In 2000, Marian Perkins supported Harris in the journal “BMJ”. In doing so she reminded readers that what has been taken as self-evident fact actually sat on a shaky foundation. “In an age when it is virtually impossible to browse in a bookshop or pass through a supermarket checkout without being bombarded by various types of literature on how to parent your children,” she wrote, “it is indeed timely and to some extent refreshing to read a book dedicated to propounding the theory that what parents do doesn’t matter. What matters, according to Judith Rich Harris, other than any genetic influence is a child’s peer group. She postulates that the role of parental upbringing has no influence on a child’s personality or, in her words, ‘how the children ultimately turn out.’
“Much of the book is dedicated to challenging the traditional notions and theories relating to parental influence on a child’s development from various theoretical standpoints such as psychology, anthropology, behaviour genetics, and sociology. Notions such as that the early attachment patterns of a child, propounded in Bowlby’s classical theories, will form a pattern of interaction that will be a template for later relationships, and the Freudian psychoanalytical theories regarding childhood development come in for particular scrutiny and criticism.”
The same year, Peter K Smith also gave his support in the journal “Politics and the Life Sciences”:
“Judith Rich Harris’s book has generated very considerable controversy and publicity. The bottom line of her argument is that, when we think of how children develop, what interests they have, and whether they become good citizens or delinquent ones, the two main sources of influence are (1) the child’s genetic inheritance and temperament, and (2) the influence of the peer group through middle childhood and adolescence. Thus, the enduring influence of the parents is minimal-the” nurture” assumption is wrong. Why has this caused controversy? At an academic level, many psychologists have invested a lot of time and effort in studying parenting, assuming that parents effectively mould, or at least strongly influence, the kind of adult their child (ren) will become. This model is supported by such diverse views as psychoanalysis, and behaviourism, and by” socialization” theories more generally in the social sciences. It has been rather uncritically accepted for decades-so Harris asserts, and about this, I think she is undoubtedly correct.”
Food crisis: Be proactive in response, research bodies tells FG
IGR: FG Introduces Digital Platform To Ease Business In FCT
Those who disagree
There have been notable critiques of Judith Harris’s book “The Nurture Assumption” since its publication. Here are some of the most common criticisms:
Overemphasis on peer influence: Some critics argue that Harris places too much emphasis on the influence of peers on children’s development, to the point of overlooking the role of parents and family dynamics. They argue that parents do play a significant role in shaping their children’s experiences outside the home and that family dynamics can have a lasting impact on a child’s development.
Oversimplification of the nature vs. nurture debate: Some critics argue that Harris oversimplifies the complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors in human development. They suggest that while genes may play a significant role in determining personality and behaviour, environmental factors such as parenting and peer influence can also have a significant impact.
Lack of empirical evidence: Some critics argue that Harris’s book is based more on theoretical arguments than on empirical evidence. They suggest that while Harris makes compelling arguments, her claims are not always supported by rigorous scientific research.
Misinterpretation of research: Some critics argue that Harris misinterprets or selectively cites research studies to support her arguments. They suggest that her analysis of the research is flawed and that her claims are not supported by the broader body of research in the field.
Overall, while Harris’s book has been influential in challenging traditional assumptions about the role of parents in children’s development, it has also been the subject of significant debate and criticism in the field of child development. Personally, I find some merits to her argument if we bring a religious perspective into it. Consider these two points at least.
One, even the children of the best men in their communities have been delinquent. A ready example is the son of Noah. While the believers joined his father, his disbelief led him to refuse and subsequently perished in the flood. That supports the thesis that children can get socialized outside the home in such a way that it determines their choices in life.
About that, Harris wrote:
“You cannot coat a child with honey and expect it to protect her against all the vinegar in the world.”
Also, Islam says that we’re awoken in the hereafter in the company of those we kept in the world.
As for the argument for genes, religion encourages us to investigate the family background and the character of the spouse we choose because, Harris argues: “It’s not that good parenting produces good children, it’s that good parents produce good children.”
So how can parents influence their children? Harris advised that parents should behave as a group, create an us-versus-them mentality and lead that group. To illustrate, Harris gave the example of Donald.
Donald Thornton, a laborer, aimed to provide his six daughters with better opportunities than he had. To achieve this, he encouraged his daughters to strive for success and compared them favorably with their peers. He also prevented them from socializing with anyone outside their siblings, thus creating a sense of unity among the siblings. The daughters accepted their father as their leader, saw themselves as a collective, and all went on to become accomplished professionals.
