Perhaps the most dramatic finding of recent research on the political socialization of children is that youngsters appear to be overwhelmingly favorably disposed toward political objects which cross their vision. Officers and institutions of government are regarded as benevolent, worthy, competent, serving and powerful. The implications of such findings are striking indeed. Childhood political dispositions may represent the roots of later patriotism; we may be observing the building of basic regime-level supportive values at a very young age.These findings are by no means new; in fact, they might be classified as part of the conventional wisdom of the discipline. Moreover, they are extremely well documented, and the study of childhood political socialization has advanced to consider far more than basic regime-level norms. Despite all this, however, there are still many empirical questions to be asked about such norms. Perhaps the recent assertion that the political scientist's model of socialization is “static and homogeneous” is particularly apropos here. Consider two closely related characteristics of the appropriate literature: 1) the “positive image” which children have about politics and political figures has been synthesized from data gathered largely in the United States and to some extent in urban, industrialized communities within the United States; and 2) empirical explanation of the favorable disposition which children manifest has not progressed very far. Though there may be hypotheses about how children get this way, there has been little systematic testing of the relationships between variables.
The central thesis to be argued in this paper is that administrative theory as developed by Western social scientists is inherently repressive and that its utilization in Communist states as a set of techniques for ordering human relationships has had a subversive effect on the Communist goal of creating a more humanized society. We do not necessarily hold the view that in the absence of these particular techniques Communist states would be free from repression, but rather that these techniques themselves entail certain patterns of repression which are original to the societies in which those techniques were first developed and practiced. This thesis is based on the view that administrative theory is not the value-free, apolitical set of objective instruments which its scientistic advocates and practitioners generally claim for it. Rather it is part of a comprehensive political theory (for that matter, a whole world view) from which it cannot be separated, for administrative theory is an integral part of that more general theory and its very assumptions, categories, values, and system of logic are reflective of that world view.To claim for ideas a political neutrality based on the notion of scientific objectivity is fundamentally mistaken. "Scientific objectivity" as applied to social relations or human experience has inherent political content as it is necessarily developed only upon the "objective" aspects of m a n 1 -m a n in general as an abstract category, man in particular as a thing. Man is the abstract thing first as the object of the "science" to discover "laws" of human behavior (in this case, of organization and administration). He is the particular thing second as the object of that "science" applied to actual situations of administration and organization. In both processes experience is omitted, and "science" and life become less real.The richness, complexity, and uniqueness of human life cannot be understood by "objective science," and any attempt to "administer" it by reference to so-determined "scientific laws" is repression. 2 Repression we take 1. The extent to which sexism and male domination are reflected in our language is perhaps not so noticeable until one tries to write without using the tainted words. That is almost impossible. In some contexts there is no word for the whole of humanity which can appropriately take the place of "man" used in that way. Even worse is the choice of pronouns. "It" is merely confusing if used to refer to a human being. To say "he or she," "his or hers," etc., makes the style so awkward that it is a distraction from the thoughts being expressed; not only that, but to say "he or she" is to perpetuate a distinction between the sexes in all contexts, in most of which such a distinction is unnecessary and inappropriate. Therefore, in some cases we have found it necessary, regretfully, to use the common male forms to refer to all human beings; we do so with no connotation of gender, and hoping that new words can be developed which have no connotations of gender in a...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.