Nature Vs Nurture Debate and Why Sociologists Have an

Advantage: Critical Essay

Nurture is the behaviour which is learnt through environment and socialisation, whereas nature refers
to the idea that behaviour is biological or innate. Psychologists believe that our behaviour is due to
nature, whereas sociologists believe that it is down to nurture.

One reason nurture is more significant than nature is primary socialisation. Primary socialisation
occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to the members of a
particular culture. When we are born we don’t know the norms and values, we are taught them by our
primary caregiver, which is usually our mum, or in case one does not have a mum, one of their family
members. For example, from the ages of two to three, we learn to walk and talk, which many people
would think is a given, but if we didn’t have people to teach us these things, then we’d be mute and
wouldn't be able to walk. A great example of this would be feral children, they haven’t been socialised.
Take, for instance, Horst. Horst was a three-year-old boy from Germany whose parents left him home
alone for many years to go out drinking and to the disco. Horst was left with his dog Asta, and Asta
mothered the child like her own puppy, and after a long period of time Horst was acting like a dog:
walking on all fours, growling, peeing with his leg up, eating raw food, and sleeping in the position of a
dog. Feral children are perfect examples of socialization, and that behaviour is learnt from a primary
caregiver rather than born. Also, another thing that one is taught at a young age is to eat, and we are
taught the norms of eating with knives and forks. From a young age, we start to imitate our
surroundings and the people around us.

Further support for nurture, is the influence of peers, or acquaintances, or even strangers. If we take
homosexuality for an example, many people would say it's a choice, however many sociologists
believe that homosexuality is a result of something bad happening and leaving a negative effect, such
as sexual assault from a person they loved or a stranger, causing the individual to become
homosexual. This is a result of nurture because it’s not biological, and it’s something that has been
grown upon. Some negative factors of this could be really hurtful and hard for the individual
themselves, one may experience extreme homophobia and disapproval from loved ones, which could
lead to major issues such as depression, anxiety, mental and physical health disorders, and even
suicide. However it still has a lot of positive consequences, it can gain confidence, it could make you
more social, and it can make you a lot happier. It has mixed consequences, both negative and
positive. This is a great example of nurture but in more of a different concept.

More support to suggest nurture has a more significant impact on someone’s identity is their
intelligence. For example, when someone achieves tremendous academic success, did they do so
because they are genetically predisposed to be successful or is it a result of an enriched environment?
It has been proven that a child who grows up in a wealthier and more educated household grows up to
be smarter than those brought up in poorer homes, and scientists made this conclusion by studying
biological brothers who grew up in different families and have different IQs. This here demonstrates
the idea that intelligence is down to nurture. There is strong evidence that educated parents do
something with their kids that makes them smarter, and this is not a result of nature. Previous studies
have found that educated parents are more likely to talk at the dinner table, take their children to
museums and read stories to them at night, which are activities said to boost a child’s intelligence,
again this is an example that intelligence is down to nurture rather than nature. Those who would
argue that a child’s intelligence was affected by nurture would look at the child’s educational
background, as well as his or her’s parents have raised them. These individuals would state the
intelligence level which permitted the child to be successful is largely the result of a child’s upbringing
and the school system. This example proves that intelligence is down to nurture, which also supports
the idea of identity is down to nurture.

However, take mental health for example, nature has been proven to be an important factor in the
development of mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar and major depression.
Bipolar, for example, is four to six times more likely to develop when there is a family history of the
condition. If we look deeper into the idea that schizophrenia is to do with nurture, we have many ideas
to suggest this. Each person has 46 chromosomes, and each of their genes is located on 23
chromosomes. Each person inherits two copies of each gene from each parent. Several genes could
be associated with a risk of schizophrenia depending on whether each parent has a relative who has
schizophrenia. Genetic contributions could include having first- or second-degree relatives, which
could increase one’s risk of developing schizophrenia. It has been debated that the cause of
schizophrenia comes from genetic factors, which are passed from relatives or direct families, but in
some cases, this disorder does not necessarily trigger unless a person is in a certain environment.
Genetics does play a role in a person’s risk of developing schizophrenia, however, it has been proven
that 60% of schizophrenics have no family members with this disorder. People who have first-degree
relatives with schizophrenia only have a 10% risk of developing it. Each person has 46 chromosomes
and 23 of these chromosomes are inherited from each parent. It could be possible that a mother who
is a carrier for schizophrenia and a father who has schizophrenia passed on a gene to one of their
children leading them to have this disorder. However, this is not necessarily true. Schizophrenia is
influenced by genetics but is not determined by it. But most importantly, schizophrenia affects
someone’s identity massively and how they do ordinary day-to-day things. Many individuals with
schizophrenia have occasional difficulty defining themselves and others who they truly are. Perhaps
for this reason, they make attempts to change core aspects of themselves. These attempts may be
delusional but are too often unjustly dismissed as delusional before the potential value of the change
is considered. Instead of facilitation, obstacles are placed in the way of hoped-for body modifications
or changes of name or religious faith. It is generally acknowledged that facial features (eyes, nose,
lips, ears, skin, hair) are fundamental indices of identity, and human beings throughout history have
attempted to enhance or camouflage these features by cosmetics, depilation, piercing, ornamentation,
wigs, head coverings, veils, tanning, bleaching, dreadlocks, crew cuts, and plastic surgery. The
treatment of schizophrenia can sometimes transform a person’s appearance, weight gain being a
prime example, and the illness itself can significantly change a person’s voice, accent, and language
use, markedly affecting the responses of others and, therefore, secondarily, influencing one’s self-
evaluation. So from this, we can see that schizophrenia changes pretty much every aspect of one's
identity, inside and out. So here we can see that nurture also plays a major role in someone's identity.
In summary, in the nature vs. nurture debate, sociologists have the upper hand, as it is clear that
nurture has a more significant impact on someone’s identity as it shapes most of one’s childhood and
the rest of their life.