This is another posting to the discussion board of my sociology class.
There is much diversity of opinion in the argument of nature vs. nurture. It was not until early in the last century that the argument that not all of our behaviours and/or traits are biologically derived. It was James Watson who came up with the theory of behaviourism, which its main tenet is that “behaviour is not instinctive, but learned”. It seems almost foreign to us in this modern era to hear that scientists used to hold that all of our behaviours could be attributed to biology.
There have been many instances of children in social isolation that had not developed to the extent that other children of their own age are. This is a profound argument for the nurture debate. Much of what makes a person who and what they are is how they interact with others. If one was to be removed from oppourtunities for interactions with others, they are generally left in a profound state of disadvantage. This is illustrated by the case of Genie, profiled on feralchildren.com that, when found in 1970 was in such an emaciated, mentally challenged state from being strapped to her potty chair during the day and locked in a small room at night. She had no oppourtunity for physical contact or any of the other nurturing acts that are necessary for normal development. Another case profiled was that of Isabelle who was in a similar state.
Margaret Harlow did research on Rhesus monkeys, which though they are a lower primate than humans, still are social animals. In her research she found that Rhesus monkeys who were isolated from their peers for less than three months could recover, but those who were isolated for longer than 6 months, had irretrievable damage done to them.
Freud intimated that biology did have a role to play in the development of one’s personality. He described the personality as a conflict between the Id, the biological drives of a person and the ego and superego, which represent items of the personality greater than the individual. Jean Piaget took the position that there are four stages of cognitive development, each one unique and not all necessary in every individual. Kohlberg’s theory was based on moral development, again broken into stages. George H. Mead made a significant contribution to the field in his idea that there are two parts to a person, their “I” and their “me”. The “I” is how one sees themselves, and the “me” is how one feels other sees them. The idea is that if one believes others see them in a certain way, then they may live up to or down to their perceived expectations.
Back to socialization, if one was to have their life progression interrupted at a particular stage, then they could be permanently hindered in their further development. Take for instance Freud’s theory; his theory can be interpreted to show that someone could be deficient in a certain aspect of their development. The text did not go into his stages of the lifespan, but they are useful never-the-less. If one was to experience trauma at a particular stage, say the anal stage (the stage where one learns to control their bodily functions) then that can have ramifications throughout their lives. If one was to experience trauma during the oral stage (when gratification is represented by eating, close nurturing, etc) then they can have deficiencies in their adult lives relating to other people. There are similarities in the other theories that a deficiency of some sort at a particular stage, could be overcome in some instances and in others, the individual will never progress, such as the instances of confined/isolated children. We know that infancy is when the individual’s brain is acquiring knowledge, building memories, thoughts, reactions to experiences and learning to relate with others. In extreme cases of isolation, when one is isolated at infancy and further, sometimes the damage in irreversible. There are cases where children are physically affected by the lack of parental nurturing; this is called failure to thrive. These children are usually extremely small, certainly developmentally disabled and sometimes this damage is irreversible.
Again back to socialization; there are certain circumstances where socialization does occur, but is lacking in diversity of experience or exposure. A good example of this is home schooled children. I know that this will offend some people, but I have first hand experience observing this. Many, not all, home schooled children are sorely lacking in socialization skills. They only know how to relate to individuals in their own family sphere or that of a very small community. Sometimes, teenagers will have no meaningful relations with others in their own age group so they may be socially disadvantaged, particularly later in life when an upbringing of exposures to diverse situations could have prepared them to relate to those different than they.
Another example is children who go to a school that may be made up largely of one racial group or social class. That was the argument behind bussing to integrate schools. Many times later in life these individuals are disadvantaged in that yet again they do not have the skills necessary to relate or even communicate with others of different backgrounds.
In the discussion of resocialization, the text failed to mention the usually forced altering of social reality experienced by those in the military. It is particularly evident when individuals go to boot camp. There they are demeaned, humiliated, and left without a personal identity in many cases. They are resocialized into accepting that they are part of a group and that obedience to the group or command structure is more important than their own goals or even well-being, sometimes to the point that performing torture on another person is acceptable to them.
In my own upbringing, I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an intact family of upper middle class means. I also was fortunate enough to go to public schools where there was a wide range of people; both African American and whites were just about equally represented and there also were people of varying economic backgrounds, from welfare children to children of fairly successful families. I was given the option of attending the catholic school in my community, but after my own research, I concluded that the education was actually better at the public school with more advanced placement courses as well as the benefit of a diverse student body. All of my experiences to this day make me the individual that I am.
