Political Socialization has been defined in a variety of ways, in the words of Kenneth Langton, “Political Socialization, in the broadest sense, refers to the way society transmits political culture from generation to generation”. In his book, Heywood discussed numerous agents of political socialization, yet he failed to mention a crucial one, major political events, which in my opinion play a significant role in shaping one’s political beliefs and values.
I believe big political events have the ability to shape an entire generation’s attitude towards certain political parties, the nation or the government. For example, in the early 1970’s, the Watergate scandal instilled a profound mistrust of the government in a large proportion of the population of the US. Now considering an example more close to home, an astounding number of people reconsidered their support for PTI after PTI’s delayed response to the terrorist attack on a school in Peshawar towards the end of last year. These civilians claimed to have ‘wasted’ their votes on electing a provincial government that left them in the time of need and failed to show any concern regarding the attack, and therefore rethought their political views. Similarly, World War 2 defined the attitudes of many Americans, especially those who served in it. Many veterans became dedicated to living up to the ideals professed in the war.
Therefore, one most not underestimate the impact major political incidents can have on an individuals political opinions and beliefs.
5 comments:
Major political events, as you call them, do have an increasingly profound effect on the political and the social outlook of societies and countries in the contemporary world.
With the popularisation of mass idea, it has been relatively easy for information to be disseminated around the globe. In turn, people have, essentially, been sensitised to changes in their immediate surrounding, as well as to areas far away.
It would not be a bad assumption to make that the 21st century, in light of 9/11, has had deep implications for political and societal behaviours of the American people.
I think, with a rapidly varying global scenario, it is important to study how 'major' events end up affecting decisions at the top, as well as by the common man.
I agree with your point of view, but don't you think that the widespread documentation of events in the media has actually desensitized people instead of sensitizing them? For example, the Pakistani media provides instant and thorough coverage on terrorist activities that take place on a daily basis, don't you think this has desensitized us as a nation since now we're pretty used to such horrific news, so we don't care as much anymore?
Within the context of Pakistan, that notion might hold true. Whether it is that the Pakistani nation as a whole does not care, which might be true but still would be a huge assumption to make, or it is too helpless and lacks an impetus for it to collectively raise a voice against terrorism, is another debate. Subjectively, the latter would seem unlikely, given that the recent Peshawar attacks would have given an impetus for the worst of people to act.
However, pulling back to an overall global scale, it would appear that the media has done more to invoke responses from the people than to facilitate public apathy.
Again, in my opinion and in light of the unique situation that Pakistan finds itself in; the proximity to the war on terror and a social fabric based on extreme ethnolinguistic tensions among other things, it would be slightly problematic to take Pakistan as a microcosm for the entire world.
I agree with Rashna's stance on the key political events playing an integral role in political socialisation. History justifies the claim that major political events define and alter individuals' beliefs and attitudes. Not only this but the same beliefs and views are likely to be transferred to future generations as family too, plays an essential role in influencing individuals' political culture.
Post a Comment