Talk:Socialization
 |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon supported by Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2012 term. Further details are available on the course page. |
Agampa (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)agampa
| WikiProject Sociology | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Psychology | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Socialization starts from the cradle and ends at grave
The article says socialization can refer to nationalization in political science. This is not entirely true. As an example, I can take Emma Goldman who writes in There is no communism in Russia (1935): "When a certain thing does not belong to an individual or group, it is either nationalized or socialized. If it is nationalized, it belongs to the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according to its wishes and views. But when a thing is socialized, every individual has free access to it and use it without interference from anyone.
In Russia there is no socialization either of land or of production and distribution. Everything is nationalized; it belongs to the government, exactly as does the post-office in America or the railroad in Germany and other European countries. There is nothing of Communism about it."
Please comment on this. Kricke 19:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- In accordance with the differences outlined by Emma Goldman in the given quote, Canada's public health system would be considered "nationalized"; yet, in current times, it is commonly referred to as being "socialized". I'm sure you can find countless references to this in the media. It would perhaps be best to look in an encyclopedic work (rather than an argumentative one) for an accurate description of the two terms, as well as their differences. Skamza 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the American Heritage Dictionary defines "nationalize" as "1. To convert from private to governmental ownership and control", while the word "socialize" is defined almost identically: "1. To place under government or group ownership or control." Skamza 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is a big difference in your example from the Dictionary. To say that the terms are synonyms is in my opinion POV. To some people they may be synonyms, to other people, like Emma Goldman and, for example, most other anarchists, there is a big difference. Both uses should be mentioned to be NPOV, in my opinion. Kricke 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] article of concern
would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies? I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion. More important, I think others need to comment on it. I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Socialisation of animals
This section has been moved to its own article, as this article refers to socialisation in the proper social scientific sense of the word, and forms a crucial part of the sociology project. "Animal socialisation" is an appropriation of the term, when what's really meant is something more akin to animal training or Pavlovian conditioning.--Tomsega (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gender socialization and gender roles
This section needs to be more balanced. In particular, it is my impression that the scientific consensus (outside of politically and feministically influenced circles) is that gender roles are largely inborn, with socialization only governing details. 94.220.254.157 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not the case--biology does not even deal with the concept of "innateness" any more because it is impossible to define precisely or verify empirically. Plus roles cannot be inborn by definition, even if the propensity towards assuming one of the roles was. DarwinPeacock (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is quite turstworthy, quite biased, somewhat complete, somewhat well-written,and quite accurate. There is no information on the modern usage of socialization and how it works today. Agampa (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)agampa
