Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:26:28.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Class and Rural-Urban Patterning of Socialization in Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Nancy J. Olsen
Get access

Extract

Socialization is “the process by which someone learns the ways of a given O society or social group so that he can function within it.” Socialization occurs in many different groups and settings, but in all societies, the first and usually the most important of these is the family. For this reason, family socialization has been of interest to scholars in several different disciplines using a variety of conceptual frameworks.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 659 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Elkin, Frederick, The Child and Society (New York: Random House, 1960), p. r.Google Scholar

2 A few examples of recent studies based to a greater or lesser extent upon this point of view are Wilson, Richard W., Learning to be Chinese: The Political Socialization of Children in Taiwan (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970);Google ScholarSolomon, Rihard, Mao's Revolution and Chinese Political Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971);Google Scholar and Pye, Lucien W., The Spirit of Chinese Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1968).Google Scholar

3 An elaborated version of the “social structure” argument may be found in Alex Inkclcs, “Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, Perception and Value,” American Journal of Sociology 66 (1960), pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 An excellent review of this literature may be found in Caldwell, Bettye M., “The Effects of Infant Care,” pp. 9–87 in Hoffman, Martin and Hoffman, Lois (eds.), Review of Child Development Research, vol. 1 (New York: Russell Sage, 1964).Google Scholar

5 See for example, Becker, Wesley C., “Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline,” pp. 169–208 in Hoffman, Martin and Hoffman, Lois (eds.), Review of Child Development Research, vol. 1 (New York: Russell Sage, 1964);Google Scholar and Maccoby, Eleanor, “The Choice of Variables in the Study of Socialization,” Sociometry, 24 (1961), pp. 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 See particularly Kohn, Melvin, Class and Con-jormity (Homewood, 111.: Dorsey, 1969).Google Scholar

7 Primary references are Wolf, Margery, “Child Training and the Chinese Family”, pp. 37–62 in Freedman, Maurice (ed.). Family and Kinship in Chinese Society (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press; 1970);Google ScholarWolf, Marger, Women and the Family in Rural Taiwan (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1972);Google Scholar and Diamond, Norma, K'un Shen: A Taiwan Village (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).Google ScholarOther works incorporating material on family socialization in rural areas are Gallin, Bernard, Hsing, Hsin, Taiwan: A Chinese Village in Change (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966); and Kuo, Wen-hsiung, Town, Yenshui, unpublished manuscript (mimeo), Sociology Department, Tunghai University, Taiwan, 1965.Google Scholar

8 Diamond, op. cit., p. 35.

9 Wolf, 1970, op. cit., p. 44. It should be noted that all of these reports stress the fact that distance and formality are much more characteristic of fathers than of mothers. Wolf emphasizes this point especially, arguing that the in-marrying woman attempts to achieve a powerful and secure position in the patrilineage through building up close relationships with her sons. However, the cultural norms proscribing intimate interaction, praise, and displays of affection do seem to be observed by mothers as well as fathers, and the only means of rewarding their children available to women are of an “external” sort, such as giving the child pennies for candy or cooking his favorite dishes.

10 Becker, op. cit.

11 Wilson, op. cit. While Wilson's main effort is directed toward examining socialization in schools, he also includes material on family life. However, in the absence of information about his informants, it is difficult to say whether his data is meant to describe the full range of urban families, or only a more narrowly defined group.

12 Raper, Arthur F., Urban and Industrial Taiwan: Crowded and Resourceful (Taipei: Good Earth Press, 1954).Google Scholar

13 In fact, attendance figures indicated that schooling was irregular for many of the rural children. Typically, approximately one-third of each class was absent. On the assumption that it is the very poorest families who do not send their children to school, we may say that the rural sample is probably slightly biased in favor of the relatively more affluent village families. In Taipei, however, the goat of universal primary education was very nearly realized. (Since the time of the study, public schooling through junior middle school level has been made available to all families who wish to take advantage of it).

14 Kahl, Joseph A. and Davis, James A., “A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status,” American Sociological Review 20 (1955), pp. 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Marsh, Robert M., “Evolution and Revolution: Two Types of Change in China's System of Social Stratification,” pp. 149–172 in Plotnicov, Leonard and Tuden, Arthur (eds.), Essays in Comparative Social Stratification (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970), p. 150.Google Scholar

16 For greater detail on this point see Olsen, Stephen M., “Occupation, Family and Values in a Chinese Urban Community,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, Cornell University, 1971.Google Scholar

17 It is important to note that in the population as a whole, nuclear families are somewhat more common at higher social class levels. Since the child-rearing practices of nuclear versus extended families tend to parallel those of higher versus lower status families (N. Olsen, op. cit.)y controlling on household composition has the effect of reducing any social class differences that exist in the population at large. On the other hand, it eliminates any possibility that observed social class differences in socialization practices are really a function of differing proportions of nuclear families at different social class levels.

18 Whiting, John, Child, Irvin and Lambert, William, Field Guide for a Study of Socialization (New York: Wiley, 1966).Google Scholar

19 In Taiwan, as elsewhere, it is the mother who has primary responsibility for day-to-day child care and discipline, and for this reason the interviewing of mothers was taken to be of first priority. In extended families, grandmothers were also interviewed, using a modified and shortened version of the questionnaire designed for mothers. Originally, it was hoped that a sub-sample of fathers could also be interviewed, so as to discover the extent of father participation in child care, as well as the degree to which fathers and mothers held different goals for their children and/or used different techniques in attempting to achieve these goals. The interviewing of fathers was begun, but abandoned in the face of several practical difficulties. Thus, only data from the mother interview will be reported in this paper. Readers who are particularly interested in the effects of social class upon men's goals for their children might wish to consult S. 01 sen, op. cit.

