![]() |
|
Comments on The Nurture Assumption
By Marie Hartwell-Walker, Ed.D.
November 16, 1998
|
What is it in the human soul and mind that resists
complexity? Now there is a writer/researcher who claims on the basis of
an impressive amount of library research that parents ultimately don't
matter much. Judith Rich Harris argues in her book The Nurture
Assumption that the development of children's personalities and behavior
is primarily determined by their interactions with their peers. This
assertion is getting wide play in the media and Ms Harris is getting
awards for it. I've been in the world of psychology for a long time now
- pushing 30 years. I remember the nature-nurture debate of several
decades ago. The issue was finally settled when it was determined that
both are important. What we are born with genetically and what we learn
from our environment both seem to have an effect on who we are and
become. At the risk of being irreverent towards the work that
established that compromise , it seems pretty obvious to me. People seem to need to point to an "it" that
explains everything. "It" is bad parenting. "It" is
biological. "It" is birth order, "It" is outside
influences. "It" is lack of education, "It" is peer
pressure. . . . (All this reminds me of the Officer Krumki song in West
Side Story. Remember? The song satirizes all the well-meaning social
workers who come up with various explanations about why gang members are
who they are.) My response to Ms. Harris is, with all due respect, that
she doesn't have the "it" either. Although there are some days
that I would love to disclaim all responsibility for what my teenagers
are doing (they can be so unattractive at times), to do so would deny
the meaning of our relationship. My husband and I made them. They are
making us. (Our kids also force us to grow up, you know.) In the course
of daily living, we react to each other. We react to each other's
reactions. And we all take the resulting mix out into the world the next
day. You see, the issue Dr. Harris evades is that no one goes
out to the peer group as a clean slate. The family is the first social
unit and as such is the first place that a child tries out behaviors to
see what helps him or her fit in and what doesn't. Babies only a few
days old figure out how to engage the adults around them. Little kids
learn the survival skills of their own families and bring them on to the
playground. Right through adolescence, kids rehearse and work at such
issues of autonomy, power, responsibility, interdependence, trust.
Sometimes what is learned in the family works elsewhere and sometimes it
doesn't but it always gives the kid a place to start. After almost 30 years as a psychologist, I've become
convinced that there is no "it" that explains human behavior.
We are all too wonderfully complex and rich in our heredity and
experiences to reduce to any simple explanation. I've always seen peer
relationships as very important when counseling children and teens - but
I also know that, however important for a given child, it's only a part
of the picture. If I'm to understand any child, I need to look at the
total situation: their parents, the quality of family interactions,
family values, issues of gender, race, and class, the unique, seemingly
innate qualities of the individual, and so on. In a recent article in the Boston Globe, Ms.
Harris states that anyone who insists that kids turn out the way they do
because of a variety of factors is wimping out. I don't think so. I
marvel at the countless factors that can lead us to be who we are and
that make every one of us so unique and interesting. I certainly
understand the desire to simplify it. After all, if we could finally
come up with the "it" that explains everything, taking care of
unhappiness and dysfunction would be simple in deed. As tempting as it
is, the real wimping out is to focus our thinking so narrowly. Dr. Marie advises:
|
Comments? I'm always glad to hear your feedback. Write to us at: info@parentadvisor.net