PEER INFLUENCE AND PARENTS INFLUENCE
Peer Influence And Parents Influence
[Name of the Writer]
[Name of the Institution]
Peer Influence And Parents Influence
Adolescence is a period of research and experimentation during which the individual seeks to discover new horizons and emancipation partly behaviour frames sent by his family and the school (Zaffran 2010). Daily mobility practices, that is to say, relatively regular travel in the metropolitan area is one of the main supports of this experiment. By moving, adolescent sociability develops peer relationships beyond the control of adults usually in charge of its management. It also confronts the rules of the public domain, because it no longer interacts with individuals familiar but with strangers (Breviglieri 2007). Daily mobility occupies a fundamental place in the "socialisation" of teenagers, understood as a process of incorporating sustainable ways of doing that adjust and evolve continuously in different contexts and situations experienced by the individual (Darmon 2010). However, if mobility is helping to change the ways of acting of the adolescent, it is itself a practice that is based on habits already formed, which are the product of social mobility: taking public transportation Common attend urban public spaces, interact with strangers, etc., skills are not innate, they assume an apprenticeship. Mobility is thus both a structured arrangement and structuring practice in adolescence.
To better understand the dynamics between mobility and socialisation, we rely on several areas of investigation: a monograph in rural device, characterised by low densities, dynamic demographics and the weight of the persistent Agriculture (Devaux 2012), the statistical evaluation of the overall transportation Survey 2001-2002 and a search conducted interviews with adolescents and middle classes of SUA (sensitive urban areas) (Oppenchaim 2011a). If these lands are a priori dissimilar, comparison to control the scope of search results while paying attention to the role that space plays in the socialisation of individuals (Grafmeyer and Authier 2008).
Daily mobility adolescents are strongly determined by the provisions they have incorporated into their domestic sphere, residential and school. These provisions are mainly operating in three areas: in relation to different modes of transport, urban anonymity and co-presence with strangers (Oppenchaim 2011b).
These provisions differ according to the first family environment in which adolescents have grown. Economic capital, automotive equipment and the availability of time parents influence, for example, the number of high school travel made with parents in childhood. Adolescents and SUA are much less likely than others to have moved Ile younger with their parents. However, these movements help to forge a special relationship to mobility: tours of the centre of the city participate in the familiarisation of children in urban anonymity, while frequent trips by car can, however, feed screws apprehension vis-a-vis public transport. More broadly, the representations and practices of mobility of older members of the family strongly influence how adolescents learn to move, especially their greater or lesser autonomy. There are thus differentiated mobility socialisation of children by gender (Vandermissen 2008), but also by the place occupied in siblings, brothers and sisters a little older adolescents often initiating the movement without parents. Learning mobility adolescents also depends on the ratio of parental investment childish public spaces (Valentine and McKendrick 1997; Rivière 2012), the functioning of the family unit, more or less outward (Kaufmann and Widmer 2005), but also the residential trajectory of parents and their mobility experiences (Goyon 2009). SUA or in rural areas, adolescents whose parents have resided previously in the centre of the city and have more autonomy in their urban mobility and a more positive view of the city and the collective modes of transport. This can be explained both by a process of transmission of parental representations, but also travel frequently with parents in the city centre during childhood.
The provisions of adolescents vis-à-vis mobility are also strongly determined by the Residential context they have experienced. These provisions are structured mainly in the territory of residence, whether due to the influence of peers which play an increasing role in the socialisation of young adolescents, SUA (Lepoutre 2001) and rural (Renahy 2005) as in other territories (Galland, 2010; Pasquier 2005), a residential context more or less favourable to children's autonomy in mobility (Depeau 2008) or the use of a particular mode of transportation. Adolescents SUA Ile, who live more frequently than other adolescents in the region in areas well served by public transport but who are conscious of living in segregated neighbourhoods, and grow in an environment radically different from that of adolescents zones rural areas far away from the heavy transport. While adolescents SUA early use public transport without their parents but that some of them feel stigmatised by other citizens when travelling, those who live in rural areas develop a strong local in their mobility, mainly around walking and motorised two-wheelers. However, if the current place of residence strongly influences provisions vis-à-vis mobility, they also depend on the residential trajectory adolescents. Those who have experienced different residential settings (during removal or migration, bi-driven home by a divorce, long vacation periods in a family member) have more extensive mobility and less apprehensive the test of urban anonymity, which mark their greater propensity to travel in urban public spaces or even to use public transport, they live in rural or in the SUA.
