Nature through nurture

An age-old debate about the primary and fundamental influence on human development and behavior is called the nature versus nurture debate. As our textbook states, however, “neither biology nor culture wholly determines human behavior" (Giddens et al. 59). In my opinion, the answer to this question is not nature or nurture, but nature through nurture as the primary influence on human behavior and development. I believe that a person's nature influences how they respond in certain situations. The child’s experience and interpretation of the nurturing he or she receives is dependent on the child's nature. In other worlds, our nature mediates our reaction to the nurturing we receive.

As an example, let's take the subjects of gender identity and gender socialization. It's obvious that men and women are objectively different. We can see this is true with only elementary knowledge of biology and anatomy. Men and women have different organs used for different purposes. Our biology also affects our behavior in many ways. One example is that higher testosterone levels in men linked to higher aggression levels. Another example is provided by sociobiologists who argue that women who, because of their biology, must invest more bodily capital in order to reproduce naturally seek nurturing, stable partners. Both our anatomy and certain tendencies in our behavior are defined by nature.

Given one’s biology and nature, how does gender socialization occur? Our textbook presents the theories of Sigmund Freud, Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan on this topic. While the three theories present different viewpoints, all acknowledge the role of nature in defining gender. The fact that a child is a boy or a girl affects the way that he or she experiences the nurturing of mother and father. For example, Freud argues that a boy understands his father’s presence as a threat and thus reacts to his presence with fear and suppresses his natural desire for his mother. A girl would not react to the presence of her father in this way. In a similar way, Chodorow argues that the boy, because is different (by nature) from his mother experiences the need to “break” from her and thus becomes more independent than a girl, who experiences greater continuity with her mother when acquiring her sense of self. In both cases, the nature/biology of the child as boy or girl is fundamental to their experience of the environment around them and the nurturing they receive.

Our culture may be empty, but it gives others hope

I laughed outloud when I viewed this comedy clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE

The clip entails a singer of an "American song" which begins with a piano melody with a mellow tone reminiscent of Billy Joel. After a short interlude, the singer begins this "American" song.

"America, America, America, America," He repeats himself over and over again as the audience laughs. To their delight, he switched to "States. States. States. States." He ends shortly thereafter with the refrain, "America, America, America, America." To end the clip, a man in a suit enters and punches the singer in the face.

At first viewing, this BBC clip is clearly a criticism of American culture. The point is that America is so very proud of itself and its culture that it will chant its mantra over and over again. The claim is that American culture is enchanting, just as people have been enchanted by timeless artists like Elton John and Billy Joel but that this culture has almost no content beyond its identity as "American." Simply put, "american" is the one and only word that can describe american culture.

On one hand I agree with this assessment when I consider the thesis of George Ritzer and other sociologists who describe the "McDonaldization" of American culture. Our cultural treatment of food is based not on quality and taste but on efficiency, standardization and control. Where food provides an opportunity for social connections, leisure and family bonding, american culture has reduced meals to the acquiring of specific nutrients required for our functioning. Productivity and efficiency have replaced leisure and true enjoyment of life's pleasures and beauty.

On the other hand, I see much evidence that American culture is rich and full. One example is jazz which is a distinctly American form of music. Jazz led to the development of blues, and now rap holds modern musical ties to jazz and blues artists. In addition, while some countries may criticize American culture for its apparent emptiness, many others, especially in the developing world, see America and its values as a beacon of hope for their countries' future success.

The clip's conclusion with a punch in the face may be a suggestion that those who blindly accept American culture (including Americans themselves) take a second look at what it really is. The implication may be that some people have become so infatuated with American culture that only a radical wake-up call will make them come to their senses.

Stanford Prison: An unethical experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical according to the criteria for ethical research accepted by the APA and the British Psychology Society. These criteria are summarized in David Myer's text Psychology as follows:

1. The informed consent of potential participants must be obtained
2. Subjects must be protected from harm or discomfort
3. Information about each individual participant must be handled confidentially
4. The research must be fully explained afterwards.

Dr Zimbardo, in conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment, failed to protect experiment participants from harm/discomfort. The prisoners experienced discomfort and some even experienced sever emotional distress. Also, the guards may have experienced a great amount of discomfort upon realizing their own "hidden tendencies" toward evil and misuse of power. Even if comprehensive and extensive debreifing and counseling sessions were provided to the students, the experience was undoubtedly a life-altering experience for all. I have no doubt that some may still be pained by their memories of the 6-day experiment.

One argument that has been put forth is that the experiment involved very little deception (the exception being the surprise arrests at the beginning of the experiment), obtained informed consent, adhered to the signed contract terms. In addition, some may argue for its acceptance because of what it was able to reveal about group and power dynamics. In my opinion, this is a classic example of an age-old question: Do the ends justify the means? Even to the end of advancing our sociological knowledge, the answer is no.

Introducing: me!

Hello. I'm Samantha Kepler. I'm 25 and I currently work for Chemonics, an international development firm in Washington DC where I do quality management. In the past I've worked as a computer teacher, a fifth grade teacher, a missionary in the Dominican Republic and an IT consultant doing government contracts.

I grew up in Reston and graduated from the University of Virginia in 2006. In August, I will begin graduate studies in Public Health Nutrition at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I am interested in the causes and effects of poverty, societal influences on nutrition, school nutrition, and educational, governmental, commercial and societal interventions to end world hunger. I want to practice clinical dietetics but I would also like to help build food security and start nutrition intervention programs in developing countries. I think the MPH Nutrition degree is perfect for me!

I love to cuddle up with a good book and enjoy cooking and baking. I am currently reading Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, but I love almost any novel. The last movie I watched was "We Are Marshall" and some of my favorites are Pride and Prejudice and Anne of Green Gables.