Beyond Nature vs Nurture: The Evolution of Understanding Human Development

By Shaherzad Chawdree

Edited By Sanaa Imami

Nature vs Nurture? People’s opinions on the extent to which the environment or hereditary has influenced them has remained a topic of discussion in various fields. Are prodigies naturally gifted themselves, or is it because they were raised in an encouraging environment? Do serial killers naturally lack empathy, or were they neglected in their childhood? Some may even prescribe characteristic traits to certain races, claiming that others are more naturally gifted because of their race. As we know now, nature and nurture are not alternatives to each other. There is no strict binary which one must choose from—in fact, they are intertwined.

However, it took many years to settle on this position. Starting from the 19th century, scientists attempted to biologize human nature. Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, began the discussion of nature vs nurture, claiming that character traits were the result of hereditary factors. Building upon Darwinian theories of natural selection, Galton made bold claims that one could improve mankind by selectively breeding. His claims can be summed up in his unpublished book Kantsaywhere. The citizens of Kantsaywhere must take a genetic test that segregates them into different colonies depending on their genetic potential. If one is deemed to have inferior genetic material, they are forced into celibacy. Those who have superior genetic material are encouraged to intermarry. This theory of selective breeding would be named eugenics.

Galton’s theory was heavily rooted in class. Coming from a wealthy family, Galton failed to divorce the ideas between hereditary and the privilege that is inherited from family-lineage. He disregards the advantages of one’s social and economic standing, claiming that talent is genetically inherited. In his book, Hereditary Genius, he analyzes families with different professions, studying the likelihood that the successor/offspring would be successful in the same profession as their ancestors. From his findings, he concludes that “talent is transmitted by inheritance in a very remarkable degree…that whole families of persons of talent are more common than those in which one member only is possessed of it” (“Hereditary Talent” 157). Galton dismisses that the resources and connections that come with one’s family standing can be responsible for their success in a given field. The majority of Galton’s analysis lacked a biological understanding of inheritance and rather relied upon sociological studies that could easily be clouded by prejudice.

Eugenics would be later used to promote a racial hierarchy, which is of no surprise given Galton’s own stance on race. He repeatedly emphasized in his works that Europeans are mentally and morally superior to other “lower races”. His theory of eugenics would only be further abused in its attempt to attribute large groups of people with negative characteristics. This can most notably be seen in Nazi Germany with the forced sterilizations of hundreds.

Galton and his predecessors were firm in their stance that nature was mainly responsible for human development and personality traits. On the other extreme end, one can cite John Locke’s tabula rasa theory. He claims that our minds are blank slates with no innate knowledge from birth. One must gain all their knowledge through experience. He emphasizes this in“An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (1689), where he claims that the mind is “white paper, void of all characters,” with “all the materials of reason and knowledge”. This theory has taken an important role in the discussion of behavior and the acquisition of basic functions, such as language. Locke’s theory emphasizes the importance of the environment in which one is raised. Every facet of one’s behavior is learned—nothing is a result of heredity. Less extreme versions of this theory have gained more traction in the postmodernist era—many believing cts.

However, both theories of Galton and Locke have been refuted by contemporary scientists. Many refuse to take a stance on either nature or nurture dominating human development, believing that one’s character traits are a result of the interaction between their genes and the environment. One’s behavior cannot be purely dictated by their genetic makeup, just as their environment is not entirely responsible either.

In fact, modern science has made the difference between nature and nurture obsolete. In the era of postgenomics, it has been confirmed that the activation of one’s genes can be altered by their surroundings. Nature and Nurture are not mutually exclusive but influence each other. This phenomenon is known as epigenetics. The study of epigenetics took off in the 1990s with research being focused on DNA methylation, histone modification, and noncoding RNA action. Different environmental stressors can trigger these modifications leading to a different phenotype than the original inherited DNA sequence. Some of these epigenetic modifications can even be inherited by the next generation, showing the lasting effect Nurture can have.

The Nature vs. Nurture discussion has become outdated. Framing an issue in terms of this strict binary does not accomplish anything for they are both intertwined. With the advancement of epigenetics, it can be predicted that the fields of sociology and genetics will further intersect. Rather than exclusively looking through the lenses of Nature and Nurture, like Galton and Locke, both fields will be considered when discussing the behavior of individuals. Complex sociological issues, such as poverty, can be studied using a scientific lens, investigating the role of excess stress on one’s epigenome. One’s socio-economic status can affect complex mechanisms that take place in one’s body, even affecting further generations to come. Slowly, as more research is conducted, the debate of Nature vs. Nurture becomes further obsolete

References:

Galton, Francis, 1822-1911 , “Hereditary genius : an inquiry into its laws and consequences,” OnView, accessed November 28, 2023, https://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/items/show/6205.

JENSEN ARTHURR. GALTON’S LEGACY TO RESEARCH ON INTELLIGENCE. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2002;34(2):145-172. doi:10.1017/ S0021932002001451

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding .[Philadelphia, T.E.Zell 185-?, 1850] Pdf

Pinker, Steven. “Why Nature & Nurture Won’t Go Away.” Daedalus, vol. 133, no. 4, 2004, pp. 5–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027940. Accessed 13 Dec. 2023.

RENWICK, C. (2011). From political economy to sociology: Francis Galton and the social-scientific origins of eugenics. The British Journal for the History of Science, 44(3), 343-369. doi:10.1017/ S0007087410001524

Trerotola, Marco et al. “Epigenetic inheritance and the missing heritability.” Human genomics vol. 9,1 17. 28 Jul. 2015, doi:10.1186/ s40246-015-0041-3