Nature versus Nurture

by Sarah Michele Ford

A few weeks ago my family and I took a weekend trip to Boston.  On the way home, we were assigned seats that had the three of us sitting separately.  My five-year-old daughter had been assigned an exit row seat and the two adults had been seated together at the front of the plane.  Not a problem, we thought – I would just take the exit row seat and The Kid would sit up front with her dad.  When our boarding group was called, we went to get on the plane.  The gate agent (a middle-aged woman) asked “Who is The Kid?”  I indicated that it was, in fact, The Kid but added “But I’m going to take her seat.”

“Oh,” the gate agent says.  “I’m going to change your seat.”
“Why?” I ask.
“You’re a mother.  If there’s an emergency, your first instinct is going to be to go to your child.”  And she printed up a new boarding pass, still in The Kid’s name, that put me even further away from where The Kid and her dad were sitting.  As she handed it to me she said, “There.  Now you can sit with your baby.”  (I assume that she meant for The Husband to take the distant seat.)  And she tousled The Kid’s hair as we walked by.

When we treat gender and socialization in Introductory Sociology courses, the question of the nature versus nurture debate always comes up.  Which has a stronger influence on our behavior – biology or socialization? Clearly the gate agent and I were coming at this “problem” (which really wasn’t a problem at all) from very different perspectives; she thought that, as a mother, I would be incapable of dealing with the responsibilities of sitting in the exit row when seated apart from my child.  That the “mothering instinct” would win out in an emergency situation.  She was favoring nature over nurture.  I, on the other hand, was simply looking forward to a little extra leg room and and hour and a half of peace and quiet.

When it comes to gender, and in particular to parenting, which do you think is more influential: nature or nurture?

Big Business, Money, and Politics

Posted by: Chad M. Gesser

Twitter: @profgesser

Email: chad.gesser@kctcs.edu

It must have been odd to hear Dwight Eisenhower leaving the office of President of the United States in 1961 with a message of warning of the formation of a military industrial complex.  A former five star general, who was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, warning against the build up of the defense industry in the United States?

Eisenhower’s concern was that the political economic drive for building weapons and all the assorted gadgets (from bombs to airplanes to bullet proof vests) would eventually become integrated into our culture.  He was gravely concerned that buildup would affect our attitudes and values of our culture, even our institutions.  He was worried that our society would then, whether intentional or unintentional, seek to justify that establishment in the world.

This is not exclusive to war and conflict, but the industry that the federal government nurtured with public dollars would then come to serve the military needs of nations.  Sound far fetched?  Think cars, technology, even McDonald’s.  How do industries that grow and flourish in the United States then extend their reach throughout the world?  Is it possible to “westernize” the defense industry?

The growth of political action committees, special interest groups, and lobbyists is related to the early interlocked growth of the military and the defense industry.  There is plenty of evidence regarding the role that money plays in politics.  Below you will see how money has been tied to presidential fundraising and spending since 1976.  Campaign fundraising and spending continues to break records each presidential election cycle.

How important are public policies that regulate or free up spending for the political economy?  Did Eisenhower have a point about the formation of a military industrial complex?  Do you think the defense industry impacts the federal government in terms of budgeting and policy?  Do you think the health care industry (insurance companies, doctors, lawyers) had any financial stake in the recent health care reform debate?