Nature Vs. Nurture....

Nature vs. Nurture is a broad debate that stems from different theories for explaining human behavior. Some people believe that a person's genetics and primitive instincts shape the behaviors, preferences, illnesses, etc. of modern man. Others believe that human interaction is learned from early socialization and upbringing by certain types of people or cultures.

My view? I agree with some key points from both of these groups. Depending on the behavior in question, the dominating factor could be either/or. For example: the podcast, and our reading, referenced gender roles of human beings. This is a broad topic, however I believe that nature AND nurture both weigh a hefty influence on gender roles. Much of the segregation between gender roles IS based on biological factors, e.g. men generally are more physically powerful than women; however an equal amount of this segregation is created by society and upbringing. A great example is the experiment performed by June Statham on page 95 of our text book. She attempted to research whether it was possible to raise children with no sexist views on gender roles in society. The researcher as well as many of the parents involved found this difficult, as there is so much gender-biased pressure in the world that it was difficult to combat (such as toy stores full of "boy" war/fighting toys and "girl" domestic playthings). I feel that much of our gender defining behavior is learned. There is no where in our genetic code that programs women to be better at cooking and cleaning than men, or that men should be able to do complex math problems and perform manual labor.

Another example concerning Nature vs. Nurture debate involves anti-social behavior, such as crime. This is another topic where I feel both theories come into play. Some of the problems these people face may involve mental illness, chemical imbalance, etc.. However, some of it may also have to do with values and morals instilled upon them during early socialization of childhood. Similar to our class's "Sociological Imagination Forum" topic of School Performance, what exactly determines the poor grades of certain children from certain backgrounds? Certainly genetics lay the path for achievable intelligence, but the parenting and upbringing that these children experience determines what these children will value as important when they are adults.

Depending on the topic in question, there could be determining factors from both Nature and Nurture. I think it would be incorrect to say that any given topic of human behavior can be explained entirely by one influence alone. To sum up my thoughts, I quote from our textbook: "....because human beings can make conscious choices, neither biology nor culture wholly determines human behavior." (Giddens et al. 59)

Works Cited

Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.

"Unsocialized" Children

After reading chapter 4 in the textbook, I could not stop thinking about Genie, the girl who had been kept in isolation in her own home from age 18 months until about13 years of age. Probably because I am a parent myself, I can not fathom how someone could be so cruel to a child, especially such a young one who is so innocent to the world and will know nothing else except for the horrific abuse enacted against her. This poor girl, who spent her days and nights completely alone, except for when a family member would throw some food in to her room or "bark" at her for making noise, lived an existence of fear, silence, loneliness. Its hard to say if she felt any despair, however, because she never knew life could be anything other than entrapment within four walls with nothing to occupy her mind.

How simply inhuman and unthinkable her situation was. I decided to look up more information; I found some info on wikipedia.com and also on this site http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie which also has other examples of socially deprived and isolated children. I just thought I would share my thoughts on the subject, as it is still disturbing to me.

How Our Culture Looks to Outsiders

We've all heard that other countries view America in a somewhat different light than we view ourselves. Under the Bush Administration, countries made fun of our president and burned pictures in effigy. Other countries, such France, view Americans as "culturally imperialistic" and go to great lengths to avoid our ways of life. (Giddens et al. 53)

It is funny to me, however, to see how the British view our culture. The sketch where Hugh Laurie sings "America" to his British audience captures their ideas of our culture and portrays them in a humorous way.

First of all, the shear appearance of Laurie in his character is a stereotypical "redneck" presentation. He has a greasy haircut, flannel shirt, and skinny hair bandanna. The backdrop of the stage is an American city skyline. The song is a drawn out ballad, much like an old Billy Joel song, with poor lyrics, specifically "America" and "the States" repeated over and over. The lyrics themselves signify that according to the Britons, America's songwriters only sing about our great country and although poorly, will gain recognition and fame in the United States. Then for the finale of the sketch, another British actor comes and punches Laurie off his piano bench, knocking him to the floor and the entire audience cheers and applauds. The audience's reaction is enough to prove that they symbolically (or even literally) feel they've been finally put "out of their misery" from enduring yet another horrible piece of American music.

Now from my standpoint, I don't find this sketch particularly offensive; due to the fact that it is generally light-hearted, harmless comedy poking simple fun at American music. However, from any standpoint, it is sort of difficult to be the brunt of any joke, especially one where the joker obviously feels they are superior to the subject. I do not feel this is an accurate representation of American music culture at all.

But could it be, perhaps, that the old saying "You can't see the forest through the trees" applies here? Maybe in many ways, Americans DO come off as ridiculous as other countries seem to think we do, but because of our pride in "the States", are we just blinded to this?


Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Ethical?

Before this assignment, I was unfamiliar with the Stanford Prison experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in the 1970's. He selected a group of college student volunteers to participate for monetary compensation, who were assigned to either "guard" or "prisoner" roles to play, with the intent of the experiment to last two weeks.

Now, based on the "definition" of ethics (which I quote loosely because "ethics" is a difficult term to define), I feel that no, this experiment was not ethical. Firstly, the divide between guards and prisoners was not just one of title, but even for a role-playing type of experiment, the guards were able to distance themselves from the experiment daily. They were only "scheduled" eight-hour shifts per day, and were able to resume normal routines after the shift was over, resuming college classes, home life, jobs, etc.. Contrastingly, the prisoners were kept in confinement, much like an actual prison, 24-hours a day. They were treated like real prisoners, given identification numbers, rigorous schedules for food and activity, and so on. They had no outside contact and most admittedly lost touch with "reality" and were completely engulfed in the experiment. Granted, those variables were necessary to accurately recreate the prison environment. But is it not true that being incarcerated in the real world is a traumatizing experience? The make-believe guards, consciously or not, assumed their role as authoritative figures and liberally brandished forms of torment and humiliation upon the prisoners. The results of the experiment, which was cut short due to the ethical concerns, were conclusive that the "behavior in prisons is more influenced by the nature of the prison situation than by the individual characteristics of those involved." (Giddens et al. 40) Even though the experiment was a "success", it is difficult to say the real psychological trauma that many of the participants experienced was justified for the good of the experiment.

Be that as it may, I cannot think of any other way that this experiment could have been conducted that would have yielded the same conclusion. Perhaps following random newly-convicted criminals from sentencing to incarceration, and conducting fore-interviews to determine personality type, societal roles, etc, and then following them throughout their sentence to observe for change in behavior? Or similarly, investigating new-hires in prison guard positions for changes in authoritative behavior?

I found the interview with Zimbardo related to the situations at Abu Ghraib very enlightening, however. Until researching Abu Ghraib for this assignment, I had only a vague understanding of what kind of abuse took place at that prison. I found it very interesting that his experimental prison guards fundamentally mimicked the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib, even in very primitive ways, that prove a causal relationship between authority figures "boredom" and increasing levels of abuse in such institutions. "Creative evil" results from this. Although I do NOT condone such behavior, it almost seems like such an obvious, logical answer to why those guards acted the way they did.

Source cited

Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.