Nature vs nurture
24 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment
An age-old question. A ponderance approached from many vantage points for many purposes over many years by many people (learned or otherwise). A dialogue with insights and conclusions holding universal import and a plethora of particular applications. A matter for theological scrutiny and also inevitably for philosophical abstraction. I chime in today on the issue in order to clarify one main important aspect. No serious thinker/scholar of any discipline can continue to hold to an either-or position as the final umbrella answer, as if there were no such thing as a biological influence to our being, or as if our biology alone determined our lives. On a side note I find it quite peculiar (and dangerous) that we live in a society that errs in both ways together. On the one hand, the “nuts and bolts” approach to human existence supports a total and rampant hedonism. “You and me baby ain’t nothin but mammals” is an anthem of American society. And with the next breath we excuse any and every fault (if there even is such a thing as a “fault” anymore in public discourse) as simply the product of a bad society. Even the first couple on Earth engaged in such finger-pointing when put on the spot. This combination of saying we are all nature in make-up and all nurture in morality is a deadly foundation for a society, not to mention wrong. In addition to this, with the rise of research and general popularity of genetic science, there is a strong shot in the arm given to the notion that we are nothing but the fatalistic outcome of our DNA. Yet, with so much work poured into both the sociological argument (i.e. nurture) and the biological one (i.e. nature) simultaneously, it should be quite settled by now we are dealing with both at all times. One of my favorite lectures in Psychology was when I got to share with students the flow chart on nature vs nurture which showed clearly the complexity of the interplay from conception forward. Yet, I am dismayed at how often one or the other extreme case is made as a philosophical basis for viewing or justifying various behaviors.
And this is where I want to “chime” the loudest. Certainly there are some aspects of human life that are far more heavily influenced by nature than nurture (ex. height) and others that are the reverse (ex. clothing preference). Just as certainly, there is much confusion about which issue falls where. And there is much more grievous deception and folly when it all boils down to the area of behavior. You see, the distinction must always be held between one’s general inclinations (which may themselves be influenced by any number of biological aspect, from chromosomes to hunger, with the latter type being surprisingly more difficult to resist at times and yet curiously given far less allowance in our society than the former) and one’s actions based on those preferences. Discussions about personality provide a great example of this. While there is good reason to believe that many of our deepest traits of how we tend to see, process, respond, and present ourselves to the world are grounded in strong biological dispositions, we cannot for one moment think that this could trump the demands of character development, which may end up changing us in these areas. And anyone, like myself, who has taken (and given) multiple personality assessments over time, realizes that at the very least some amount of genuine change in person is quite normal.
Another example of the matter comes from Gardner’s theory on intelligence. In my opinion, it is rooted in good science on brain function (though I fundamentally disagree with the way that the theory attempts to identify people as one type or another- a part of it that flatly contradicts the science of everyone having all to some extent). But, when it is applied to argue that we should simple cater to the strengths (as if they are unchangeable) rather than try to have everyone develop a certain level of proficiency in some basic areas regardless of the fact that some people are naturally stronger than others in that area when they come to us, it has lost its basis in science and been marshalled according to the false philosophy that our classroom behavior and learning abilities are all nature, abdicating the nurture element (and often, unfortunately, similar types of intellectual negligence are made in the process of assessing such abilities to begin with).
Both of these examples reveal ways in which many have subtly bowed down to the shrine of humanism, worshipping the almighty and immutable brain and staring mystified at the physical body which we are not sure how to either tame or claim. The remedy will ultimately come from looking beyond the question altogether up to the horizon of God’s dynamic call to a life of repentance and transformation (and the fact that the immaterial/spiritual component is quite ignored is a whole other problem to be corrected). This doesn’t mean we neglect the fullness of our created existence nor that we deny the powerful role it plays in our lives. Rather, our physical selves must be taken up as well and offered unto God for healing, blessing, and commission. After all, it is as physical beings that we were created and it will be as physical beings that we will be redeemed and live eternally. So there is no allowance made for a bare behaviorist approach to our existence (or our faith), nor for an abstract “mental” approach alone. We must take it all and give it all, opening ourselves to the transfiguration of it all in the kingdom.