Finally, we should not forget the influence of the academic sphere on the mobility of young people. Some of them, especially those whose parents supervise heavily mobility, not experience public transport and urban anonymity that during trips. More generally, commuting and school contribute to modify the provisions vis-à-vis mobility, i.e. the ability to use certain modes of transport, the taste for self-mobility (when these trips are made without the presence of adults) and appetite for mobility performed outside the territory of residence (when school is far away from the parental home). Among adolescents SUA, and there is a significant difference between students professionals who most often attend schools located more than thirty minutes by public transport from home but relatively homogeneous socially, and students in courses general and technical, mostly educated in their municipality of residence in institutions more mixed. The role of travel between home and school cannot, however, be analyzed unrelated family environment and adolescent residential. Successive entries college and high school are much more important steps in the path of movement of adolescents in rural than SUA, because they represent the most frequently "coming to town." Similarly, remote home-school equivalent, some parents of adolescents in rural areas will favour one mode of transport to another (the school bus or the car parental) according to their educational strategies and their relationship to mobility.
Mobility, socialising experience
If mobility is a practice socialised habits based on forged in the family sphere, residential and school, it is itself an experience unique to the adolescent socialisation. At this age, mobility plays an important role in learning behaviours and ways of being of individuals, gradually reshaping the dispositions acquired during primary socialisation. Socialising effects of mobility are particularly operative during free time, that is to say, the clear weather constraints of traditional socialisation institutions such as the family and the school (Zaffran 2010). They are particularly important in the case of self-mobility, where the young person moves without adult accompaniment and shall determine the conditions of its travel (Massot and Zaffran 2007).
Mobility is first on the ways of being and behaving adolescents within their peer group, which play an increasing role in adolescent socialisation (Pasquier 2005). At this age, they are more involved practices of mobility: they are the reasons ("visit a friend", "arrange to meet you"), but they become especially important partners in situations auto-mobility. These mobilities are conducted in group socialisation homolatique sequences, during which the provisions become adolescents in two areas (Mead 2006). Mobility fosters firstly the internalisation of norms of the peer group, whether general norms of teen culture or specific groups such that the adolescent frequently. It involved, however,as the individualisation of the adolescent when he moves with his peers, he learns to find his own place in this group.
In addition, the movement of adolescents, alone or in groups, gradually redoing their provisions vis-à-vis mobility, particularly those acquired in the domestic sphere. At this age, experiences in mobility have lasting effects on future practices of adolescents. They sometimes help to modify the provisions of adolescents vis-à-vis modes. Include, among other examples, the case of a girl whose fear of SUA metro fades gradually as a result of occasional trips with her best friend more familiar with this mode of transport. These experiences also influence the spatial amplitude of future mobility, including the preference for travel within or outside the territory. For some rural youth, the first urban mobility among peers often carried from place of education, and are constitutive of their "urban experience" (Kokoreff 1994), later giving rise to a ritualised "transferred in town."
Finally, mobility allows teens to discover the public domain when it gives rise to interactions taking place under the gaze of an audience of circumstance and thus subject to specific rules. By moving, adolescents gradually become familiar with the rules, they mutually adapt their ways with those of other citizens to gradually find their way into the public domain. Listening to music on mobile phones in public transport, for example, more or less appropriate to the times. If travel alone or peer does not have the same meaning in adolescence, this does not mean that mobility cannot be lonely socialising as they are also an opportunity to confront the public domain. However, the nature of this confrontation is differentiated territory of residence adolescents. In the SUA, it often leads teens to learn how to manage the co-presence with another urban residential and social, especially in transport. In contrast, in rural areas, because of the lack of public transport service, it gives rise to the most personalised interaction and confrontation acquaintanceship with residential structuring in these territories (Mischi and Renahy 2008). These teens are therefore fewer than SUA to develop a taste and control codes specific residential areas, which can easily switch their area of residence to other types of land.
