|
The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits. The alliterative expression "nature and nurture" in English has been in use since at least the Elizabethan period〔In English at least since Shakespeare (''The Tempest'' 4.1: ''a born devil, on whose nature nurture can never stick'') and Richard Barnfield (''Nature and nurture once together met / The soule and shape in decent order set.''); in the 18th century used by Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke (''Roach v. Garvan'', "I appointed therefore the mother guardian, who is properly so by nature and nurture, where there is no testamentary guardian.")〕 and goes back to medieval French.〔English usage is based on a tradition going back to medieval literature, where the opposition of ''nature'' ("instinct, inclination") ''norreture'' ("culture, adopted mores") is a common motif, famously in Chretien de Troyes' ''Perceval'', where the hero's effort to suppress his natural impulse of compassion in favour of what he considers proper courtly behaviour leads to catastrophe. Norris J. Lacy, ''The Craft of Chrétien de Troyes: An Essay on Narrative Art'', Brill Archive, 1980, (p. 5 ).〕 The combination of the two concepts as complementary is ancient (Greek: 〔in Plato's ''Protagoras'' 351b; an opposition is made by Protagoras' character between ''art'' on one hand and ''constitution and fit nurture'' (nature and nurture) of the soul on the other, ''art'' (as well as ''rage and madness''; ἀπὸ τέχνης ἀπὸ θυμοῦ γε καὶ ἀπὸ μανίας) contributing to ''boldness'' (θάρσος), but ''nature and nurture'' combine to contribute to ''courage'' (ἀνδρεία). "Protagoras, in spite of the misgiving of Socrates, has no scruple in announcing himself a teacher of virtue, because virtue in the sense by him understood seems sufficiently secured by nature and nuture." R. W. Mackay, "Introduction to the ''Meno'' in comparison with the ''Protagoras''", ''Meno: A Dialogue on the Nature and Meaning of Education'' (1869), (p. 138 ).〕). The phrase in its modern sense was popularized by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton, the modern founder of eugenics, in discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement,〔 〕 Galton was influenced by the book ''On the Origin of Species'' written by his half-cousin, Charles Darwin. The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed ''tabula rasa'' ("blank slate") by John Locke in 1690. A "blank slate view" in human developmental psychology assuming that human behavioral traits develop almost exclusively from environmental influences, was widely held during much of the 20th century (sometimes termed "blank-slatism"). The debate between "blank-slate" denial of the influence of heritability, and the view admitting both environmental and heritable traits, has often been cast in terms of nature ''versus'' nurture. These two conflicting approaches to human development were at the core of an ideological dispute over research agendas during the later half of the 20th century. As both "nature" and "nurture" factors were found to contribute substantially, often in an extricable manner, such views were seen as naive or outdated by most scholars of human development by the 2000s.〔see e.g. Moore, David S. (2003). (The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of Nature Vs. Nurture ), Henry Holt. ISBN 978-0805072808 Esposito, E. A., Grigorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2011). The Nature-Nurture Issue (an Illustration Using Behaviour-Genetic Research on Cognitive Development). In Alan Slater, & Gavin Bremner (eds.) An Introduction to Developmental Psychology: Second Edition, BPS Blackwell. Dusheck, Jennie, The Interpretation of Genes. ''Natural History'', October 2002 Carlson, N.R. ''et al.''. (2005) Psychology: the science of behaviour (3rd Canadian ed) Pearson Ed. ISBN 0-205-45769-X Ridley, M. (2003) ''Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human''. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-00-200663-4 Westen, D. (2002) ''Psychology: Brain, Behavior & Culture''. Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-38754-1〕 In their 2014 survey of scientists, many respondents wrote that the dichotomy of nature ''versus'' nurture has outlived its usefulness, and should be retired. The reason is that in many fields of research, close feedback loops have been found in which "nature" and "nurture" influence one another constantly (as in self-domestication), while in other fields, the dividing line between an inherited and an acquired trait becomes unclear (as in the field of epigenetics or in fetal development).〔(Edge.org: Nature Versus Nurture ), accessed 01/25/2014〕〔(Time to Retire The Simplicity of Nature vs. Nurture ) by Alison Gopnik, "Mind and Matter", published 01/25/2014, WSJ〕 ==History of the debate== John Locke's ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' (1690) is often cited as the foundational document of the "blank slate" view. Locke was criticizing René Descartes' claim of an innate idea of God universal to humanity. Locke's view was harshly criticized in his own time. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury complained that by denying the possibility of any innate ideas, Locke "threw all order and virtue out of the world", leading to total moral relativism. Locke's was not the predominant view in the 19th century, which on the contrary tended to focus on "instinct". Leda Cosmides and John Tooby noted that William James (1842–1910) argued that humans have ''more'' instincts than animals, and that greater freedom of action is the result of having more psychological instincts, not fewer.〔(Cosmides & Tooby, Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer )〕 The question of "innate ideas" or "instincts" were of some importance in the discussion of free will in moral philosophy. In 18th-century philosophy, this was cast in terms of "innate ideas" establishing the presence of a universal virtue, prerequisite for objective morals. In the 20th century, this argument was in a way inverted, as some philosophers now argued that the evolutionary origins of human behavioral traits forces us to concede that there is no foundation for ethics (J. L. Mackie), while others treat ethics as a field in complete isolation from evolutionary considerations (Thomas Nagel). In the early 20th century, there was an increased interest in the role of the environment, as a reaction to the strong focus on pure heredity in the wake of the triumphal success of Darwin's theory of evolution.〔Hamilton Craven, ''The Triumph of Evolution: The Heredity-Environment Controversy, 1900-1941'' (1978) "While it would be inaccurate to say that most American experimentalists concluded as the result of the general acceptance of Mendelism by 1910 or so that heredity was all powerful and environment of no consequence, it was nevertheless true that heredity occupied a much more prominent place than environment in their writings."