Notes on Nature vs. Nurture, Internet & Globalization, and Cultural Change

Does Nature or Nurture More Powerfully Influence Human Behavior?

  • Central debate in sociology: Are human thoughts and actions primarily shaped by biology (nature) or by learning and culture (nurture)? Also, because humans can make conscious choices, neither biology nor culture wholly determines behavior.
  • Historical pendulum:
    • 1930s–1940s: emphasis on biological factors; some tried to prove physique determines personality.
    • 1960s–1970s: emphasis on culture; some social psychologists argued that even severe mental illness can be the result of social labeling rather than biochemistry (Scheff, 1966).
    • 1975 onward: resurgence of biological explanations with genetics and brain neurophysiology; Edwards O. Wilson published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.
  • Sociobiology basics:
    • Sociobiology = application of biological principles to explain social activities in animals, including humans.
    • Claim: genes influence not only physical traits but also behavior.
    • Examples from animals include elaborate courtship rituals leading to reproduction; human courtship and sexual behavior may involve similar rituals.
    • Observation: in many species, males are larger and more aggressive than females, which some interpret as a genetic factor in authority dynamics (e.g., men’s higher historical representation in positions of authority).
  • Critiques of sociobiology:
    • Not all behavior is genetically predetermined; context matters and organisms can adapt (flexible behavior depending on circumstances).
    • The Seville Statement on Violence (1990) criticized the idea that violence is genetically hard-wired.
    • Difficulties in proving robust gene–environment interactions; evidence is growing but complex.
  • Brain development and nature–nurture interaction:
    • Current understanding emphasizes gene–hormone interactions from the womb shaping development (Stiles, 2011).
    • Newborn reflexes (e.g., rooting, facial responses) show basic universal patterns, but these do not imply biology destines adult behavior (Cosmides & Tooby, 1997; Johnson & Morton, 1991).
    • All known cultures share some common characteristics (language, emotional expression, child-rearing rules, sexuality norms, beauty standards), yet the manifestations of these features vary greatly across cultures (Brown, 1991).
    • The idea that biology is destiny is rejected: while biology influences behavior, culture and environment shape how those tendencies are expressed.
  • Cross-cultural variation and commonalities:
    • If biology were the sole determinant, cultures would be more similar; the observed diversity (e.g., dietary laws like pork restrictions across Jews/Muslims vs China’s dietary practices) shows culture matters (
      Elias, 1987; Elias & Dunning, 1987; Foucault, 1988).
  • The role of culture and media:
    • 2008 American Journal of Sociology issue explored genetics vs social influences; conclusions: genetics matter but gene effects depend on social context.
    • Examples:
    • Obesity in adolescents: family lifestyle factors (TV time, meals) influence overweight risk even when parents are heavy (Martin, 2008).
    • Gender differences in math performance: cross-country variation tied to country-level gender inequality rather than biology (Penner, 2008).
    • Alcohol dependence: a gene may increase risk, but strong family support can reduce it (Pescosolido et al., 2008).
  • The sociological view on learning and socialization:
    • Behavior is learned through interactions with family, peers, school, media, and the broader social environment.
    • Childhood socialization is crucial because humans have large brains and long dependency periods; cultures socialize children in distinct ways (e.g., American classroom multiplication table vs. forest hunting in Borneo).
  • Synthesis and current stance:
    • Most sociologists today accept a role for nature, but with strong qualifications: there are common human capacities, but cultural context shapes how these capacities are expressed.
    • The prevailing view: biology and culture interact in complex, intricate ways that are not yet fully understood; no universal biological destiny.

Does the Internet Promote a Global Culture?

  • Common belief: rapid global internet growth spreads Western liberal values (equality of men and women, free speech, democracy, consumerism).
  • However, cyberspace is becoming increasingly global yet compatible with traditional cultural values, and can even strengthen those values in societies that regulate or control content.
  • National censorship and selective openness:
    • Saudi Arabia provides a key example: a monarchy that filters content, blocks content deemed harmful or anti-Islamic, restricts messaging apps, and even required Apple to remove FaceTime for iPhones in the kingdom.
    • In 2016, a Saudi individual received a 10-year prison sentence and 2,000 lashes for “spreading atheism” on Twitter (Freedom House, 2016).
    • Despite repression, the internet offers spaces for self-expression, including women’s health issues, indicating a complex interaction between global connectivity and local norms.
  • The internet as an echo chamber:
    • The online environment can reinforce like-minded groups and beliefs (Manjoo, 2008; Sunstein, 2012).
    • Case study: a Jewish ultraorthodox group found the internet strengthened community communication and idea sharing (Barzilai-Nahon & Barzilai, 2005).
    • This has led to the notion of digitally linked tribes with unique beliefs, identities, and potential conflicts with the dominant culture.
  • Subcultures and hybridity:
    • Youth subcultures (hippies, punks, skinheads, Rastafari, Goths, gamers, rappers, dancehall) emerge as hybridizations of existing cultures; cultural identities are expressed through music, dress, hair, tattoos, etc.
    • Dancehall, originating in Jamaican poor neighborhoods, has spread globally via migration (Niahh, 2010).
  • Global reach and censorship:
    • Freedom House notes that about two-thirds of internet users live in countries where government criticism is censored.
    • Governments are increasingly targeting messaging apps (WhatsApp, Telegram) in addition to traditional social media platforms.
  • Extremist and violent content:
    • The internet is used by extremist groups (Al Qaeda, ISIS, other jihadist groups) to spread ideology, recruit, and organize acts of violence; suicide bombers post celebratory videos online (Juergensmeyer, 2008).
    • Extremist networks span multiple faiths and persuasions, leveraging online platforms to reach wider audiences.

Does Globalization Weaken or Strengthen Local Cultures?

  • Global interdependence creates a single social system, yet globalization reshapes time and distance in social life, influencing individuals far from where events occur.
  • Benefits and problems of globalization for Americans (and broadly):
    • Benefits: greater variety of goods and foods; exposure to global markets and ideas.
    • Problems: climate change, terrorism threats, and job displacement to low-wage workers in other countries.
  • Local cultural responses to globalization:
    • Many local cultures resist homogenization and seek rejuvenation, sometimes motivated by concern that Western cultural values will erase local practices.
    • Rejections of Western influence are seen in Islamist movements in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and parts of the Middle East, who aim to impose traditional values (e.g., prohibit alcohol, require beards, restrict women from working or public appearances with non-relatives).
    • Justifications for rejecting Western influence have been framed as a response to “Westoxification” (Osama bin Laden; Juergensmeyer, 2001).
  • Nationalism and identity:
    • Globalization is associated with rising nationalism and strong identification with ethnic or regional identities; nationalism can be political, sometimes promoting intolerance toward other groups (as seen in strife in Yugoslavia, parts of Africa, and the former Soviet Union).
    • New forms of nationalism and religious or cultural identities are continually forged around the world.
  • The internet’s dual role:
    • The same technology that facilitates globalization also supports local cultures by enabling diaspora and cross-cultural communication; thousands of pages exist celebrating diverse cultures and subcultures.
    • Sociologists generally conclude that local cultures remain strong despite globalization, but it is too early to determine whether globalization will lead to homogenization, increased cultural diversity, or a combination of both.
  • Personal and socialization dimensions:
    • Everyday social interactions with people from the same cultural background help sustain culture; technology allows this exchange to occur across distances.

How Easily Do Cultures Change?

  • Cultural lag concept (William F. Ogburn, 1922): cultural changes take time to catch up with technological changes, leading to social problems during rapid transformation. (Ogburn, 1964)
  • Modern examples of cultural lag and transformation:
    • Advances in synthetic biology and gene editing make it easier to alter genes, potentially creating new life forms or modifying disease susceptibility.
    • Potential applications discussed: altering Nantucket’s white-footed mice to resist Lyme disease; creating malaria-resistant mosquitoes; possibly designing human offspring with enhanced traits (e.g., students’ or athletes’ or musicians’ abilities) (Specter, 2017; Ledford, 2016).
    • These possibilities raise ethical questions about “rewriting the code of life,” potential unintended consequences, and concerns about playing God and violating shared values (McFadden, 2016).
    • In response, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine have issued guidelines for modifying human genes (Reardon, 2015).
  • China as a case study of cultural lag and modernization:
    • Thirty years ago, China was closed to foreign business; the government controlled most economic and cultural life; media and education were state-run; public posts often included admonitions of “acceptable behavior.”
    • Today, China features a much larger private economy, foreign firms, and a rapid flow of information; more than 1.6 billion cell phone users (Slotta, 2022) expose many Chinese to foreign ideas and culture.
    • The government still censors some content, but dissent is more tolerated than in the past, and Western brands (e.g., Apple) and technology have become influential.
    • Despite economic liberalization, traditional Chinese culture remains durable in some domains (e.g., emphasis on memorization and exam performance).
  • Innovation and cultural value systems:
    • A characteristic Chinese emphasis on memorization and rote learning has historically accompanied high performance on standardized tests but may discourage the kind of outside-the-box thinking associated with innovation.
    • The gaokao (college entrance exam) is a central cultural institution; millions of students undergo long, intensive preparation each year; it shapes life trajectories and institutional incentives (Miyazaki, 1981; Sudworth, 2012).
    • Global comparisons: in 2012, on the OECD PISA assessment, Chinese students outperformed peers in science, reading, and math; U.S. students ranked lower in science (20th), reading (17th), and math (27th) among the 65 countries tested.

Key References and Examples Mentioned

  • Scheff (1966) on labeling and mental illness as a product of society rather than biochemistry.
  • Stiles (2011) on gene–hormone interactions shaping development from the womb.
  • Cosmides & Tooby (1997); Johnson & Morton (1991) on newborn reflexes.
  • Elias (1987); Elias & Dunning (1987); Foucault (1988) on cross-cultural differences in beauty and norms.
  • Bearman (2008); Martin (2008); Penner (2008); Pescosolido et al. (2008) on genetics, environment, and social context.
  • Juergensmeyer (2008, 2001) on global religions and extremism online; Osama bin Laden’s Westoxification concept.
  • Barzilai-Nahon & Barzilai (2005) on how the internet can reinforce community boundaries.
  • Freedom House (2016) on censorship and punishment for online dissent.
  • Specter (2017); Ledford (2016) on gene editing advancements and bioethics; McFadden (2016) on ethical concerns.
  • Reardon (2015) on NAS/NAM guidelines for gene modification.
  • Slotta (2022) on China’s 1.6 billion cell phone users.
  • Sudworth (2012) on gaokao and private tutoring.
  • Miyazaki (1981) on the historical roots of Chinese examination culture.
  • OECD (2012) PISA results showing cross-country performance differences.

Summary Takeaways

  • The nature–nurture debate remains relevant, with current sociological consensus emphasizing interaction: biology provides capacities, but culture and environment largely shape expression and behavior.
  • The Internet and globalization simultaneously promote global connectivity and reinforce local cultures, creating complex dynamics that can empower marginalized groups while also enabling transnational threats.
  • Globalization challenges include cultural homogenization risks and the reassertion of nationalist identities; local cultures often show resilience and revival alongside global influences.
  • Cultural change is uneven and operates within a framework of cultural lag, where technological advances outpace social norms and institutions, prompting ethical, political, and educational responses.