Influence of Cultural Environment and Genes

Posted: March 26th, 2020

Influence of Cultural Environment and Genes

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Influence of Cultural Environment and Genes

The controversial debate over cultural environment and genetics in determining the lifespan development has been in existence for several decades. The level of influence these two factors have on an individual is different based on the amount of exposure to each element. It is imperative to use research in making a conclusion on the debate. Paul Ehrlich and Marcus Feldman were significant proponents of the stand that culture played the dominant role in shaping individual characteristics. Their assumption was that human behavior was very complicated and that genetic codes alone fail to explain human development.

The argument over which aspect has the most significant influence on an individual between the innate characteristics or the external environment has never been fully resolved. While a section of professionals believes that the cultural environment determines the lifespan development, an equal number of scholars argue against this reasoning (Boyd & Bee, 2015). Claiming that cultural environment is the primary factor that influences the lifespan of a person as opposed to their genetic background is valid to an extent. Culture by itself is a potent agent when compared to genetic evolution that relies mainly on natural selection. Conversely, genes also play their role in determining the specific character traits attained by an individual. Rather than deciding the direction that development will take, genes work alongside the diverse environmental influences in changing the outcomes that will occur. Genetic transfer of DNA materialfrom parent to offspring is accompanied with a transfer of other qualities including character. The accuracy of this transfer is still questionable as displayed by the limited literature on the subject.

A section of scholars including Plato and Descartes proposed that some fundamental aspects are innate. In other words, they occur naturally despite the different cultural environments that people encounter (Boyd & Bee, 2015). This school of thought argues that most aspects of human behavior and features originate from inheritance. Proponents of this perspective also assume that these traits have evolved gradually to become perfect. Genetic traits inherited from parents determine the specific differences that bring out the uniqueness. The complex coding of genes in every cell form the different characteristics including the typical physical features such as skin pigment and eye color. There is insufficient data on the likelihood of transmitting other abstract attributes such as personality, sexual preferences, and mental ability into the DNA. One of the controversial debates against the nature argument is the possibility of a gene that inclines people towards homosexuality. This possibility attempts to explain that assumption that some people are born as gay individuals. This tendency is evident especially in fraternal twins that show similar behavior regardless of the fact that they do not share the same cultural environment. Most of these theories on human behavior are yet to be confirmed because of the incongruent results from different studies.

The realization of genetic explanations for different character traits is particularly vital in the current century. Several projects have made significant progress especially in separating specific behavior traits and allocating them to particular strands of DNA within the chromosomes. Scientific literature indicates that research is on the verge of identifying genes that predispose an individual towards criminal activity, alcoholism, and homosexuality. In the event that these advances are progressive, it will be a massive step in comprehending the relationship between biology and the cultural setting (Boyd & Bee, 2015). Human beings can truly understand the combination of these two factors. In reality, this relationship is complex and challenging to understand.

On the other hand, proponents of the school of thought supporting the dominance of cultural environments also offer plausible arguments. Scholars such as John Locke proposed that human beings being life while their minds are blank. The concept of tabula rasa consequently allows children to shape different perceptions and attitudes based on the specific culture that they live in. According to this notion, the essence of an individual as well as their knowledge is influenced by daily experiences in the different cultures (Boyd & Bee, 2015). A focus on cultural influences is mostly empirical in nature. This theory argues that behaviors and traits are acquired through learning. Behaviorism can aptly explain the way in which human beings pick up new habits and trends through repetitive contact with the environment. The advanced sections of the school of thought also believe in conditioning as a dominant force that can change people. Within a controlled environment, proponents of this notion argued that all human beings could be conditioned to do anything despite their genetic background.

