Since the eighteenth century, there has been an ongoing debate between nature vs. nurture. Could your genes be the reason for why you shouted out loud in class or can you justify your sudden outburst by blaming the people around you? Nativists believe in biology for the explanation of human behaviors and preferences. Empiricists, who side with John Locke and the tabula rasa theory, believe it is the environment that molds a person’s disposition. However, I have come to the conclusion that picking a side is like choosing between your mother and father. Whether you see or love one parent more than the other, you are equal parts of both regardless. Both parents are crucial in creating a child; hence, both nature and nurture are vital in creating a person’s psychological characteristics.
In the beginning of Victor Frankenstein’s story, he states that his family is “one of the most distinguished of [Geneva]”. His ancestors all held respectable jobs as “counsellors and syndics,” (Frankenstein 24) so it is ingrained in Victor’s DNA to achieve something of equal, if not greater, importance. On the other hand, we can argue that because Victor was under the care of his father, Alphonse’s successes could have also motivated Victor to crave prominence for himself.
That being said, some fathers are not as encouraging towards their son as Alphonse was towards Victor. In one of Humans of New York’s interviews, this particular man talks about his two children: a twenty-seven year old son, who still lived at home with his parents, and a “self-motivated” daughter. He describes his son as person who “battled a bad drug problem, [is] very overweight, and ... completely dependent on [the man interviewed] for money.” He discloses that his son earned a psychology degree from a large university, but that it “ isn’t very hard to do.” When he speaks of his daughter, he boasts about her “magnificent job, great husband, and great house.” The man then mentions his wife who asked if they had “done something wrong,” in which he replied, “No. It’s all genetics.” He reasons that their children had the “same upbringing,” and it was just “random selection.” Initially, his nativist notion seemed to make sense, but reading it over, we can tell by his tone that he is much harder on his son than he is with his daughter. He dismisses his son’s achievements but praises the other’s. Although the man implies that it is strictly nature’s doing, it seems as though nurture is also participating.
Incidents of nurture can be demonstrated by the creature. When he recounts the events of his time with the cottagers to Victor, he concludes that because, “there was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist [him],” he would, “[declare] everlasting war against the species.” (Frankenstein 124) Originally, the creature wanted be accepted by society. He took on beatings by villagers and the son of the DeLacey family without fighting back, even though he could have “torn [Felix] limb from limb.” (Frankenstein 161) The creature dealt through the pain because of his hope for acceptance, but it soon dissolved and transformed into pure hatred due to his environment and the way he was treated. While the creature exemplifies the effects of nurture, or lack thereof, Victor’s ambitions and ultimate self-destruction is derived mostly from nature.
The phrase “nature vs. nurture” alludes to either-or. It is repeatedly questioned on whether which term decides a person’s behavior and by how much. Instead, they should go hand in hand and be referred to as nature and nurture. They both are responsible for shaping a person, just as a mother and father are for producing a child.
-Pamela
Works Cited
McLeod, S. A. Nature Nurture in Psychology. 2007. Retrieved from <http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html>
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Print.
Humans of New York. 2015. Retrieved from <http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/114977027296/my-son-is-27-and-still-lives-with-his-mother>
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment