**8.2 Disadvantage of socialization**

Individuals will be socialized for unintended behaviors. There will be deviants. Deviance is a breach of social norms. The act of deviating from societal norms is known as deviance. Similarly, aberrant behavior violates social norms and social codes in the workplace, home, and marriage, among other places. Everything is deviance, and behavior is known as deviant behavior, whether it is breaking a pledge or breaking a state law. It is our nature to stray. Deviancy in one generation/society may be a noun in another. Individuals will mingle and be exposed for aberrant cases throughout the transmission of skills, knowledge, attitude, and beliefs [64].

## **9. Current trends of socialization in higher learning institutions**

From its beginnings, socialization has been a central term in the social sciences [3]. It is significant because it is necessary for the survival of communities and cultures, as well as for individual development. There is a discussion on socialization, with people debating whether we are the outcome of nature or socialization. According to some experts, who we are is a result of the relationships that surround us [17]. Others claim that our genetic makeup determines who we are. Naturalists believe that our personalities, skills, and interests are predetermined before we are born. As a result, we are dependent on nature in this regard [16]. Scholars use the study of twins as one method of illustrating the influences of nature. Some studies looked at identical twins who were raised apart [65].

In certain circumstances, the pairs had the same genetics but were socialized differently. Researchers can learn more about how our temperaments, likes, and abilities are influenced by our genetic makeup versus our social environment by investigating the degree to which identical twins raised apart are alike and different, despite the fact that this type of situation is uncommon [17]. Though genetics and hormones play a significant impact in human behavior, biological explanations of human behavior have serious sociological faults, especially when used to explain the complex aspects of human social life such as homosexuality, male aggression, female spatial skills, and so on [66].

In most cases, biological explanation logic is divided into three sections. These are the identification of a supposedly universal human quality or trait, an argument for why this behavior makes it more likely that the genes that code for it will be successfully passed down to descendants, and the conclusion that this behavior or quality is hard-wired or difficult to change [17, 67]. However, claiming that males are naturally aggressive because of their hormonal structure ignores vast differences in the meaning and practice of aggression across cultures, as well as vast differences in what counts as aggressive in different situations, not to mention the fact that many men are not aggressive by any definition, and that men and women both have male hormones like testosterone [16]. In this case, the sociologist is more concerned with the fact that nonaggressive males are frequently referred to as sissies. This suggests that a normative structure within a male culture is more likely to explain male violence than a genetic or hormonal structure [68]. The greater interest of sociology is the impact of society on human behavior, the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Genes are never expressed in a vacuum, regardless of the role genes or biology play in our lives. The environment has always had a significant impact [69].

Sociologists all agree that socialization is essential for healthy individual and societal development. The question is how academics from the three major theoretical paradigms approach socialization. Theoretical models are used for studying socialization through Durkheim's concept of socialization as a starting point. The dominant sociological approaches to the study of socialization in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s were Durkheim's concept of socialization, Parsons' development of an influential socialization model, and the theory of reproduction and its development in the late 1950s and early 1960s [60]. These socialization models are classified as the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, the symbolic interactionist perspective—also known as the interactionist perspective—or simply the microview [47, 60]. All of these sociological perspectives provide various explanations for the social world and human behavior in relation to the socialization process [47].

Individual and collective development are influenced by socialization, as is the reproduction of status hierarchies and structural inequalities [66]. Socialization does not mean renouncing all its dimensions and influences. Although socialization is a relatively new concept, it refers to a reality that predates human societies. The issues of socialization, or the integration of new members into society, have been studied in philosophy, anthropology, and history, and are now being studied in interdisciplinary social sciences such as sociology [47]. In sociology, socialization has been approached in two ways. These are from the standpoints of society and the

#### *Socialization Experiences among Undergraduate Students in Higher Learning Institutions (HLI) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99007*

respective socializing agents, as well as individuals in the process of socialization and their respective social worlds [47]. The central question in the first case is how a given society transmits or instills values, beliefs, norms, and lifestyles. The second focuses primarily on individuals' activities during the processes of appropriation, learning, and internalization, as well as socialization, through which they become self-conscious and develop the abilities to integrate, communicate, and participate in the society and culture in which they live. The first is more common in traditional sociology, while the second is a goal of the new sociology of childhood socialization [60].

