Socialisation is the process in which the culture of a society is transmitted to individuals through key social agencies or institutions.
Socialisation is principally related to the sociological perspective known as functionalism. Functionalists assume that socialisation occurs through internalisation it is a deterministic model focussed on society as a structure into which individuals fit.Socialisation provides adherence to a social consensus and for the maintenance of social cohesion. People must be socialised into an acceptance of social values, social norms, and social goals (and their means of attainment).Key agencies of socialisation include the family and the school. Sport is an important supplementary institution.
It socialises individuals into society in a number of positive ways:-1. Enhances personal development2. Establishes respect for authority3. Encourages and develops teamwork4.
Enables individuals to cope with competition5. Encourages a healthy lifestyle6. Fosters social integration7. Creates an overall social respect - nationalism8. Incorporates core social values9.
Fosters a work ethic10. Reinforces other social institutions: family; school11. Counters social deviance for youthConflict sociology stands in converse relation to functionalism. It has a number of theoretical sources including Marxism and Feminism.
Conflict sociologists believe society is based on conflict rather than consensus and that social order is imposed through power.Socialisation from these perspectives operates as a form of ideology whereby individuals are socialised into accepting social conditions of inequality. Society works according to a dominant value system that privileges some groups rather than others: the bourgeoisie according to Marxists, men according to feminists. Social institutions work in unison to disseminate the ideologies of dominant groups.
From the conflict perspective sport is, again, a supplementary institution of socialisation. It serves a number of ideological functions:For Marxists: -1) Reproduces class divisions2) Produces conformity, conservatism and acceptance of inequality3) Instils competition over cooperation4) Encourages nationalist chauvinismFor Feminists:-1) Reproduces traditional gender roles2) Reproduces dominant ideologies of sexuality3) Socialises men into masculinity4) Provides a 'legitimate' social forum for violence5) Creates dubious role modelsInterpretative sociology emphasises agency (human action) over social structure. Focuses on the meanings people give to social action.From this perspective 'socialisation is an active process of learning and social development, which occurs as we interact with one another and become acquainted with the social world in which we live' (Coakley).Socialisation occurs through interaction: Individuals are active not passive learners.
There is no pre-determined social world awaiting individuals. Both individual and group identities are formed through social interaction. Identity provides a basis for self-direction and self-control.Interpretive sociologists do not make assumptions about sport based on a pre-existing view of society and socialisation. They are interested in the meanings that people give to and derive from their experiences in sport.
They are interested in: -1. Social processes through which people become involved in sport2. Importance of sport to social identity (participants & viewers)3. How sport interaction gives rise to subcultures and the influence this has on social behaviour4. What happens when people retire from sport5.
Interaction between different cohorts and groups in sporting contextsI personally believe in the functionalist way of socialisation through sport, this is because of two main reasons. The first reason is that this is the way that I've been brought up to view socialism from my family, so their influence has encouraged me believe that it is the correct way to view socialisation. My second reason for have a functionalist view of the socialisation of sport is that it has lots of positive aspects within it, and how ever much the conflict theory tries to argue that it doesn't work and its all a front to keep the majority of people happy, but if you have that many positive aspects then it cant be all bad. I also think that it is better for an individual to look at things positively rather than trying to find all the negative aspects in a situation.If you are an open minded person you will be able to see that both Functional and Conflict theory have relevant points but to sum-up which is best is entirely down to the individual. It is possible to be on the fence and agree with parts of what both sides are saying, but different situations have different answers.
The two biggest examples of being socialised by sport are the family and school. A functionalist would see this as a very positive route for the child to get socialised through sport. They would see it as if most parents have played for a sport team sometime in their life time and would know that through playing sport it made them meet some good friends and that they would want there child to do the same thing as did. It is also a way for the parents to get socialised too, as they would meet all the other young sons or daughters parents.Nearly every school has a sport team and a functionalist view would be similar to the family view, as in if you get involved in a team your team players become your team mates.
But not only does it provide a platform to meet friends it gives you a healthy life style, makes you respect others and authority, develops the person and many more...The conflict side too family and school, is that competition may not be good for everybody and if your not very good at the sport your playing then your motivation might drop and you may give up and alternatively lead an unhealthy life style. Also not everybody is made to play sport, some people would rather read a book or do alternative past times or hobbies, does this mean that they wont get socialised just because they don't play sport?Racism, ethnicity and inequality is a very big part of the conflict theory, some people are not able to get involved in sport due to the colour of their skin, their religion or what class their in.
For year's golf clubs and tennis clubs had very strict policies about what kind of people they would let enter there club. If you were poor or black you didn't have much chance of getting in. This restricts people's choices of sports and may discourage tem from taking part in the future. Only in recent years that tennis and golf clubs have allowed a wider range of people in, due to people like Tiger Woods and Venus Williams, who are both black athletes who made it to the top of their sports, this encouraged people and gave then hope.I personally have encountered and seen both functional and conflict theories in action, throughout my life I have been involved in sport, at school Football and out of Rugby Union. Even from the early age of 5 when I first started school sport got me socialised, playing with about 30 other boys your bound to make friends very quickly.
But the people who didn't play football with the main group of boys were seen to be outcasts, just because they were either no good a football or they just didn't want to play. They still had friends; they hung around in groups of 3 or 4 and just ate chocolate and crisp in the corner of the playground because we took up all of it playing football.This carried on throughout my schooling life, there were segregated groups of people, the sporty and non-sporty people. The sporty people all knew each other and were good friends, out of school too, meeting at club level on Sundays playing for a team.
The non-sporty people were seen and called geeks, because they just used to work instead of what we saw as socialising. It still happens to this day even at university, there are your sporting team mates who you see a lot the time in the evening and then there are the intellectuals who you never see out at night.Another example is my farther, he took me down to the Rugby Club as soon as I turned 9, this was the youngest age you could start. He used to play when he was younger, so I guess he wanted me to do what he used to do so he could be apart of the setup again and restart the cycle, by taking his little boy down to play rugby and develop as a person, make new friends and have fun, just like I most probably will do if I have a boy one day.
This is an example of how family influence you in socialisation, by taking you to groups, whether it is play groups when you're little or to clubs when you're older, they want you to meet people, develop, and have fun. But there could have been a flaw in my fathers actions, this is the conflict theory side. I might not have enjoyed playing rugby at all, and I might have been bullied by other players for being not as good as them, this would make me feel depressed and not want to go but my farther would have kept taking me down so he could get his social life still.In conclusion to how individuals are socialised through the engagement of sport I believe that yes people do get socialised through sport but it certainly isn't the only way of being socialised. Different people believe in different theory's and ways of meeting people.
But sport is a very good way as not only do you meet people from it but you learn so many more things about yourself, others and society.
