Like some other people who have already posted, there were moments in the reading that were very personal for me. My younger brother and I were adopted at birth from different birth mothers; we are not technically "related". Pinker says on page 7 that "That is, by the time they're adults, two adoptive siblings growing up in the same home are no more similar than two people plucked from the population at random." I both agree and disagree. My reasons for agreeing are simply from experience: my brother and I are, in many ways, nothing alike. We fought constantly as kids, we befriended very different people, and as college students, we want to pursue very different careers. However, my reasons for disagreeing come from my own indignation as well as my disagreement in Pinker's views on parenting. First of all, my brother and I are often unalike, but I would argue that we are no more unalike than any other biological brother and sister. I have met plenty of biological siblings who are complete opposites of each other, and i don't think its fair to say that its only in adoptive siblings, that they are "no more similar than two people plucked from a population at random."
This leads me to my frustration with Pinker's views on parenting. He believes that good parenting is important ("parenting is a moral obligation") but that "children are not shaped by their parents." I think that this is totally untrue; the ways in which my brother and I ARE similar are results of our upbringing, or "parenting". We usually find the same things funny, we have similar tastes, we work really hard at our jobs, and we are both good students. This comes from being exposed to the same experiences throughout our childhoods as well as having über strict and driven, yet wonderful parents. They instilled values in us that we have carried into our adult lives. To say that my parents had no part in shaping who I am is, in my opinion, completely untrue.
Family has always been really important for me, especially my parents. I felt that Pinker had a somewhat harsh and cold view on parenting. Kind of like the scientist in beginning of Latour, there were moments in the text where I felt threatened by what this particular reading had to say. I felt like Pinker was often speaking out against the things I value and the things I care about, those being my family, as well as my faith (but that is a whole different story).
I think that you raised a good point here and a important point for myself to really think about again. In my blogpost "I am a piece of blank paper and I am painted by culture", I mentioned that I myself was shaped mostly by people around me, like friends and teacher, and my own society. However, after reading your blogpost about you saying you and your brother are results of parenting, it made me thought again and there is no way for me to deny about if there is nothing alike between me and my parents. For personalities, my mom and I are very much alike: we are not patient and sometimes we get bad temper, which is totally unlike my dad. However though, my hobbies and my dad's hobbies/interests couldn't be more a like. For instance, we both like tennis, squash, table tennis, basketball and on and on. And I think the major reason why I got all these interests were mainly because of him teaching me all that hobbies and having fun together. In addition to that, I have to admit that though my personalities and his are unlike, I still got influences from him, and sure from my mom as well. I know what to learn and adapt from each of them, so I could also say I am a result of my parents. Of course values in them are also in me and I am glad about this. However, no doubt that influences by my peer groups still have big impacts on me. To conclude, I would say I am a result of both parenting, peer groups and the society.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Pinker was trying to downplay the importance of family; in fact he hopes to better the family dynamic when he says that an understanding of the human nature can help restore relationships. In addition, when he claims that “children are not shaped by their parents”, he is not neglecting their importance, but rather shifting the audience’s attention to their main roles as environmental factors. I believe that this prevents a blame game in which children use their parents as an excuse. Pinker argues that genes are the underlying determinant, but he does not claim it to be the sole factor. Although a tomato plant seed is planted, the plumpness, taste, and size of that tomato depends on the amount of sunlight, richness of soil, and the care of an experienced gardener; these important variables provided for us from our dear parents.
ReplyDeleteBut he SAID 'no more alike.' Wrong; they are a great deal alike, as we all know. And different. It's his reductionism that troubles me.....
ReplyDelete