2.1)
This is aimed towards understanding the physiological and genetic basis of our behaviour.It is the only approach in psychology which tries to explain behaviour in terms of the workings of the physical system.
The biological approach by its nature focuses on the internal processes associated with physiology and genetics. As important as these processes are in understanding behaviour, they are not the only source of influences. Each individual’s behaviour represents a unique combination of genetic factors (heredity) and life experiences (environment).While the biological approach acknowledges the role of environmental factors such as stressors, it does not place primary emphasis on these factors or the impact they can have on behaviour.
There is a debate about the roles of heredity and environment or nature and nurture, this is one of the longest lasting debate as well as one of the most heated and controversial, both inside and outside psychology. Whether it is within a religious, philosophical, political or scientific context, the debate is concerned with some of the most fundamental questions that human beings ask about themselves i.e. ,How do we come to be the way we are ?, what makes us develop in the way we do ?
In a broad general sense, the nature and nurture debate involves both types, and level of question. For example, is language an inborn ability which is unique to the human species or is it a natural or biologically given ability which will appear under normal environmental conditions, in people with normal brains?
In the cases of language and perception the focus is on what people have in common as members of the human species, in contrast with other species And if language is a human species specific ability exactly what is it that is inborn or biologically given and how is the brain specialised for language.
Having established the individual differences level at which the debate takes place I am going to briefly talk about the philosophical roots of the nature and nurture debate so that it is easier to understand and appreciate the distinction made between the questions that are asked in the debate.
There is nativism which is a philosophical theory which sees nature as determining certain abilities and capacities, rather than learning and experience. At the opposite philosophical extreme is empiricism, associated mainly with seventeenth century British philosophers, in particular John Locke. John Locke believed that at birth the human mind is a blank slate ready to be gradually filled in by learning and experience.
At the risk of oversimplification, these two doctrines represent polar opposites; they take the view that it is either the nature (nativism) or nurture (empiricism) which accounts for human abilities. They are either inborn or learnt.
Most present –day psychologists and biologist would reject such an extreme either or approach to such a complex issue, mainly on the grounds that the two theories are attempts to answer the wrong question :to ask ’is it nature or nurture?’’, Is to ask an oversimplified question which will inevitably produce an oversimplified answer.
It has always been thought that nurture played a significant part in the development of human beings.
Dr Bruce D Perry wrote a book titled Childhood Experience and the Expression of Genetic Potential says and I quote ‘‘When the child has diverse experiences , loss , threat neglect and injury there can be disruptions of neurodevelopment that will result in neutral organization that can lead to compromised functioning through out life.’’
Jean-Jacques Rousseau propounded the view that man is born pure or, more accurately, does not do ill because of "the peacefulness of their passions, and their ignorance of vice" but is then corrupted by society or nurture. Rousseau's fanciful notion of the man untainted by the corruptions of society was put to the test when Victor a wild child was finally captured in 1800. Unfortunately, this surly, uncooperative self-centered individual was not what had been expected
The famous French philosopher Rousseau wanted a natural development of the child. In fact, he wanted the child to be protected from the influences of society so that he can grow up as Nature intended him to be.
Probably another best-known story of feral children is that of the two girls, Amala and Kamala, who were raised by a she-wolf. In 1920 the reverend J. A. L. Singh saw a mother wolf and cubs, two of which had long, matted hair and looked human. After considerable preparation and difficulties, the two human creatures were captured. They turned out to be two girls whose ages were assessed by Singh at about eight years and one and a half years respectively.
The creatures were taken to an orphanage in Mindapore, India, where the Reverend and his wife were stationed. Singh described them as "wolfish" in appearance and behaviour. They walked on all fours and had calluses on their knees and palms from doing so. They were fond of raw meat and stole it when the occasion presented itself. They licked all liquids with their tongues and ate their food in a crouched position. Their tongues permanently hung out of their thick, red lips, and they panted just like wolves. They never slept after midnight and prowled and howled at night. They could move very fast, just like squirrels, and it was difficult to overtake them. They shunned human society altogether. If approached, they made faces and sometimes bared their teeth. Their hearing was very acute and they could smell meat at a great distance. Furthermore, while they could not see well during the day, they could orientate themselves very well at night. In September 1921 both girls became ill, and Amala, the younger, died.
There are many other stories of feral children in the literature, amongst others the story of a boy who lived in Syria, who ate grass and could leap like an antelope, as well as of a girl, who lived in the forests in Indonesia for six years after she had fallen into a river. She walked like an ape and her teeth were as sharp as a razor.
These stories do far more than just to confirm the important role of education and that not just nature plays an important role in growth and development but the environment you grow in too. They actually show that a human being not only can but must be educated or learn to become a human being at all. A bear does not have to learn to be a bear; he simply is one. A duck needs no lessons in duckmanship. And an ant leads a perfectly satisfactory life without any instruction from other ants. Even when isolated from birth, animals usually retain clearly recognizable instincts. A cat that is raised among dogs, will still behave like a cat. He won’t try to bite the postman. There are only a few exceptions, such as the lion cub, which would not be able to hunt the wildebeest when raised in isolation.
Man, however, enters this world very poorly equipped. The knowledge a child needs to become fully human is not dormant. Everything the child eventually knows, or can do, must be learned. This of course excludes natural body functions, such as breathing, as well as the reflexes, for example the involuntary closing of the eye when an object approaches it. Everything else, however, must be learned.
A child must learn to walk erect, to talk, to eat with a knife and fork, to catch a ball, to ride a bicycle, to swim, et cetera. The mastery of these skills does not fall from the sky. A child must also learn to sustain his attention, to listen when spoken to, to follow through on instructions, to control his behaviour and to sit still and remain in his seat when the situation so requires. These abilities, which play a determining role in school success, also do not happen automatically. The same applies to qualities such as friendliness, thankfulness, honesty, truthfulness, unselfishness and respect for authority. All these skills and qualities and many more must be learned for the child to eventually lead a happy and successful adult life.
That is why feral children are an excellent source of evidence in this nature and nurture debate, because they cannot walk, talk or even socialise. They cannot show any emotions nor have empathy. This is due to them growing in isolation and not having humans to interact with so that they can learn the basic skills of life. This also proves that its not only nature that play a big role in child development but the environment you grow up in makes an impact to child development or the upbringing of a person because that is where you learn to be what you will become.
So in conclusion I will say that neither nature nor nurture is plays a bigger role than the other in growth learing and development, they are both equally important for development.
Bibliography
- Dr Bruce: Childhood experience and the expression of genetic Potential
- Plomin, R. (1994) Genetics and Experience: The Interplay Between nature and Nurture
- Rutter,M and Rutter M (1992) Developing Minds: Challenge and continuity across the lifespan(chapter 2,3 and 6),Harmondsworth:Penguin
- Channel Five documentary on Feral Children
Word count : 1.915 words
