Biological determinism is a theory that will try to explain a person's behaviour and other aspects of life with regards to his / her genetic make-up. This theory was encompasses the work of varied prominent experts such as Mendel, Charles Darwin and Francis Galton. Biological determinism abnegates the idea of the surrounding influencing the characteristics and behavioural areas of an individual. For decades, this theory has been expounded to be able to explain individual behavior comprehensively. Charles Darwin suggested heritable characteristics are driven through natural selection. Darwin was of the thoughts and opinions that an person would inherit the optimal characteristics that would ensure his survival or have a reproductive advantages. However, sociologists have strongly criticized the natural determinism theory since it does not look at the environmental factors that have an impact on behavior (Banyard and Grayson, 2000). This content aims to go over the concept of natural determinism and the judgment of sociologists upon this concept.
Discussion
Biologists, when discussing different behaviours and tasks of specific in the society, agree that a set of predetermined biological process determine these behaviours. Therefore, people think and respond in several manner because they may have different development in their brains (Velden, 2010). Biological theorists are of the thoughts and opinions that the chromosomes and hormones in his body control brain cell development. For instance, the male in the society include both the Y and X chromosomes whereas the ladies just have the X chromosome. The Y chromosome in men contributes to creation of testosterone and other male hormones. Therefore, the male brain evolves diversely from that of a female because of the difference in hereditary materials in the sexes. Biologists have vanished further to make use of the dissimilarities in male and female brain to describe the difference in behaviours between the sexes (Kronfeldner, 2009).
Biological determinism performs on the assumption that behaviours have particular causes, that happen to be mainly hereditary or related to natural functions and functions. Tests done by Raine et al (1997) concentrated in the abnormalities found in the mind of murderers. Raine et al (1997) attempted to find determine the normal element in murderers who possessed put a plea of not liable by virtue of insanity. Inside the tests, Raine et al (1997) viewed the PET scans of murderers and detected their cortical and sub-cortical brains. This experiment aimed to determine whether having brain dysfunction and abnormalities like schizophrenia are from the violent behaviours exhibited by the murderers. Raine's experiment only centered on the innate factors although it ignored the exterior factors like the environments that could control the behaviours of an individual.
Biological determinism also focuses on reductionism. Reductionism views individuals as divided into hierarchical communities. Therefore, the natural determinists view the inequalities between sexes, countries, classes as intrinsic rather than extrinsic (Carolan, 2005). Therefore, this theory portrays the picture that if one person is less successful than the other is, it is s not because of the contributing factors in the environment, but because your partner is intrinsically not capable of achieving success. Biological determinists therefore believe that men in the world are dominant because they're intrinsically more ambitious and rational than women. According to this theory, biologically inheritable material and not the surrounding environment determine division in the society (Carolan, 2005).
It is the opinion of all sociologist that it is irrational to consider sociable classification as a genetic factor. It is because individuals from different divides and cultural backgrounds have been recognized to interact and reside in similar classes. Additionally it is logical to assume that the environment and the surrounding enforces some qualities and leads success or failure of a person in a contemporary society. It is from this mode of convinced that sociologists have created their ideas on human behaviour and societal conversation. The exterior environment contributes greatly to the behaviour of an person in the world. In fact, corresponding to sociologist the surrounding environment exclusively regulates behavior.
Although biologists think that only biological processes influence behaviours, there are numerous imperfections in this perspective. Biologists tend to dismiss cognitive behaviours exhibited by individuals in their theory of biological determinism. This is where sociologist criticizes the biological determinism theory. Sociologists think that people display different behaviours depending on the surrounding environment. For decades, the sociologists take on biological determinism has been that of disapproval. Most sociologists are uneasy with the biological determinism theory since it does not completely make clear behavioural exhibition in people (Carolan, 2005). Sociologists' disapproval of determinism is justifiable to confirmed extend specially when such disapproval is led by ideologues that seek to validate, and rectify, the position quo of the natural determinism. The argument advanced by sociologist is based on the fact natural determinists have a fear that there is a possibility of burning off the genic capacity. Therefore, sociologists believe looking very deep into the world bio physiology to explain social happening is irrational and alternatively irresponsible.
