Nature vs. Nurture Debate - Editorial Paper

Nature vs. Nurture

It may be argued that one’s culture is indicative of the way in which they behave. Is this an accurate assumption? Tess calls attention to the difficulties we face in ascertaining whether nature or nurture poses a greater influence to human behaviour, and I am inclined to agree with her assumption that the two are interdependent. Our behaviour is deeply rooted in the functioning of the society in which we live, something which indicates the interference of evolution in teaching us the valuable role of society in relation to our ultimate survival. For it is the ability to adapt to the cultural norms surrounding us via what Hogan refers to as “archaic, powerful and compulsive tendencies,” [Hogan, 1985] that contributes to the overall success of human social life. This is exemplified through the examination of ancient human society. DeWaal points out the ever-present “strife and competition which… pose the strongest threat to [human] existence” [DeWaal, 1996], and Pinker refers to the idea of reciprocity as being “ubiquitous in foraging societies” [Pinker, 1997]. These two facets of social existence may in fact be linked in that they work to counter one another. Rather than constantly competing in the interests of the self, early human beings came to realise the benefits of co-existing with one another. We are all subject to this same evolutionary history which tells us that social harmony is key in our ultimate survival, and this requires adherence to our common culture. In other words, we are nurtured with reference to the teachings of our nature, therefore in this case the two cannot be separated as they are reliant on one another.

However, many still question whether the influences of nature and nurture respectively could overrule one another in any circumstances. 17th century philosopher John Locke theorised that human nature is a blank state, ready to be influenced by a given environment. If Locke’s assumption holds true, this would mean that evolution is irrelevant in determining our behaviour. I am disinclined to agree entirely with this notion, although a reasonable suggestion would be that our environment maintains the power to arouse certain innate tendencies in the human psyche. This is upheld through Tess’s mention of Stanford biologists Paul R. Ehrlich and Marcus W. Feldman, who allude to certain human traits beginning as natural responses to stimuli in the environment. This hypothesis has been explored extensively through literary history, such as in Charles Dickens’ Hard Times.
While expressing the overwhelming contribution that society makes to human behaviour however, Dickens likewise conveys the notion that human nature is fundamentally selfless and compassionate, and is unable to be suppressed by society. There is definitely some substance to Dickens’ assumption of an innate human nature, as deWaal suggests that the origins of human morality may be traced back to the conditions of social life in the Pleistocene age [DeWaal, 1996]. This is based on the idea that selflessness and compassion was and is a key factor in the success of group life and in effect, human survival. These are believed to be some of the most basic human tendencies, and are therefore deeply rooted in our collective awareness. Selfish and unsympathetic actions carried out by humans today could be explained by a lack of environmental stimuli for these tendencies, a theory that indicates the co-dependant forces of nature and nurture on human behaviour.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that nature and nurture are in a sense the same force. Any attempt to separate them from one another ultimately fails, as it is impossible to define the causes and effects of one without referring in some way to the other. Our nature is a part of the way in which we are nurtured just as the way we are nurtured works towards characterizing our nature.