Introduction
The world of constant communication within individuals presupposes particular influence in views. Each individual share someone’s opinion or persuades in its correctness. This is a complex mechanism of mutual relations of interests according to different activities. In the domain of social relations, several spheres play a great role for individuals. These spheres are inexplicable from the process of social development and growth. This is why individuals are unintentionally trying to cope with them. Nonetheless, these spheres are social, economic, financial, religious, and political. In this respect, the achievements of many sociologists and researchers are united in the opinion that each generation tries to deliver some opinions to new ones (Bisin & Verdier, 2000). This provides an opinion that the process of religious aspects in many points impacts the formation of political relations on each level. The research is intended to evaluate the depth of the political and religious aspects of adults. Moreover, it is vital to admit that between adults and children above-stated relations also have strong connections.
Living together before marriage is the stage when people use to know and admit the likes and dislikes of each other. In this case, the influence of the religious and political background is apparent. First of all, it is related to the age-old traditions in the nation to which both belong. This makes the development of relationships colored somehow with social events and public opinion. Then when raising children each parent tries to implement and instruct in their own position according to life prospects. The conflicts are inevitable for many couples and spouses in this case. This is why this social problem is so striking for society. In this respect, most people are confused about whether it is better to divorce or stay married for the kids or not? The roots of such effects take place in the differences in men and women. Their observation of the world is preliminary different due to the social roles which they possess. One more thing is that the historical elaboration of mankind gave women fewer opportunities for constructive dialogue in relationships. The process of socialization is complex. People attempt to found their relationships on grounds of goodness and understanding. However, the budding perspectives of marriage and living together confront with difficulties of life. Then the crash of values and ideals as of politics and religion is obvious. In terms of when there are children, the situation deepens much.
On the other hand, the reality of contemporary society has some sides of peoples’ living together of non-traditional orientation. Here the issues of politics and religion are of great significance. It is so owing to the struggle of sexual minorities for their rights. To say more, gays and lesbians need the legislative grounds for their choice. With regards to religious preferences, the need to obtain the recognition of official state power for having marriage ceremonies in churches is vital for sexual minorities.
All in all, the main approach of the paper is currently social. It involves an observer with factual research material according to the controversies in religious and political views in families. The paper’s main goal is to determine which side of the controversy gets the most support. The academic review is helpful to work out this complex social and societal issue.
Brief Review of Existing Scholarly Literature
Contemporary reality shows the cases when individuals try to resolve their complicated relationships. This idea continues the age-old discussion about the attitudes of men and women in terms of living together. The dominant-subordinate relations are great when they undergo mutual changeability. This means that in reality such standpoint is ignored by men. In turn, the religious and political aspects of adults become in favor of one of two spouses. It reflects the same attitude in children, as a result. Thus, the literature review suggests optimal ways in facilitating this problem.
Bisin & Verdier (2000) comment on the cultural prerequisites of the society in terms of political impacts. This means that the whole process of socialization includes different stages on which individuals get appropriate knowledge. This information then constructs the personal idea in terms of close relation to socialization agents. The rationale which the authors provide in the article represents the mechanism of coordination in cultural and political priorities. This means that there is a model to preserve the cultural groups from outer influences of public opinion in the long run. The thing is that most individuals take social changes for granted without admitting their significance or effects on society. Even if there is a similarity in religious issues, political disagreements may simply emerge. It is due to the fact that each family varies in the traditions and opinions which its members possess. A family or a union of two people is a platform for the rise of particular ideas and views shared reciprocally. Another thing is that such ideas may be old-fashioned due to the flow of time and transitions of them through ages.
However, political science “plays” on the difference of opinions. The term “pluralism of opinions” is shared among the society, so that to promote freedom in choice. Voting, as a political mechanism, is the result of a definite socialization process provided by the candidates in an election campaign (Bisin & Verdier, 2000). Such logical evaluation gives grounds for noting the importance of the material part in a political issue. The conviction, which makes the election campaign and political activities successful, concerns social and economical amenities. This simple observation of the political choices among individuals may then provoke disagreements. The balance of preferences distribution matters when talking about the cultural transmission of political ideals (Bisin & Verdier, 2000). This is why the role of communication increases, as a result. In intimate relations of a man and a woman, the religious and political views serve as the prerequisite for the further probability of their marriage. Furthermore, the balance is needful for finding consensual solutions in possible conflicts. The value of positive or negative communication highlights the opportunity for changes. This explains the fact that “individuals do interact by making jointly political decisions” (Bisin & Verdier, 2000, p. 8). Cultural traits and preferences play a significant role in outlining the supposed flow of ideas and assertions in an individual. Owing to such logical assumption the rationale of the article by Bisin & Verdier (2000) is applicable for contemporary society. All in all, this research provides the mechanisms of how political and cultural traits can be theoretically and practically delivered or inherited.
