To What Extent is Nurture More Important Than Nature in Explaining Human Behaviour?

The nature versus nurture debate is a long-standing discourse in sociology, exploring the relative influence of biological factors ("nature") and environmental factors ("nurture") on shaping human behaviour. While it is widely accepted that both nature and nurture interact in complex ways, this essay will argue that nurture plays a more significant role in shaping human behaviour.

Arguments for the Primacy of Nurture

One compelling argument for the importance of nurture lies in the social relativity of gender roles. Anthropologists have documented vast differences in gender roles across cultures. For instance, in some societies, women are the primary breadwinners, challenging the biologically deterministic view of women as inherently suited for domestic roles. This suggests that gendered behaviours are largely learned through socialization, highlighting the power of nurture.

Moreover, cultural traditions often demand behaviours that contradict natural instincts. Religions, for instance, may require fasting or celibacy, demonstrating the human capacity to override biological urges through learned beliefs and practices. This underscores the influence of socialization and cultural norms in shaping behaviour.

Furthermore, cases of inadequate socialization, such as feral children, provide stark evidence for the importance of nurture. These children, deprived of normal human interaction, often exhibit behaviours far removed from what is considered "human." This suggests that socialization is crucial for developing recognizably human traits and behaviours.

Ann Oakley's work on primary socialization further strengthens the case for nurture. Oakley argues that gender roles are learned through processes of manipulation, canalization, and verbal appellation within the family. This emphasizes the role of early childhood experiences and social interactions in shaping gender identity and behaviour.

Additionally, the existence of different ethnicities, each socialized into specific norms and values, underscores the role of nurture. The diversity of cultural norms and values globally points to the powerful influence of socialization in shaping behaviour, rather than a universal set of biologically determined behaviours.

Finally, the role of agencies and processes of socialization, such as the hidden curriculum in schools or workplace training, further demonstrates the power of nurture. These institutions shape individuals' behaviours, values, and beliefs, highlighting the ongoing influence of social environments throughout life.

Arguments for the Influence of Nature

Despite the compelling evidence for nurture, some argue for the significance of biological factors. Talcott Parsons, for instance, proposed a theory of the woman's expressive role rooted in biological differences between sexes. This view suggests that certain behaviours are inherently linked to biological sex.

Furthermore, proponents of nature highlight the role of genetics in influencing behaviours such as aggression. They argue that an individual's predisposition towards aggression is genetically determined, embedded in our DNA. This perspective emphasizes the role of biological factors in shaping complex behaviours.

Additionally, the influence of hormones on mood and behaviour is undeniable. Fluctuations in hormone levels can lead to significant behavioural changes, suggesting a biological basis for at least some aspects of behaviour.

Sociobiologists further argue that many human behaviours, such as hunger, fear, and the drive to reproduce, are driven by innate instincts, hardwired into our biology through evolution.

Similarly, Bowlby's work on maternal deprivation suggests that the maternal instinct is innate, rooted in the biological need to ensure the survival of offspring. This perspective emphasizes the biological underpinnings of certain social behaviours.

Finally, some argue that intelligence is largely determined by genetic inheritance. This view suggests that intellectual capacity is predetermined at birth, emphasizing the role of nature in shaping cognitive abilities.

Conclusion

While biological factors undoubtedly play a role in shaping human behaviour, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the greater significance of nurture. The social relativity of gender roles, the influence of culture and socialization, and the impact of social institutions all demonstrate the profound influence of environmental factors in shaping who we are. While nature provides the foundation, it is nurture that molds and shapes human behaviour to a far greater extent. Therefore, while acknowledging the contribution of both, it is reasonable to conclude that nurture is more important than nature in explaining the complexity and diversity of human behaviour.

**Sources:** * Parsons, T. (1951). *The Social System*. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. * Oakley, A. (1972). *Sex, Gender and Society*. London: Temple Smith. * Bowlby, J. (1951). *Maternal Care and Mental Health*. Geneva: World Health Organization.