is just supporting the notion that a ‘good citizen’ is an obedient one, which does not question anything.
The article has very good points for scientific and social relevance for its time because it is bringing new data to light. If we know what age children become entrenched in political orientations, this data could then be used by many people to help create more positive educational tools to teach and influence children to become active participants in their own community.
« return.