Some argue that the social and political system relies on the acceptance of ordinary people to the same extent that it relies on written laws; as Jean-Jacques Rousseau described it, “it is not engraved on marble or copper, but engraved in the hearts of citizens.” The question that inevitably arises in this context is:   How are political habits engraved in the hearts of citizens? Which entity undertakes this task? And what are its tools and means for doing so?    These questions, and the answers to them, constitute the essence of the theory of political socialization. In this article, we will examine the concept of political socialization, its objectives, and the institutions responsible for carrying it out. The origins of interest in political socialization can be traced back to the time of the ancient Greeks. Both Plato and Aristotle addressed this concept, but their treatment of it was brief and incidental, within the context of discussing the role and function of the state and the relationship between the state and society. However, the systematic scientific study of political socialization emerged during the era of the social revolutions in Europe in the eighteenth century, as political and sociological scholars had not, prior to this period, paid attention to the role of ordinary individuals and the masses in influencing political realities or shaping the political phenomenon. However, the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the profound economic transformations that followed it, along with the democratic revolution on the political front, all led to an increased role for the public or the people in directing economic, social, and political affairs. The importance of public opinion emerged to such an extent that it was no longer wise to ignore public opinion or seek to diminish its social and political role. In this context, views emerged arguing that the social and political system depends on the acceptance of ordinary people to the same extent that it depends on written laws. In this context as well came Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s statement: “The social and political system is not engraved on marble or copper, but is engraved in the hearts of citizens.”^([1])Shaping the political system is achieved through political socialization and political education. What, then, is meant by political socialization, and what is meant by political culture? (A) Definition of Political Socialization: In fact, there is no unified definition of political socialization, and it is impossible to enumerate all the definitions that have been given regarding political socialization, as they are numerous, diverse, and sometimes even contradictory. This is primarily due to differences in the views of scholars and thinkers regarding the process of political socialization itself. However, in general, two approaches can be distinguished with regard to political socialization:^[2]The first approach views political socialization as a process through which political information, values, and viewpoints are transmitted by political socialization agents to citizens, whose role is limited to reception. This reflects a passive role for the target group. Proponents of this approach use terms that indicate the passive role of the target group, such as “Enculturation,” “induction into,” or “building in,” etc. Here, political socialization agents educate citizens, introduce certain ideas into their minds, or develop particular ideas within them, while the role of citizens is limited to receiving them. The second approach, on the other hand, holds that the individuals targeted by political socialization themselves are capable of understanding the political environment around them through their own efforts. Accordingly, this group, which plays an active role in the socialization process, seeks to obtain information. Proponents of this approach use terms and expressions such as “learns,” “takes on,” or “adapts himself to,” etc. This indicates an active role for the individual, who seeks to learn, acquire, and adapt. One of the most prominent definitions associated with the first approach is that political socialization is “the formal and informal, planned and unplanned transmission of political knowledge, values, patterns of political behavior, and personality characteristics of political significance at every stage of life.”^[3]The most prominent definition associated with the second approach, which emphasizes the active role of individuals, is that political socialization is “the process of learning political values and orientations, and interacting with the government and various political situations,” or that it is “the way in which an individual acquires and develops his or her attitudes toward politics.”^[4]However, in reality, the process of political socialization involves action on the part of both the individuals being socialized and the agents of socialization simultaneously. The assumption that action comes from only one side is often inaccurate. Political socialization agents work diligently to socialize individuals in a particular manner by instilling certain political values, orientations, and principles in their citizens, with the aim of creating a form of value-based attachment between the political system and members of society, thereby ensuring the continuity and stability of the system. At the same time, individuals themselves seek to acquire knowledge and information related to the politics of their country. Accordingly, any comprehensive concept of political socialization must take both of the aforementioned perspectives into account. It is worth noting in this context that political socialization is, in brief, a process of transmitting political culture. In fact, it is impossible to study political socialization without addressing political culture, as long as political socialization is a process of transmitting political culture. Interest in the study of political culture dates back to early periods. Plato, for example, referred to what he called “general sentiments.” However, a new approach that uses social research tools and surveys to collect information about political culture and analyze it has emerged more recently. This approach goes beyond rigid legal frameworks to delve into the social and political forces associated with the prevailing culture in the society concerned. Despite the considerable disagreement surrounding the concept of political culture as well, it is necessary to present some definitions of political culture. Roy Macridis, for example, defined it as “the common goals and generally accepted rules,” while Samuel Pierre defined it as “the values and beliefs that determine what government ought to be.”[5]As for Robert Dahl, he argues that the elements comprising political culture are:

