Children Behaviour: Nature or Nurture - Essay Example

Nature or Nurture? By Nature or Nurture? This paper explores whether children behaviour is determined by nature or by nature. The paper is based on Katha Pollitt’s article, “Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls”. In this article, Pollit has argued compellingly that children behaviour is the result of the nurture that they have received from their parents, and not nature- their genetic make-up. In this paper, I have analyzed Pollitt’s arguments in support of his view that children behaviour is determined by nurture, and not nature; basing my arguments on the Pollitf’s views, I have argued that children’s behaviour is determined by nurture and not nature. In the article, “Why Boys Don’t play with Dolls”, Pollitt seeks to dismantle the stereotype that girls naturally like dolls, but boys don’t; and that boys naturally like trucks, while girls don’t. In this article, Pollitt argues that children’s behaviour can solely be accounted for by nurture that the children have gone through from their parents, and not by the nature of the children. To make her point clear, Pollitt has given a number of examples and arguments to support her claim. One of the examples that Pollitt uses in her article to support her claim is the example of feminist women who neither love the Barbie doll nor hate the Barbie doll. In this example, Pollitt argues that it is not possible for the American women to either love Barbie or to hate the Barbie doll. The reason why the women are unable to love the Barbie doll is that at one time or another in their life, the women have been unable to achieve the societal ideals represented by the Barbie doll, for this reason, they can’t love the Barbie doll. On the other hand, the women are unable to hate the Barbie doll; this is because hating the Barbie doll would mean that they hate all the good societal ideals represented by the Barbie doll. For this reason, Pollitt argued that all American women, including the feminists, find themselves giving their young girls Barbie dolls, the women are culturally and environmentally conditioned to view Barbie dolls as a feminine thing that should be given only to the girls. Pollitt also gave another example of boys and sports. In this example, Pollitt argues that, although, some women don’t like seeing their sons spending their free times watching sports, the women, however, do not stop their children from watching sports because they are culturally conditioned to see sports as a manly thing. Pollitt goes on to argue that, it is not the children who freely chooses their playing tools, but that it is their mothers who chooses the playing tools for them. The parents therefore, with all their sex-based cultural steriotypes, show their children what they are supposed to do. The children then live up to these expectations. Pollitt therefore argued that the parents make the differences between girls and boys in their own culturally conditioned activities. For instance, while growing up, a boy child is given a truck toy, while a girl child is given a doll toy. This in turn conditions boys to develop the attitude that trucks are suited for them, while the girls develop the attitude that dolls are suited to them. Pollitt therefore argues that, contrary to what we have believed all along, it is not the gender differences that determine our behaviour in life, but how we have been nurtured or taught. Pollitt also argues that it is the biological differences that have made the society to regard some activities as being girly, and others as being manly. As children, the society gives the young girls what it deems girly, and the boys are given what the society considers manly. Pollitt goes on to argue that what the children are given at tender age affect their thoughts and feelings as they grow up, thus conditioning them to have a gender- based view in life. Pollitt therefore concluded that there is need of children, both girls and boys to mix playing tools so as to have a holistic view of life, and not a stereotyped gender-based view of life. Having analyzed Katha Pollitt’s arguments in support of his view that it is the society and the environment that determines our behaviour, let us now critically look at the Pollit’s view vis-a-vis the views of other scholars on the determinant of human behaviour. Is human behaviour really determined by nature or nature? On Psychological perspective, both nature and nurture determines human behaviour (Ridley, 2003). In Psychology, nature is conceived as the genetic blueprint that one possesses since the day they were born. The social sciences therefore understand nature as the influence that one’s innate attributes have on one’s behaviour. Nurture on the other hand refers to the influence that personal experiences has on the development of one’s behaviour. The Psychologists, however, are not agreed on which of the two, nurture and nature, influences one’s behaviour more (Ridley, 2003). Many Psychologists in the modern world, however, are agreed that both nature and nurture influences the development of our behaviour, this view is known as interactionism. According to the interactionism theory of the origin of human behaviour, human behaviour can be explained in terms of the individual unique genes composition, and the personal experiences that one has undergone in life (Ridley, 2003). According to this theory therefore, neither nature, nor nurture solely can account for the development of human behaviour. This theory goes on to explain the obvious differences in people’s behaviour. The differences in people’s behaviour are as the result of individual differences in innate attributes, genetic makeup, and the personal experiences that one has undergone in life. For instance, children who have grown up in the same environment, for example in the same family, can have different behaviour because of the differences in their innate attributes. Also, people with similar genetic innate attributes can have different behaviour as the result of differences in their nurture. For example, a child that grows up in family where there is domestic violence is likely to become violent in life, while a child who has grown up in a peaceful family is not likely to be violent in life (Ridley, 2003). The interactionism theory of human behaviour therefore is able to account for the differences in human behaviour, unlike the nature or the nurture theories of human behaviour that are not able to explain the obvious differences in human behaviour, for example, the differences in behaviour of children in a family, who have undergone the same upringing. One of the modern Psychologists who has robustly defended the interactionism theory of human behaviour is Randy Cale. In his article, “Nurture Versus Nature: Does Your Parenting Really Make a Difference”, Cale