Document Type : Practical article


1 Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Dpartment of Political Science, Isfahan University

3 MSc. Student, Dpartment of Political Science, Isfahan University


Humans, since their creation, have experienced different political systems. In addition, it seems that the training in families is the key to open the future; therefore, it is expected that the family system of each human society nurtures and trains future humans and prepares the present generation for the future. The task of families is to empower all members of a society to develop their hidden potentials and provide grounds for realizing them in humans and also to empower the society in identifying its creativities and potentials. Accordingly, deep political advancement and development in societies for attaining determined aims far from radicalism, particularly in the domains of societies and politics, will not be possible without paying attention to the family structure and training methods dominant over this structure. The objective of the present study is to investigate the effect of different upbringing methods in families from democratic perspectives among male and female citizens of the City of Isfahan in 2015. By dividing upbringing methods into three types of authoritative, tyrannical, and easygoing , the results indicate that authoritative methods with the coefficient of 49.0 causes the increase in the democratic perspectives, but tyrannical methods with an coefficient of -18.0 causes a decrease in democratic perspectives among citizens. In addition, other findings indicate that although the results of the research among men are consistent with the general results of the research, tyrannical methods have no significant correlation with democratic perspectives among the studied women.


Main Subjects

[1] اعزازی، شهلا (1376). جامعه‌شناسی خانواده، تهران: روشنگران و مطالعات زنان.
[2] کوهن، کارل (1373). دموکراسی، ترجمة فریبرز مجیدی، تهران: خوارزمی.
[3] گیدنز، آنتونی (1386). راه سوم، بازتولید سوسیال‌دموکراسی، ترجمة منوچهر صبوری کاشانی، تهران: شیرازه.
[4] نقیب‌زاده، میر عبدالحسین (۱۳۷۷). گفتارهایی در فلسفه و فلسفة تربیت، تهران: طهوری.
[5] وحیدا، فریدون؛ نیازی (1383). تأملی در مورد رابطة بین ساختار خانواده و مشارکت اجتماعی در شهر کاشان، مجلة نامة علوم اجتماعی، ش 23، ص 117ـ146.
[6] هلد، دیوید (1369). مدل‏های دموکراسی، ترجمة‏ عباس مخبر، تهران: روشنگران.
[7] Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Norton: NY.
[8] Baumrind, D. (1971): Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, pp 1-102
[9] Bell, D. (1976). The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
[10] Dewey, J (1980). Democracy and Education. The Middle Works.
[11] Marcuse H, (1955), Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, Boston: Beacon Press.
[12] Marx, K and Engels, F. (1954). The Communist Manifesto, Translated by Passony, Stefan, Henry Regnery Co.
[13] Norris، G.(2005) The Authoritarian personality in the 21st century، Ph. D. Department of philosophy in Bond University.
[14] Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, pp 754-770.
[15] Almond, G. A. and S. Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes in Five Western Democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[16] Yturbe C, (1997) On Norberto Bobbio's Theory of Democracy, Political Theory, 25, pp 377-400.
[17] Nijsten, C., and Pels, T. (2000). Opvoedingsdoelen. In T. Pels (red.), Opvoeding en integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van recente onderzoeken naar gezinsopvoeding en pedagogische afstemming tussen gezin en school.