Nature/Nurture: One and the same?

[green betty]

I'm working on a sermon (Unitarian Universalist) discussing nature v. nurture from a spiritual perspective. My view is that they are different lenses on the same process. Humans are animals and nurturing is part of what it is our nature to do. It is through wide-scale nurturing that human nature (or at least our perception of it) changes. I'm looking for thoughts and comments from moms on this: people who spend their days nurturing shoud have interesting things to say!

If I end up using one of your comments I'll send you a copy of the sermon...

[rainy32]

hmmm ... v. interesting. i have more questions than comments, though. when you say, "two lenses on the same process" do you mean that nature and nurture are actually two ways of looking at one thing (if so, it sounds like you mean that that one thing is "nurturing" which is essential to our "nature") or do you mean that the traditional way of viewing the nature v. nurture debate is really just creating a false dichotomy, using two (unnecessary) lenses to view one incredible process (the development [wrong word .. trying not to use evolutionary language here ....] of humanity)??

I agree that it is in our nature to nurture -- humans are born social and caring beings .... of course, the question may well be what alienates us from that nature (capitalism? greed? ego? disconnection from spirit?) -- I'd argue, I guess, that the widespread split from our nurturing selves is what has made it possible to even conceive of a question like "nature v. nurture"

-rainy

[stafl]

Seems the UU minister at my church, back a few decades, had a sermon on this subject, but I can't remember it at all now.
You bring up an interesting point, but I must say that I strongly disagree with you.
I think it's a combination of nature and nurture that define who we are, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The two forces are definitely separate, though. Some things are biological processes and some things are learned. I can't hold with any argument that says otherwise.

It's like we are being dealt a hand of cards. We are born with a few cards that we will always have, and as we grow up and experience things in the world, we acquire more cards, some of which we might exchange for other cards as we grow and learn more things. We never have the whole deck, though, because of our imperfect nature, but the cards we are holding at any given point defines how we experience and react to any particular situation.

[green betty]

Rainy--I would say that yes, they are two lenses on one thing--but that one isn't necessarily subordinate to the other (still thinking this through) and that yes also it is a false dichotomy but a useful one for approaching the topic, as long as you know that's what you're doing.

Stafl--two thoughts in response to your comments: one is that learned information IS biological. It doesn't exist in the ether somewhere, but is physically imprinted in the brain and rest of the body. Our responses to information are also biological--emotions are not "in our head" but in our pulse and our horomones and our breath... Also, to say that we have an imperfect nature implies that there is such a thing as perfection, which I don't believe. I think that the most harmful concept JudeoChristian culture has given us is the idea that humans are essentially flawed as opposed to God, who is perfect. People who believe that they are essentially flawed make that a tenet of their psyche and behavior.
Not to slam your perspective, though--I appreciate your comments! This is helping me refine my thoughts on the topic.

[stafl]

Originally Posted by uuelisabeth

Stafl--two thoughts in response to your comments: one is that learned information IS biological. It doesn't exist in the ether somewhere, but is physically imprinted in the brain and rest of the body. Our responses to information are also biological--emotions are not "in our head" but in our pulse and our horomones and our breath...

I still can't agree, though I can admit you make a good argument for your point of view. Our reactions themselves may be biological, but they are defined by both biology and personal experience, nature *and* nurture. Noone can possibly deny that identical twins, with identical genes, raised in different families would undoubtably have many aspects in common, and have many other aspects which differ from each other simply because their experiences of the world are different.

I think our main disagreement here is that you are talking about "how" and I'm talking about "why" - and that perhaps if we delve deeper into these questions we might find that we aren't really disagreeing at all.

Also, to say that we have an imperfect nature implies that there is such a thing as perfection, which I don't believe.

I don't think so... I think of perfection as simply a goal to strive towards. Whether it really exists or not is inconsequential and really quite meaningless since we can never (as long as we inhabit our physical bodies, and as long as we possess free will) know for sure if it does infact exist at all.

[AmyB]

In the Nature/Nurture debate the word "nurture" means taking behavioral cues from what your culture tells you, not whether people/animals have affection for one another.

Two of my favorite books about nature/nurture are "Mother Nature" by Sara Hrdy & "Love at Goon Park" by Deborah Blum.

Blum's book is about monkey experiments done by Harry Harlow. This was at the time of the Skinner box when people believed that mother love was unnecessary and an ideal scientific method of child rearing could be found. Harlow tested theroies of affection on monkeys. He found that baby monkeys raised isolated with a mom were happy but grew up poorly socially adjusted. Baby monkeys who grew up with no mom but other babies grew up sad, but socially well adjusted. Monkeys in isolation from other monkeys went crazy, and the only consistantly successful way he found to get the crazy monkeys back into monkey society was to let them cuddle a baby.

Hrdy says that the level of nurturing a mother will provide is dependent on a calculated evaluation of whether the investment will pay off considering the chances the child will survive and the probability of having other children in the future. Hrdy says that it is fairly common for animal and even human mothers to cut their losses (brutal as that sounds) in order to conserve resources and try again under better circumstances. (For example, a young unmarried woman might have an abortion in the expectation that she would have more resources for her children once she is employed or married, or a woman who had IV fertilization and conceived multiples might reduce the number of embryos to give a singleton a better chance at survival).

The Harlow monkey experiments proved that the need to love and be loved is indeed part of Nature. However, Hrdy says that cultural interpretations of love, particularly of mother love, are romanticized and inaccurate.

--AmyB

[mothernurture]

You might also check out Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way we Parent by Meredith Small. Really good book!