There is much diversity of opinion in the argument of nature vs. nurture. It was not until early in the last century that the argument that not all of our behaviours and/or traits are biologically derived. It was James Watson who came up with the theory of behaviourism, which its main tenet is that “behaviour is not instinctive, but learned”. It seems almost foreign to us in this modern era to hear that scientists used to hold that all of our behaviours could be attributed to biology.
There have been many instances of children in social isolation that had not developed to the extent that other children of their own age are. This is a profound argument for the nurture debate. Much of what makes a person who and what they are is how they interact with others. If one was to be removed from oppourtunities for interactions with others, they are generally left in a profound state of disadvantage. This is illustrated by the case of Genie, profiled on feralchildren.com that, when found in 1970 was in such an emaciated, mentally challenged state from being strapped to her potty chair during the day and locked in a small room at night. She had no oppourtunity for physical contact or any of the other nurturing acts that are necessary for normal development. Another case profiled was that of Isabelle who was in a similar state.
Margaret Harlow did research on Rhesus monkeys, which though they are a lower primate than humans, still are social animals. In her research she found that Rhesus monkeys who were isolated from their peers for less than three months could recover, but those who were isolated for longer than 6 months, had irretrievable damage done to them.
Freud intimated that biology did have a role to play in the development of one’s personality. He described the personality as a conflict between the Id, the biological drives of a person and the ego and superego, which represent items of the personality greater than the individual. Jean Piaget took the position that there are four stages of cognitive development, each one unique and not all necessary in every individual. Kohlberg’s theory was based on moral development, again broken into stages. George H. Mead made a significant contribution to the field in his idea that there are two parts to a person, their “I” and their “me”. The “I” is how one sees themselves, and the “me” is how one feels other sees them. The idea is that if one believes others see them in a certain way, then they may live up to or down to their perceived expectations.
Back to socialization, if one was to have their life progression interrupted at a particular stage, then they could be permanently hindered in their further development. Take for instance Freud’s theory; his theory can be interpreted to show that someone could be deficient in a certain aspect of their development. The text did not go into his stages of the lifespan, but they are useful never-the-less. If one was to experience trauma at a particular stage, say the anal stage (the stage where one learns to control their bodily functions) then that can have ramifications throughout their lives. If one was to experience trauma during the oral stage (when gratification is represented by eating, close nurturing, etc) then they can have deficiencies in their adult lives relating to other people. There are similarities in the other theories that a deficiency of some sort at a particular stage, could be overcome in some instances and in others, the individual will never progress, such as the instances of confined/isolated children. We know that infancy is when the individual’s brain is acquiring knowledge, building memories, thoughts, reactions to experiences and learning to relate with others. In extreme cases of isolation, when one is isolated at infancy and further, sometimes the damage in irreversible. There are cases where children are physically affected by the lack of parental nurturing; this is called failure to thrive. These children are usually extremely small, certainly developmentally disabled and sometimes this damage is irreversible.
Again back to socialization; there are certain circumstances where socialization does occur, but is lacking in diversity of experience or exposure. A good example of this is home schooled children. I know that this will offend some people, but I have first hand experience observing this. Many, not all, home schooled children are sorely lacking in socialization skills. They only know how to relate to individuals in their own family sphere or that of a very small community. Sometimes, teenagers will have no meaningful relations with others in their own age group so they may be socially disadvantaged, particularly later in life when an upbringing of exposures to diverse situations could have prepared them to relate to those different than they.
Another example is children who go to a school that may be made up largely of one racial group or social class. That was the argument behind bussing to integrate schools. Many times later in life these individuals are disadvantaged in that yet again they do not have the skills necessary to relate or even communicate with others of different backgrounds.
In the discussion of resocialization, the text failed to mention the usually forced altering of social reality experienced by those in the military. It is particularly evident when individuals go to boot camp. There they are demeaned, humiliated, and left without a personal identity in many cases. They are resocialized into accepting that they are part of a group and that obedience to the group or command structure is more important than their own goals or even well-being, sometimes to the point that performing torture on another person is acceptable to them.
In my own upbringing, I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an intact family of upper middle class means. I also was fortunate enough to go to public schools where there was a wide range of people; both African American and whites were just about equally represented and there also were people of varying economic backgrounds, from welfare children to children of fairly successful families. I was given the option of attending the catholic school in my community, but after my own research, I concluded that the education was actually better at the public school with more advanced placement courses as well as the benefit of a diverse student body. All of my experiences to this day make me the individual that I am.
posted by Mark at 4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home