Such concept as socialization has always been a subject of heated scholarly debate. Traditionally, this concept is defined as the process of person’s adaptation to the community, to which he or she belongs (Mayer, 2004). This issue can be discussed from various perspectives, and philosophical schools often provide drastically different interpretations of this issue. The role, which mass media and especially television play in socialization, cannot be underestimated. Willingly or unwillingly, every member of the society is inclined to pay attention to the information he learns through media, subsequently it shapes his or her worldview. Furthermore, he or she selects the behavior that best suits his needs and those of other people.
Nonetheless, there are some alternative approaches to this issue. For instance, according to the supporters of the conflict theory, mass media, act only as a means of control, and they only advance the interests of ruling classes. Such sociologist as Max Weber or Karl Marks would argue that television enables men of power to maintain their position as long as possible (Väyrynen, 1991). In their opinion, social change is primarily caused by some inner conflict, in the vast majority of cases, it is the discontent of the lower strata of community. The advocates of the conflict theory usually claim that television performs the function of a guide, which shapes the public opinion and prompts people to certain actions. But its primary purpose is to subdue people into submission, though in fact, they do not notice it.
It stands to reason that such interpretation of this issue is rather categorical, but it cannot be entirely rejected because under certain circumstances, television may give us some examples, which should be followed. As a rule, these examples are called popular icons, and young generation tends to emulate their conduct. The conflict theory claims that a person, who has not passed through socialization, is almost bound to copy the behavior patterns, which he or she sees on television. They suggest that it only turns him or her into docile member of the society, who is unable to question the rectitude of the ruling classes or elite.
In sharp contrast with the conflict theory, functionalists believe that mass media only help young people to incorporate themselves into society, and become its full members. It should be borne in mind that according to functionalists, community can be compared with a living organism with its constituent parts, and to some extent, television is some kind of regulator (Smith, 1974). Yet, even they concur with statement that mass media shape the worldview of the young generation, along with parents, and school. The main difference between these two theories is that functionalists do not perceive mass media as a means of control, whereas, their opponents state that television plays only into the hands of the ruling elite.
It is impermissible to reject any of the above-mentioned interpretations, because both of them can be supported by sufficient evidence. It seems that the impact of mass media usually depends upon the country’s government or elite. Nevertheless, no one can deny, that television exercises immense influence over people, who are not able make their own decision, mostly because they lack sufficient knowledge.
Bibliography
Anthony D. Smith (1974). “The concept of social change: a critique of the functionalist theory of social change” Routledge.
Philip Mayer (2004). “Socialization: The Approach from Social Anthropology” Routledge.
Raimo Väyrynen, International Social Science Council (1991). “New directions in conflict theory: conflict resolution and conflict transformation” SAGE.