The nature versus nurture debate, the sociological emphasis on nurture, and the evidence from feral children and cross-cultural studies that behaviour is learned.

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas wants you to explain the nature versus nurture debate, to know why sociologists stress nurture, and to use the key evidence (feral children and cross-cultural comparison) to support that view. The debate matters because it underpins the whole subject: sociology only makes sense if behaviour is learned rather than fixed by biology.

The debate

The debate is important because it sets sociology apart from purely biological explanations. If behaviour were simply inborn, there would be little for sociology to study; the fact that behaviour is learned through socialisation is what makes a social science of human life possible.

The evidence from feral children

The logic is that if behaviour were purely natural and inborn, it would appear in a child regardless of how they were raised. Because feral children lack the most basic social behaviours, the case suggests that those behaviours must be learned through contact with others, supporting the sociological emphasis on socialisation.

Cross-cultural and historical evidence

A second line of evidence comes from comparing societies. If behaviour were fixed by biology, it would be the same everywhere; in fact, norms and values differ between cultures. Gender roles, diet, manners, ideas of beauty and acceptable behaviour all vary from one society to another, and they also change over time within the same society. This variation shows that much behaviour is culturally learned rather than biologically determined.

Sociologists draw the cautious conclusion that biology provides the raw material (humans can learn language, for example) but socialisation determines the content (which language, which norms, which identity). This is why the subject treats behaviour as social, while still accepting that nature plays a supporting part.