Evaluating Socialisation as the Primary Factor in Shaping Human Behaviour

The nature versus nurture debate continues to be a central discussion within sociology, with the question of whether humans are predominantly shaped by their biology or their social environment remaining a key point of contention. This essay will assess the view that socialisation is the most significant factor in shaping human behaviour, exploring arguments from both sides of the spectrum before concluding with a balanced perspective.

Arguments Supporting Socialisation's Significance

Proponents of socialisation's paramount role in shaping behaviour present compelling arguments. Firstly, human behaviour, unlike many animal behaviours which are largely instinctual, is overwhelmingly learned. A prime example is language acquisition. Children are not born speaking a specific language; they learn it through interaction with others within their social environment.

Further bolstering this viewpoint are cases of feral children raised in isolation from human contact. These children often lack basic social skills, struggle with language, and exhibit behaviour vastly different from socially integrated individuals. This highlights the critical role of social interaction in developing what we consider ‘normal’ human behaviour.

Moreover, extensive evidence demonstrates how socialisation influences behaviour linked to identities such as class, gender, ethnicity, and age. For instance, societal expectations surrounding gender roles, often instilled from a young age, can significantly impact an individual's aspirations, career choices, and even how they interact with others. The concept of the 'looking glass self', where individuals develop their self-concept based on how they perceive others seeing them, further emphasizes the role of social interaction in shaping identity and behaviour.

Socialisation is not a one-off event but rather a lifelong process. Secondary socialisation, occurring throughout our lives through institutions like school, work, and the media, reinforces and sometimes challenges the norms and values learned during primary socialisation within the family.

Various agents of socialisation, including family, peers, education, religion, and media, play a crucial role. Durkheim’s study on suicide, for example, argued that social forces such as social integration and moral regulation significantly impact suicide rates. Similarly, observations of cross-cultural variations in gender roles further illustrate how societal norms, rather than purely biological factors, heavily influence behaviour. Mead’s concept of the “social self” similarly emphasizes how social interaction shapes our sense of self and consequently our actions. The structural functionalist perspective, with its emphasis on societal determinism, further supports the view that social structures and their influence are paramount in shaping individual behaviour.

Counterarguments: The Role of Biology and Other Factors

Despite the weight of evidence supporting socialisation's significance, it is crucial to acknowledge arguments that challenge its absolute dominance. Biologically based arguments posit that humans are born with certain innate instincts and desires that influence behaviour, such as the maternal instinct or tendencies towards aggression in males.

Sociobiology, championed by thinkers like Wilson, argues for the strong influence of “biogrammers”, genetically programmed behaviours, on human actions. While not denying the role of socialisation, sociobiologists suggest that biological predispositions underpin many behaviours, including aggression, altruism, and mate selection.

Furthermore, focusing solely on socialisation fails to fully explain deviant behaviour. Factors like marginalisation, poverty, the influence of subcultures, and the impact of labelling by authorities all contribute to individuals deviating from societal norms.

Additionally, factors beyond individual socialisation, such as broader ideologies, power dynamics, and economic forces, significantly influence behaviour. For example, capitalist societies often promote consumerism and individualism, impacting individual choices and actions regardless of their upbringing. Critics also point to the work of Parsons, whose theory, despite highlighting the role of socialisation, links family roles to biology, challenging the sole significance of socialisation.

Finally, the concept of social agency argues that individuals are not merely passive recipients of socialisation. They can actively interpret, negotiate, and even resist societal expectations, shaping their own behaviour and identities.

Conclusion: A Balanced Perspective

While socialisation undoubtedly plays a crucial role in shaping human behaviour, arguing for its absolute dominance over all other factors presents an incomplete picture. The reality is far more nuanced, with a complex interplay of biological predispositions, individual experiences, social structures, and cultural influences all contributing to the intricate tapestry of human behaviour. A balanced sociological perspective requires acknowledging the dynamic interplay of both nature and nurture in shaping who we are and how we act.