〕 During this time, the social sciences developed as the project of studying the influence of culture in clean isolation from questions related to "biology". Franz Boas's ''The Mind of Primitive Man'' (1911) established a program that would dominate American anthropology for the next fifteen years. In this study he established that in any given population, biology, language, material and symbolic culture, are autonomous; that each is an equally important dimension of human nature, but that no one of these dimensions is reducible to another. The tool of twin studies was developed after World War I as an experimental setup intended to exclude all confounders based on inherited behavioral traits. Such studies are designed to decompose the variability of a given trait in a given population into a genetic and an environmental component. John B. Watson in the 1920s and 1930s established the school of purist behaviorism that would become dominant over the following decades. Watson was convinced of the complete dominance of cultural influence over anything heritability might contribute, to the point of claiming :"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors." (''Behaviorism'', 1930, p. 82) During the 1940s to 1960s, Ashley Montagu was a notable proponent of this purist form of behaviorism which allowed no contribution from heredity whatsoever: :"Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned, acquired, from his culture () with the exception of the instinctoid reactions in infants to sudden withdrawals of support and to sudden loud noises, the human being is entirely instinctless."〔''Man and Aggression'' (1968) cited after Steven Pinker, ''The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature'', Penguin, New York, 2002, p. 24〕 In 1951, Calvin Hall〔C.S. Hall (1951) The Genetics of Behavior, in ''Handbook of Experimental Psychology'', by S.S. Stevens (Ed.) New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 304–329〕 suggested that the dichotomy opposing nature to nurture ultimately fruitless. Robert Ardrey in the 1960s argued for innate attributes of human nature, especially concerning territoriality, in the widely-read ''African Genesis'' (1961) and ''The Territorial Imperative''. Desmond Morris in ''The Naked Ape'' (1967) expressed similar views. Organised opposition to Montagu's kind of purist "blank-slatism" began to pick up in the 1970s, notably led by E. O. Wilson (''On Human Nature'' 1979). Twin studies established that there was, in many cases, a significant heritable component. These results did not in any way point to overwhelming contribution of heritable factors, with heritability typically ranging around 40% to 50%, so that the controversy may not be cast in terms of purist behaviorism vs. purist nativism. Rather, it was purist behaviorism which was gradually replaced by the now-predominant view that both kinds of factors usually contribute to a given trait, anecdotally phrased by Donald Hebb as an answer to the question "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"〔Meaney M. (2004) The nature of nurture: maternal effects and chromatin remodelling, in Essays in Social Neuroscience, Cacioppo, JT & Berntson, GG eds. MIT press. ISBN 0-262-03323-2〕 In a comparable avenue of research, anthropologist Donald Brown in the 1980s surveyed hundreds of anthropological studies from around the world and collected a set of cultural universals. He identified approximately 150 such features, coming to the conclusion there is indeed a "universal human nature", and that these features point to what that universal human nature is.〔Pinker (2002), pg. 435-439.〕 At the height of the controversy, during the 1970s to 1980s, the debate was highly ideologised. In ''Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature'' (1984), Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon Kamin criticise "genetic determinism" from a Marxist framework, arguing that "Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology () If biological determinism is a weapon in the struggle between classes, then the universities are weapons factories, and their teaching and research faculties are the engineers, designers, and production workers." The debate thus shifted away from whether heritable traits exist to whether it was politically or ethically permissible to admit their existence. The authors deny this, requesting that that evolutionary inclinations could be discarded in ethical and political discussions regardless of whether they exist or not.〔Kohn, A. (1990) The Brighter Side of Human Nature"〕 Heritability studies became much easier to perform, and hence much more numerous, with the advances of genetic studies during the 1990s. By the late 1990s, an overwhelming amount of evidence had accumulated that amounts to a refutation of the extreme forms of "blank-slatism" advocated by Watson or Montagu. This revised state of affairs was summarized in books aimed at a popular audience from the late 1990s. In ''The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do'' (1998), Judith Rich Harris was heralded by Steven Pinker as a book that "will come to be seen as a turning point in the history of psychology". but Harris was criticized for exaggerating the point of "parental upbringing seems to matter less than previously thought" to the implication that "parents do not matter".〔 a position not actually taken by the author, but apparently it was feared that "lay readers" would still interpret the book in this way, as in "Will it free some to mistreat their kids, since 'it doesn't matter'?", attributed to "psychologist Frank Farley of Temple University, president of the APA division that honored Harris" by 〕 The situation as it presented itself by the end of the 20th century was summarized in ''The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature'' (2002) by Steven Pinker. The book became a best-seller, and was instrumental in bringing to the attention of a wider public the paradigm shift away from the behaviourist purism of the 1940s to 1970s that had taken place over the preceding decades. Pinker portrays the adherence to pure blank-slatism as an ideological dogma linked to two other dogmas found in the dominant view of human nature in the 20th century, which he termed "noble savage" (in the sense that people are born good and corrupted by bad influence) and "ghost in the machine" (in the sense that there is a human soul capable of moral choices completely detached from biology). Pinker argues that all three dogmas were held onto for an extended period even in the face of evidence because they were seen as ''desirable'' in the sense that if any human trait is purely conditioned by culture, any undesired trait (such as crime or aggression) may be engineered away by purely cultural (political means). Pinker focusses on reasons he assumes were responsible for unduly repressing evidence to the contrary, notably the fear of (imagined or projected) political or ideological consequences. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「nature versus nurture」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|