Nature or Nurture: Comparison of Chinese and American Culture - Essay Example

? Day Month Year Nature or Nurture: A Comparison of Chinese and American Culture Introduction A debate has raged for centuries, perhaps longer, about whether humans are a product of their own biology or they receive certain behavioral tendencies from their environment. This conversation has since been labeled nurture versus nature, but the basic premises of the argument remain. Basically, the argument revolves around whether genetic inheritance influencing human behavior, or if environmental factors play the predominate role. Some cultures strongly believe in one theory over the other, causing much contention in family and judicial matters as certain behaviors are explained. It is interesting to note that this discussion is recorded as taking place as long ago as during the days of Plato and Descartes. These two philosophers strongly held the belief that most human behavior was the product of our inner being and that the environmental has little influence over those behaviors. Other philosophers over the years, such as John Locke, took the opposite point of view. He wrote extensively about the notion that humans are a product of their collective experiences and that behavior is shaped by events that happen around us. As one can see, both sides are quite different in their approach and the debate rages on. Cultural differences in this area abound as well. Different philosophies pervade different ethnic groups and hold the basis for how individuals in a society are held responsible for their actions. This paper will examine the approaches to the nurture versus nature argument in China and America. Commonly Held Chinese Beliefs China is a culturally rich country with centuries of tradition behind it. These traditions have largely shaped society and, while urbanization has taken over in recent decades, the beliefs of old still permeate much of Chinese daily life. In a culture where family bonds are so strong, it is no wonder the Chinese society as a whole tends to follow the belief that nature determines behavior. This stems from the idea that individual members of society in Chinese society are led to perform certain tasks and functions within the community (Golley 118). While most theorists believe that the nature versus nurture argument cannot be won, thereby negating the debate altogether, we can see certain societal trends by culture. The Chinese people, for example, place a great deal of emphasis on the family and elders. Politicians are at the higher end of society, followed by different strands of professionals, down to the laborers or peasants. Traditionally, it has proven quite difficult to change one’s stature in society. You are born into it. As such, it would seem that the Chinese, as a people group, would advocate more of a nature perspective in explaining behavior (Qian 193). As a people, they may tend to act out of necessity, not out of a need to conform to the particular environment that they may find themselves in. The Chinese people would support the opinion that you are born into a particular stature in life. Parents often insist that their children follow a particular career path based upon family tradition. In essence, they are purporting the belief that individuals are genetically predispotioned towards a particular lot, or stature, in life. To go against the wishes or desires of the family is historically almost unheard of in China. This may gradually be changing with the advent of the technological revolution and increasing globalization, but by and large the Chinese people follow a certain path throughout their life. Behavior can also be explained as such. China has the typical problems that plague the rest of the world. They have crime, poverty, and corruption. Those individuals who succumb to these activities, or are forced into a lifestyle of poverty, likely arrive there because of nature. It is the adages that if a father is a criminal, so will the son be. While many cultures around the world would tend to agree with this argument, there are others who believe that people always have a choice to make. It is their environment, for example, that creates present circumstance. In Chinese culture, however, the opposite is true. Once a person is born into a particular station in life, nature takes over and there is little that can be done about it. It is interesting to note that modern day scholars, as opposed to ancient philosophers, believe that both nature and nurture contribute to the behavior exhibited by an individual. In Asian culture, in particular China, this belief is not widely held. In a culture where saving face is as important to a families well being as their profession, it must be noted that environment is not discussed when explaining away behavior. If a person brings shame on a family or company, it is their nature that is to blame, not the environment. The Chinese would see blaming someone else, or circumstances, for poor decision-making or behavior to be poor form. Instead, it is important to consider family background and stature, which one does not have any control over. In summary, one cannot say definitively whether the Chinese advocate nature over nurture, but their traditions, beliefs, and actions certainly seem to indicate that this is the case. Behavior in China is often attributed to factors that are outside the purview, or control, of the individual. Understand this helps people to better realize and embrace the Chinese culture. Even Westerner living in China are expected to not blame their environment for decisions that are made. Instead, they are encouraged to look at their family history and ancestry to determine what makes them the way they are. Commonly Held American Beliefs In contrast to China, America is a relatively young country. Many would argue that their culture is still being developed and written. Tradition is not as rich and societal bonds not as strongly formed as their Chinese counterparts. As such, family bonds are not nearly as tight as they are in other places in the world. While the family is certainly an important part of American ideals and values, there are numerous other influencing factors contributing to the psychological development of the individual. Whereas it would not be uncommon for generations of Chinese family members to