claims that heredity counts for less than 50% of the Variability of children behaviour (Cale, n.d). Cale refers to a research conducted by the American Psychologists in February 2000 to support this view. This research showed that less than 50% of human behaviour is determined by the heredity factors, while parenting determines more than 50% of human behaviour. In this article, Cale goes on to argue that some styles of parenting activates some behaviour in children, for instance, being over-controlling to children can make children to be shy and to have low self-esteem when they grow up. Cale goes on to argue that children have different temperaments, from the early stages of infancy. For instance, some children are very calm, while others are quite vibrant and active. Cale therefore argues that this fact is a proof that people are born with innate attributes, our genetic compositions influences our behaviour. Cale advices that parents should understand the innate attributes of their children well, and apply the best parenting method suited for the particular child’s natural attributes, so as to fashion the behaviour of the child in the best way possible. In this article, Cale also contends that peer group also has influence on the development of one’s behaviour. This fact shows that the environment where one grows has influence on the development of one’s character. A critical look at the interactionism theory of human behaviour also shows that the interactionism theory is not against the behavioural determinism. Human behavioural determinism is the theory that human behaviour is determined and that individuals should not be held accountable for their actions (Ridley, 2003). According to the determinism theory of human behaviour therefore, human beings are determined by environmental factors as well as their psychological makeup. For this reason, the determinism theory of human behaviour holds that human beings should not be punished for their actions because human actions are brought about by factors beyond their control. Although the interactionism theory of human behaviour does not say that human beings should not be punished for their actions, the interactionism theory of human behaviour, however, is in agreement with the determinism theory that human being’s behaviour is determined by the individual innate attributes and the environmental factors. A critical look at Pollitt’s argument on the development of children behaviour, in relation to the other psychological theories on the development of human behaviour that we have looked at shows that nurture is the main determinant of human behaviour. To begin with, Pollitt is right in her claim that the parents bring up their children according to how they have been socially conditioned. For instance, as Pollitt argues, people have been socially conditioned to believe that some types of toys fits girls better than boys, and some other types of toys fits boys more than girls. Clearly, this is a cultural stereotype that should be discarded. There is no scientific research that shows that young boys prefer truck toys, and that girls prefer doll toys. This fact therefore shows that we condition our children behaviour at very tender age by behaving in a manner that suggests to children that some forms of behaviour are fit for women and others fit for men. If nature were as significant determinant of human behaviour as many psychologists believe, then children behaviour should not be so easily determined by the toys that their parents give them. If people are born with innate attributes as the nature theory of human behaviour hold, then we would have some children naturally inclined to some forms of toys, for instance, we would have girls naturally inclined to dolls, while boys would be naturally inclined to truck toys. But this is not the case. As Pollitt argues, if parents give boy kids Barbie toys, the boy kids would play with the toys just as they would play with truck toys, also, if parents give girl kids truck toys, the girl kids would play with the truck toys just as they would with doll toys. This fact therefore shows that children behaviour is determined more by nurture than nature. Secondly, a critical look at the interactionism theory of human behaviour shows that this theory is flawed and does not give a correct account of the development of human behaviour. The flaw in the interationism theory of human behaviour is clearly brought out by the Cale’s account on the significance of parenting in human development. Cale claims that although people are born with innate attributes, parenting however shapes the behaviour of children. Cale therefore advices parents to understand the unique attributes of their children, and apply the appropriate parenting method depending on the unique temperaments of their children. A critical look at this view shows that, Cale actually agrees that parenting is more important in the development of one’s character than the natural temperaments that he claims people are born with. Cale’s claim shows that, ultimately, irrespective of one’s natural temperament, it is nurture, parenting, that determines the behaviour of a person. Thirdly, although the proponents of nature and the interactionism theory of the development of human behaviour hold that nature holds a significant role in the development of human behaviour, the proponents of these theories of human development, however, do not say that nature is more important in the development of human behaviour than nurture. The proponents of the nature and the interactionism theories of human behaviour do not say that one can develop behaviour without nature. This fact therefore shows that nurture is indeed more important in the development of human behaviour than nature. In conclusion, a critical look at the Pollitt’s view on the development of behaviour in children shows that nurture is critical in the development of children’s behaviour. The fact that parents can successfully impact the stereotyped, gender-based, views of life on their children shows that human behaviour can be explained solely in terms of nurture. Again, a critical look at the nature and the interactionism theories of human behaviour development shows that, without nurture, human beings cannot develop human behaviour. This fact therefore shows that nurture is more important in the development of behaviour in children than nature. Referencesj Cale. R.L. “Nature Versus Nurture: Does your Parenting really Matter”. Web. Retrieved on, 17/04/2014. From: http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt =A0LEV0MsgE9T9QgAAFxXNyo A;_ ylu=X3> Pollitt, K. (1995). “Hers; Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls”. The New York Times. October 8. Ridley, M. (2003). Nature versus Nurture: Genes, Experience, and what makes us Human. USA: Harper Collins. Print. Read More