The Nurture Assumption

The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris is a well researched book with a somewhat complex thesis, so it's a bit hard to summarize concisely, but I will try.

What makes a person who they are? How is he shaped during childhood to produce the adult personality? Scientists have determined, through study after study, that roughly half of the personality is inherited genetically. The other half is shaped by outside forces. These two influences used to be known as heredity vs environment, but now is more commonly called nature vs nurture. The "nurture assumption" in the title of Harris's book is the assumption that nurture = parenting. And she states unequivocally that that is false.

As a psychology textbook writer, Harris observed that when it came to studies showing the effects of parenting styles and parental behavior on children, there were only loose correlations at best. When looked at closely, the proof that parenting styles had any real lasting effects on children was simply not there. So she went in search of what really was influencing children - besides genes - and, after combing through numerous scientific and academic literature on parents and children, twins, siblings, ancient human cultures, modern day traditional/tribal cultures, and fellow primates, she came up with "group socialization theory." In short, peer groups are the major influence on children aside from genetic inheritance. Children are socialized, ie, they learn culture and gender roles and proper behavior, from other children - their playmates and classmates at school.

The essence of the theory is that our ancestry as animals/early humans who lived in groups and depended on groups for survival set an evolutionary precedent for people, particularly as children, to conform to the norms of the group they are in. Children in an ancient or a traditional culture would primarily hang with other children from about the age of two and a half or three - as people were organized in small communities rather than nuclear families. When a child was two to three, the mother would typically be caring for the next newborn and leave the other children to watch over each other in the playgroup. This where children would, and still do according to Harris, learn how to behave, learn how to be kids, learn how to be a girl or boy, and even learn how to talk (traditional mothers and fathers do not talk to babies and so a child would typically learn language from his playmates at two or three years old).

I approached this thesis with skepticism, but I have to tell you that, one by one, Harris knocked down each of my objections. The book is so thorough that I can't go through each of her arguments and counter-arguments here, but if you are interested in the topic I do recommend the book. It's surprisingly easy to read, fascinating, and even witty at times. By the end of it I think you do have to at least grudgingly admit that "group socialization theory" makes a hell of a lot of sense, even if you insist that parents must have more effect than she argues for.

Not that she says they have NO effect on children. She says that of course the way you rear your children will affect their relationship with YOU, and it will affect their home life and how happy a childhood they have. Those things are important to most people and reason enough to try to treat your children well. She also suspects that things that aren't the province of most childhood groups, like religion, politics, and cooking traditions, may be handed down from parent to child. Which is good news to me as I feel strongly about all three.

But, she declares, the guilt-ridden obsession with parenting the right way is a total waste of time and energy. Whether you spank or give time-outs, whether you start solids at 4 months or 6 months, whether you teach them to say "please" and "thank you," whether you figure out how to stop tantrums or not, none of this really matters in the long run. (Interestingly, though, she does recommend on demand breastfeeding and co-sleeping as traditional mothering methods that are much more natural and easy than modern American obsessions with schedules.) Admittedly, despite my skepticism, this has a lot of appeal, and her conclusion that we all stop stressing out about parenting came like a breath of fresh air to me. Parenting, she insists, is supposed to be enjoyable, and if you are not enjoying it, you're "working too hard." Sounds pretty good to me.