Difference between revisions of "George2013"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Rachel George |Title=“What’s a vendetta?” Political socialization in the everyday interactions of Los Angeles families |Tag(s)=EMC...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Rachel George | |Author(s)=Rachel George | ||
|Title=“What’s a vendetta?” Political socialization in the everyday interactions of Los Angeles families | |Title=“What’s a vendetta?” Political socialization in the everyday interactions of Los Angeles families | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Family Conversation; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Family Conversation; |
|Key=George2013 | |Key=George2013 | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=24 | |Volume=24 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages=46- | + | |Pages=46–65 |
| + | |URL=http://das.sagepub.com/content/24/1/46 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0957926512463640 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Political socialization is an interdisciplinary subfield that addresses questions surrounding the inter-generational transmission of political engagement, values, and preferences. Through close analysis of face-to-face conversations about political issues, events, and ideas in Los Angeles families, this article brings a linguistic anthropological and conversation analytic perspective to bear on the study of political socialization by demonstrating the key role played by discursive and interactional practices. Children in this corpus take an active role in their own socialization, as they use a range of conversational strategies – particularly questions and repair – to initiate and sustain their participation in political conversations. Parents in this corpus vary widely in their tolerance for and treatment of children’s questions: some parents attempt to shut down or re-orient lines of questioning, while others use children’s questions as teaching moments in which to state values explicitly. Several possible explanations for the variance in parents’ uptake are considered, and parents’ responses are examined for their implicit political messages or stances. Finally, the article suggests that many of the strengths of language socialization – including its focus on interaction, its consideration of child agency, and its emphasis on socialization as an ongoing process – make it a useful framework for those who study political socialization. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:46, 2 March 2016
| George2013 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | George2013 |
| Author(s) | Rachel George |
| Title | “What’s a vendetta?” Political socialization in the everyday interactions of Los Angeles families |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Family Conversation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 24 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 46–65 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926512463640 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Political socialization is an interdisciplinary subfield that addresses questions surrounding the inter-generational transmission of political engagement, values, and preferences. Through close analysis of face-to-face conversations about political issues, events, and ideas in Los Angeles families, this article brings a linguistic anthropological and conversation analytic perspective to bear on the study of political socialization by demonstrating the key role played by discursive and interactional practices. Children in this corpus take an active role in their own socialization, as they use a range of conversational strategies – particularly questions and repair – to initiate and sustain their participation in political conversations. Parents in this corpus vary widely in their tolerance for and treatment of children’s questions: some parents attempt to shut down or re-orient lines of questioning, while others use children’s questions as teaching moments in which to state values explicitly. Several possible explanations for the variance in parents’ uptake are considered, and parents’ responses are examined for their implicit political messages or stances. Finally, the article suggests that many of the strengths of language socialization – including its focus on interaction, its consideration of child agency, and its emphasis on socialization as an ongoing process – make it a useful framework for those who study political socialization.
Notes