Alford et al (2005) provide an outlook on the experiments related to the supposed inheritance of political views among individuals. The most interesting thing which the researchers evaluated is that there are two sources of influence on the individual: environmental and non-environmental. The second one provides an assumption that political views can be inherited. The authors thoroughly observe the problem from social and genetic points of view. However, the findings of the research give no distinctiveness in asserting the idea of political inheritance. The thing is that each individual is original in his way of thinking. From the date of birth, a baby and then a child absorbs the reality, as it is. It is a matter of supporting impacts of adults that can be estimated, as the correlation of family priorities. The authors came to the next fact of the experiments: “Parent-child mismatches are distinctly possible given the uncertainties of meiosis (the random selection of just 50% of each parent’s DNA) and the possibility for occasional errors in the transcription and translation of genes (mutations)” (Alford et al, 2005, p. 164). Thus, the genetic inheritance of parents’ political position by a child has fewer points for direct persuasion. It outlines the fact that officials change one another. This means that there is no stability in opinions. The individuals cannot predict the negative actions of politics after they voted for them.
The family is the institution where the political features and priorities acquire group-like character. This means that the mutual transmission of ideas and opinions about any political issue provides the generalization of the family position about definite politics. Jennings & Niemi (1968) point out in their research the impacts of parental thoughts on children during the whole period of growing up. Hence, the authors evaluate the reality of parent-children relations in terms of dominant-subordinate relations. However, the logical chain of suchlike relationships proved the authority of parents. Their influence correlates with the formation of children’s consciousness in the political sphere. Furthermore, family stability and extent of understanding depend on whether there is a similarity in political approach. On the other hand, people should not think that their matrimonial union fully depends on politics. It is rather a constituent of reciprocal interests. Just because a man is a bio-social creature, it is fair to note that several supporting features impact an individual in political views.
First of all, it is history. Second, socio-economical and socio-political trends in the development of the country for the previous 20 years strengthen particular views of a child. Specific issues on the formation of personal opinion state the initial difference among individuals. Authors notice one significant detail, namely: “One way in which political values are expressed is through opinions on specific issues” (Jennings & Niemi, 1968, p. 174). Thus, the relationships between parents and children undergo particular transmission of political views and preferences from the side of parents to children. This process is indicated also with outer influences on a child or adolescent from mass media and people of the close surrounding.
Continuing the idea of parent-children relationships in political issues, it is vital to designate the extent of influences made by each parent. Mother-child and father-child relations are at the core of the research by Collins & Russell (1991). The authors made experiments on identifying the role of each parent in the family for a child. The political issues were fixed in middle childhood and adolescent periods of age. The idea of making research about the division of influences on a child among parents is a step to a better understanding of specific attitudes in the family. The research showed that in the bilateral approach toward a child the role of the father is stated in most cases as the predominant. On the other hand, the role of mother is supposed to be a lower status compared to father (Collins & Russell, 1991). However, children interact more with mothers than with fathers in terms of different issues (Collins & Russell, 1991).
Looking at the particular details in the research, the picture of peoples’ behaviors really promotes the result of many years of parents’ ones. These pains are directed on the mental activity of a child in order to make some progress in their development among other children. Turning up to the pivotal idea of the research, children are the most progressive layer of the society for the provision of new political views or their transformations. Straightforward analysis in the article intends an observer to think over family relationships. Thus, the research by Collins & Russell, (1991) is the methodology for estimation of reciprocal impacts of parents on children.