20 Since interviewing was the means used to collect data, it is obvious that reference to socialization practices in this paper is in fact a reference to what Taiwanese mothers say they do, or believe ought to be done. There has been no systematic study of actual child-rearing behavior in different social groups. However, informal observation lends some credence to the assumption of a relationship between interview responses and actual behavior. For example, and anticipating the results to be presented later in this paper, David Schak, in his unpublished manuscript “Family Life in Taipei,” notes that higher status urban families are less likely to punish their children and more likely to reward them.

21 Marsh, op. cit.

22 Bronfenbrenner, Urie, “Socialization and Social Class Through Time and Space,” pp. 400–425 in Maccoby, Eleanor, et al. (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958).Google Scholar

23 McKinley, Donald G., Social Class and Family Life (New York: Free Press, 1969);Google ScholarDevereux, Edward C., Jr., “Socialization in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Comparative Study of England, Germany and the United States,” pp. 72–106 in Hill, Reuben and Konig, Rene (eds.), Families in East and West (Paris: Mouton, 1970).Google Scholar

24 Prothro, Terry Edwin, “Socialization and Social Class in a Transitional Society,” Child Development 37 (1966), pp. 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Prothro, Terry Edwin, “Child Rearing in Lebanon,” Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, number 8, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, 1961.Google Scholar

26 Devereux, op, cit.

27 Gronseth, Erik, “Research on Socialization in Norway,” Family Process 3 (1964), pp. 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Devereux, op. cit.

29 Bronfenbrcnncr, op. cit.; Kohn, op. cit.

30 Pearlin, Leonard, and Kohn, Melvin, “Social Class, Occupation and Parental Values: A Cross-National Study,” American Sociological Review 31 (1966), pp. 466–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

31 Guthrie, George W., “Social Class and National Differences in Child Rearing Attitudes,” pp. 31–46 in The Filipino Child and Philippine Society (Manila: Philippine Normal College Press, 1961).Google Scholar

32 Devereux, op. cit.

33 Prothro, 1966, op. cit.

34 Danziger, Kurt, “Independence Training and Social Class in Java,” Journal of Social Psychology 51 (1960), pp.65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Gronseth, op. cit.

36 Inkeles, op. cit.

37 Bronfenbrenner, op. cit.

38 Prothro, 1966, op. cit.

39 Prothro, 1966 and 1961, op. cit.

40 Kohn, op. cit.

41 For example, Kohn, , op. cit.; McKinley, , op. cit.; Olsen, S., op. cit.; and Hess, Robert, “Social Class and Ethnic Influences Upon Socialization,” pp. 457–557 in Mussen, Paul (ed.), Carmichael's Manual oj Child Psychology, vol. 2 (New York: Wiley, 1970).Google Scholar

42 However, it should be noted that S. Olsen, in his study of fathers in urban Taiwan, found no evidence that occupational requirements, social prestige, or income, or any variable derivable from these, such as feelings of powerlessness, could account for the relationship of social class to socialization values (S. Olsen, op. cit.). Furthermore, each of the theories centering around these variables, while possibly explaining urban social class differences in the present study, is difficult to apply to the rural-urban differences noted in Table i. For example, one view of the importance of low income stresses that it is the tension produced by crowding and lack of facilities that results in maternal punitivcness and desire for conformity. In Taiwan, it is true that the average farm family is poorer than the average working class urban family. However, the greater cash income apparendy does not buy the urban family a higher standard of living, particularly in the area of housing. It is the urban families who live in the more crowded dwellings, in close proximity to many other, usually unrelated, families (Bernard Gallin, “Chinese Rural-Urban Migration in Taiwan: A Comparative Analysis of Structure and Behavior,” Paper presented to a seminar on Models of Chinese Society in the Light of Recent Research, State University of New York at Binghamton, April 28–29, 1967). Thus, the crowding and tension argument might predict that urban working class mothers would score higher than rural mothers on such dimensions as “Power-Assertive” Discipline and Conformity Values, whereas the data shows the reverse to be the case. Similar problems apply to theories based on occupational requirements and social prestige.

43 See, for example, Grichting, Wolfgang L., The Value System of Taiwan (Beckenried, Switzerland: Neue Zeitschrift fur Missenwissenschaft, 1971).Google Scholar

44 Smith, David and Inkeles, Alex “The OM Scale: a Comparative Socio-Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity,” Sociometry 29 (1966 PP. 353–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

45 For an excellent analysis of how these processes operate in American schools, see Dreeben, Robert, On What is Learned in School (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968)Google Scholar

46 Wilson, op. cit.

47 Hess, Robert and Shipman, Virginia, “Early Experience and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes in Children,” Child Development 36 (1965), pp. 869–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

48 Kohn, op. cit.

49 Bronfcnbrenner, op. cit.

50 McKinley, op. cit., develops this idea in some detail, and William Parish, in a personal communication, has provided an interesting illustrative example from his study in Hong Kong. One of his interviewees, a physician from Kwangtung, had raised two of his children in town, at which time he had attempted to deal with misbehavior by reasoning rather than physical punishment. After being sent to the countryside, he found he was too tired and preoccupied to use reasoning, and in consequence, physical punishment became the usual method of disciplining his second two children.