[sleeping queen]

What scripture are you going to use for your sermon? I think by nature we are born with certain personalities, our sin nature, our unique qualities that are either male or female. I think how our parents nuture us and our enviroment will shape what qualities that we are born with.

[stafl]

T

Originally Posted by sleeping queen

What scripture are you going to use for your sermon?

: you haven't ever been to a UU service, have you?

[A&A]

Originally Posted by uuelisabeth

Stafl--two thoughts in response to your comments: one is that learned information IS biological. It doesn't exist in the ether somewhere, but is physically imprinted in the brain and rest of the body.

Yes, because of the change in the neuro-pathways in the brain when you learn something.

Are you also saying that information gets passed on, biologically, from generation to generation? If so, you are talking about Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. You should also read Joseph Campbell--he talks about this, as well.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by stafl

T


: you haven't ever been to a UU service, have you?

I have. My current UU minister was raised Christian and quotes the Bible quite often.

[sleeping queen]

NO.

[green betty]

Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal church in which the community supports each individual in seeking his or her spiritual path. About 10% of UUs are self-identified Christians, although most of those have theologies that exclude them from mainstream Christian faiths (such as Unitarianism, the anti-trinitarian belief that God is One, and Universalism, the belief that salvation is Universal). Some of our ministers preach from scripture frequently, some do occasionally, and many never do. I never do. I preach from a great variety of texts, but mainly from the text of life experience.

[rainy32]

nothing to add-- but I'm enjoying reading this thread!

[alliwenk]

Originally Posted by uuelisabeth

learned information IS biological. It doesn't exist in the ether somewhere, but is physically imprinted in the brain and rest of the body.

Hi uuelisabeth, as I said on the heaven/hell thread, I'm not sure that I will be all that helpful...but I tend to see the above as undeniably true. I'm a bit of a Kantian and think that the mind is already structured in such a way that makes perception of the world possible. A very simplistic example might be that our brains are "hardwired" to experience time and space, number, causation; our minds impose these forms onto the world and we are born ready to experience in this way. (Of course Kant was trying to lay the groundwork for phenomenology and scientific realism...so I'm not sure if this is useful to you...)

Originally Posted by uuelisabeth

Our responses to information are also biological--emotions are not "in our head" but in our pulse and our horomones and our breath...

I'm not sure that I get what you're saying here. I'm reading "information" as thought, or the acquisition of knowledge, or our experiece of the world. If that's what you mean then I think that what I said above validates that. BUT, I am confused on the "emotion" part. I don't personally think that most "emotions" are explained by what I've written above. I think that perhaps those are governed/dictated/created purely by "nurture."

I think that my philosophy background limits anything that I could say about pure emotion; perhaps a psychological background would be more helpful. (I am secretly a wee bit of a Freudian as far as emotion is concerned...but shhhh, don't tell anyone here ) So, and this is purely my own view, but YES, I can see many emotional responses being "hardwired."

Of course if by emotion you mean a mother's love, or wanting to help someone in danger, I think that these are more instinctual and would best fit into the nature aspect.

Originally Posted by uuelisabeth

Also, to say that we have an imperfect nature implies that there is such a thing as perfection, which I don't believe.

OT, but I think it was Aquinas that said that simply because we have the idea or concept of perfection, therefore it must exist. He also proved God's existence along similar lines. I've never bought this theory but Acquinas is a great writer and a lot of fun to read (that is if you're geeky like me ). One of my phil. profs said that Aquinas could prove ANYTHING.

I look forward to any replies here. Everyone here, please feel perfectly free to decimate my positions

Allison

[KoalaMama]

Hey Elisabeth! Did you give your sermon? How did it go?

(I've been lurking. )

[alliwenk]

Me too MamaToFallon ! How'd it go?

Allison

[green betty]

I gave it today, thanks for asking! I had a hard time framing my thoughts about the topic and ended up approaching it from a different slant: the main focus was on roses and how roses and humans have co-evolved (w/spiritual implications). I talked a lot about how it is intrinsic to human nature to nurture plants, animals, and each other--and that the process of doing so is an important element of evolution. I framed human intelligence and self-reflection as species-specific characteristics that OTHER species take advantage of for their own survival. It fit perfectly with Roses, Late Summer by Mary Oliver and a bunch of other stuff from the UU hymnal. I thought it went very well, but it was the first time in a looooong time that no one has asked me for a copy afterwards. So I'm still chewing it over. PM me if you want to read the text.

I got and read Our Babies, Ourselves, btw. Thanks for the recommendation, MN!

[barbara]

Originally Posted by rainy32

-- I'd argue, I guess, that the widespread split from our nurturing selves is what has made it possible to even conceive of a question like "nature v. nurture"

-rainy

Chimming in a little late here, but I loved what you said here rainy! I have pondered over the nature vs nurture question often over the years as I have observed the world around me, my children and now my grandchildren. I can only come the the conclusion that you can not seperate the two. we are both a product of our innate natures as well as our enviroment (ala Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book.)

An interesting book I have read recently, and would reccomend to anyone interested in human nature, birth and nurturing, is Birth as an American Rite of Passage by Robbie E. Davis-Floyd. The effects that our society has on our decisions about birth is very eye-opening.

I like the analogy of the rose ....human development is very much like a rose. Color, hardiness, etc is determined by the "nature" or "stock" from which the rose is derived, yet unlike a weed, the rose needs to be gently nutured in good soil, sun, rain, and effective pruning, to really shine in it's true beauty and potential.