Thanks for the support and the feedback.
I have been giving a lot of thought to the nature vs. nurture debate. I am interested in what happens in utero when a developing child is not only exposed to stimulant drugs, but to antisocial behavior. This is not a judgment call as I am all for the expression of the self, among consenting adults--but what does it mean when you are floating inside the uterus and your biological parents are really messed up. Will their behavior leech into the cord feeding this child and then leave a permanent mark of which nothing can erase?
When I was younger, I was firmly in the "nurture" camp. No gray areas. Sheer will and determination would overcome most pathalogical behavior. Now, I am not too sure.
There has been research on this in the U.S. since 1925 and the results are skewed since the methodology in the longtitudinal study was inconsistent. The closest and most compelling research has been done in Denmark and with a sample size of almost 15,000 adoptees. Researchers found that adopted-away sons had an elevated risk of having a court conviction if their biological parent, rather than their adoptive parent, had one or more court convictions (14.7%).
Believe me, the factors that contribute to antisocial issues is complex, but I am really wondering if we are completely formed at such an early age that the environment we are raised in is just a pretty bow on an already formed dress?
I struggle with sharing this overly simplistic view of development, but what are the factors that cause a child to lie, cheat, steal, run away? Haven't we all fantasized about running away from life, work, relationships, etc. Yet, that is what they are a fantasy. As adults we know this. What happens when somebody acts on the fantasy, especially as a child? You go driving around your neighborhood, in your nightgown, missing a uterus, ovaries, and some tubing, until you find a small child waiting at a bus-stop going to Culver City with his dinosaur puppets in his rolling Spiderman suitcase.
So what do you think? Can we overcome the strong pull of nature? Can nurture ever come out on top of the equation? Does it even matter? Is all you need is love?
I leave you not with a recipe, but with a poem, by Paul Anderson from his book, Storytelling with the Flannel Board (1963), which is about naughty cookies who escaped from their cookie jar one night. They don't return and I find that very sad.
The Runaway Cookies
The cookie jar people
Hopped out one night
When the cookie jar lid
Was not on tight.
The gingerbread man
Opened raisin eyes
And looked about
In great surprise.
The frosted bunny
Twinkled his nose
And danced around
On his cookie toes.
The sugary duck
Began to quack
And shake the sugar
Off his back.
The cinnamon bear
Could only grunt
For he was too fat
To do a stunt.
The coconut lamb
Jumped up so high
That his little white tail
Flew toward the sky.
They were all so happy
To be at play
That they danced and danced
And danced away.
They danced away
So very far
That they never came back
To the cookie jar.
Posts
Welcome to the world of Blog! I share your doubts about why I am blogging. I spent several years writing memoirs, and when I reached chapter 50 decided I'd had enough. Not so much I decided; it was my muse--that which drives a writer to write--who no longer was amused. (There's a pun there, I think.) Still, I wanted to write. So why not cast my pearls of wisdom to the clouds and see what falls to the earth? But whatever the forum, I do believe everyone should write. I certainly have found it meaning-making, especially after I gave up doing freelance for wretched pay. In fact, I found the process of finding my writers voice an enlightening experience. So go to it, dear Stacy.
ReplyDeleteI like to encourage people with Wm. Zinsser ("On Writing Well"):
"Sell yourself, and your subject will exert its own appeal.
Believe in your own identity and your own opinions.
Proceed with confidence, generating it, if necessary, by
pure willpower."