Issue 130

TOPIC: ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."

WORDS: 524 TIME: 00:46:44 DATE: 2008-3-27 14:42:24

This statement consists of two claims. The first assertion is that society's destiny relies on how children are socialized, and the second one is that the masses have not yet acquired how to bring up younger generation who can better society. However, in my view neither the former claim nor the latter truly reflects the practical circumstance. Moreover, in effect, both of the speaker's claims fly in the face of empirical evidence.

In the first place, when it comes to whether a child's thought has to do with socialization, I concede that enough opportunities for positive socialization conducted by respectful adults or healthy society indeed influence that child to some extend. As we all know, schools and colleges are the most common places where our next generation receives education. It is in classes that children learn how to negotiate, collaborate and learn the honor way of expressing their own ideas. Moreover, their teachers and docents show them destructive results of violence and other negative social behavior. Therefore, this social knowledge can help children grow up to be good civilian and prominent political officers, as well as wisdom.

However, socialization is just one factor that affects children's thread of growing up. There are a variety of other determinants that may have profound impact on a child. Socialization is far more from the most paramount. History is replete with examples of distinguished scientists and political leaders who were chiefly influenced by other factors, such as religious conviction, parental effect, and a seminal childhood thing. Consider, for instance, Albert Einstein's scientific contributions to the whole human beings were primarily the outcomes of the determination of his inner courage. Or, consider Beethoven's great contribution in the realm of music, which had more to do with parental influence during his childhood.

In the second place, the speaker's second claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better our society is poorly supported by empirical evidence. Any one would agree that a "better" society should be characterized by greater tolerance for distinct ideologies, greater concern for natural environment, and broader communication in culture and education. Thus, the children born in the 1960s are now indeed making society better. For instance, our society is more sensitive to public health, women's rights, differing racial peoples, and disabilities. Moreover, there is even more examples of increasing international cooperation across many states. China and Japan have cooperated ardently in chip research and celestial exploration; multi-national efforts can be easily found out in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. Besides, Europe and America have researched innumerous health problems through communal projects. In short, the speaker's second claim does not reflect the truth that is taking place in daily life.

In summary, the pivotal factors that influence a child's upbringing should not be limited merely to socialization but rather to some other factors--such as parental impact, a peculiar event happened in childhood and private ideology. Albeit distinct people may have differing ideas about what consist of a "better" society, I find our society is evolving towards a more tolerant, esteemed, and developed one. Therefore, I tend to disagree with both counts of the statement.