Is Behaviour a Function of Biological Processes (nature) or Is It Due To Interactions with Environment (Nurture) - Essay Example

Is behavior a function of biological processes (nature) or is it due to interactions with environment (nurture)? Introduction Man’s behavior I believed to be affected by many factors, but no one can really determine what specific factor that can be. This paper compares and analyzes the impact of biological process environmental factors related to human behavior, attitude and personality. It is hypothesized that the environment is more influential than the biological processes (which involve families and/or parents), particularly when a person’s behavior, attitude and the overall personality is concerned. It is further hypothesized that ordinary human being would normally think that the parents will always be there no matter what happens, hence if they would somehow deviate from what their parents had told or advised them to do, they will always understand. However, if they will deviate from what is the norm in the environment, they will be alienated and they fear that the most. Rearing a child presents a number of challenges to the parents. Aside from the tasks attached with nourishing the child with the basic needs such as food, shelter, education and clothing, the parents must also ensure that the child’s psychological, intellectual and sociological aspects are also well taken care of. It will be the parents’ task to make sure that the child grows and matures properly. It will be the parents’ responsibility that the behavior and attitude of the child is ‘according’ with the norms and traditions dictated by the society. Aside from the parents, there are other factors that can affect the person’s behavior, attitude and personality. As the child grows and matures, he/she then faces varied factors that may affect his/her overall well being. These factors may include the parents themselves, the peers and the environment. Sigmund Freud’s theories of personality are the best known of all psychological theories and the most controversial as well. It was Freud who asserted that “reason does not rule behavior”. It was his supposition that unconscious psychological forces were a strong force affecting individual thought and behavior. He stated that these forces originate in the emotions of childhood and continue to affect an individual throughout their lifetime. In his view, man was driven by primal instincts of the unconsciousness, and it was these instincts that lead to our greatest achievements, as well as to our worst side, like poverty, war, crime and mental illness. Freud postulated three levels of mind: the conscious mind, the preconscious mind, and the unconscious mind. He felt that our conscious mind only accounted for a small portion of the totality of the self, and the vast unconscious mind accounted for the rest. Although Freud’s psychoanalytical theory is by no means the only model of the personality, it is a model that is still use when considering the psyche. Through this model, people can understand the dynamics of man’s unconsciousness and the repressed content and conflicts contained within. It gives a clear lens with which to peer into the caverns of the human mind, uncovering the past hurts and conflicts that take away from an authentic and integrated life (Bethel, 2004). On the other hand, there is another concept of human personality as presented by Rousseau. "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains" – this is the most quoted statement of Rousseau as written in his book about the Social Contract theory. This claim implied that humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress' of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which humans judge themselves through comparisons with others (Social Contract Theory, 2006). Rousseau believed there is an intense implication that there is strong and direct form of democracy. One cannot transfer one's will to another, to do with as he or she sees fit, as one does in representative democracies. Rather, the general will depend on the coming together periodically of the entire democratic body, every citizen decide collectively, and with at least near unanimity, how to live together (like for examples in establishing laws that is not done by one person alone, but a collective group of individuals). As it is constituted only by individual wills, these private individual wills ought to assemble themselves regularly if the general will is to continue. One implication of this is that the strong form of democracy - which is consistent with the general will - is also only possible in relatively small states. The people must be able to identify with one another, and at least know who each other are. They cannot live in a large area, to spread out to come together regularly, and they cannot live in such different geographic circumstances as to be able to be united under common laws (Social Contract Theory, 2006). Rousseau's social contract theories together form a single, consistent view of mans’ moral and political situation. Humans, as according to him, are endowed with freedom and equality by nature, but the nature has been corrupted by the contingent social history. Human, therefore, can overcome this corruption, however, by invoking our free will to reconstitute politically, along strongly democratic principles, which is good for everybody, both individually and collectively (Social Contract Theory, 2006). Because of the concepts and theories presented above, it has been a big question to many as to factor provides the higher rate of impact to a person’s behavior – the parents (who are the source of the biological processes) or the environment. What Affects Behavior the Most? The family is considered the basic unit of the society. It is where a person acquires his/her basic characteristics and habits. They say that the personality of an individual is very much affected by the family background. Once classical definition is that a family “is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction; it includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, owned or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults” (Murdock, 1949). Therefore, it is perceived that most behaviors run through the genes connecting the entire family. If one member of the family has one interesting attribute, it can be expected that another member of the family has exactly the same attribute. On the other hand, from the ecological perspective, behavior development is affected by the setting or environment in which it occurs. The interactions within and between the different environments of a family constitute the ecology of the family and are major elements of an ecological point of view. The environment of an individual’s ecology comprise the individual itself, the