Describe the different perspectives used to explain the process of children(TM)s development

Regardless, the role of children can and does vary across societies. For example all children including those from the affluent west can be put to work. Thus endeavour can range from simple domestic chores to unavoidable and often labour intensive work to which the majority of the day must be devoted. In both non-industrialised and in recently industrialised cultures such as China children play a vital role in the family economy and may even be perceived as being a commodity themselves.

It is easy for those in the West to view child labour as an avoidable evil due to the fact that they are for the most part not bound by necessity. In the West childhood is considered to be a period of bonding and crucial development. By contrast the rest of the World can and often do view the child as a vital economic contributor. For example Cunningham suggests that; “the useful child has become a controversial image during the first decade of the twenty-first century especially in the context of global concern about large numbers of the worlds children engaged in child labour.”  

In essence child development will be greatly effected by the society within which the child is born into. Nature is an essential component in the formation of all individuals. However individual nature exists within the parameters of any one society and will develop accordingly.

Nativism implies that human animal is born with a certain capacity to understand and make sense of the world around them. For the Nativist such abilities are underdeveloped at birth and evolve slowly after time. Psychologists who favour this viewpoint are of the belief that development after birth proceeds through the genetically determined process of maturation. As such learning plays a lesser role in the development of the individual.

For example Plato (427-347 BCE) was of the belief that we are all born with specific knowledge that we learn to access and understand through our own experience. In other words; “Knowledge is not derived from experience but comes about through a process of rational discourse or logical deduction that reveals to us knowledge that we are born with.”

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was another such philosopher who favoured the Nativist standpoint. For Hobbes however his views were strongly influenced by his religious convictions. Hobbes advocated that everyone was born with original sin and thus required to be moulded into pious and reverend creatures. For example; “break his will now and his soul will live.” In this respect Hobbes viewed the individual as a primitive creature governed by impulses which are highly susceptible to corruption.

Similarly Rousseau (1712-1775) was committed to Nativism. However for Rousseau each individual was not inherently evil as suggested by Hobbes but was by contrast a “noble savage” with a pre existing perception of both good and evil. It is the duty of society therefore to guide children towards good behaviour and moral understanding. The work of Rousseau was to become influential to theories of education and learning. For example it was Rousseau who stressed the importance of adult guidance suggesting that the development of children was a responsibility of family and guardians. For example; “put him in a condition to be always the master of himself and in everything to do his own will.” 

Nativism has continued to be immensely influential and was a feature of perhaps one of the most simultaneously notable and controversial concepts of development. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) considered innate impulses to be the underlying principle upon which our very being is constructed. Freud termed this basis as being the “id”. For Freud the “id” is the major catalyst in determining our behaviour. For example; “The id contains everything that is inherited, that is present at birth.” 

It was the era of enlightenment that brought with it a very different but influential theory of development. Most Notably the seventeenth century philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) promoted the concept that individuals are essentially “tabula rasa” or “blank slate”. This view became known as empiricism. Empiricists have argued that all human thought and understanding is developed through our own experience. In other words individuals learn through the senses and are not endowed with any knowledge at birth. For example; “let us suppose the mind to be a white paper devoid of all characters and without any ideas.” 

There have been of course, several attempts to reconcile the polarized views of Nativism and Empiricism. In fact most social scientists today would argue that individuals are a product of an interaction between the two. This idea has existed for some time and was first mentioned in the work of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant was quick to reject that sole dominance of either in development and instead opted for a synthesis of the two. Kant hypothesised that knowledge does not come purely from the senses, but is a product of interaction. Kant claimed that; “categories of time, space and causality are built into the very structure of the mind…there is no way we can see the world except in terms of these categories.” 

There is of course no definitive answer to the Nature verses Nurture debate. Is a child’s development the direct result of genetic endowment or as a consequence of environmental influences? Arguably most psychologists understand that both play a crucial role in all aspects of behaviour. Most contemporary debates therefore, have arisen from how important each will be at any given time.

Nature is undoubtedly important in development. For instance it is our ability to interpret information from the senses that determines our prowess or ineptness. For example Hernstein. R and Murray. C have agued that; “trying to pretend that inequality does not exist is a disaster.”   As such they argue that some people are born with a greater ability than others and are naturally genetically superior.

The work of Hernstein et al is of course open to criticism and could be viewed as being extremely culturally biased. For example it may be reasonable to suggest that Hernstein’s view of intelligence is based on the conservative and traditional white middle class interpretation of intelligence and makes little consideration of class, cultural and ethnic diversity.  

The Hernstein study is of course an extremely Nativist and controversial observation that subsequently takes little account of environmental factors. Such views however are not shared by all and have been widely condemned. Super and Harkness for example argue that development is a far more complex issue and one that cannot be explained through nature alone. Super et al suggest that individuals evolve by means of what they termed a “developmental niche” which is a multi faceted dynamic including:

1. The physical and social settings they inhabit
2. The culturally regulated customs and child rearing practices
3. The beliefs of parents/others    

According to Super et al nature cannot be solely responsible for the development of the child. Super et al identify a range of contributing factors contained within the three strands that may contribute to the growth of the child. These aspects are diverse and include a range of cross cultural issues. For example Super suggests that a small inner city dwelling will have a very different developmental outcome than living in the rainforest. For example children reared in a traditionally non-industrial society will be more integrated into their community than urban children. Such factors will have a tremendous influence on the children and they will develop accordingly.

There is a clear danger in ignoring the influence of nurture on the development of a child. For example the study “Black and White Children in America” Edelman (1987) suggests that; “African American Children were three times more likely than their white counterparts to be poor, and to die of child abuse.”  Such evidence also serves to challenge the work of Hernstein et al. For example if what Hernstein suggested was true then the work of Edelman would imply that Black people are in some way inferior to other ethnic groups. I would argue that this is not the case and that cultural and economic have played an important role in the creation of such statistics.  

May I suggest that the environment has a very profound influence on individual development. Regardless of intelligence the social environment that a child finds themselves in will have a significant effect on the child’s life chances alone let alone what they are exposed to in a learning capacity.

However some of the recent studies have shown that much of our behaviour is determined by genetics. For example studies of identical twins separated at birth and raised in completely different environments show that the twins still end up more alike than many would have predicted thus supporting the view that genetics play a large role in personality development. Bouchard & McGue (1981) argued that; “environmental factors are less important than genetic factors in causing differences in IQ.”  

Whatever side of the nature nurture debate one favours it is reasonable to conclude that you cannot mutually exclude the other. Research has shown that both a child’s genetics and environment have some influence over a child’s personality. Although there are convincing arguments for the importance of each factor, it must be recognised that both environment and genetics will ultimately have some bearing on a child’s development.

Word Count: 1997

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Daehler. M (1992) Child Development; Houghon; Boston

Freud. S (1984) The Ego and the Id; Penguin; London

Gleitman. H (1999) Psychology; Norton; New York

Gross. R (1996) Psychology; Hodder & Stoughton; London

Hernstein. R & Murray. C (1994) Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life; Free Press. N.Y

Oates. J (2005) Psychological Development and Early Childhood; Open University Press; Blackwell

Santrock. J (1996); Child Development; Brown & Benchmark; N.Y

---