This book is about the political socialization of Mexico’s leaders. There is a scarcity of research on political socialization in Latin America. Thus, the author is forced to apply theories developed from studies of other cultural settings. Camp asks some important questions about the Mexican milieu. How are interest and involvement in public life awakened and determined? How does the family (especially parents) influence choices? How do friends affect career choice? What role can be assigned to formal education? Does the broad historical environment of their youth make a difference? What reading materials seem to mold thought and values?
Camp finds that four patterns of socialization commonly stand out in determining career choice of Mexico's top political figures. The family is always an important factor, though it may not always emerge as clearly dominant. Of particular importance is whether political life was widely discussed in the home, and especially whether the male parent was politically involved. In the absence of a strong, politically involved father, some articulate, forceful mothers have had a great impact. Often, sons at first appeared to turn away from the political preference of parents, then gravitated to the political stance characteristic of the family in earlier generations. Some interview data revealed definite continuity in family political stance dating from support of independence through identification with the Reforma and later with the revolution.
According to Camp, a more vital pattern is found in respondents’ perceptions of the period of their early socialization, i.e., the postrevolutionary Mexico of the 1920s and 1930s. Students of the National Preparatory School and National University felt a sense of unity after this chaotic period. Respondents emphasized their uneasiness with the prevalence of violence and instability. Life in Mexico in those days was full of difficulties and potential military outbursts” (p. 10).
The postrevolutionary experience combines with a third common socialization pattern, namely, interest and involvement in political career choice at a relatively early age (12-22 years as compared to North Americans who typically do not get involved until their 30s or 40s). An important factor here is that many Mexican students leave home at 15 or 16 years of age to attend preparatory schools and later the university. They tend to develop strong identification as a group and a strong predisposition toward politics in general and toward specific political attitudes “ . . . which strengthen the sense of being in a distinctive student generation”—of having a “ . . . common location in the social and historical process (p. 50). Camp finds the outcome similar to the English “Old Public School-boy,” with emphasis on “internalized rules” rather than codification and “finely tuned sensitivity to emergent consensus” in arriving at “practical solutions (p. 54).
A fourth and crucial socialization pattern is found in the high degree of influence exercised by professors at the National Preparatory School and National University. This is intertwined with school age and the postrevolutionary sense of belonging to a special epoch. Professors became the new authority figures for students away from home and overshadowed peers as role models. Professors commonly need a second occupation to compensate for traditionally low pay, and most often turn to a career in public service. Students see from their mentors’ example that early political involvement is necessary for upward mobility in the dominant party. Thus, the influence of professors looms large in molding the next generation for supportive political roles.
This research effort in its present form is unlikely to receive a thorough reading by more than a limited number of scholars, but as usual, the authors wide interview experience and his concern with the biographical data of Mexican leaders over nearly two decades results in some insights which can be used by a wide range of individuals.
