The old nature vs. nurture debate. What effect do parents really have on their children? This has to be one of the oldest debates that developmental psychologists have argued about, and it seems to be an ongoing one. Both sides present valid points, however since I will be debating for the nature side for the final developmental psychology class debate starting this Friday, I will attempt to make (part of) my case for the idea that parents (beyond genetics) are inconsequential in determining how youth develop. I will do this by introducing and expanding on some of Judith Harris' points from our reading "The Nurture Assumption".
Harris introduces the "group socialization theory" in that reading, and at least to me, it makes a whole lot of sense. This theory basically states that the group is and always has been the natural environment of the child. Children as early as pre-school (ages 3-5) have a desire to fit in and begin to identify and pick up behaviors of other children. An excellent quote from Harris in that reading is "children identify with a group of others like themselves and take on the norms of the group-they don't identify with their parents because parents are not people like themselves-parents are grown ups". That makes a lot of sense doesn't it-kids reach an age where pleasing your peers and fitting in with them is more important than pleasing your parents-because they (your parents) will love you unconditionally. So if kids identify with their peers more (people like themselves) and are more influenced by those peers-at a crucial point in their development-a time when they are beginning to think abstractly about the world and strive to create an "identity" for themselves, whom do you think has more of an impact on the type of adult that person will become? Now, this is to assume the parents are "good enough"; meaning not abusive or neglectful. This is also a somewhat perplexing conundrum: does the negative influence by neglectful and abusive parents have a stronger impact to the outcome of the child than the positive influence of the so called "super parents" has to the child. In short I'm asking what percent of abused and neglected kids will have difficulties in life (social, psychological, emotional etc.) compared to what percent of kids from "super parents" turn out to be "super adults" themselves? Is the difference between "bad" parents and "good" parents far greater than the difference between "good" parents and "super parents", in terms of the outcome of their children? Harris and others who place emphasis on the nature part of this debate would argue that it is.
The first major influence on the child is the parent, I think we can all agree on that. It is the parent who is responsible for nurturing and caring for the child until the child can begin to, albeit slowly, care for themselves. There comes a time, however, when the child discovers other little people like themselves and they become part of a social group. An identity is then created within the group and even as ideologies and groups or people in the groups may change; the one constant is that most children will desire social acceptance, and especially during adolescence more so than parental acceptance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let’s face it at one point or another, parents are scapegoats. Some parents seem to do everything right and their children may not turn out as well adjusted in society as the parents had hoped. Other parents can be very ordinary parents and their children manage to exceed their expectations. Every person has at one time or another blamed their parents for one thing or another. I’m thinking of my own experience when reflecting on some of the words my own child said to me, “Mom, it’s your fault that I don’t know how to play a musical instrument.” I quickly reminded her that I purchased a cello, piano, a guitar and trumpet just for her as she was growing up in an effort to assist her in pursuing those things that interested her. She said, “Yes you did those things, but you didn’t force me to stick with it.” I have a suspicion had I forced my frustrated child to play the cello as she came home and told me “I don’t want to play the cello anymore, all I do is pluck, pluck, pluck, pluck, pluck,” I would have later been accused of not allowing her the opportunity to play the piano, guitar and trumpet. You can’t win. So in closing it’s a relief to know that nature is much weightier than nurture, this parent feels as though it somehow gets her off the hook.
ReplyDelete