FREE ESSAY ON PRIMARY SOCIALIZATION THEORY

PRIMARY SOCIALIZATION THEORY

PRIMARY SOCIALIZATION THEORY
Traditional sociological analyses tie secondary socialization sources to behavior,
usually using linkage through stress. Situations, personal traits, etc. lead to stress,
and drugs relieve them. According to Oetting and Donnermeyer, these secondary
socialization sources operate only via their effects on primary socializations sources.
Unless a personality trait, a community characteristic, stress, or any other factor
influences bonding with the primary socialization sources or alters the communication of
norms through those sources, the theory proposes that there will be little or no effect
on deviant behaviors. (Oetting and Donnermeyer, 1998) 
Thus far (there is to be a series of three articles, only one of which has been
published) the major analysis has been of adolescents. Three primary sources of
socialization are proposed: family, school and peer groups. While any of these groups are
capable of transmitting both prosocial and deviant norms, family and school are seen as
being primarily prosocial and peer groups carrying the main risk of trasmitting deviant
norms. 
Family socialization contains two components which impact an adolescent's risk for
deviance: the strength of the family bond, and the use of those bonds to transmit
prosocial norms. Dysfunctional families may either alienate their children and/or provide
deviant normative information to them. The family bond of concern in these cases is not
just a matter of support of love. It is more specifically limited to the level to which
an individual is willing to accept and adopt values and norms from the family, and thus
to behave accordingly. 
Society currently assigns schools the responsibility of transmitting certain cultural and
behavioral norms. In the same way that there are dysfunctional families, there are also
dysfunctional schools which have parallel weaknesses. The typical image of a
dysfunctional school, of the resignation to chaos and deviance is only one type. Even in
the best schools, there will be alienated peer groups. Poor grades, disciplinary problems
etc. tend to erode the bond between an adolescent and school, and thus erode the ability
of the school to transmit prosocial norms. These students are forced outside the circle
in which other peers may be receiving normative socialization. Studies of these
disaffected groups have shown that students experiencing alienation, lack of success
within the school framework, and other problems with deriving rewards from school have a
greater tendency toward drug use and deviancy in general. 
Peer groups form the last primary socialization group, and have the greatest impact on
those alienated from the first two groups. These groups may be formed on the basis of,
among other things, ethnicity or activity - including drug use. An individual's choice of
peer group has been shown to correlate with their risk of drug use/abuse (Oetting and
Donnermeyer, 1998).
Primary socialization theory thus provides a powerful tool in analyzing the sources of
risk for subtance abuse. It integrates many other theories, and thus it's applicability
is extremely wide. In terms of policy implications, it points to the importance of
maintaining social ties between family, school and adolescents. Moreover, it can reveal
certain alienating aspects of punishment as counterproductive in the school's role as
transmitter of prosocial norms. Finally, it suggests that a certain emphasis in creating
social bonding among recovering addicts is uniquely important in successfully treating
addiction. 
As an overall theme, there are two components to all of these instances. First, there
must be a strong social bond of a very unique sort. It is one among people who draw upon
each other when making normative judgements intimate to their lives, or more
specifically, the course of action with respect to drugs. Identification with this group
with respect to the judgement at hand is essential for the adoption of similar norms. The
second component is that these bonds must become used to transmit that normative
information. Strong bonds do not prevent drug use if that identity does not in some way
involve a consideration of drug use as deviant. 
Finally, the limitations of this theory must also be considered. That is, in some cases,
drug use stems from a perception that all social bonds have been severed. Thus the
behavior is not learned from an intimate peer group, but from the environment in general.
In this case, the old-fashioned analysis of stress relief has more effect, and the
prescription for treatment may differ
Bibliography
Oetting, E.R. and Donnermeyer, J.F. Primary Socialization Theory: The Etiology of Drug
Use and Deviance. I. Substance Use and Misuse 33 (4): 995-1026 (1991)