Union
of nature and nurture
Barlas F. Esin
- Unsystematic Ideas
Having
taken a number of philosophy courses, I
was interested in - and troubled by - the
argument over nature and nurture. The theories
of knowledge have generated, after all,
different scenarios concerning this dichotomy.
Then, last month I read a mind-opening book
- upon good review - by Steven Pinker, titled
“The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human
Nature.” This book exposed my perspective
to an uncommon possibility, which is genuinely
innovative - and makes sense.
John Locke was the first philosopher to
systematically bring forth the theory of
nurture, which argues that our mind begins
as a blank slate and it’s only through experience
that our character is formed. The nature
camp, supported by figures such as Rene
Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, opposed Locke
in arguing that personalities are not made,
but born, that our character is mostly determined
by the time we come out of the womb.
Since science was still relatively unsophisticated
several centuries ago, the nature camp didn’t
have any knowledge of human genetics. Therefore,
they argued for nature through the mysterious
innate ideas theory: Humans somehow possess
knowledge within themselves, but they need
to become conscious of it through reason,
and to a lesser extent, experience. Because
this theory seemed farfetched for the common
sense, the mass consensus accepted the blank
slate theory instead.
Another aspect that made the nurture camp
so appealing has been concerned with ethics.
Locke’s views, for example, encouraged human
rights and democracy as a “self-evident”
truth. After all, if humans are born with
minds like blank slates, there can be no
inherited hierarchy among individuals -
regardless of gender, race, religion and
culture. Locke’s notions were the essence
of what the founding fathers intended to
accomplish in America with democracy centuries
earlier. Motivated by such moral issues,
some still support the nurture-only view
in claiming that it’s more than a theory,
that it’s a necessary fact.
However, genetics has now confirmed what
Locke’s opposing contemporary, Gottfried
Leibniz, asserted: Human minds are inherently
hardwired long before they’re born, and
- unlike in the blank slate model - some
minds have capabilities others don’t. Genes,
after all, do not invest in ethical principles
and universal human rights. As Pinker puts
it, genes are selfish and only care for
their own survival.
Researchers Richard Herrnstein and E.O.
Wilson further showed that nature plays
a significant role in shaping human intelligence
and character traits via genetics. Nurture
then takes these raw materials and molds
them as we experience life through learning
and growing up. Even modern-day science,
in support of such a unified view, focuses
its attention on asking how much of human
character is shaped by genes and how much,
in contrast, by environment - rather than
concentrating on one side.
In answering these questions, we can comfortably
affirm that nature and nurture are interrelated
and dependent on each other.
But, what does this union really mean? Well,
it means that regardless of how much - and
how hard - I practice, I could not play
basketball as good as Michael Jordan. Nor
sing as beautifully as Frank Sinatra. Nor
write as gracefully as Edgar Allen Poe.
Then again, I myself have an innate talent
reminiscent of my genetic make-up that many
others don’t.
Even so, a crucial ethical question still
needs to be addressed: If the theory of
the blank slate is not plausible any longer,
should democratic principles fall down with
it? Many intellectuals assert that once
we uphold the theory of hardwired minds
- prior to conception - the idea of hierarchy
among genders, races, religions and cultures
will seem logical. They believe this radical
change will lead to the resurrection of
such tyrannical ideologies as fascism, racism,
religious fundamentalism, male dominance
and so on.
However, as Pinker asserts - and I strongly
agree - there is no logical connection between
what nature decides and what moral doctrines
we choose to nurture on it. The nature may
surely enforce genetic differences among
us, but we can unify those differences through
our native emotions of compassion, altruism
and love.
Genes, after all, only determine what kinds
of minds we have. How we use our minds ultimately
depends on our will power - to learn, adapt
and progress. We don’t need to demand of
ourselves and others what is beyond human
capacity to achieve. Therefore, only the
values we attribute to life and to each
other - not our genetic dispositions - should
engender essential meanings and ethical
principles.
Barlas F. Esin is a journalism major and
philosophy minor at Cal State Long Beach.
He can be contacted at besin@csulb.edu.
|