Social researchers such Skinner assume that all behavioural aspects of a person are dependant on the exterior stimuli (Boeree, 2006). Skinner in his theory concluded that the idea of free will is just an illusion and someone's behaviour will most likely conform to his surrounding somewhat than be genetically determined. Skinner's theory on behaviour was majorly predicated on operant fitness. Skinner believed an organism or a person controlled in a specific environment with various stimuli that contributed towards specific behaviours. Therefore, skinner presumed that whenever a person or organism is exposed to certain environment a stimulus known as the reinforcer contributed towards his repeated behavioural exhibition (Boeree, 2006).
From Skinner's theory, we can deduce a behaviour followed by a reinforcing stimulus has a higher probability of being repeated or not. Skinner used the example of a rat in a cage with a club or pedal. In case the rat presses the pedal or the club, it brings about release of food pellet. Expect the rat is bouncing in the cage and accidentally presses the bar then the food pellet is released. Therefore, this rat will tend to repeat this behavior not because it inherited such qualities but since it there is a reinforcing stimulus in the environment (Boeree, 2006).
Watson John facilitates Skinner's opinion by also demonstrating that the encompassing environment governs a person's behavior. Watson assumes that behavior exhibited by an individual can be correlated to other observable occurrences in the environment. In Watson's judgment, there are usually definite occurrences that precede and follow exhibition of certain behaviours. Watson's behaviourism theory attempts to describe the connection between stimuli in the environment and an individual's response (behaviour). Watson like Skinner lent his idea on behaviour from Pavlov's conditioning experiments. Watson thought that individual learned through stimuli substitution and similarly behaviours in individual are exhibited matching to improve in stimuli somewhat than genetic predispositions (Winfred, 2010).
Watson became one of the many sociologists to oppose the mentalist idea. He thought that the first neuroscientists were very ignorant on how the nervous system and the brain functioned. In those days, natural determinism was widely accepted as an explanation to behavioural exhibitions. However, Watson evolved this judgment by using contiguity to make clear how organisms learned. Watson's theory assumed that thoughts were complex appearance of classical conditioning and therefore sophisticated behaviours only came into being due to combo of recognisable reflexes (Winfred, 2010). Like Skinner, Watson assumed that repeated activity strengthened the learning process and the training process is exactly what creates the difference between human behaviour. Despite the fact that Watson's position did not explain the idea of individual learning, his theory is currently regarded as one of the pioneers to learning sciences.
Conclusion
In the world, the most evident feature is inequality. It is obvious that some individuals have great riches while others are poor Different categories clarify these inequalities matching t their preferred theory. Biological determinists believe that inequality in the modern culture is therefore of the intrinsic factors. Sociologists on the other palm believe that sociable differences are therefore of extrinsic factors. Both these arguments are passionate and offer interesting view into the human behaviour and social corporation. Sociologists try explaining the relation between human beings and their encircling while neglecting the idea of natural determinism. However, socialism exclusively cannot make clear some behavioural habits neither can biological determinism. It is necessary for both the sociologist and biologists to move towards a comparatively dynamic theory, which is open to interrelation of ideas from both attributes of the split. No matter how much the sociologist may wish to stick to their theory, they cannot evade the complicated nature of biological organisms. Up to the environment influences the behaviour, it's important to notice that chemical reactions and hormone changes also influence how organisms and real human behave. Currently, it would be absurd to support only one theory because of the evidence available. Public ideas provide their quarrels, which can be as powerful as the arguments provided by the biological determinists. Hence, it is irrelevant for sociologist to wage warfare against biologists since booth theories have weaknesses, which is often augmented if the theories are combined to form a grand theory that explains human behavior.
