Component 1 Section A: the nature versus nurture debate, the sociological emphasis on nurture and socialisation, and the implications of cases of feral and isolated children for understanding the development of human behaviour.

What this dot point is asking

The nature versus nurture debate asks whether human behaviour is shaped mainly by biology (genes, instinct) or by society (socialisation, environment). OCR Section A expects you to know why sociologists overwhelmingly stress nurture and to use the evidence of feral and isolated children to make the case. It is the philosophical foundation beneath the whole specification: if behaviour is learned, then identity, inequality and deviance are social, not natural.

The answer

Two sides of the debate

Nature explanations come from sociobiology and parts of psychology: they treat behaviour such as aggression or gender difference as rooted in biology. Nurture explanations come from sociology: behaviour is taught by the agencies of socialisation and varies with culture.

The sociological case for nurture

Sociologists offer two main arguments:

• Cross-cultural variation. If behaviour were purely biological, it would be the same in every society. In fact, gender roles, norms and values differ between cultures and over time, which shows they must be learned rather than instinctive.
• Feral and isolated children. Cases of children raised with little or no human contact provide a natural test: if "human" behaviour is innate, it should develop anyway; if it depends on socialisation, isolation should impair it.

The evidence from feral children

• Genie (USA) was confined and deprived of normal social contact until the age of 13. Despite intensive teaching afterwards, she never fully acquired language, suggesting a critical period for socialisation.
• Oxana Malaya (Ukraine), raised among dogs with little human contact, copied canine behaviour such as barking and walking on all fours, and had to relearn human behaviour later.
• The historic, and much-debated, cases of wolf children (such as Kamala and Amala) were reported to lack speech and upright walking until resocialised.

These cases are used to argue that socialisation makes us human: without it, language and recognisably human social behaviour do not develop normally.

Towards an interactionist view

Most sociologists today accept that nature and nurture interact: biology provides a capacity (for language, for example), but it is realised only through socialisation. The discipline's focus remains firmly on nurture, because that is where social patterns, and social change, are explained.

Examples in context

A strong answer names the case precisely, links it explicitly to nature versus nurture, and shows awareness that the modern position is interactionist rather than either extreme.

Try this

Q1. Outline two arguments sociologists use to support the nurture side of the debate. [4 marks]

• What the marker wants. Two arguments (AO1, two marks each): cross-cultural variation in norms shows behaviour is learned, and feral-child cases show socialisation is needed for human development.

Q2. Outline and explain two implications of the nature versus nurture debate for the study of gender. [12 marks]

• Cue. Two developed points: if gender is learned (Oakley's gender role socialisation) it can change, supporting feminism, whereas a nature view treats gender difference as fixed; each applied to evidence such as cross-cultural differences in gender roles.