I got into a discussion at my last Writing Workshop about villains. One of my participants mentioned that his antagonist is just bad because that was the way he was born; he tries to be useful, but at heart he is just bad. The whole chat made me think about Nature vs. Nurture, and how the viewpoints on behavior and personality have shifted over time.
Ideas about the nature of man have been around about as long as people have been writing down thoughts—I’m guessing it was around before that but I don’t have concrete evidence, except that all mythologies share similar themes which started out as oral history and have led to the written stories etc. In early Jewish and then Christian stories, Man started out all innocent and pure until he was tricked into gaining wisdom by an outside force and the curse for his disobedience was a lifetime of toil and then death. Sinful by nature it was only strict adherence to a schedule of giving the priests (er, God) his best meat and produce at the end of the growing season that he might hope for something other than eternal damnation.
Greek and Roman mythology is a little less judgy. The gods were the fickle ones and while humans were generally weak and kind of useless, unless they caught the attention of the gods they could probably lead fairly low key lives. It was the Greeks who left us modern folks the first solid record of the thoughts on the nature of man, separate from the mythology of the day. Plato and Aristotle are the more famous two in the group and their general consensus was that man was a reasonable creature. Aristotle especially believed that humans have virtues and that living a good life is doing stuff and being good at it, but knowing what is good doesn’t mean that you will do it.
The big difference between these first two philosophical camps seems to be that one believes that man is inherently bad, and the other that man is capable of all good things but may choose not to act upon them.
So the first big question on the nature vs. nurture debate seems to be: How good/evil is the nature of humanity? (Notice I changed from Man to Humanity—Aristotle didn’t believe women were rational beings and the Pentateuch pretty much blames the fall of humanity on the first woman. For the discussion going forward I am going to assume my readership is cool with the idea that the entire gender spectrum is built of the same metaphysical makeup, and at least the same genetic components regardless of how they might be structured)
The answer varies by whom you ask. Honestly though? It isn’t a quantifiable question. We can’t point to a study and say “results show 40% good.” What we can do is look at some of the observations about the nature of humanity and judge those qualities.
-Humanity is drawn into communities. Aristotle was big on this; most of the Christian Bible—including most of what Jesus spoke about—is about living in community. Our systems of government, our conflicts, our daily lives are all about ordering the world so that OUR people thrive. We are very protective of our children if the resources allow for it.
-Humanity wants enough, but that means different things to different people.
-Humanity strives for order. Our brains crave patterns; our bodies thrive in routine.
-We are capable of great evil, great benevolence, and great ambivalence.
How good/evil is the nature of humanity? Who knows! Did you really think I was going to have a concrete answer to that one?
Secondary question! How much do outside forces impact a person’s behavior or personality. This is the Nature part.
Even back in Bible times they figured out that parenting matters. Sure you could stone your kid if he back talked you, but there are warnings that the sins of the father will ruin generations to come. Now there are two interpretations of this verse, the Nature folks believe that this verse is saying that the sinful nature of the father is passed down to his equally sinful kids; the Nurture folk think that this is about generational trauma. Regardless, there is a lot of parenting advice in the holy books.
Nurture as a concept really took off once societies decided childhood was a thing. The early educational philosophers realized that the tiny humans were not in fact tiny adults and that by educating them, they could direct their paths. It took a while longer to figure out that the tiny humans had personalities, but around the turn of the twentieth century psychology as a science began emerging and daddy issues were discovered.
On the Nurture spectrum you will find everything from “The mind is a blank slate and everything can be controlled by conditioning” to “some things are genetically predisposed but they need to be triggered by outside factors”, or “The first five years are the most important”, and lots of “my way of parenting is the right way to make perfect humans.”
By the twentieth century, most people—and certainly most experts—agreed that a person’s personality and behavior were based on a mix of nature (metaphysical or genetic by that time) AND nurture. However, to this day those same people are far more likely to give nurture the credit for positive behaviors and personality in adults, and nature the blame for the bad. This is less true when a child/teen does something reprehensible as parents are universally blamed for their children’s behavior.
So what does this long winded Overthinking about Nature and Nurture have to do with character development?
Even twenty years ago— but certainly over the last two hundred years—antagonists were treated as naturally bad. Rarely is there background or backstory that explained why they were seducing young maidens and abandoning them, or trying them to railroad tracks when they existed. Depending on the era, just being a Rich or Black-Cowboy-Hat-wearing or Nazi or Russian or generic Middle Eastern guy was enough to explain to the reader/viewer that This Is The Villain!Authors used tropes to shortcut storytelling. These days we want more.
Give Characters motivations for their behavior. Root those motivations in backstory. Can that backstory involve a genetic predisposition toward certain mental health conditions? Sure! But there should be some Adverse Childhood Events thrown in there as a catalyst to trigger those conditions. Maybe a mid-life crisis or an adult trauma that sparks this sudden desire to take down an entire government organization?
Two fairly recent trends in media that are essentially tropes—or shortcuts— for “Nature is at fault” is the sociopath/psychopath, and the narcissist. I watched a puzzling action movie today where a character says of another “He’s a psychopath! You can’t rein him in!” And the very villainy- villain goes about creating chaos for the next two hours, reminding us over and over in dialogue that he is team chaotic-evil who is willing to do what no-one else will. It was a deeply unsatisfactory plot device.
Psychopaths do exist, and they do work within their own systems of morality—or lack thereof, but even they have motivations for their actions. Money or power may be the implied reason that Jeff the psychopath is willing to blow up a building filled with nuns and kittens, but long term is that really going to work out for him? The reader must hold conflicting truths in the same hand—that Jeff is brilliant enough to become rich and well known in a field of mercenaries, and yet stupid enough to care nothing about the PR effects of his actions that will plainly lead to all of his clients no longer associating with him—thereby cutting off his revenue stream.
The real problem with the “It’s their nature” argument is that success requires finesse and logic; luck only carries you so far; ruthlessness only carries you so far. Finesse and logic are lessons born of experience and conditioning. If a character doesn’t have motivations to back up their behavior, they come across feeling like a plot device.
Narcissists are also a popular character of the moment. I personally feel the term is overused, as are some of the words associated with it like gaslighting and love bombing. That said, I love writing a narcissist because they are a lovely amalgamation of nature and nurture. Narcissism was featured in a blog last October if you want a review on the topic, but essentially the condition is a mix of selfishness and entitlement with a dollop of delusion on top. It is rooted in an incredibly low self-esteem.
Narcissists’ motivations are about creating a world with themselves at the center where those in their orbit won’t abandon them. The trick is, the line between normal person wanting community and a narcissist who will manipulate, lie, and wheedle to feel loved isn’t always clear. Kids are born narcissists—it is a survival mechanism. People who have been abandoned as children can develop unhealthy attachment styles which mirror narcissism. Individuals with certain mental health issues can struggle with appropriate boundaries; folks who grew up in religious or cultural groups with problematic value systems are prone to messed up relationship dynamics.
Narcissists are complicated; complicated is interesting.
I suppose what this all boils down to is that human personalities are a bottomless stewpot of potential drama and tension. As authors, we can pull from genetics, the metaphysical, or the impact of environmental as we shape our characters; don’t settle for sticking a “psychopath” label on someone’s forehead and hope that adding in a couple extra car chases will make up for it.
Writing prompt: Using yourself as a character, make a list of things or experiences that have shaped who you are today.
Mamasquatch the Writer 
Leave a comment