Haan et al (1968) promote in their article the statistics about youngsters’ reaction to parents’ remarks and notations. The research includes direct calculations of different states of behavior among children. This measure projects the reality of proper improvements in the social and political domains. However, the limitation of the article and research in it is in the time period. The article outlines the ratio between adolescents’ political-social views and their religious beliefs. This estimation of reality showed that the extent of political views is higher and more dynamic than the religious reasoning of youngsters. In this respect, the importance of correct upbringing is a key aspect for the positive development of children. In other words, they are apt to evaluate the specific things in politics due to their personal ability to think over such phenomena. An individual possesses a specific code that identifies him/her. The authors while discussing the findings admit: “The principled individual is not automatically limited by the extant characteristics of a specified social order or arrangement” (Haan et al, 1968). All in all, the research showed that without applicable instructions for a child by adults, the process of political values inheritance in a youngster slows down. Thus, spouses or people having intimate relations for a long time should take care of their children’s coordination.
Feldman & Price (2008) comment on the impacts of mass media on the consciousness of the voters. Their research touches upon the uncertainty between the information about a candidate and media use. In other words, the background of a candidate in most cases does not reflect the truth about him/her via mass media. Hence, the authors outline: “Political disagreement is unassociated with knowledge of candidates’ personal backgrounds” (Feldman & Price, 2008, p. 61). In this respect, the role of self-esteem and personal opinion is highly increased for individuals. In family relations, this point is extra-ordinary, because it may give rise to disagreements and conflicts. The compromises or consensuses are hard to find in such situations, because of the initial beliefs of a family member in the righteousness of this or that candidate.
Differences in the political agendas of two [or more candidates for the post in governmental or legislative structures are obvious for many families. This fact is emphasized with the remark that in the family milieu such disagreements may serve, as a motive for the bleach of spouses. The conflicts may complicate the previously difficult situation in the family, as it is. Thus, the research helps to determine the points which de facto favor candidates. On the other hand, the article points out the fallacy of de facto assumptions about a candidate. The essential nature of a candidate is hard to work out. That is why the main principles in the family should be somehow related to tolerance in political preferences.
Cayanus & Booth-Butterfield (2004) provide a discussion on points of jealousy and equity in family relations. The researchers are apt to look into the inner sphere of American families. This does harm to the future of the relationships between two spouses. When an individual intentionally evokes jealousy, this may lead to his/her dissatisfaction with the actions of another spouse. The study also develops and tests the Evoking Jealousy Scale for a decrease of the problem. The issue of applicable orientation is highlighted in the research in order to provide instructions for people living together in an intimate union. Reciprocity principles and benefits are stated in family relations, as the key points (Cayanus & Booth-Butterfield, 2004). Hence, the study helps to investigate the roots of the problems with rational communication in families. The political issues are underlined as support for this case. It is an additional force to make relationships in the family worse. This is why arguing and formally discussing the essential problems help to decrease conflicts in families. The rational approach is the way out in terms of jealousy and other negative factors concerned with differences in views. Thus, the families should follow the way of sound mind in measuring their emotional state and urge for peace inside the family relations. The study grabs more attention on the aspects of jealousy and faithfulness between significant others.
Atwood & Sanders (1974) provide in their study statistical data on the voting process in the United States in the 1970s. Their goal was to prove the reliability of split-ticket voting. This political mechanism shows how to deal with differences in political views. Voting for different parties or candidates at once helps to prevent families from the destructive effects of scandals. It is so because of having a consensus. However, television and print media make everything for increasing the significance of party identification for a candidate (Atwood & Sanders, 1974). This is why families are better to decide their preferences even at home while watching TV or reading a newspaper. This would definitely decrease the rates of misunderstanding between parents. Thus, the study is needful for the implementation of proper political tools without harm to family relations. Split ticket voting is a way out in this respect.
Morley (1984) sees the rational political views in their frequent discussion in the family. This gives fewer opportunities for mass media to influence individuals. The researcher intends to pay everyone’s attention to features of live communication between members of the family. It is so because “the media may have substantially more impact on voters’ intentions than they have generally been given credit for” (Morley, 1984, p. 139). The research contemplates the significance of personal position in terms of trendy flows of information about candidates. This is why it serves, as an additional solution for preventing families from fallacies about political preferences. Voter involvement in the campaign of a definite candidate is a process of programming people. It is more successful by means of mass media. Families are not insured from such invisible impacts of other opinions. Thus, the research indicates the lack of personal evaluation of individuals in political views. This puts families at risk of disagreements and possible negative effects, as a result.
