Objective limitations of socialisation
It should be noted that socialisation may involve sharing, distribution and/or spreading of responsibility or responsibilities, but not the transfer of the ultimate and complete responsibility. This is because a maintainer is always involved; regardless of whether it is a local government, the state or a civil society organisation. Both the institution’s maintainer and its head have multiple legal responsibilities – some even under the criminal law – and such responsibilities cannot, and should not, be shared. Socialisation can therefore only be partial.
The partial nature of socialisation may be emphasised further by the fact that any business entity or association can only represent particular interests. The same applies to a local government as well: it is also organised on the basis of interests (the population is divided into majority and minority in terms of individual and group interests). Striving for power is a relevant organising factor even in the smallest villages and so decisions are influenced by such considerations as well. Considering the current general state and condition of the Hungarian society – in terms of social participation, democratic sensitiveness, solidarity deficit, inadequate interest asserting capacity of civil society organisations – local communities cannot exercise a pressure of such weight that could actually influence matters, for instance in relation to decisions regarding specific individuals. Certain aspects of socialisation can therefore be restricted by such situations as well.
On the institutional side there are 4 criteria of relevance to socialisation. An institution where each of these has been met, can be regarded as one whose socialisation has been optimised. Where they have only partially been met, the institution has achieved a minimum or partial level of socialisation.
This article based on the following document:
Socialized Operation of Cultural Institutions : A methodological guide to community-based operation