When discussing issues concerning the role played by the cultural environment in individual development, it is imperative to identify the apparent as well as the subliminal aspects that come into play. Within the immediate environment, a single person is influenced by many elements including their parents, peers and as well as media, fashion and socio-economic conditions. Therefore, even in the presence of specific genes, it ultimately boils down to the area that has been strengthened by the cultural environment. Renowned psychologist Skinner conducted several experiments that resulted in wild animals that could dance and do other human tasks. His progress in behavioral science allowed Skinner to prove that human beings could be conditioned to take on new behavior or even abandon previously learned ones. The scenario presents a strong case for the role played by the cultural environment in determining an individual’s characteristics. The outcomes of these subsequent studies dismissed the assumption that genetics was a principal factor. Skinner offered the example that identical twins did not show the same behavior when reared in different settings. The assertion is regardless of the fact that they share the same genes. The issue with this line of thought is the assumption that all behavior can be accounted for by experience alone.

In the process of arguing for either side, it is equally important to accept that both explanations can be partially true. In other words, both cultural environment and genetic composition can be responsible for an individual’s behavior. Using a similar example of homosexual tendencies in children will suffice to explain the situation (Boyd & Bee, 2015). From a biological or genetic perspective, it is possible for children with a predominant homosexual gene to have a higher likelihood of pursuing such a sexual orientation. However, from a sociological standpoint, children that have experienced homosexual instances such as rape or same-sex parents have a higher likelihood of struggling with their sexuality. They also find it easier to identify themselves as homosexuals. In the larger cultural environment, every civilization has its own outlook concerning sexual relations. In societies where there are liberal laws surrounding same-sex engagement, it is relatively easier for children to end up as homosexuals. At the very least, this tendency will be significantly higher when compared to conservative societies. For instance, when a child creates an attachment, it is reacting to the love and interest it has seen within the environment. The child learns a new language from copying the talking patterns of adults. Mentally, the child will develop an intellectual ability depending on how well the environment stimulates their brain. To a lesser extent, the greater environment will determine the extent to which the child will develop emotionally and mentally.

The gene-environment topic becomes sufficiently complicated when other considerations are included. There is a possibility that human beings have evolved to heighten their responsiveness to changes in the environment. Several scholars have suggested that children can change their biological progress by reacting to the nurturing environment they experience during their early years (Boyd & Bee, 2015). Threatening and hazardous environments will affect the children in a negative way. Such settings will undoubtedly accelerate their physical maturation and allow them to reach puberty earlier. The condition is a natural reaction by the body to ensure that the genes are passed on the next generation before death. Conversely, safe and comfortable environments are an indicator that life will be long and sustainable. This has the effect of slowing down the biological maturation as people seek out a higher quality lifestyle. People also become more careful when choosing partners for procreation. This perspective has increased in popularity within the last decade as increased evidence of these assertions is gathered.

Most parents fail to acknowledge fully the influence that they have on their child’s development. Research has already proved that genetics has an impact on the child, particularly on their talent for different activities such as sports and music. However, the nurturing will determine their potential in future especially their level of success. Children lack the ability to make their own decisions, and they will copy the tendencies of the people within the society (Boyd & Bee, 2015). This conclusion is the source of divergence among scientists concerning the more influential factor. Consequent studies in the field of human development should focus on uniting the implications of cultural environments and biology rather than treating them as two separate entities. Human beings have evolved into a complex state as a consequence of the integration of these two elements and therefore, perceiving them as working in unison offers the best possibility of understanding human development.

Conclusion

The conclusion of most studies has revealed that both nature and nurture influence individual behavior. However, this still fails to answer the problem and fill the empirical gap concerning the different issues such as homosexuality and intelligence issues. While a significant percentage of people still believe in the nativist approach, scholars and experts have already embraced the fact that which biology alone cannot be responsible for individual development and behavior. An increasing percentage of people have started questioning the validity of relying on one factor in determining particular traits. This new perception towards human development proposes that numerous factors work together in contributing towards the growth of a person. These influences include genetic and cultural factors that integrate with a flawless fashion. The focus of research has shifted to how the two factors affect each and the consequences of the new interactions.

References

Top of Form

Boyd, D. R., & Bee, H. L. (2015). Lifespan development. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Bottom of Form