Parallel with human resource theories spreading from the 1960s socialisation has been increasingly interpreted as a lifelong process. Although in sociology and psy-chology the essential importance of socialisation is in childhood it alone is no long-er seen as enough preparation for adulthood. Socialisation appears more and more frequently in educational and sociological literature and development strategies as a “lifelong” process (Cogswell 1968). The concept of lifelong learning was reinforced by definition finding efforts that essentially traced socialisation back to learning. “So-cialisation as a theoretical construction is the learning process in the course of which the individual masters the standards, values and customs relating to conduct, lifestyle and world view of a particular society with all the system of symbols and interpreta-tions in the background” (Grusec–Davidov 2007, cited by Tóth–Kasik 2010). Linking the concept of socialisation to learning has opened a wide vista to develop the goals of lifelong learning. The updated socialisation concept highlighted the importance of adult learning, stressing that workers must be flexible and adapt to the expectations of the labour market. (However, the option of the labour market adapting to the worker is conspicuously absent from the theory.) By mastering new social roles, transforming old ones or integrating differing roles the worker evolves whilst constantly exposed to socialisation constraints (Ferrante-Wallace 2011). While lifelong learning is an in-tegrative concept with the primary goal of influencing the functioning of education systems, its effect are keenly felt in thoughts about the individual, in the view of man.
Schooling, vocational training, on-the-job training and in-service courses relegated the responsibility of continuous adaptation to the individual, thus augmenting the importance of self-management, self-consciousness and strategic consideration in the individual’s plans of life. (The appreciation of self-management is indicated by the fact that institutionalised therapies can be developed for those whose socialisa-tion in the sense of self-management has deficits by the judgment of society. In many cases social support schemes are conceived specifically to ease socialisation deficits (Cogswell 1968).
In summary, through the concept of lifelong learning emerged the ideological framework which makes it accepted that the various social subsystems such as train-ing, production and consumption, increasingly engage the individual as a human re-source indispensable for their operation. As the complexity of society has been contin-uously increasing the individual is simultaneously engaged by several different social subsystems to maintain their functioning. Accordingly, integration into society, i.e. the socialisation process, is a less of an entry into a comprehensible (transparent) and cosy world than before (Luhmann 1997).
INDIVIDUATION
Putting the agent into the foreground had an impact on socialisation concepts and also became apparent through the introduction of ideas such as individuation. Indi-viduation is the process full of tensions when the individual works at the same time towards having an individual personality distinctly different from others and towards integrating into social systems (Klaassen 1993 cited by Vermeer 2010). Amidst the con-ditions of individual freedom developing the individual personality takes place in the course of continuous lifestyle choices and modifications, which in the long run may appear as a special “pressure” of decision. As the reference frameworks of earlier soci-eties such as, for instance, orders, class system, relationship structures, religious differ-ences are not or only little available in modern societies for individuals when shaping their social positions it is up to the individuals to work out and maintain their social profile. Individuation denotes the individual’s need for permanent self-construction in order to stay an active player in society. Therefore it seems convenient to replace the concept of adaptation to structures, which suggests passivity and a unilateral effect, by the concept of individuation (cf. Klaassen 1993, cited by Vermeer 2010). Individuation does not preclude the earlier processes of learning values, norms and social identities but includes the unique process of developing the personal identity which is indis-pensable for an authentic social existence. The concept highlights that the drive to be-come individual necessarily shifts students’ responses to school socialisation towards plurality. Personal autonomy has increased in today’s society; people are typically mo-tivated by the personal goals of self-actualisation and fulfilment, and many strive to display the uniqueness of their personality. All these processes are occurring amidst tumultuous changes in society. Social roles are less foreseeable and set, standards are volatile or outright contradictory, individuals shape things according to their own choice in many respects, consequently it is difficult to determine what exactly should be internalised (Ven, J. A. van der 1994). Some researchers argue that with the advent
of postmodern and individualistic values the risk of “saying no to school” (dropping out) has also increased. In Raf Vanderstaeten’s views students still face the expectation to align with parents’ or teachers’ guidance, but it should be taken into consideration that in a society with ever weakening cultural integration students cannot be easily required to internalise the culture of past generations. Moreover, Niklas Luhmann ar-gues that the dynamics of processes is determined by the need for the individual to be separated from his environment at the level of his own personality system (Luhmann 1997). It is reasonable to suppose that an increasing number of students will seek some extravagant “opt out” strategy as a behaviour differing from the expected yields the best opportunity to for the individual to show its autonomy. Admittedly, students can react to school challenges with unexpectedly good achievements but they can equally base their individual self-actuation on carelessness, cynicism, rejection, indifference or adherence to deviant trends or youth subcultures in response to the school’s evalu-ation criteria. Although the socialisevalu-ation pressure of educevalu-ational institutions still tries to force students to adapt, the inevitable openness of educational interaction and the degree of freedom of the individual will always allow for a departure from expec-tations. If we want to find out how students’ compliance with the school’s expecta-tion and motivaexpecta-tion to learning can be developed and strengthened in the context of educational interaction it seems expedient to focus research on students’ individual decisions and self-reflection. Classroom education cannot reach its goals without the commitment of students, who come to school with a more and more autonomy, and it is increasingly difficult to elicit commitment without interaction, referring merely to traditions or applying the organisationally established means of socialisation (Van-derstraeten 2001).