1. Problem-solving orientations: pragmatic or idealistic.
2. Orientations toward collective behavior: cooperative or conflictual.
3. Orientations toward the political system: characterized by loyalty, hostility, or indifference.
4. Orientations toward other people: characterized by trust or distrust.[6].

These four orientations are what determine the prevailing culture in society according to Robert Dahl. Accordingly, we would not expect a pragmatic authority to exist within an idealistic political culture, nor would we expect political stability in the presence of a conflictual political culture, nor would we expect support for the ruling authority if the prevailing political culture in society is characterized by hostility toward the ruling authorities. Likewise, if orientations toward others within society are based on distrust as part of the society’s general culture, then the likely relationship between the ruling authority and the people will generally be one based on the people’s distrust of the ruling authority and their suspicion of it. As for Lucian Pye, he focused his attention on aspects of political culture associated with political development and its indicators, namely: A/ The scope of politics. B/ The relationship between means and ends in politics. C/ The levels by which political behavior is evaluated. D/ The values underlying this behavior. The scope of politics referred to by Pye represents the boundary between the social and the political, indicating the degree to which society interacts with political issues and events. This is what Almond and Verba referred to in their classification of political cultures when they emphasized that political cultures are divided into three types: A/ Participant Political Culture: This refers to a situation in which citizens’ orientations toward political issues are positive, whereby citizens are affected by political issues and, in turn, influence them. B/ Subject Political Culture: This occurs when citizens’ orientations are negative. This culture is described as “subject” because citizens are affected by political issues but do not influence them. C/ Parochial Political Culture: This occurs when an individual does not perceive any relationship connecting him or her to the political system and does not possess sufficient information about the system. This is a model found in traditional societies characterized by illiteracy and ignorance, which prevent the required information or culture from reaching the targeted individuals. However, it should be noted that political culture is not isolated from the general or overall culture of the society concerned, because political culture is merely a subculture that is influenced by the prevailing general culture in that society. It is therefore inconceivable that a people would trust their government if the general culture of society were based on mutual distrust among its members. It is also important to note a significant fact: in pluralistic societies, whether in ethnic, cultural, or religious terms, it is difficult to speak of a single general social culture characterizing the society. Rather, there are multiple political and social “cultures” within the unified society, making it difficult to speak of a single political culture for that society. Religion, region, tribe, language, and geographic area may serve as reference groups for many members of society. Consequently, these subordinate loyalties may be a direct cause of conflicts among the different groups constituting the national community as a whole, or a cause of conflict between these groups and the ruling authorities. However, the most serious issue is the existence of a gap between the elites in society, on the one hand, and the masses, on the other, with regard to political culture, because this leads to the division of society and raises questions about the legitimacy of the political authority itself. In countries that experienced European colonialism, particularly British colonialism based on indirect rule, it became evident that there was a gap between the leadership and the masses. The leadership received formal Western education, while the masses received traditional religious education. There were clear differences between the two sides as a result of the leaders’ acquisition of Western values that differed entirely from the traditional values prevailing in these societies. This led to the fragmentation of political culture and the absence of common ground between the two sides. Even within the elite itself, such fragmentation in political culture may exist. In a study conducted by Lucian Pye on Burma, significant cultural differences were found between politicians and administrators. The administrators received their education under British supervision, which caused their political values to differ from those held by politicians who emerged onto the political scene through their political struggle against the British within the framework of the anti-colonial national movement. As a result, the politicians adopted idealistic and moral values that opposed the British, expressed distrust toward the administrators, and were skeptical of their conduct.[7]Undoubtedly, this form of cultural fragmentation has a negative impact on political and social conditions and on political stability, which requires prompt action to address it. Political Socialization Institutions: First: The Family: The family is considered one of the most important institutions of political socialization, as families play a fundamental role in shaping the orientations of their children, whether in social, value-related, or political aspects. Studies have revealed the important role played by the family in directing the behavior of its children. The importance of the family in political socialization can be attributed to two main factors: 1/ The family has exclusive control over the upbringing of the child, particularly during the early years of life, when parents transmit ideas, information, and values to the child and explain to them what behavior is socially and religiously acceptable or unacceptable. At the same time, during the child’s early years, the family carries out the socialization process on its own, with no other institutions competing with it in this role, making its role decisive in this process. 