Education is different from socialization

Spread the love

Education is different from socialization


The above, then, is an attempt to outline in universal terms why some people do not differentiate between being educated and socialized. It may be helpful here to try to sketch a similar general way of how and why other people make the distinction. The distinction between socializing and educating has been made in many ways, sometimes quite casually and ambiguously. It may be helpful to start with the strong distinction suggested above to try to highlight the key basis of difference: social activities are those that aim to make people more equal; The purpose of educating is to make people more specialized.

First great philanthropist, then, learning a language
, People who share a language share a large part of their view of the world, which is programmed at the level of perception in terms, distinctions, grammatical structure given in that language. Teaching people to be functionally literate is, in this form of distinction, socializing in that it teaches traditions

Which is shared by everyone whose purpose is to communicate by writing. To write with style, to speak with eloquence and to read with critical awareness is to educate. Such things emphasize individual distinctiveness by basic analogies that make communication possible; They emphasize distinctiveness from current clichés and conformist forms.

Uniformity in traditional forms of expression reduces social utility; It has less complexity, less ambiguity, less potential for misunderstandings, and also less richness and diversity. Writing with elegance and reading with partiality is not a matter of social utility. However, it is a matter of educational importance. (The fad is a schizophrenic education; it focuses on formal attributes of exclusivity at the expense of the content that might make someone “eminent”).

In schools, then, we can see all activities to have both a social and an educational aspect – the degree of which will vary from activity to activity. In carpentry or metalworking, for example, learning to use tools is a matter of socialization. Learning to use them with grace, with personal style, and finding there through an aesthetic quality in one’s work above and beyond the need for utility is an educational matter. In learning, say, French there is a level of learning of letters and basic expressions that involves the socialization of that language, but the ease and refinement of understanding a different view of life and the world is aimed at an educational matter. Is. In schools the distinction can usually be made more easily and clearly.

Activities that are engaged in so that people can more easily integrate into society at large — obtain jobs, fulfill basic responsibilities of citizenship, parenthood, etc. — will be primarily a matter of socialization. Those activities which lead to personal development would be liable to be largely educational. We can also differentiate between academic and social activities on the basis of how we justify their place in the curriculum. Social activities are justified on the basis of social utility; Educational activities based on the cultivation of individuals. Both are meaningful: the former are meaningful because they are analogous to the activities that Durkheim said were necessary to keep society functioning; The latter are well suited for the refined pleasures they provide us personally.

In the view of those who hold it, this distinction is important to hold, because we should be able to refer to different criteria in deciding whether curriculum time should be allowed for a particular social or educational activity. Or not. Thus, if we encounter a conflict between some people who want to add a course in driver’s training and some who want to add a course in Sanskrit or music appreciation, we must be clear that we do not decide who Who to include and who to exclude only in terms of a social norm.
We don’t ask what is more relevant to students’ potential in the daily adult world. Instead we need to recognize that schools are both social and educative, and the conflict between learning and Sanskrit cannot be sensibly resolved by applying appropriate criteria to decide which of the various social activities should be included Is. This sharp distinction, then, is seen as a defense of education in schools; A defense is needed in the light of the lack of educational activities in schools in favor of increased socialization. This erosion has been particularly severe, in this view, in North America where schools were intended instruments in the homogenization of diverse immigrant populations and where society at large is seen as appropriately demanding that schools focus more on social concerns. pay attention.

This perspective is expressed most boldly by Michael Oakeshott:
The design to substitute ‘socialization’ for ‘education’ has gone far enough to be recognized as the most important event of this century, the greatest adversity to have overtaken our culture, a dark age devoted to barbaric prosperity. beginning of. this from a project

emerged, which began about three centuries ago (which was neither unwise nor dangerous for educational engagement) to provide an alternative to education for those who dropped out of educational engagement for whatever reason . Since that time this option has been adjusted to respond to changing circumstances, improved and expanded to make it an apprenticeship for adult domestic, industrial and professional life.
has generated various versions of itself, and for the most part it has submitted to the dictates of governments. In fact, it has become the world it has helped to create, it may be recognized as a ‘service industry’. It was designed as a contribution to the good of the ‘nation’; It has been welcomed or tolerated because of the opulence it is said to bring, and attempts have been made to enumerate its product in terms of costs and benefits; and it is defended on the basis of what it is made to be and on the more dubious plea

