Nature Versus Nurture Debate

Nature refers to genetic and biological influences. Nurture refers to upbringing, interaction with other people and the wider environment. These are different explanations, but they do not have to be mutually exclusive: inherited capacities can develop differently under different social conditions.

The argument for nature

Supporters of nature argue that inherited characteristics help explain similarities between people. Just as genes influence physical features such as eye colour, they argue that inheritance also influences characteristics such as intelligence and temperament.

Identical twins provide one kind of evidence. They share the same genetic makeup, and similarities in characteristics such as IQ or temperament can remain even when they are brought up apart. Supporters interpret this as evidence that upbringing cannot explain every similarity.

However, similarity does not establish that genes determine a person's whole identity. Twins raised apart may still experience similar cultural surroundings. Biological influences also cannot, by themselves, explain the particular norms and values people learn. A capacity to learn language is different from learning the language spoken around you.

The argument for nurture

Supporters of nurture emphasise socialisation: learning the norms, values and behaviour of a society or group. Through interaction, children learn what others expect and begin to understand themselves in relation to other people. Family, school, peers and media all contribute to this process.

For example, similarities between parents and children need not be entirely genetic. Parents who encourage reading and provide a stimulating home also create opportunities for learning. A child's development therefore reflects experiences as well as inherited characteristics.

Sociologists generally give particular weight to nurture because they study how social relationships and cultural expectations shape identity. Two important forms of evidence are cultural diversity and children who have experienced extreme social isolation.

Cultural diversity challenges fixed explanations

Cultures differ in their norms, values and expectations. If behaviour were entirely fixed by biology, it would be difficult to explain why expectations vary between societies and change over time.

Gender roles illustrate this argument. In Britain, women have equal legal rights to men in education and employment. In some predominantly Muslim societies, cultural traditions place particular emphasis on women wearing modest clothing, such as a headscarf or veil, in public. These are examples of different social expectations, not evidence that all women within either setting behave alike. British women may also choose to wear headscarves, and legal equality does not mean everyone's experiences are identical.

A more specific example is Egalia preschool in Sweden, which seeks to avoid reinforcing conventional gender expectations. Children are addressed using neutral terms such as “friend”, and toys and play areas are arranged to avoid encouraging gender stereotypes. Its approach shows how adults can deliberately change the social messages children receive. The school's aims alone, however, do not prove that it has removed every gender difference.

Cultural diversity therefore challenges the claim that roles and identities are inevitable biological outcomes. It supports the importance of social learning without ruling out every biological influence.

What feral-child cases show

The term feral child includes children who have experienced extreme isolation from ordinary human interaction; it does not necessarily mean a child was raised by animals. Such cases help us consider what happens when opportunities for socialisation are severely restricted.

Genie, a girl in the United States, experienced severe childhood isolation and abuse. When she began receiving care, she had very limited spoken language. With interaction and teaching, her vocabulary grew, she read simple words and communicated about past experiences. However, she continued to have difficulty forming grammatical sentences.

Victor, a boy studied in France by Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard, also had major difficulties with language following isolation. Teaching helped him recognise simple written words and respond to instructions, but he never developed ordinary spoken language.

Both cases support nurture: language and social skills do not simply appear without human interaction, and some learning became possible when interaction increased. They also suggest that later teaching may not fully overcome early deprivation.

These cases have important limitations. Genie experienced abuse as well as isolation, and researchers disagreed about whether she had developmental difficulties from birth. It is therefore difficult to separate the effects of missing socialisation from other influences. A small number of unusual cases cannot establish what happens to every child. Researchers must also protect vulnerable children rather than prioritise testing over their welfare.

Reaching a balanced conclusion

Nature helps explain inherited capacities and some individual differences. Nurture helps explain how people acquire particular languages, values, roles and identities, and why these vary across cultures.

The strongest conclusion is that the two interact. A child may inherit a capacity for learning, but education, encouragement and opportunities influence how that capacity develops. Cultural diversity and feral-child cases give strong reasons to emphasise nurture in identity formation, while their limitations prevent us from concluding that biology is irrelevant.