Tom Chivers’ Telegraph article looking at parental influence on child behaviour/future development is a great
demonstration of the current and future battle lines of left/right political thought.
Chivers argues against David Cameron’s
introduction of access to more free training/educational materials for new
parents. Whilst I don’t think Cameron’s plan will have any great impact, the
act itself is a minute step in the right direction, or at least a nod towards
it. As a Labourite, I have no reason to admire anything Cameron does, but even
a stopped clock tells the time correctly twice a day.
The basis of Chivers argument is thus; humans
are innately good at rearing children, the same as any other animal, because
they have evolved their approach over hundreds of millions of years. He goes on
to explain that children are also extremely good at getting from their parents
what they want/manipulating them (i.e. they’re not just receptacles) and that
this behaviour is determined by genetics, basing his evidence on a book by
Steven Pinker called the Blank Slate (arguing against the ‘tabula rasa’ theory
of mankind).
Chivers’ article is typical of right-wing
belief; humans are the opposite of a blank slate. They are born one way or
another, and what happens during their lifetime/early years doesn’t really have
a great impact on their behaviour as an adult. This is why he berates Cameron’s
interventionist action of putting money into training/educational resources for
parents.
Except of course he is wrong. What happens
during a child’s early years has a very significant impact on later behaviour.
There are mountains of evidence of this, and there is a similarly large amount demonstrating
that training/education for parents is effective – as Ben Goldacre helpfully
pointed out to Chivers, by linking to the relevant Cochrane collection entry; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008225.pub2/abstract
In my view, Chivers’ article offers a brief
glimpse of the future battle over the nature and nurture dialogue which
underlies political philosophy.
Chivers’ line is highly reliant on Pinker’s,
both are therefore wholly grounded in genetics.
Genetics are being lauded by
those on the right who find an allied science which is willing to explore the
realms which might demonstrate what they have always believed; that people are
born good or bad, that governments may come and go and intervene as they wish
but parents will be parents, children will be children, and people are born to
succeed and fail - no amount of money thrown at their circumstances will
change their genetically-determined destiny.
Alongside the geneticists arguing that they
are finding more and more evidence of a genetic backdrop to every personality
trait, there are the neuroscientists laying out their ideas of environmental
impacts on the brain. Since John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory expounded the idea
of emotional bonds impacting on the development of the child, neuroscience has
emerged as a potent force giving a hard-science evidential basis to his theory.
Bowlby essentially showed that emotional bonds broken or formed during the
earliest years of life, had a huge effect on later
emotional development. Emotional intelligence, in case you didn’t know it, has
a massive impact on success, wealth, happiness and suchlike. Attachment theory is therefore an argument for intervention; intervention by those in the family, the community, or the state.... to do something when parenting isn't working well, when emotional bonds are not being formed. Parenting classes are a piece of this puzzle. Maternity and paternity leave are another.
As we approach a time when more is known about
the mind, and the impact (or lack thereof) of the environment on it, than ever
before, politicians owe it to society to ensure that this knowledge is
reflected in policy. The proponents of opposing philosophies are likely to seek
to water down the merits of sciences from whence knowledge emerges that
threatens their worldviews. This is intransigence in the face of evolution of
thought, found in the worst possible sphere – that of life and death decision-making.
Whilst genetics will have a role to play in
our understanding of man, neuroscience has already given us compelling reason to
believe that the effect of upbringing on the developing child is profound. This
is a lesson policy-makers of both political persuasions have so far failed to
heed. The sooner they put children at the centre of all policymaking the
better, but in the meantime expect an interminable dispute about genetic
predetermination of outcome. Indeed, with the moneyed interests heavily on the
right, it is likely that genetic investigations into heritable traits will be buttressed
by big money in the same way that anti-global warming theories are supported by oil
and energy interests, whilst neuroscience research into environmental impacts
may be hindered by an opposite pattern of underinvestment.
Watch this space.
EDIT:
Cathy, a student of philosophy has also written
an interesting blog in response to Chivers’ article.