This is an apprenticeship best suited for certain types of kids. However, this shift to education was allowed to corrupt the educational pursuits of the Europeans; And now it has been announced as its desirable successor. Everywhere usury has been set on foot. But the victim of this enterprise is not merely a historical academic engagement (with all its flaws and shortcomings); It is also the idea of education as an initiation into the inheritance of human understanding on the basis of which a person can break free from the ‘fact of life’ and identify himself in terms of the ‘quality of life’. The disaster of the enterprise is matched by the intellectual corruption of the entrepreneurs.
As can be seen in Oakeshott’s words, the reason for increasingly clinging to a clear division between socialization and education is that it is the only way to explain that humans can incorporate a sophisticated culture that is characteristic of a particular society. Beyond relationships and transactions. , To use Oakeshott’s other images, this culture is like a conversation: it began long ago in primeval forests and expanded into cities and city-states and empires around the Mediterranean; It has continued to grow and prosper over the centuries, parts of it being in poetry, plays, music, painting, sculpture, until at present we have this vast rich cultural conversation that we can engage in. Education is learning the language of this great civilized and civilized conversation. We can certainly live and die without including it, as animals do. For a human being to live and die without engaging in this conversation, however, is to miss the best life has to offer.

There has been an official aversion to viewing schools in North America as merely socializing institutions. A strong statement of this point of view runs through the first half of this century:
‘The fundamental principle of liberty on which all governments of this Union rest, excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction only from public teachers. The child is not only a creature of the state; Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, as well as the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional responsibilities.’

progressive reactions

Everyone understands the difference between learning how to use a tool in a utilitarian way and using a tool to create an aesthetically satisfying product. What is wrong with some parts of the traditional form of education is that this distinction is complacently accepted and made into practice, such that it is perfectly reasonable to teach the masses in a utilitarian way – if indeed the proportion is acceptable. can be taught to use tools, read, calculate, etc. adequately to the demands of their job and social role – and appropriate to educate others. Conservatives may well say that it would certainly be desirable if everyone could learn more sophisticated use of tools, more sophisticated literacy, and so on, but, unfortunately, these higher abilities reach only a small fraction of citizens. Can only reach What is wrong with all of this from a progressive perspective is the acceptance of a division between utilitarian skill and cultural achievement. The progressive program is designed to prevent precisely that traditional theoretical distinction being realized in social life. No one should be trained only for utilitarian skills with no understanding of the intrinsic value of their actions; No one should be allowed to develop a frivolous, feeble aesthetic sensibility without a sense of social function and utility.




There is an obvious ambiguity in Progressivism’s thinking about traditional high culture, which will be explored later. There is a strain of progressivism that sees this elitist pleasure as everyone’s heritage, and among the complex mix of programs identified as progressivism is a set of methodological reforms that will make high culture available to all. Another strain of progressivism is opposed to high culture, viewing it as miseducation and a hoax. Both distinguish that a product of high culture

Jick is division; the former regard it as a contingency, a historical
A coincidence which can be rectified by proper democratic processes. In the process, the artificial beauty that for traditionalists creates a hierarchy of cultural objects “out there” that has to be internalized into appropriate hierarchies inside will be purified; The artificial crud attached to the unreflective conceit would be wiped away, and the democratically educated new man would be able to look afresh at the contents of this high culture and respond appropriately to the pure beauty.

conditioning and fixation

Historically it would be possible to account for conflicting positions regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of the distinction between socialization and education. In such an account the distinction between those who see knowledge, culture, and aesthetic responses as being socially adapted and those who see them as being socially determined is not recent in the story with any sharpness. Will come Certainly, the conflict is predetermined in Dewey, in that he holds both positions, each at different points. But the arguments are all contemporary, the conservatives haven’t gone away and neither have the progressives given up on “back to basics”. What is more important of late is the hard progressive position illustrated above – a position that, as it puts it, clearly holds that high culture is a political commitment, and that any institution that seeks to preserve it must It is reactionary and hostile to interests. and proper education of the working class. This is a necessary relationship because knowledge, culture, and aesthetic responses are socially determined.
Pursuing what other, linked, arguments call a synchronic rather than diachronic approach, we can create a continuum with two clear discontinuities along its length. On the right there is a desire to make a sharp distinction between educating and socializing, as the distinction preserves high culture, civilization, and what makes life worth living. In between is a weaker form of progressivism that tends to recognize some sort of distinction between cultural initiation and utilitarian training in job skills, and whose adherents believe that high culture can be incorporated into current social life and the labor force. It can be enjoyed by classes, as long as schools are always careful to tie it to the experience being offered. However, there is some discomfort about all this, and there is no promise of initiating the children to high culture, only the vague implication that working class, and other, children should be “exposed” to it, and if it That much takes the better, and if not, it doesn’t matter. On the left, there is a belief that the intersection between socialism and education is a political tool to maintain an unequal, divisive and exploitative social order. It would be useful to consider this left position in more detail. Perhaps we can usefully call this group radicals as distinct from progressives – although their position is sometimes traditionally called progressivism.

