Sociology

One of the hottest debates in socialization today is the question on nature vs. nurture. According to Macionis (2008), socialization is the lifelong experience by which individuals develop their human potential and learn their patterns of culture. This involves the acquisition of language, the ability of people to adapt to your surroundings, the learning of cultural behavior regarding customs and traditions, and even on a persons specific personality (Macionis, 2008). Personality, according to Macionis (2008) is a persons fairly consistent patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. Of course, such practices are always evident whenever a person socializes and communicates with other people.

Every time you talk to other people, and every time you associate with them, your personality and your cultural behavior will always be evident. In this case, the question is which is a more dominant determinant to socialization, nature or nurture Macionis (2008) defines nature as the role of the biological sciences in human behaviorin that the elements of a society have a naturalistic look. Macionis (2008) noted that most advocates of nature viewed the instinctive nature of human as a primary determinant of behavior, wherein peoples behavior is determined at birth. For instance, some people may be born criminals, or the fact that women are born emotional as compared to men, explaining their respective behavior (Macionis, 2008).

Meanwhile, Macionis (2008) also said that behavior emphasizes the role of the environment, wherein most of who we are and what we are is social in nature, and is primarily learned. He also noted the theory of behaviorism, as expounded by John B. Watson, who argued that many behaviors where not biological but where learned (Macionis, 2008). In this case, Macionis (2008) also noted that ideas regarding the role of environmental factors in behavior started from the fact when western nations began to associate with people from other parts of the world who had a different behavior from their own.

Macionis (2008) argued that nurture is far more important in determining human behavior than nature, although it does not necessarily mean that biological factors have no role in determining human behavior. Macionis (2008) added that it is true that biological factors, especially the traits inherited by children from their parents, play a large role in the development of human behavior, in addition to its role in determining height, weight, color and physical features. However, he also argued that evidence shows much of the differences of human behavior is almost entirely determines by different cultural environments (Macionis, 2008). However, Macionis (2008) also said that nature and nurture are inseparable.

I think agree with Macionis that nurture is more important that nature in determining human behavior. As stated in Macionis (2008), Watson once said that give me a dozen infantsand I will guarantee to take one at any random and train himregardless of his (or her) talents emphasizing that human behavior, especially from childhood is more depended upon learned factors, upon nurture. In addition, Macionis (2008) also noted the statement of Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, who said that the difference between individuals who are members of different culturesare almost entirely to be laid to differences in cultural conditioning, while also arguing that differences among cultures are also determined by different conditioning factors (Macionis 2008).

In this case, I would like to pay attention to the relation of nature and nurture in child development. As we can see, the African-American population in the country knows how to speak English, although judging by their biological traits they obviously belong to a race that speaks Bantu, Swahili, or other African languages. In this case, using the theory of behaviorism, I argue that because of the fact that African-American children are exposed to the American environment wherein they learn English, and they learn how to live in an urban setting, they are able to speak the English language and behave like a common American urbanite, despite the fact that their more genetically related brothers (or sisters) in Africa may behave in a very different way. This cannot be solely explained by biological factors, or by nature. According to McCall (1981), there is almost no way to assess the heritability of a species-general developmental function.

However, there is also a strong argument on the more important role of nature, especially in the concept of nature in nurture (Plomin  Asbury, 2005). According to the study of Plomin and Asbury (2005) schizophrenia was originally thought to be environmentally determined, until it was proven that it may be genetically determined, especially due to the fact that schizophrenia clearly runs in families. They also noted that in many statistical studies, it showed that genetic factors substantially influence measures of behaviorally relevant environments such as parenting, stress or social support (Plomin  Asbury, 2005).

In this case, I think that nature can be a major factor in human behavior, especially in diseases like schizophrenia. However, I also thought that this study fails to emphasize that genetics may be able to determine ones biological traits, but environmental factors still play a major role on how people develop cultural behavior, especially in socialization with other people from a sociological perspective (Macionis, 2008). According to the study of Crain and Pietroski (2001), Children quickly settle on a system of linguistic principles equivalent to those of adults in the local community.

Although genetic factors may surely play a part on how children would have the ability to acquire linguistic data (Crain  Pietroski, 2001), in the end, I think that the child would still prefer to speak the learned language in able for him or her to communicate and socialize with his or her community.