2/ The strength of family ties increases the importance of the family’s role in socialization. Studies have demonstrated that within any group, the stronger the degree of cohesion, the greater the degree of influence and mutual influence among its members. Therefore, because family ties are inherently strong, this strength is directly reflected in the socialization process. This observation is not limited to Third World countries, which are characterized by strong family ties. Even in developed countries, some studies conducted on voting behavior in Britain have shown an almost complete similarity in voting behavior between fathers and the other members of the family. Nevertheless, some scholars downplay the role of the family in political socialization based on the following: 1- The period during which the family has exclusive control over the child’s socialization is an early stage, before the child enters school, when the school begins to compete with the family in political socialization. Usually, the child has no political interests at this stage, nor does political awareness become fully developed during it, because political interests emerge at a later stage of life. Therefore, the role of the family in political socialization is not as significant as it is sometimes portrayed. 2/ The family itself, regardless of the extent of its political interests, is generally not concerned with instilling political ideas and values in its children to the same degree that it is concerned with teaching them how to interact with others, respect elders, prepare for their future lives, and assume responsibility. Accordingly, political indoctrination itself is not among the family’s primary concerns. Second: The School: Schooling is an experience that most children go through, as children spend the early years of their lives learning some basic sciences and skills that help them face life in the future. States, particularly developed ones, work through curricula, ceremonies, symbolic activities, and school activities to highlight what instills national glories in children and to introduce them to national leaders and symbols. The state also seeks to present the history of the state to children free from divisions and fractures, in addition to teaching them the principles of citizenship and the duties of citizens toward the state. Education begins at the age of five or six and continues according to the level a person reaches, whether secondary, university, or postgraduate education. These years of education play a fundamental role in developing political identity alongside other political socialization agents, such as the family, groups, and individuals. Within the classroom, curricula, ceremonies, symbolic activities, and various school activities all contribute to influencing the political development of children.[8]The curriculum is considered the most important of these means, as it includes the fundamental values of society, in addition to the history of the state, its historical achievements, and citizenship education. Ceremonies and classroom activities also play a prominent role in reinforcing the ideas intended to be conveyed to children. The teacher himself also plays a significant role in political socialization through his conduct and words in the classroom. Although a teacher may use the classroom for ideological indoctrination and partisan propaganda, this is unacceptable. The teacher’s use of the classroom to promote his views and advocate for the party to which he belongs constitutes a deviation from the objectives of education. What is required of the teacher, however, is to teach citizenship and connect children to the higher national values and objectives. Of course, ideological indoctrination is unacceptable in all national institutions insofar as they are characterized by a national character, as even the ruling party may not openly promote the ideology of the ruling regime, justify its policies, or glorify its leaders. Third: Media and Communication: Newspapers, radio, television, and other media play the greatest role in political socialization, as authorities usually employ these means in the process of political socialization and in disseminating political culture within the governed society, guiding its behavior through these values in a manner that achieves stability within the state, leads to unity and cohesion, and prevents disagreement. In recent years, tremendous developments have taken place in communications through the emergence of the international communications network (Internet) and the widespread availability of this service, making the media more effective in shaping an informed public opinion. It is worth noting here that the role of the state in the political socialization of its citizens is no longer what it was in the past, and the state is no longer able to control this process, because citizens now receive their information from various sources. A citizen may no longer listen extensively to national radio and television, instead receiving information from other sources. Even if a citizen follows both local and foreign media outlets, the ideas, perceptions, and values provided by local channels may be taken away by global media outlets. This raises questions about the role of the state in political socialization in the age of globalization and the tremendous technological developments in the fields of media and communication. Fourth: Political Parties: Political parties play a prominent role in political socialization. As groups competing for power, political parties work to educate their members about political matters and increase their awareness of national issues. They use several means to achieve this, the most important of which include daily newspapers, mass meetings, newsletters, reports, and so on. Accordingly, political parties play a prominent role in the political socialization of their members in particular, while also contributing to raising public awareness through the aforementioned means in general. Fifth: Interest Groups: They socialize their members in a manner consistent with their political positions, seek to convince them of the main idea or interest they advocate, prepare them to make sacrifices for that idea or interest, and encourage them to oppose policies that conflict with their interests. They also conduct studies in the fields relevant to them and present these studies to officials. In this way, they contribute to the political socialization of citizens, particularly the members of the group. [1]Richard Dawson et al., Political Socialization: An Analytical Study, translated by Mustafa Khashim and Muhammad Zahi al-Maghribi, Garyounis University Publications, Benghazi, 1990, p. 11. [2] Ibid., pp. 55–56. [3] Muhammad Mahmoud Rabie and Ismail Sabri Muqallad (eds.), Encyclopedia of Political Science, Kuwait University, Kuwait, 2003, p. 478. [4] Muhammad Ali Muhammad, Foundations of Political Sociology, n.d., p. 213. [5] Shaaban Al-Taher Al-Aswad, Political Sociology, Al-Dar Al-Masria Al-Lubnania, Cairo, 2nd ed., 2001, p. 216. [6] Ibid., p. 217. [7] Shaaban Al-Taher Al-Aswad, op. cit., p. 50. [8] For further details, see Richard Dawson, op. cit., pp. 184–186.