The nurture versus nature debate seeks the answer to the following question: are we a product of our genes or are we a product of the environment we grew up in? I personally believe that there is not a single answer to this question; I think that we are both a product of nature and of nurture. Lets take, for example, a personality trait that I have: vulnerability to stress. There has been research done that this is a trait that is passed through genes. However, the environment that I grow up in determines whether or not this vulnerability to stress will cause me to be a stressed out person. If I were to grow up in a home where my situation was unstable and my parents were abusive, that would cause this vulnerability to stress to come out much more than if I grew up in a calm environment. I believe that many traits have a genetic component, but that the way a person is brought up determines how these traits are expressed.
One example from the book that I have considered in this debate are gender roles. There are some obvious genetic differences between boys and girls, such as the difference in genitalia, body fat percentage, and average height. These are qualities are based on nature (for the most part). Freud argues that gender identity is brought about by the presence or absence of a penis, and that this causes boys to identify with their fathers (who do have a penis) or girls to identify with their mothers (who don't have a penis). His would be an argument towards nature. However, I think that there is more to this than Freud's theory explains. Chodorow's theory discusses the fact that girls are brought up to have close relationships with their mothers, while boys are taught to dissociate from their mothers. I believe that this theory is correct, at least in American society. This theory would argue that nurture provides more of an influence in gender identity than nature. Therefore, I think that people are a combination of both their nurture and their nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment