nature vs nurture / norms and values

parsons

believes nature plays a part in determining gender roles - nature used to show differences in behaviour of men and women

expressive roles - WOMEN, caring and emotions

instrumental roles - MEN, require quantities of competition, leader of pack etc

shows men more suited to paid employment and women domesticity

murry and herrnnstein

use nature vs nurture to explain criminal behaviour.

argue some people are born with conditions of anger, impulsiveness and low iq

these people are more likely to commit crime if they are not socialised into acceptable behaviours so traits can be changed

feral wolf children

observation of what’s happenes when children are not socialised within a culture and are not nurtured.

fwd were raised in the wild with isolation of human company.

feral kids where unresponsive and animal like, and had not acquired language early - not recognised as human,

demonstrates the importance of nurture, their development is stunted and haven’t learnt to walk and talk biologically

norms and values have to be learnt not inherited

simpson

demonstrates norms differ depending on where you are,

studied gay men in Manchester had to de day them selves in hetero spaces and then wore flamboyant clothes/embraced themselves in homo spaces (gay clubs)

ghuman

British asian parents have different values.

kids are taught to study and respect elders and have loyalty to the family, more than an average white kid

(demostate nurture argument, norms and values constructed through socialisation)

Sharpe

demonstrate values changing over time, researched in 1970s women valued marriage and love and kids, by the 1990s they prioritised careers money and travel

(demostate nurture argument, norms and values constructed through socialisation)