either live together or in near proximity to one another, this is not necessarily the norm in America. Americans tend to value the input of friends and other members of society just a highly, perhaps even more so, than that of their family members. This includes parents. Children are not nearly as likely to follow in the footsteps of their parents, often choosing a drastically different career path or lifestyle than that exhibited by their family. Tradition does not dictate what children do or are expected to become, so nurture has a great role to play in their behavior. The nurture argument carries the belief that the way we are raised, and the environment that we are placed in, dictates our behavior. This takes precedence over any notion of genetic predisposition that determines what will do or become in life. While heredity can certainly play an important role in one’s behavior, American culture is largely segmented into various subgroups. Individuals can find themselves in different situations and behave differently in each. Depending on the circumstance, they can change their behavior quickly and seemingly become a different person. They are not as strongly tied to the families, do not have a strong devotion to the government, and are not afraid to go against the norm if their feelings and mindset lead them that way. Americans would tend to agree that most of who we are and what we know is largely determined that the experiences that we encounter on a daily basis. In essence, we are creatures of a series of interconnected events that occur throughout our lifetime. This argument has even entered into the judicial system. Many criminals have taken the nurture debate into their own defense. Yes, they committed a crime, but the were truly victims of their environment. In other words, their childhood development was adversely affected in some way by the experiences that they were forced to endure. This is not nature that made them the way they are, but rather nurture. In the Chinese system, this argument would never take place, as each individual is largely responsible for his or her own experiences, regardless of any unforeseen environmental influences. Whereas in China son and daughters largely follow the educational path of their parents, Americans tend to chart their own course. Many adults in America still do not have a college education, for example. Children are likely, however, to attend college today, regardless of genetic makeup or family background. They largely follow the path set out by their teachers and other friends, with input from their family. In this way, their nurturing largely dictates what they will study and the career path the will pursue later in life. The two cultures are simply different. Conclusion The debate surrounding nature and nurture has certainly come full circle since its inception centuries ago. Today, most would contend that we are truly products of both nurture and nature. Some even go so far as to say that the debate is over because there can be no definitive link, or proof, supporting one belief over the other. That, of course, discounts years of debates, with valid arguments made on both sides. Perhaps there will never be a definite answer, or perhaps it truly depends on the culture in which one lives. To advocate the position that it depends on culture, however, would lend credence to the nature argument. We do not choose our family background, or the culture in which we live. Whereas the Chinese culture is extremely focused on tradition and family, American culture is still writing its own tradition and promotes a sense of individualism over family obligation. The nature argument focuses more on a biological approach. It tends to place a great emphasis on genetic makeup when explaining human behavior. On the other end of the spectrum is the nurture argument. This revolves around the idea that all human behavior is the result of experiences had in life, and that our environment conditions us to behave in a certain way (Bandura 1971). Both of the psychological arguments are on opposite extremes of a pendulum. Over the years, however, the field of psychology has proposed alternative theories to explain away human behavior. Psychoanalysis was perhaps the earliest attempt at bridging the gap between nature and nurture. This is the belief that sexual and aggressive behaviors can only be explained by nature. Subsequently, certain other social behaviors are likely caused by environmental conditions, or nurture. So, this is the belief that some behaviors cannot be helped, while others most certainly can. This seems like a plausible and workable theory. Cognitive psychologists take this a step further by explaining that our genetic (nature) behavior is constantly being challenged by our experiences in society, or nurture (Bandura & Ross 1961). Occasionally, the argument goes, the nurture side of our upbringing supersedes that nature side, thereby altering our behavior. Finally, move more fully to the nature argument, Maslow proposed the Hierarchy of Needs. In essence, he proposed the idea that society itself fulfills the needs of the individual. Each person has certain physical needs that cannot necessarily be met by nature alone. Our environment plays a large role in conditioning us to act in a certain way depending on how we discover best to meet our needs in this life. Whatever a person believes, nature or nurture, the debate will rage on. Some would question why it is even important, but the reality is that we are constantly curious about why we act in certain ways. Why, for example, does one twin act a certain way, and the other become totally different? Surely if nature dictated human behavior, their respective behaviors would be the same. Perhaps this is one of those mysteries of life that we will never truly be able to solve and we will continue to debate for centuries to come. Works Cited Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of Aggression Through the Imitation of Aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63.1, 1961: 575-582. Golley, Jane. China’s Western Development Strategy and Nature versus Nurture. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies. 5.2 (2007): 115-129. Qian, Ge. Psychological Perspectives on Social Behaviors of Chinese. Digital Technologies for Education. 6249.1 (2010): 192-202. Read More