It is to be noted that school sociology and cultural research have for decades addressed the issue of resistance to school. In England, Birmingham University re-searched subcultures built on resistance. Paul Willis, for instance, in his analysis of young people’s resistance to school pointed out that by their specific working class anti-school subculture young people in fact “select themselves out” of the education system6 (Willis 1977). However, an important difference is that anti-school attitudes diagnosed in England in the 1970s was linked to a group characterised by a specific cultural identity belonging to a particular social stratum. Anti-school culture was em-braced by working class youths: “Rather than passively accept the socialisation mes-sages embedded in the school, the “lads” actively differentiate themselves from the
‘ear’oles’ (so named because they simply sit and listen) and school meanings in general, categorising both as effeminate and unrelated to the ‘real’ masculine world of work...”
(Weis 2010) Another change is that today rebelliousness cannot be traced back to cul-tural identity or subculture alone. With the strengthening of individualism essentially all students must find their own answers to the question why, for what purpose and how they build school-based learning in their individual lives (Colombo 2011). If we accept that “the most important changes in society is the individualisation of situa-tions and life” then research of school-based socialisation must be even more closely connected to researching students’ self-reflection (Markó 2008).
6 This opposition occurred at a time when it was easier to find a job even without much schooling.
REFLEXIVITY
In unison with the “discovery” of individuation an important concomitant phenome-non of societal development is the strengthening of individual reflexivity.7 “In the pro-cess of reflexive modernisation structural changes force the individual agents to (…) make the structural constraints of creating a personal identity self-reflexive.” (Markó 2008). Margaret Archer argues that action based on reflexive thinking will increasingly replace routine action. Reflexivity promotes individuals’ successful adaptation to am-bivalent and volatile social structures, and enables them to create their unique lifestyle and realise their “enterprises” (life projects) serving their personal goals (Archer 2007;
Colombo 2011). In Archer’s opinion, the individual’s reflexive capacities have appreci-ated because of the accelerappreci-ated social changes and transformations triggered, inter alia, by the capitalist production system, increasing global interconnectivity and the spreading culture of technological control. As pointed out by other scholars, “func-tional differentiation makes it impossible for the individuals to accommodate only one subsystem; socially speaking, they should be regarded as ‘homeless.’” (Luhmann 1997) Simultaneously with the changes, the universal sources of normative authority have ceased to exist; in other words, there are no clearly set values in the value sys-tem regulating society. The central regulatory function of the churches, families or national communities has disappeared and individuals are increasingly left to their own devices. Naturally, the problems stemming from the contradictory nature of the socialising environment penetrate the world of the school. What the teacher perceives as aggression the parent sees as appropriate assertion of interests. In the wake of par-ents’ divorce and new marriages or a succession of partnerships people embracing different values become key actors in the lives of the young. Youngsters receive con-tradictory messages from socialisational actors and it is difficult to put the impacts into a uniform structure particularly if there is no consensus with regard to family values.
A lot seems to depend on the individual’s self-reflexivity and self-management. So-cialisation appears less and less of a passive process resulting in the internalisation of norms – rather it is an active process comprising individual decisions, mistakes, choic-es of valuchoic-es and initiativchoic-es, and the strategichoic-es holding them together. Archer clearly points out that not everybody succeeds in adapting to the increasingly complex and changing environment. Continuously expanding vistas of opportunities can be con-fusing. There are numerous examples in higher education institutions that some stu-dents who previously had clear goals and who were capable of self-management all of a sudden become passive in the face of expanding opportunities. They become uncer-tain about their earlier goals and just drift and let things happen. The old accusto med-to, homogeneous socialisation environments are becoming heterogeneous – this can be seen as an expansion of individual opportunities but it may also have as passivising effect on individuals who used to be self-reliant.