In sociological theory, there are five generations of thinkers in the history of study of socialization [47]. These are the pioneers of the eighteenth century, the founders of the early to mid-nineteenth century, the institutionalization of the early twentieth century, the compilers of the mid-twentieth century, and the constructivists who now overlap with other trends such as the return to grand theory or postmodernism. So, the issue of socialization neither began nor ended with Parsons [47]. Rather, Talcott Parsons falls under the fourth generation of this scheme, the so-called compilers, and a group of scholars and teachers who worked hard to make sociology a rigorous scientific discipline, a science of society. The fourth generation attempted to find a synthesis and convergence of the various currents of thought that had preceded them, whether conservative or critical. Within this generation, two groups predominate: the conservative-minded sociologists, led by Parsons, and the authors involved in the development of critical theory of society, known as the Frankfurt School of sociology [47].

All scholars agree that socialization is required for the learning of culture and society values. It is also agreed that socialization occurs as a result of internalization [70]. Individuals learn and internalize cultural norms, codes, and values through the multifaceted process of socialization. This procedure allows people to join and remain members of one or more social groups. Individuals acquire social and cultural competencies through interaction with other people and social institutions, as well as responses to their macro- and micro-sociocultural contexts [16]. This process occurs in social settings that both allow for and limit interaction and opportunity. As a result, social expectations for people coming of age are not uniform [60]. Similarly, the mechanisms and outcomes of socialization differ depending on the organization, geographical space, sociocultural context, and sociohistorical time. Furthermore, socialization processes within a society may differ depending on the power and status of their subgroup identities. Many members of society must deal with the competing influences of the dominant culture and marginalized subcultures [63]. Scholars have spent the majority of their time focusing on the socialization processes of childhood and adolescence. Adaptation to and internalization of social norms, values, and behaviors, on the other hand, continue throughout adulthood [16]. Individuals go through identity, family, educational, and career changes and transitions with their generational cohort. As a result, their social roles may shift and change throughout their lives [71].

Socialization facilitates processes of inclusion and participation in society for a wide range of individuals and groups. At the same time, socialization helps to maintain social order by reproducing existing stratifications based on race, gender, and social class. Socialization processes continue to shape generational cohorts and intergenerational dynamics, as well as various social institutions [72]. Socialization is associated with the stability and maintenance of society because it prepares individuals for membership in society [73]. The socialization process in sociology has been approached from various viewpoints. These were the functionalist, interpretive reproduction, conflict perspective, symbolic interactionist, and social construction of reality. Currently, the integrative approaches or structuration

viewpoint is a crucial to study socialization in an organization including the higher learning institutions [74]. This means that socialization of students as new comers will not be determined by the preexisting structure, norms, value, and rules of the organizational environment, but rather the new comer can influence, change, and create new rules, values, and rules in a given organization. Therefore, three important socialization processes are strong in the undergraduate socialization process of students in the higher learning institutions. These are individuals, groups, and organization source of socializing influence, the social process through which these sources of socializing influences are encountered and responded to by students, and resultants of socialization outcomes in various college settings [18].

This method to comprehending undergraduate socialization raises two basic problems concerning individual socialization in an organizational setting. One is about social interaction; what are the interpersonal processes that people go through to get socialized? The other is about organizational structure: What are the different qualities of a higher education institution as a socializing organization that has an impact on students? The relevance of taking into account both individual and organizational variables when investigating socialization can be expressed in the following way. Individuals may become differently socialized as a result of differences in their past experiences, motives, and talents, as well as disparities in the structure of the social situations in which they interact [18].

Overall, undergraduate socialization can be thought of as a complex process in which students enter college as new men with specific values, aspirations, and other personal goals, and are exposed to a variety of socializing influences while in college, such as normative pressures exerted through social relationships with college faculty and peers, and parental pressures, and participation in noncollege reference groups; evaluates the importance of various normative pressures experienced in achieving personal goals; and modifies or preserves values, aspirations, and personal goals maintained at college entrance [75]. Student background characteristics/precollege features, noncollege pressures, college experiences and behaviors, interactions with socialization agents, and student-parent relationships are some of the variables that may influence undergraduate students' socialization in higher learning institutions. The relationship between the variables that affect students' socialization and the conceptual framework of undergraduate students' socialization at higher learning institutions is depicted in the graphs below [74].