individual’s informal social network, community professionals and/or organizations and the society as a whole. An environment may be very helpful and supportive in the behavior development of an individual or lacking and threatening to development. Negative elements or the absence of opportunities in an individual, school or community environments may compromise the healthy development of children or hamper effective human functioning. An example is when a child is about to go out into the world, his/her decisions are affected by his/her peers. Strong associations with other community members and organizations could also help in proper and successful human functioning. An individual would be more at ease in their immediate community. However, a community may or may not provide the needs of an individual. Within its community setting, each individual constructs its own web of support from the formal and informal resources available. It should be noted that the family stands at the center of the social life, linking the individual to school, church, the economy and the nation. It conveys basic norms and values. Therefore, the family was coined as the major building block of the society. Because the family stands at the center of social life, innovations and social change that alter families arouse strong reactions. Many people fear that the family will be unable to adapt to change and that traditional values will break down in the face of the challenges for which the family is not prepared. Though the family has its own internal structure, it still exists within a network of relationships with other subsystems and with society as a whole. Families are interdependent on their neighborhood, social environment and physical environment. The changes and developments of a family are influenced by the changes in the community it resides in and its environment. The changes occurring in the family and the changes occurring in the outside environment has major impacts to each other. Therefore, the interaction of the family to the surroundings is a very important factor in continuity of the family. The family has its own needs, for survival, valued and management. These needs could only be attained if there is an interaction with the family’s environment. Environments, however, do not determine human behavior but pose limitations and constraints as well as possibilities and opportunities for families. The Family Ecology Theory, also called Human Ecology Theory (developed by Urie Bronfenbrener) proposed several assumptions. These assumptions are 1) individuals are biological and social in nature, 2) individuals are dependent on their environment for survival, 3) individuals are interdependent and 4) human behavior can be studied at different levels. The Family Ecology Theory further states that the individual grows and adapts through interchanges with its immediate ecosystem and more distant environments. It also tries to explain how families and individuals are affected and influenced by their environments. The theory suggested five levels of ecosystems. First is the microsystem which includes the family, the school and the neighborhood. Next is the mesosystem or the relations of microsystems. Third is the ecosystem, the community itself. Fourth is the macrosystem which includes cultural beliefs and values and last is the chronosystem which changes over time at each level. Conclusion It is worth noting that the process of socialization takes a lifetime whereby the individual acquires the established beliefs, values, sentiments, norms and behavior of his group and society. It is through socialization that the individual becomes a functioning member of his group. It is also through this process that values, customs and beliefs are passed on from one generation to the other. Because of the significance of early experiences and primary relationships, the family remains to be the most important socializing agent in the child’s life (Davidson and Moore, 1992). It is the individual’s agent of socialization because it is the unit primarily in-charge of nurturing the child during the early formative years. The family therefore has a long-lasting influence on the development of an individual’s personality and character (which started during childhood). The parents and other adult members of the family inculcate in the child the certain norms and values they want the child to retain until his maturity. They influence the child by doing things, serving as examples for the child. Thus the family acts as a social laboratory where the individual prepares for life in his society. Experiences at home set the direction of his behavior in the future. Based on the information gathered above, it can be concluded that an individual’s behavior is develop by a combination of factors. Nature or the biological process as well as nurture or the interactions with the environment have both have an equal share in shaping up the behavior of an individual. References: Bellah, R.N. (1970). “Beyond Belief”. New York: Harper & Row. Berger, P.L. (1963). “Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective”. New York: Doubleday. Berk, S.F. (1985).” The Gender Factory”. New York: Plenum. Bethel, Jonathan. (2004). “Psychological Models – Freud”. 1stHolistic.com. viewed from Broom, D.H., Broom, L. and Bonjean, C.M. (1990). Sociology: A Core Text with adapted readings. Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company. Burgess, E.W. and Locke, H.J. (1960). The Family from Institution to Companionship. 2nd Ed. New York: American Book Company. Davidson, J.K. and Moore, N.B. (1992). Marriage and Family. Iowa: Wm C. Brown Publishers. Eshleman, J.R. (1997). The Family: An Introduction.8th Ed. Boston, Massachussetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Freud, Sigmund. (2001). “The PSI Café”. viewed from Gelles, R.J. (1995). Contemporary Families, A Sociological View. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. “Jean Jacques Rousseau” (n. d.) viewed from Lamanna, M.A. and Riedmann, A. (1994). Marriages and Families: Making Choices and Facing Change. 5th Ed. Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company. Lindsey, L.L. (1997). Gender Roles, A Sociological Perspective. 3rd Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: The McMillan Co. Saxton, L. (1996). The Individual, Marriage, and the Family. 9th Ed. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Company Skolnick, A.S. (1992) The Intimate Environment, Exploring Marriage and the Family. 5th Ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. “Social Contract Theory” (n. d.) viewed from The World Book Encyclopedia. (1992). The World Book Encyclopedia (International). USA: World Book Inc. Zimmerman, S.L. (1995). Understanding Family Policy: Theories and Applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Read More