Studying reflexivity and self-reflexivity Archer came to the conclusion that the in-terface between the social structure (e.g. school) and the individual is a so-called “inner
7 Reflection means thinking through one’s activities (actions, experiences and events). Self-reflexivity means the individual also observes himself. It includes being perceived by others as an individual and this experience is called upon in the process of the individual perceiving himself as a person.
speech.” The active individual processes the structural and cultural terms of reference in the course of inner speech, also termed internal conversation or dialogue.8 Consid-eration of structural and cultural factors and processing their impacts determines the course of the individual’s life project. Thus the agent does not respond directly and automatically to the conditions put forth by social structures and culture, but reacts to his social experience on the basis of his subjective and reflexive judgment. All this also means that society’s structural and cultural factors do not have an indirect causal effect on individuals, only enable them to develop their own life projects making use of the structures and cultural contexts available (Archer 2000). The significance of in-ner speech is all the greater as through it individuals are capable of monitoring them-selves, society and the relation emerging between them and society (Archer 2003).
Although internal conversation is available for everybody, as without it we would exist as beings without self-control, people largely differ in terms of their reflexive ca-pacities and performance. Investigating internal conversation Archer singled out four types of agents in her research, each having different reflexive capacities.
• Autonomous reflexivesarelessdeterminedbystructures�Throughtheir internalspeechtheyareleddirectlytoaction,andtheyrelatetothemselves andsocietywhilesustainingtheirstrategicgoals�Theirlifeprojectischarac-terisedbymorefrequentthanaveragechangeofpositionandplaceasthey strivetofindthesettingandconditionsthatsuitthembest�Theirreflexivity (acertaindistancefromthemselves)enablesthemtofindtransitionalsolu-tionsincertainstagesoflifeinordertofulfiltheirlong-termgoals,accepting temporary structures as they are and not abandoning their activity taking themtowardstheiroriginalgoals�
• Communicative reflexivesgiveuptheintimacyoftheirinnerconversation andexternaliseit�Theyinviteconfirmationandcompletionbyotherswhile shapingtheirgoals,movingtoactionandsolvingtheirproblems�Theirlife projectchangeswhilstconsultingandcommunicatingwithothersbutthis doesnotcausethemmisgivingsbecauseinrelatingtotheirenvironmentthey reckonwiththepossibilitythatthingsseldomturnoutasplanned�Theircom-municativepartnersareoftenmembersoftheirextendedfamily,therefore familytraditionshaveastrongeffectonthewaytheydeveloptheirlifeproject�
Thistooisrelatedtotheirgeneralsuccessinpreservingaformerlyacquired socialstatusandtheyarecharacterisedbyagreatdealofmobility�
• Meta-reflexivesrelatetotheirenvironmentasactiveagentsbuttheirinternal conversationischaracterisedbystrongself-monitoring�Asaresulttheyof-tenquestiontheirownposition,motivationandactions�Theyareexcessively idealisticintheirrelationtosocietyandself,whichmakesthemcritical�Their idealismalsoaffectstheirlifeproject:carryingouttheirgoalsdoesnotreadily fallinlinewiththeirideasandastheydonottendtogiveuptheirgoalsdespite thedifficultiestheyarecharacterisedbydissatisfaction�
8 To quote an example from school, all students present in class can hear the task assigned by the teacher but they decide in the course of their inner speech (dialogue) what they will do with the assignment.
• Fractured reflexivesarethosewhodonotpromotepurposefullytheevents thatareimportantfortheirlives;rathertheyjustletthemhappen�Whilethose belongingtotheotherthreetypesareactiveagents,fracturedreflexivesare characterisedbypassive“action”accompaniedbyacertaindegreeofdisori-entation�Inthebackgroundoftheirpassivityistheirundeveloped,fractured internalspeech�(Ontheotherhand,thenotionof“fractured”alsoindicates thatthisisnotnecessarilyafinalstateofaffairs�)Adetailedanalysisreveals thatthistypedoesnotreallydistinguishthemselvesfromtheworldaround themintheirthoughtprocess,thustheycouldevenbeconsidered“patholo-gicalcases”ifsociology’staskweretodiagnoseandoffertreatment(Archer 2003;Colombo2011)�
The differences between these four types are not of equal weight. There is a major difference between fractured reflexivity and the other three types (autonomous, com-municative and meta-). Fractured reflexivity indicates that the psychic system does not have adequate self-management capacity; consequently, the life project is not an evolving process. In the other three types the individual’s reflexivity-based control is realised, albeit leading to different outcomes depending on the type.
