College of Social and Behavioral Science
97 Rethinking Political Socialization in the Modern Era
Daniel Yi and Stephen Nelson
Faculty Mentor: Stephen Nelson (Political Science, University of Utah)
In 1986, J. Glass proposed that Political socialization is mostly molded by familial influence and a parent’s political orientation is the best indicator of a child’s future political views. According to this theory, children who grow up in houses that are Republican leaning are more likely to become Republicans, and children who grow up in a household with a Democratic leaning are more likely to adopt democratic views. Although early political attitudes are heavily influenced by parental beliefs, this viewpoint oversimplifies the complexities of political socialization in the modern world. Since 1986, the way people construct their political identities has changed due to the emergence of new social factors including digital media, diversified peer groups, and the increased role of formal education. These elements frequently have a more profound or revolutionary impact than simply family history. Political socialization is a much more dynamic and personalized process than Glass’s thesis suggests, as political opinions have become the outcome of a complex interaction between numerous external forces. As a result, although parents continue to have an impact, political identity is no longer primarily determined by them. Instead, a more dispersed and complex process of political socialization has resulted from the expanding influence of media, education, and social interaction; this forces us to reconsider the significance of parents in determining our political futures.
One of the main points made by J. Glass in his 1986 study is that a child’s future political inclinations are most strongly influenced by their parents’ political standings. According to Glass, political socialization takes place mostly within the family, with kids growing up to accept the political beliefs, party affiliations, and values of their parents. This familial impact was probably stronger in past generations, especially when media exposure was limited and the primary sources of political information were conversations at home. Children were frequently encouraged to adopt their parents’ political views in homes where political talks were common, giving the impression that political preferences were passed down from one generation to the next.
However, even though it is fundamental in forming early political leanings, parental influence is not the only factor that determines a person’s political identity. Political socialization is a lifelong process, and as children are exposed to new information, experiences, and social networks during their early years, the political identities they initially create frequently change. Although family values can offer a foundational framework, parental influence is not the only factor that shapes a child’s political opinions. For example, the research article “Politics across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined” by Jennings, Stoker, and Bowers (2009) demonstrates that although there is a significant correlation between political beliefs of parents and children, this correspondence can be challenged by changes in the larger social environment, including political movements, education, and peer pressures. According to the study, new influences experienced during adolescence and the early stages of adulthood cause individuals’ political ideas to differ significantly from those of their parents by the time children reach adulthood.
Anecdotal evidence also suggests that deviation from parental political views is not uncommon. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, millennial voters, many of whom were raised in conservative or traditionally Republican households, overwhelmingly supported progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders or ultimately Hillary Clinton. According to The Washington Post, young voters’ involvement with progressive causes as well as exposure to a variety of social media platforms, many of which questioned the conservative beliefs they had been raised with, have contributed to this trend. This illustrates that although parents may provide the foundation for early political socialization, children’s political identities are malleable and influenced by a wide range of outside factors, especially within the interconnectedness of the world of today.
Since the release of J. Glass’s 1986 study, the rise of traditional and digital media has been one of the most transformative factors in political socialization. Parents were once considered to have the most impact within this space but media now plays an equally, if not more significant role in socialization by providing different points of view, even in homes with similar political views. Traditional media, such as radio, newspapers, and television networks, started to influence public opinion in the 1980s. During this time, families most likely depended on a small number of news outlets; well known broadcast networks like ABC or CBS, which offered news coverage that was fairly uniform. However, the media environment became more politicized with the introduction of cable news stations like CNN and Fox News, which provided opposing views that would both support and contradict political familial political convictions. Through media outlets that promoted alternative political narratives, children would’ve been exposed to multiple views even in houses where one perspective dominated political discussions.
Traditional media continues to be a powerful influence in today’s world but the exponential growth of social media platforms have completely changed the way people socialize politically. Users can easily access a variety of political content on a daily basis, from well-known political figures to grassroots movements, thanks to platforms like YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram. This continuous exposure to political content is unlike anything ever seen in 1986. Although parents still make an effort to influence their children’s political views, social media algorithms frequently expose users to a wide variety of viewpoints and political conversations, some of which may be opposed to the family’s political philosophies.
For example, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has been incredibly successful in motivating millions of people worldwide, especially young people, to participate in racial justice activism through social media. The movement gained momentum outside of conventional political channels, mostly through the sharing of personal stories, protest recordings, and information on police brutality on social media sites like Instagram, Twitter and TikTok. These platforms allowed users to circumvent the more controlled narratives found in traditional media. Patricia Hill Collins writes in her book “Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory” (2019), “BLM’s viral presence on social media played a significant role in its ability to engage younger generations, many of whom may not have been exposed to such narratives through their family or mainstream media outlets,” (Collins 158). This shows how the power of social media can organize young people politically, especially those raised in homes with little to no involvement in racial justice concerns.
Influence from peers becomes a more significant factor in political socialization as people progress through their youth and into adulthood. People spend more time with friends and social groups outside of the family when they are teenagers and young adults, which can be the catalyst for fresh perspectives and political debates that may either contradict or deepen the convictions imparted by their parents. Peer groups offer a space for people to discuss political issues, examine opposing points of view, and experience peer pressure to either support or oppose particular beliefs. “Political Socialization”, A study by Sears and Levy (2013) found that during this stage of life, peer influence is especially significant because people are more likely to adopt political beliefs that correlate with those of their close social circles, even if those beliefs go against what their families have taught them (Sears and Levy 34). As a result of being exposed to many viewpoints in social situations, the workplace, and community organizations, people’s political identities frequently change.