In most cases, these sequences mobility lead to a mutual agreement between participants: community meanings is confirmed and reaffirmed. But for some teens, a conflict may result from these interactions, especially when they feel that other people consider issues their presence in the public space. For some adolescents SUA presence in transit can lead to tense situations when other users adopt specific behaviours toward them (dirty looks, avoidance, etc.) Or mean they unceremoniously do not appreciate their behaviour (listening to music, recreational activities, etc.). Similarly, in rural areas, clashes between youth who "parked" in the public space and residential residents appear numerous, and signs of hostility by adults are more violent forms and often verbal. This conflict has different consequences depending on the territory. For some adolescents SUA, the sequences of interaction with strangers will contribute to the formation of a triple stigma (territorial, ethnic and social), which will affect their sustainable urban mobility and contribute to a decline in the area residence. In rural areas, these interactions are strongly structured by local social and family relationships, rather they will help build or reaffirm a marginalised position within the local social space.
Joints between mobility and socialisation in adolescence are numerous and highly dynamic. This dynamic is particularly marked in the residential level. Provisions vis-à-vis mobility are first strongly structured by the residential context and location of the adolescent, but also by the report that it maintains its territory of residence, uses that or he has more or less its local network of friends and family. But, conversely, mobility experiences of adolescents themselves alter his ways, particularly its residential stability: they can, for example, lead to a decline in the local area or on the contrary, presence of intermittently increasing the space. Articulate social mobility and thus avoids the analysis through daily mobility does not take into account the residential stability of individuals, but also an approach focused exclusively on the practice of residential space, excluding an entire section of living ofindividuals and the related amendments of their ways.
1. Breviglieri, M. (2007) "Open the world in person. An anthropology of adolescences' in Breviglieri and Cicchelli (eds.), Mediterranean adolescences. The public space in small steps, London: L'Harmattan, p. 19-59.
Darmon, M. (2010) Socialisation, second edition, London: Armand Colin.
Depeau, S. (2008) "Radioscopy territorial mobility of urban children. Comparison between central London and Parisian suburbs, "Children, families, generations, No. 8.
Devaux, J. (2012). "Mobilities daily adolescents residing in rural areas: local resources and differentiation pathways," Geography and cultures.
Galland, O. (2010) "Introduction. A new age? "British Ethnology, No. 40, p. 5 10.
Goyon, M. (2009) "Youth peri Dombes: daily mobility, socialisation and parental models", paper presented at conference of the Regional Science Association in British, July 7.
Grafmeyer, Y. and Authier, J. Y. (2008) urban sociology, London: Armand Colin.
Kaufmann, V. and Widmer, E. (2005) "The acquisition of motility within families. State of the art and research hypotheses ", Spaces and Societies, 120-121, p. 199-217.
Kokoreff, M. (1994) "The spatial dimension of the lifestyles of young people. The case of a city in the Parisian suburbs, "Contemporary Society, No. 17, p. 29-49.
Lepoutre, D. (2001) Heart suburb: codes, rituals and languages, London: Odile Jacob.
Massot, M.H. and Zaffran, J. (2007) " Auto-mobility urban teenagers Island " Space populations, societies, No. 2-3, p. 227-241.
Mead, G. H. (2006) Mind, self and society, London: University of London Press.
Mischi, J. and Renahy, N. (2008) "For a political sociology of rural worlds", Politics, No. 83, p. 9-21.
Oppenchaim, N. (2011a) "Adolescents popular categories they have daily mobility practices specific? Case sensitive urban areas Ile "Search transport and security, vol. 27, No. 2, p. 93-103.
Oppenchaim, N. (2011b) "Mobility as accessibility provisions and test: three paradigms explaining the character experiencing trips to London," Journal of Urban Research, Article No
Pasquier, D. (2005) Cultures schoolgirls. The tyranny of the majority, London: SO. Renahy, N. (2005) The lads. Survey on Rural Youth, London: Discovery. Rivière, C. (2012) "The children reveal our relationship to public spaces," Metropolitics,.
Valentine, G. and McKendrick, J. (1997) "Children's outdoor play: exploring parental Concerns about children's safety and the changing nature of childhood of" Geoforum, vol. 28, No. 2, p. 219-235.
Vandermissen, M. H. (2008) "Modes of transport and territories performed solo by adolescents in urban areas of Quebec," childhoods, families, generations, No. 8.
Zaffran, J. (2010) The time of adolescence. Between constraint and freedom, Rennes: University of Rennes Press.