Although Freud’s psychoanalytical theory is by no means the only model of the personality, it is a model that is still use when considering the psyche. Through this model, people can understand the dynamics of man’s unconsciousness and the repressed content and conflicts contained within. It gives a clear lens with which to peer into the caverns of the human mind, uncovering the past hurts and conflicts that take away from an authentic and integrated life (Bethel, 2004). On the other hand, there is another concept of human personality as presented by Rousseau.

"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains" – this is the most quoted statement of Rousseau as written in his book about the Social Contract theory. This claim implied that humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress' of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which humans judge themselves through comparisons with others (Social Contract Theory, 2006).

Rousseau believed there is an intense implication that there is strong and direct form of democracy. One cannot transfer one's will to another, to do with as he or she sees fit, as one does in representative democracies. Rather, the general will depend on the coming together periodically of the entire democratic body, every citizen decide collectively, and with at least near unanimity, how to live together (like for examples in establishing laws that is not done by one person alone, but a collective group of individuals).

As it is constituted only by individual wills, these private individual wills ought to assemble themselves regularly if the general will is to continue. One implication of this is that the strong form of democracy - which is consistent with the general will - is also only possible in relatively small states. The people must be able to identify with one another, and at least know who each other are. They cannot live in a large area, to spread out to come together regularly, and they cannot live in such different geographic circumstances as to be able to be united under common laws (Social Contract Theory, 2006).

Rousseau's social contract theories together form a single, consistent view of mans’ moral and political situation. Humans, as according to him, are endowed with freedom and equality by nature, but the nature has been corrupted by the contingent social history. Human, therefore, can overcome this corruption, however, by invoking our free will to reconstitute politically, along strongly democratic principles, which is good for everybody, both individually and collectively (Social Contract Theory, 2006).

Because of the concepts and theories presented above, it has been a big question to many as to factor provides the higher rate of impact to a person’s behavior – the parents (who are the source of the biological processes) or the environment. What Affects Behavior the Most? The family is considered the basic unit of the society. It is where a person acquires his/her basic characteristics and habits. They say that the personality of an individual is very much affected by the family background.

Once classical definition is that a family “is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction; it includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, owned or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults” (Murdock, 1949). Therefore, it is perceived that most behaviors run through the genes connecting the entire family. If one member of the family has one interesting attribute, it can be expected that another member of the family has exactly the same attribute.

On the other hand, from the ecological perspective, behavior development is affected by the setting or environment in which it occurs. The interactions within and between the different environments of a family constitute the ecology of the family and are major elements of an ecological point of view.

Read More