One of the best examples of this is the political polarization that happens in college. As catalysts for intellectual inquiry, colleges and universities expose students to a variety of viewpoints through social interactions, campus activism, and academic courses. Even though students usually bring their political views from home to college, education often acts as a catalyst for change. Students are given the opportunity to critically question political problems and challenge preconceived beliefs by participating in debates, seminars, and student organizations that introduce them to new viewpoints. For instance, a lot of students from predominantly conservative backgrounds undergo big ideological changes when they come into contact with progressive concepts on campuses that prioritize global citizenship, social justice, or environmental sustainability. According to the Pew Research Center’s article “The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education.” (2021), people with a college degree are more likely than those without one to have liberal or progressive opinions. This shift is explained by the fact that college courses frequently push students to think critically about many viewpoints and get involved in difficult societal issues that go against binary answers. In addition, students spend time with professors and fellow students who might support political issues like economic reform, racial justice, or LGBTQ+ rights, opening up new avenues for political involvement beyond what they were taught at home.
In addition to all of this, the current rise of social media, digital media, and specialized news outlets has caused the political landscape to become more fractured. People can create their own political ecosystems thanks to the unparalleled access to global information provided by the internet, social media, and streaming services. This change has had a significant impact on how young people form their political identities. Today’s children and young adults have an almost infinite access to a variety of political content through platforms like Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, and TikTok, which heavily contrasts the 1980s when the majority of families got their news from a few big television networks or newspapers.
One of the most impactful effects of this change is the emergence of “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles,” which enable people to limit their political exposure to information that confirms their preexisting opinions. Echo chambers are online communities where people with similar views come together. As a result of people being exposed mainly to ideas they already agree with, these communities frequently result in a narrowing of political perspectives. Social media sites such as Facebook and Reddit, for example, let users follow pages or join particular political groups that support their beliefs, while excluding others with different opinions. Social media algorithms accentuate this by amplifying content that matches users’ preferences, resulting in “filter bubbles” that solidify users’ opinions. Because of this, people may be raised in politically homogeneous homes yet later discover themselves fully submerged in one political ideology online. This evolution implies that there are plenty of opportunities for divergence in our current digital environments, even if parents still introduce initial political leanings.
Finally, two aspects of this course that have helped me understand political socialization are identity politics and political efficacy. The first idea is identity politics, which highlights how a person’s political identity is influenced by their experiences with race, gender, class, and sexual orientation; frequently independently of or in contradiction to parental political preferences. The significance of identity politics in forming political affiliations is not sufficiently taken into account by Glass’s model of political socialization, which mainly focuses on the transfer of political beliefs from parent to child. Socially based personal identities frequently take precedence over familial influence in today’s political environment because people are more inclined to base their political opinions on the hardships and experiences of their social groupings.
The second concept is political efficacy and engagement, which relates to a person’s perception of their ability to impact political systems as well as their level of civic and political engagement. Glass stresses the passive transfer of political ideals from parent to child but contemporary political socialization involves active participation through online activism, community, and social movements. Instead of being influenced by their parents’ political beliefs, people nowadays may experience a sense of political efficacy that is fueled by non-familial causes like involvement in grassroots movements or civic organizations. For example, a lot of young people today are drawn towards activism pertaining to economic justice, gun control, and climate change, and they oftentimes develop political identities in correlation to their involvement in these causes.
In conclusion, although J. Glass’s 1986 thesis that parental influence is the primary determinant of political preference, was persuasive at the time; it is no longer relevant in the political and social climate of today. The importance of the family as the main source of political socialization has been trumped by the media landscape, educational experiences, peer pressure, and the emergence of identity-based political movements. This paper demonstrates that initial political opinions can be shaped by family values and political orientations, but these influences are malleable. When people interact with a wider spectrum of influences throughout their lifetimes, they are challenged, altered, and occasionally completely transformed. This change has important implications for comprehending 21st-century political behavior. Political affiliations within the family are no longer a reliable indicator of voter behavior for candidates or organizations. Rather, they need to interact with people via these social media, peer networks, and movements that align with their changing identities.
Moving forward, the ongoing investigation of the influence of social media and digital media on political opinions is an essential field of study, especially in the era of personalized content and algorithms. Creating a more comprehensive understanding of political socialization requires an understanding of how echo chambers and filter bubbles affect political identity. Additionally, investigation into the ways peer networks, identity politics, and educational experiences influence political engagement will yield important new understandings of the formation and maintenance of political attitudes. Studying the various and changing factors regarding political socialization is crucial for developing a greater knowledge of political conduct in the modern world, as we live in a time of fast technological and societal change.
Bibliography
Collins, Patricia Hill. “Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory.” Duke UP, 2019.
Jennings, M. Kent, Laura Stoker, and Jake Bowers. “Politics across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 71, no. 3, 2009, pp. 782–799. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381609090719.
Schwartz, Ian. “Millennials Broke for Hillary Clinton, but More Millennials Voted for Trump than Expected.” The Washington Post, 9 Nov. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/election-2016/millennials-trump-vote.
Sears, David O., and Sheri Levy. “Political Socialization.” Oxford University Press, 2013.
Pew Research Center. “The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education.” Pew Research Center, 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-t ank/2021/09/ 08/ the- growing- partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education.