"What all this suggests is that children are shaped not by their parents, but in part-but only in part-by their genes; in part by their culture, both the culture of the surrounding society and the children's own culture, which we condescendingly call their peer group; and in large part by sheer chance-chance events in the development of the brain in utero, such as whether some neurons ziggged or zagged at a particular day in brain development, and perhaps chance events in life, such as whether at some point you were chased by a dog, or inhaled a virus, or were dropped on your head, or got the top bunk bed as opposed to the bottom bunk bed (Pinker 7)."
This is an eloquent, thoughtful comment that Pinker makes on the downside on the belief of perfectibility. He discusses how parents can be given an overwhelming amount of parental advice, but the truth is that children do not just become who they are based on how their parents raise them. There are a wide range of issues that affect who a person becomes and there is not single, direct cause to the way people are. This quote resonates with me because the issue of human development and what makes an individual the way they are based on social, cultural, biological and other important factors is a topic that can relate to anyone, yet it is a personal subject that varies in meaning from person to person. Reflecting on my personal life, I can see similarities between my parents and myself, yet at the same time, there are also drastic differences that can be attributed to my personal environment and chance events. Like my mother, I am a logical and straightforward person who likes to analyze things methodically and take a little too much pleasure from solving math problems, but at the same time I also try to be healthy and proactive like my dad. Then I also have different tastes in music, food and literature from both of my parents that could have been influences by friends or just things I have read or seen in the past. The way Pinker states this idea that human development is affected by one's culture, society, or even chance events is so strong and charged for me because he does not just simply state his idea, rather, he elaborates this idea with the examples such as being chased by a dog or being dropped on your head and I immediately thought of momentous times in my life that could have affected my own development.
We are acting out the 'science wars' in a way that goes against many past beliefs and theories on human development. In the past, people have tried to find specific reasons and causes for certain human development. Back when Darwin created the theory of evolution, people began associating human attributes and characteristics to that of other animals and tried to find the link to human origin. Then when genetics thrived in the early 20th century, scientists began to question whether we could weed out undesirable traits like mental retardation, prostitution, or gluttony through sterilization while promoting people with desirable characteristics to reproduce more. Next came the DNA craze where science tried to link certain human traits and attributes to genetic material. Overall, science continues to pinpoint what makes people have certain attributes or traits by often avoiding the comprehensive, broad and sometimes messy answers.
I definitely agree with you, and thus Pinker, about how society and culture influence human development and that although some traits may be genetic, people are indeed impressionable by their surroundings and life experiences. Going off of your elaboration and scientific timeline discussing Darwin, the genetic thriving period of the 1900s, and the DNA craze, I think that humans taking life into their hands to such an extent is bewildering and the vast sterilization that was done on people, mostly of minority descent, was completely unethical. It's interesting to think about human traits being associated with genetics, because I definitely see many aspects of both my parents deep into my core, however they are also a huge part of my societal and cultural upbringing, so I am still undecided as to what played a larger role. It is interesting as one can be so alike, yet so different from those they share genetic material with. Going back to Latour's discussion on reality, it is necessary to point out the various scientific theories that have been outdated or left in the past, and consider those that will come to be supposed self-evident truths in the future.
ReplyDeleteQuin nails how Pinker steers around genetic determinism (which I still think he largely supports) to a series of other determinants, NONE of which gives us much hope of ever 'improving' or changing ourselves.
ReplyDelete