Under conditions of general social change, the role of the family has undergone some transformations. Today the notion of family is trite in many points. Hartman (1981) describes the role of a woman in family relationships. The author comments on how the unfair attitudes between man, as dominant, and a woman, as subordinate, lead toward bleach. It concerns political issues as well. The feministic approach of the author is attempted to show the difference so that to find out solutions in family relationships. Thus, the reliability of the study also constitutes the need for rationality in discussing political views within the family. The features and facts make this research-rich in content.
As it was stated above, the vision of politics is straightforwardly grounded on the higher ideology or religion. Thereupon, the religious aspects for the family relations are the pivot for further stability. Nelsen (1980) outlines the peculiarities between parents in religious aspects. The thing is that females are more devoted to religion than males (Nelsen, 1980). The study also outlines the effectiveness and efficiency of religious backgrounds for solving not only political disagreements but also the remainder of them. Families should possess a religious identity. Perhaps, this would contribute to more moral benefits within a family. Also, the research provides an idea of how parents should coordinate their children in religious issues. This task is ignored by most adults. Fallacies may simply appear. Hence, children need more partnership by parents in terms of correct understanding of religious order applied to current events. All in all, the research asserts parent-children relations in religious issues. The responsibility of parents for their children’s right upbringing in religious aspects is apparent. Moreover, it makes fewer conflicts as of politics and sharing political views by children.
On the other hand, Campbell (2004) provides a discussion in the study about the contemporary withdrawal of Protestant church members to politics. The author admits that the church is not separated from the socio-political development of society. In fact, there is a statement that the church should reinforce within social networks (Campbell, 2004). This idea sounds like the intention of the religious community to come closer not only to culture but also to the political prospects of the time. For the support of this idea, the author even states that “the general relationship between religious and political involvement is a strong positive correlation” (Campbell, 2004, p.159). In this respect, the family activity should bear an idea of how faithful politics with the highly religious and righteous background may influence the positive change in the society. Here emerges the truth which touches upon the human factor in politics.
Conclusion
Thus, religious intervention in politics is the requirement of the time. Progressive churches see such social integrity, as the way for the current improvements in the political outlook.
Reference
Alford, J. R., Funk,C. L. & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?” The American Political Science Review, 99(2), p. 153-167.
Atwood, L. E. & Sanders, K. R. (1974). “Perception of Information Sources and Likelihood of Split Ticket Voting” Journalism Quarterly.
Bisin, A & Verdier, T. (2000). “A model of cultural transmission, voting and political ideology”. European Journal of Political Economy 16, p. 5–29.
Campbell, D. E. (2004). “Acts of Faith: Churches and Political Engagement”. Political Behavior, 26(2), p. 155-180.
Cayanus, J. L. & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2004). “Relationship Orientation, Jealousy, and Equity: An Examination of Jealousy Evoking and Positive Communicative Responses”.Communication Quarterly, 52(3), p. 237-250.
Collins, W. A. & Russell, G. (1991). “Mother-Child and Father-Child Relationships in Middle Childhood and Adolescence: A Developmental Analysis”. Developmental Review 11, p. 99-136.
Feldman, L. & Price, V. (2008). “Confusion or Enlightenment?: How Exposure to Disagreement Moderates the Effects of Political Discussion and Media Use on Candidate Knowledge” Lauren and Vincent Communication Research. 35, p. 61.
Haan, N., Brewster, S & Block, J. (1968). “Moral Reasoning of Young Adults: Political-Social Behavior, Family Background, and Personality Correlates” Journal ol Personality and Social Psycholoiy, 10(3), p. 183-201.
Hartmann, H. I. (1981). “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework”. Journal of Woman, 6(3), p. 366-372.
Jennings, M. K. &. Niemi, R. G. (1968). “The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to Child” The American Political Science Review, 62(1) , p. 169-184.
Morley, D. (1984). “Voter Involvement and the Potential for Influence”. Communication Research Reports, 1(1), p. 134-141.
Nelsen, H. M. (1980). “Religious Transmission versus Religious Formation: Preadolescent-Parent Interaction”. The Sociological Quarterly, 21(2), p. 207-218.