This blog post explores whether human nature is determined by genes or whether culture and nurture exert a greater influence. We examine the arguments for both perspectives and analyze the complex factors shaping human development.
Countless living beings coexist in the world. Among them, humans are unique in their ability to think, use language and tools, and live in systematically organized societies. Individual humans form families through blood ties; these families gather to form societies; and as this scale expands, it constitutes the world. Culture emerges from this process of living in society. Culture represents the departure from a natural state to achieve certain goals or ideals of life. Culture refers to the processes by which behavioral patterns or lifestyles are acquired, shared, and transmitted among members of a society, along with the material and spiritual achievements resulting from these processes. Culture encompasses everything from clothing, food, and shelter to language, customs, religion, scholarship, art, and institutions—elements absent in non-human species. Thus, culture is directly linked to human growth and development. Observing how a newborn baby, who only cries at birth, acquires language and knowledge through education, and later develops self-awareness by expressing thoughts, one might conclude that culture fundamentally shapes a person. This theory is called cultural determinism.
However, some question the claim that culture determines humans. They argue that humans, like other living beings, possess inherent biological characteristics, and it is these characteristics that determine human behavior. Simply put, humans follow their physical nature. The theory that systematizes this argument is biological determinism. The debate over whether nature or nurture determines human beings, and whether biological determinism or cultural determinism is correct, has persisted from ancient times to the present. This is a topic of conversation for many and, furthermore, a subject of research. A defining feature of this debate is that it cannot be definitively settled as to what is right or wrong. This is because research on the extent to which nature and nurture influence humans has not been perfected. This article aims to describe cultural determinism, the perspective that nurture determines humans. We will examine cultural determinism in greater detail and explore why cultural determinism, rather than biological determinism, holds validity.
According to dictionary definitions, cultural determinism is the theory that an individual’s behavior is almost entirely determined by the culture to which they belong. It was proposed by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim and his school of thought. Unlike Émile Durkheim, others have discussed cultural determinism from a cultural anthropological perspective rather than a sociological one. Alfred Lewis Kroeber stated that culture is an autonomous entity transcending the individual, rendering the individual powerless before it. James L. White also asserted that culture, as a symbolic system, is an external entity that cannot be reduced to the individual. This cultural determinism can be observed through the process of human infancy and growth.
Humans are born to parents and begin growing within the culture of the family. From this point, upbringing—the importance of cultural determinism—becomes prominent. Depending on which family one grows up in and under which parents, individuals develop distinct characteristics. The SBS program ‘Our Child Has Changed’ demonstrates how upbringing shapes individuals through numerous real-life cases. The show begins by presenting the child’s issues. Subsequently, a child and adolescent specialist, recruited by the program, appears before the child and parents. After analyzing days of observation footage, the expert tells the parents during an interview that the child’s problems stem from the parents’ flawed parenting. The program then concludes by showing the process of changing the parents’ behavior and, consequently, the child’s transformation. Of course, simply because one TV program, and one expert’s opinion at that, says so doesn’t mean it’s correct. But one thing is certain: this program shows the impact of upbringing on humans through the unvarnished reality of countless families, not actors or performers following a script.
Would biological determinists agree that upbringing determines a person, based on the above case? A prominent proponent of this view is Oxford University biology professor Richard Dawkins. In his book The Selfish Gene, he argues that genes determine human behavior, that human reproduction is behavior already programmed into genes, and that even love is a means to pass on more genes. Based on this definition, one could argue that the children’s behavior in the above case was also predetermined. Issues like violent tendencies or strong appetites are already determined by human genes. While some positive changes might be expected through upbringing, the fundamental cause would be nature, not nurture.
However, as mentioned earlier, the claim that humans are determined by genes—that is, biological factors—commits the fallacy of reductionism. Reductionism is the position that seeks to explain complex and abstract ideas or concepts by reducing them to a single level of more basic elements. According to Richard Dawkins, the behavior of organisms is carried out to perpetuate their species, in other words, to preserve the selfish genes of that species. However, he goes further, attempting to explain the social values of human goodness and evil through these biological behaviors. Those who refute this argue that there is no conclusive evidence that biological behavior driven by genes can explain all human activity.
Next, let us examine the examples presented by proponents of biological determinism. The most representative example they cite is identical twins. Identical twins share the same genes and exhibit similarities in fundamental human behaviors like thought patterns and behavioral tendencies, which is cited as evidence for biological determinism. But do they exhibit completely identical biological behaviors? No. While we may be able to confirm the extent of a gene’s influence on humans, this cannot serve as definitive proof that nature governs human beings.
I aim to demonstrate, through more scientific evidence, that the claim genes determine humans is incorrect. According to the results of the Genome Project conducted in 2001, the number of human genes is between 20,000 and 40,000, not significantly different from other animals and far fewer than the expected 100,000. This fact shows genes do not correspond 1:1 with human characteristics. Furthermore, if a single gene cannot even determine physical traits, it is nearly impossible to conclude that genes determine the more complex and expansive behaviors of humans. American biologist Richard Lewontin argues that genetic determinism is flawed by citing three characteristics of genes. First, the process by which genes are expressed is autonomous. Second, the genes constituting an organism interact during expression to manifest new properties not previously present. Genetic diseases may be considered exceptions because a single gene determines the trait, but excluding such cases, physical traits emerge through the interaction of genes. Third, external influences continuously act upon gene expression, enabling new expression processes to occur. The reductionist fallacy mentioned earlier can be refuted by these characteristics of genes. The last characteristic, in particular, provides evidence for the slight differences observed between identical twins.
In fact, the conclusion regarding the debate over whether nature or nurture determines humans is now largely settled. The prevailing view is that humans are shaped not by one factor alone, but through the interaction between genes and culture. Alongside this conclusion, some question whether distinguishing nature and nurture is even valid. Biologist Evelyn Fox Keller argues that the nature versus nurture debate is meaningless and that we must acknowledge these are not dichotomous concepts but rather mutually influencing factors. American evolutionary biologist Paul R. Ehrlich similarly states this debate is pointless, even calling the question itself foolish. Nevertheless, this paper has presented the perspective that nurture exerts a greater influence on humans than nature. As mentioned earlier, research is still ongoing, and the boundary between nature and nurture remains unclear; conclusions may vary depending on the interpretive perspective. Therefore, I have come to hold the view that humans are determined not by genetic determinism but by cultural determinism.
