Talk:Socialization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Socialization, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] How about some references?
My professor suggested I start my research on wikipedia to look for references to books on socialization. I come here and see a nice article on socialization, but not a single reference!
[edit] Weirdness
This article seems weird. I would expect an article on socialization as a process to be seen in human community, as the first paragraph says, and we get an article on dog's and cat's socialization process. 84.47.22.167 23:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then probably no one has come along who had the information to write the human socialization part of the article. :-) Elf | Talk 01:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Extremely weird.
I was searching for socialization theories but this article amazes me. Had looked elsewhere.
[edit] Rubbish.
Too loose to be of any value, and much too broad to make any coherent sense. nice
[edit] Socialization vs. Nationalization in political science (wrong in disambiguation)
The article says socialization can refer to nationalization in political science. This is not entirely true. As an example, I can take Emma Goldman who writes in There is no communism in Russia (1935): "When a certain thing does not belong to an individual or group, it is either nationalized or socialized. If it is nationalized, it belongs to the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according to its wishes and views. But when a thing is socialized, every individual has free access to it and use it without interference from anyone.
In Russia there is no socialization either of land or of production and distribution. Everything is nationalized; it belongs to the government, exactly as does the post-office in America or the railroad in Germany and other European countries. There is nothing of Communism about it."
Please comment on this. Kricke 19:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- In accordance with the differences outlined by Emma Goldman in the given quote, Canada's public health system would be considered "nationalized"; yet, in current times, it is commonly referred to as being "socialized". I'm sure you can find countless references to this in the media. It would perhaps be best to look in an encyclopedic work (rather than an argumentative one) for an accurate description of the two terms, as well as their differences. Skamza 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the American Heritage Dictionary defines "nationalize" as "1. To convert from private to governmental ownership and control", while the word "socialize" is defined almost identically: "1. To place under government or group ownership or control." Skamza 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is a big difference in your example from the Dictionary. To say that the terms are synonyms is in my opinion POV. To some people they may be synonyms, to other people, like Emma Goldman and, for example, most other anarchists, there is a big difference. Both uses should be mentioned to be NPOV, in my opinion. Kricke 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