As has been mentioned, the typology of reflexivity is all the more relevant to edu-cational concept as the various types are related to the mobility of lives. Autonomous reflexives are generally upwardly mobile. Communicative reflexives tend to preserve or reconstruct social status in living out their life project. Meta-reflexive persons run a strong risk of downward mobility: in the course of their life project they may end up in a less favourable social position than their initial social status. Thus reflexivity is a sociological factor that helps us understand how social structure affects the indi-vidual. “The self is seen as a reflexive project, for which individuals are responsible.
We are, not what we are, but what we make of ourselves” (Giddens 1991, cited by King 2010) Reflexivity is cardinal, because without inner dialogue the individual life project cannot be developed and kept on track. Reflexivity is the foundation for the interpre-tation of the individual’s structural and cultural environment, and for the monitoring of the individual’s position in relation to the environment. All this relies on the inner psychic strength that lays the basis of the capacity to act, and which, once exhausted, can stop the process of life project. At this juncture it is to be noted that reflexivity takes its course in the temporalized process of inner speech and can be characterised by a time demand. In case of an information overload or in the absence of the time neces-sary for processing the resources that are crucial for keeping the life project on track may ebb (Geyer 2002).
It is worth mentioning that as is the case with all typologies, the categories the above typology relies on are not exclusive. Belonging to a particular type means which of the individual’s characteristics are stronger than others. Communicative reflexives may make decisions nurtured on their internal speech, and autonomous reflexives may avail themselves with the option of communicative decision making.
There are no pure types, and this is particularly true for fractured reflexives: the life project is a long process and reflexivity also changes. It is enough to think about turns such as religious conversion which often overwrite earlier structures of inner speech and involve an external transcendent observer. No matter how fractured a person’s
reflexivity, it may happen that he finds an entirely new basis for it and thus extends his self-management capacity.
Archer raised important questions when discussing the equalising function of education. How can the continuously increasing complexity and differentiation in so-ciety be compatible with social integration through education?9 Or from the angle of the theory of reflexivity, how do “passive subjects” who have never been socialised to control their own lives grow up to be adults? The answer to this question could mean a rethinking of the socialising function of educational systems. Enough to quote the educational initiatives familiar from Asian countries that induce students to develop
“metacognition” thereby enhancing their control over their own learning processes (Ma et al. 2013).
CONCLUSIONS
Through a conceptual review of socialisation we demonstrated that by increasingly emphasising the importance of the individual theories have become suitable to cap-ture socialisation as a more and more complex phenomenon (Vermeer 2010). Reactions of individual actions to existing structures have come in the forefront. From the angle of education, one of the lessons of the changes is that school-based institutional so-cialisation should preferably be approached from the platform of an interaction model that takes into consideration the mutual involvement of both sides: the student and the teacher. While teachers holding the power of control organise the education process they necessarily rely on students as their partners in interaction. Students’ position as interactive partners by definition gives an opportunity to socialise their teachers and to shape local structures to some extent. Watching a teacher who aims at captivating his students in the course of their interaction could bring the observer to the conclusion that in some cases “it is the supervised that is the supervisor” (Vanderstraeten 2001).
A mainstay of the socialisation model related to schooling is that students can be seen less and less as uniform subjects of socialisation. Teachers with the intent to edu-cate should be prepared for managing heterogeneity and complexity stemming from students’ individual characteristics and growing claims. The success of the socialisa-tion process is increasingly determined by the extent to which is supports young peo-ple’s internal self-reflexivity, which at the end of the day can turn them into lifelong learners. Accordingly, an indicator of the success of institutional socialisation in the long term could be if the independent development of students’ life projects is sus-tained and “fractured reflexivity” can be avoided.
It is an important recognition that that in the current phase of modernity enhance-ment of students’ self-reflexive capacities is not only an option but an urgent need, whether we like it or not. The accelerated change of social structures has created a “fluid” environment for members of the growing generations that forces individu-als to improve their orientation – in other words, their self-management capacities
9 Durkheim already pointed out that functional differentiation which goes hand in hand with
9 Durkheim already pointed out that functional differentiation which goes hand in hand with