Young people drive their political development. The term agentic suggests a causal direction. Can these two very different viewpoints be merged?
Question.1: Political socialization has typically been defined as “the process by which people come to acquire political attitudes and values.” Socialization agents are, among others, the parents, peers, school, and the surrounding society. The term suggests a causal direction. Young people are socialized by others. Researchers sometimes talk about an agentic perspective: Young people drive their own political development. The term agentic suggests a causal direction. Young people choose their own ways to gain information and develop attitudes about society. Can these two very different viewpoints be merged?
The current research has identified several socializing agents in adolescents’ political development. We know that parents, peers, the school, and the media are important agents in shaping adolescents political and civic values, attitudes, and behaviors. However, researchers have studied this process through a unidirectional lens, that is, most often taking a top-down approach where transmission flows from parent to child. From this perspective, adolescents have been considered as passive recipients in their political socialization. In 2002, McDevitt and Chaffee wrote perhaps one of the most altering papers in the field of political socialization. In this article, the authors express the need for examining adolescents as active agents in their political socialization. The fundamental question is: should a top-down and bottom-up approach be merged when studying adolescents’ political socialization? My standpoint is very simple: it is not just possible it is necessary.
In order to give an account of how influential agents and adolescents’ agency can be merged, we first need to understand why the political socialization literature has examined youth’s political socialization from a unidirectional perspective over the past few decades.
Societal shifts and political socialization research over the past few decades
The political socialization literature began
The current research has identified several socializing agents in adolescents’ political development. We know that parents, peers, the school, and the media are important agents in shaping adolescents political and civic values, attitudes, and behaviors. However, researchers have studied this process through a unidirectional lens, that is, most often taking a top-down approach where transmission flows from parent to child. From this perspective, adolescents have been considered as passive recipients in their political socialization. In 2002, McDevitt and Chaffee wrote perhaps one of the most altering papers in the field of political socialization. In this article, the authors express the need for examining adolescents as active agents in their political socialization. The fundamental question is: should a top-down and bottom-up approach be merged when studying adolescents’ political socialization? My standpoint is very simple: it is not just possible it is necessary.
In order to give an account of how influential agents and adolescents’ agency can be merged, we first need to understand why the political socialization literature has examined youth’s political socialization from a unidirectional perspective over the past few decades.
Societal shifts and political socialization research over the past few decades
The political socialization literature began
References: Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30(4), 437-454. Chaffee, S.H., McLeod, J.M., & Wackman, D.B. (1973). Family communication patterns and adolescent political participation. Socialization to politics: A reader, 349-364. Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H. J., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on adolescence, 10(1), 29-48. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation, 1. Saphir, M. N., & Chaffee, S. H. (2002). Adolescents ' contributions to family communication patterns. Human Communication Research, 28(1), 86-108. Stattin, H., Persson, S., Burk, W. J., & Kerr, M. (2011). Adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic functioning in their families. European Psychologist, 16(1), 32.