There's
a longtime debate in the fields of human development and psychology about the
dominating power of nature vs. nurture. The nature vs. nurture debate asks
whether it's more our environments or who we intrinsically are that determines
our personality and who we become. While there are ardent arguments on both
sides, the consensus often comes down to people believing it's a mix of both.
In
a week of thinking about who we are in relation to people's opinions, I
couldn't help but bridge that with this idea. I was at Starbucks with one of my
best friends once and we started talking about our current classes. Winter
quarter, I took "Social Psychology" and I brought up how I was a little
appalled at the response I'd gotten from a professor on a journal assignment.
We
were to read about the Stanford Prison Experiment, where the original intent of
psychologists was to study the mindset of people in prison, but the acting
"guards" and "prisoners" behavior ended up begging
questions of how people can be drastically changed by their environments, doing
things they never would have dreamed of; the volunteer "guards" of
the prison had their morality, it seemed, whisked away by power, while "prisoners"
had found themselves reduced to learned helplessness.
One
of the questions presented to us was, "What kind of guard would you be and
how can you be sure?" I responded that no one can ever be sure, but when
we don't have guidelines (as the guards were given no guidelines on prisoners'
treatment or on executing the "prison" system), that's when our
personality comes out. For that, I'd like to believe that I would be a fair
guard, not succumbing to those around me, especially having internal forces of
faith and/or a moral code.
My
professor replied that while those may exist, when social influence is strong,
those internal forces can tend to be "pretty weak."
I
blinked. Again and again. How did I not let every influence in high school run
over me then? How could all that I zealously cling to just go out the window?
That's not me; and he doesn't know me. There's an example where I find my
pillar of "No one looks through your eyes but you," to be true. Here
is where I first found my true stand on nature vs. nurture.
My
problem with that assignment and that class in general was that it seemed the
discipline wanted to chalk our own personal actions up to being executed by
society.
Outside
influences *are* strong. They are the barriers we have to fight back against or
that set us up to make certain things easier; in school, someone educationally
and financially strapped could have a harder time getting "that job"
than someone who's had every opportunity. In life, it can be easier for someone
to be more firm in their decision not to drink if they're not exposed to it as
opposed to someone who it surrounds constantly. Outside influences are winds
that blow both ways; against and for us.
But
at the very basis of our existence, we are responsible for our actions. It can
be hard to fight back against my environment, whatever it is in that time,
manner, or place, but I'm not helpless, letting the "inevitable"
social influence write checks for my behavior. That takes away the call for
personal responsibility and the requirement for our own accountability.
My
friend completely shared my same response and went on to tell me about her own
experience during our freshman year of high school. See, she's always been a
fighter, rising above the severe neglect and various abuses of her childhood.
When this debate came up in class one day, she had to stop herself from flying
out of her seat when someone argued it was nurture, our environment, solely
that determined us and that we should "do away with nature altogether."
As my friend went on to passionately ask, how could she be the person she is
today if it was only nurture who could create who she is? If that was the case,
nurture would be created a demolished, helpless, incapacitated her.
It's
hard not to make this debate sound like an argument against environment. I
suppose it's become we typically think of environment as "society"
and with that, I sense nothing but negative connotations. What about the bad
things we are predisposed to that our environment tries to break us of? What
about when negative nature teams up with negative environments and they feed
off each other? There is no clear "bad guy" when it comes to nature
or nurture.
The
bad guys are:
being
moved by our environment that doesn't better us
and
hanging
onto a nature we know isn't the best we can be.
When
you think nature is inescapable, opening your mind and your heart to other
intangibles--thoughts, beliefs, ideas--you've unlocked the way out of nature's
hold. When you try something new, it's an exercise in defying nature. Even when
you think your environment is beating you down, you are fighting back, believe
it or not. By getting up the next day, you're getting back up. By bettering
yourself--through education, career opportunities, friendships, relationships,
the hobbies you love--you're disproving nature's hold on you. And in relation
to other people’s opinion, their words are a barrier that swings both ways: you
can go with them, or you can fight back against them.
Even
if it's your nature, you're changing you. And though it's something as
extensive and overwhelming as your environment, you're setting yourself a part
from it. You're checking who you are both ways. Maybe it's making nature's jaw
drop. Or showing your environment the back of your hand.
