Maybe you thought about how you would’ve turned out if you grew up in another environment. Would that have changed your personality? Is that based on more nature or nurture?
Well, this nature vs. nurture is actually a big controversy in the criminology field. In my Crim/Soc 12 class we focused a big part of this question and how there isn’t a straight answer. We analyzed how the environment can determine many different aspects of your life, obviously focusing on criminal behavior.
So how does this tie into politics?
Simple… the way neighborhoods are treated by the government can impact the youth and even turn them into going towards a life of crime. If neighborhoods are neglected by not getting enough funding or not making them look clean then they are usually the types of neighborhoods that are of low income because government funding will typically focus on neighborhoods that are higher income. This can be detrimental because it does damage to those living in low-income neighborhoods. It has been proven that growing up in a poorer neighboorhood can lead to people having criminal backgrounds.
As said by an article by NYTimes,
“The neighborhood in which you grow up is a major determinant of your economic success as an adult.” Also adding to that, these neighborhoods that majorly affect economic success as an adult are mainly low-income ones. Children in these are seen to have a worse adult life than those in high income. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/upshot/growing-up-in-a-bad-neighborhood-does-more-harm-than-we-thought.html)
An important study that needs to be addressed is how people growing up in different eras view crime. Also the type of crime they most fear. An article was done by ScienceDaily and it found that current crime fears were linked with their political generation.
“For example, those who grew up under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) or John Major (1990-1997) expressed the greatest level of worry about domestic burglary — the same generation who witnessed a dramatic rise in property crime during the 1980s. Meanwhile, the Wilson/ Callaghan generation expressed the highest levels of worry about robbery and mugging, which was a key concern for politicians, policymakers and journalists at the time.” (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180807095129.htm)
Overall, the environment has a strong influence on how people will grow up. It is very known that those in low-income environments will tend to lead those to commit more crime because they feel as if that’s the only way of surviving and their only choice. When children are exposed to poor environments it has many outcomes. When growing up in a specific style it does have nurture effects because of the way that you saw your parents had to live and provide, it becomes your normal to repeat those actions. (https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/11/09/neighborhood-quality-affects-childhood-behaviors/)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/upshot/growing-up-in-a-bad-neighborhood-does-more-harm-than-we-thought.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180807095129.htm
https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/11/09/neighborhood-quality-affects-childhood-behaviors/
Where people live has a lot to do with how they grow up. I learned about this concept in a different light in my Ethics of Climate Change class. There is environmental racism everywhere which impacts an areas whole lifestyle. According to the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment, “people of color are much more likely to live near polluters and breathe polluted air”.
One example of environmental racism occurred during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A large portion of the population in New Orleans is African American (60%) however, racism in general is still a huge issue in the area. The majority of African Americans live in cheap living areas susceptible to flooding. During Hurricane Katrina, dams and levees in the area failed to protect the citizens and flooded into minority communities. The amount of people who were impacted by the disaster, and where they lived, goes to show the environmental racism in the area.
The example I stated above supports your claim that where people live and how their communities are treated impact the rest of their lives. I find it very saddening that problems like this still exist. Low-income areas lack the safety and opportunity they deserve to rise from the adversity.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-trump-administration-finds-that-environmental-racism-is-real/554315/
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=2106693b39454f0eb0abc5c2ddf9ce40
Environmental racism is a great parallel to Gabriela’s original post. When thinking about where people live and whether or not they have the means to succeed really has a lot to do with geographic location and possible natural disasters, like hurricanes, and I did not even consider that.
I completely agree with you on the fact that environmental racism still plagues many communities across the country and it is time for a change. Hurricane Katrina is a great example of this, and it can definitely be found throughout all of history. And the fact that it took neighborhoods years to recover completely doesn’t help. The broken window theory states that neighborhoods that look more run-down and ugly have are more likely to have higher crime rates. And this is usually due to that fact that criminals who notice an ugly neighborhood assume that the security in the are is just as run-down and ugly.
Kerry, what great insight. I did not know about environmental racism, but I am glad I’ve been able to learn about what this is. It’s extremely sad to think about what happened to those living in New Orleans considering they could not prevent themselves from such a horrific occurrence. Furthermore, going off of what you said about the majority African Americans living in less advantaged areas than whites, I had learned about this in my women’s studies class. This unfair housing for African Americans can be dated all the way back to red lining, and its effects are still haunting people today.
