The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do

Harris compares contemporary American views on parenting with historical ideas and practices in other cultures. Historically, people in America and Europe tended to live more communally. Many relatives and staff would live in one household, with parents and siblings sharing rooms. Because the home was often a workplace, there was less of a distinction between private and public life. Beginning in the 1800s, family life began changing: Men were more likely to work outside the home, making the home a domestic domain for women. Families became more nuclear, cementing the home as a private space. Because educated, wealthier families had more time and resources for childrearing, parenting advice by clergy or scientists became more common. Much of this advice was harsh by today’s standards, as parents were warned against over-feeding children or spoiling them. As people began to believe in the connection between parenting and children’s behavior, parents, especially mothers, became more “blamable” for children’s thoughts and actions (79).

Harris cites sociological research from around the world to demonstrate how other societies approach parenting and childhood. She claims that in many societies, children spend more time with their peers than they do at home, and younger children are initiated into peer groups by older children, who teach them the rules of play or work. Parents tend to punish misbehavior through physical punishment, teasing, or scary stories, and reward competence by giving children jobs to do. With that said, Harris argues contemporary parents value expert advice and anxiously try to follow it. Experts tend to recommend showing children unconditional love and affection, rejecting physical punishment and favoring verbal explanations of right and wrong. Harris claims this advice is grounded in cultural beliefs “peculiar to our culture and our time. A set of assumptions written in sand” (90), rather than scientific findings.

Harris explores human evolutionary history, examining the brain and behavior and comparing them to those of humans’ closest relative—the chimpanzee. In the first two years of life, human babies and chimp babies are similar. Developmentalist Winthrop Kellogg and his wife Luella Kellogg performed an experiment in the early 1930s, in which they raised chimp baby Gua in the same home and manner as their human baby Donald. The infants acted similarly, but Donald tended to imitate Gua more. Human babies tend to be sensitive to eye contact and are perceptive of their parents’ gaze. Harris claims these instincts are the foundation for “theory of mind,” or the ability to deduce someone else’s perspective. Most children, with the exception of those with autism, exhibit theory of mind, and it is possible that chimps also have this ability to aid communication and social behavior.

The human lineage deviated from chimps six million years ago. Anthropologists and geneticists believe that by studying chimps, humans can better understand their own behavior, and how they are distinct from animals. Chimps seem to be inherently xenophobic: They are scared of strangers and make war against neighboring groups. They may also bully or shun members of their own group who become “different” through illness or injury. Scholars Jared Diamond, Richard Wrangham, and Jane Goodall theorize that the human tendency to make war is based on instincts shared with chimps. Evolutionarily, war may have prompted the human brain to become more complex. Scientists call this shift the “cognitive arms race,” since more intelligent groups become more capable of self-defense, and are therefore more likely to survive (102). However, Harris rejects the false dichotomy that imagines humans as either altruistic or aggressive. She agrees with British scientist Charles Darwin that humans tend to be altruistic within their own groups, and aggressive with outsiders; these instincts are not mutually exclusive. Overall, human communities place great importance on forming close bonds and distinguishing themselves from others.

Harris connects the instinct to form bonds to children’s desire to integrate themselves in friend groups to maximize their chance of survival. However, she argues there are four reasons why children are not wired to emulate their parents in this integration. Firstly, if children were to emulate their parents, they might lose out on innovations invented by younger members of a group. Secondly, being influenced by many children and adults helps younger members develop a variety of skills, which helps their survival and that of the group. Thirdly, many children lost one or both parents due to historical factors, and so, relying on them too much is disadvantageous. Fourthly, there are sometimes competing interests between parents and offspring that prompt the latter to look elsewhere for bonding and resources. Harris reiterates that children’s survival historically depended on creating connections, especially with peers.