Radicals, most fundamentally, believe that “every society has its own unique way of defining and understanding reality”. There is no such thing as objective reality; Objectivity and reality are created by each society and they are what is perceived by each social group. This

The perspective allows its user to see why progressives were unsuccessful in changing, in any serious approach, the traditional education system and class-based social system: progressives failed to see that knowledge and objectivity and reality were conditioned only by were not social experiences but were in fact created in and determined by it. In accepting traditional epistemology with its assumptions about the scientific method establishing an objective view of the world, how certain “facts” about the principles of rationality can be secured, progressives, in addition to reform Lost the ability to do anything and therefore strengthened it. He worked for the reconstruction of the social order. The more radical notion that social life determines what counts as fact, as objectivity, as rationality, leaves the way open for the rejection of the very grounds on which conservatives have so far based their views. The dominance of the social approach has been preserved.

Thus one can see, from this position, why the conservatives were able to continue their control over education and expand their vision of reality under the slogan of “equality of opportunity”. It did nothing towards breaking down the class-based society, but rather became a means of inculcating the clever children of the working class into a traditional view of reality through initiation into its culture. Equality of educational opportunity, while seen by many socialists as a tool in their kit, became a more effective method of maintaining the social status quo. radical challenge is to deny all
Commonly accepted grounds by conservatives and progressives: “sanctioned” (by whom and

for purpose?) belief in principles of rationality, what counts as a fact and how it is established, the ideal of objectivity, and so on. Likewise, fundamentalists have serious doubts about whether one can hope to use schools to change our sense of social reality, given that public schools are middle-class institutions. They have only been good to the middle class and their interests; They have always been hopeless institutions for the working classes. Radicals thus lead to a program of de-schooling and new ways of bringing children home to a better social reality.

Radicals respond in debate with conservatives: “While agreeing that our educational dilemmas are about culture and meanings, these are no different from the political and economic struggles of which such meanings are an expression”. This means that for the radical “the curriculum is a social construction”. Thus the traditional philosophers of education who have simply proceeded with the task of clarifying and elaborating their concepts of education, have been able to explain their political aims, their ideological commitments, their way of life including their relationship with wife and children. seem completely irrelevant, find themselves busy. , kind

the car they like to drive, and so on and vehemently, what they thought was a traditional academic debate governed by old ground rules, which progressives accepted, at their cost. A typical reaction of conservatives at this point is the raising of hands. This is done by most radicals precisely because they see their job not to argue with conservatives – they know all those arguments – but to elaborate on their new perceived social reality and destroy the institutions that make the traditional social reality unjust and dehumanizing. Let’s preserve.

In general, the reaction of conservatives to radicals is not entirely satisfactory. It is not enough to show up hoisting radicals by their relativist petards; Conservatives have to show that they too are not deterred by this. The challenge of relativism, and the extent to which social conditioning affects what matters as knowledge, seems to me to be underestimated by traditionalists, who seem to smugly embrace remnants of nineteenth-century positivist epistemology. The next move for this paper will be to outline the conservative response to progressives and then the radical response to the above conservative arguments. The former’s argument continues and its constraints have been pointed out above; The fundamentalists’ reactions to the above points are not described here, however sketchily, because I do not know what they are. The fundamentalist literature does not find a response to such arguments, merely reiterating the original statements and refusing to accept the terms in which the arguments have traditionally been conducted. Should we differentiate between educating and socializing, and if so, how? Yes; carefully. Yes, because if we sacrifice civilization to justice, nobody benefits; And carefully, because if we sacrifice justice for culture, civilization will rot.







This course is very important for Basics GS for IAS /PCS and competitive exams




*Group c*

*Forest guard*






*Complete General Studies Practice in Two weeks*




**General science* *and* *Computer*


*Must enrol in this free* *online course* xxx76D77B987A




**English Beginners* *Course for 10 days*







समाजशास्त्र का परिचय











Beginners Urdu Learning Course in 2Weeks



Hindi Beginners Learning in One week



Free Sanskrit Language Tutorial



Follow this link to join my WhatsApp group:


Join Teligram group


Join What app group for IAS PCS


Join Facebook


Instagram link


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.