I think this is a very interesting topic to examine because personally, I believe that I was shaped by where I grew up. I am lucky to have lived in a safe neighborhood with neighbors I could trust and a great school district; I think my whole perspective on life would be different if I hadn’t.
In relation to your blog post, I do not think it matters which side of the nature vs. nurture debate one argues for. Because in the end, both lead to the same thing: disadvantages… “Bad” neighborhoods are cheaper, so poor people tend to live there. If a child is born into a poor family in a poor neighborhood, it is extremely difficult for them to have the resources to succeed compared to someone who lives in a wealthy neighborhood. I do think the government should help ensure all American communities have the means for its people to succeed because of this.
When trying to find a source related to this, I kept coming upon articles along the lines of “how to make sure your neighborhood is safe” or “things to do if you find yourself in the wrong spot”… I’ll link one at the end. Although I think it is important to keep yourself safe, I do think this is a problem because it’s telling people to stay out of these areas instead of trying to help them. I do not think anybody really wants their neighborhood to be unsafe or poor, but these types of things/apps are just perpetuating the problem more. In addition, it is setting up self-fulfilling prophecies for the people that are from these communities; if they are being told that their neighborhood is dangerous, they might act even more dangerously.
Your post brings up really good points about this issue, and I can’t wait to see what your last one will be about.
https://www.safewise.com/blog/confirm-safety-neighboorhood-online-tools/
Josie Golder
I think it is very important to consider how people’s backgrounds affect their encounters with crime as well as how they behave. Particularly I think this way of viewing background is interesting in a more international sense. I think this topic would be more interesting to examine from an international standpoint because the background of a person is not limited to social class, but also culture, especially in the United States. I think background is an umbrella term that can be mainly applied to politics and ideology, which an understanding of could benefit people when dealing with international affairs.
A great example of this is geographical location. People living in cold mountains will be mainly isolated and small communities mainly concerned with family and survival. People in warmer and more open areas will be more likely to intermingle and feel free to rapidly develop and possibly put more of their resources into development if they are not as concerned with survival. If we imagine someone from the warm open area to a small tribe within cold mountains, they may assume that these people are cynical or stupid. I think the same line of thought can be applied to different neighborhoods and certainly to different countries.
Because of how neighborhoods differ, I think it is important to try to help struggling communities with people who deeply understand the way of life in the particular area. Many times, different is not automatically bad. For me personally this blog post gave me the greatest concern for what is viewed as crime within politics. The reason this is concerning to me is because I think we should respect all ways of life if they do not harm others. The way to do this is to have an official to understand the culture and help them in the way that they feel they need help and not the way that other cultures or neighborhoods think they should be helped. In other words, we should not view differences as wrong doings and feel we are helping by making a neighborhood more similar to the ones we are used to.
Sources:
https://trend.pewtrusts.org/en/archive/trend-summer-2016/foreword-how-geography-shapes-our-identity
I also was in the CRIM/SOC 12 class last semester and remember discussing this very same topic. As a psych major, the nature vs. nurture debate is part of a majority of the theories I learn in my class. As evident by your argument, nurture can clearly play a very large role in the way in which peoples’ criminal life will end up, if any.
Much of the role nurture plays usually does so at an earlier age, as our brains are much more malleable, in terms of learning, as infants. Therefore, as seen by Albert Bandura’s “Bobo Doll” Experiment, children will engage in violent activities, more often than not, when someone, such as an adult, engages in similar activity. That same “monkey see, monkey do” type of mindset is strengthened when the adult receives some type of positive reinforcement, which is part of a learning process known as operant conditioning.
In environments and neighborhoods where there is an excess amount of violence, it can often spur from similar phenomena. To watch a parent partake in some type of criminal activity and receive some type of reward, such as street accreditation, makes a child learn from observation that doing similar violent things will help them gain that same accreditation.
Examining observational and operant learning can tell us a lot about the reason children grow up to lead lives as criminals. I personally believe a majority of things such as this come from the nurture aspect of the previously mentioned debate. One of the best ways in which you can further research this topic from the nature vs. nurture aspect is through twin studies.
Sources:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html
I think, in relation to what we learned about how we view prosecutors, that it is important to define what is an is not safe and healthy. For example, I know a lot of people who would look down on someone going to a trade school. Even though attending a trade school can be a great and healthy choice that many parents would nuture and be proud of, there may be a tendancy by some to discourage it. I think when people agree on a definition, there will be a better platform to work with people from different backgrounds within the law.