From the moment she was discovered nearly 40 years ago the girl that the world would come to know as
"Genie" captivated the attention of many. The details of the abuse, neglect, and nearly total isolation that she had suffered at the hands of her own father were difficult to comprehend. Unfortunately for Genie her case also represented a once in a lifetime opportunity for neurologists, linguists, psychologists and others to test their theories of human development and socialization. Many in the academic and scientific communities hoped that the case could shed some light on the age-old nature vs. nurture debate. The concept that would eventually be known as
tabula rasa, that humans are a "blank slate" at birth with no innate mental content and must gain all knowledge through experience, can be traced back to Aristotle. However, others believe that heredity (nature) plays a more important part in human development than environment (nurture).
Genie's unfortunate upbringing, or lack thereof, provided a unique chance to investigate the influence of these forces on an individual's development. Of particular interest was the acquisition of language. Is the potential to develop language an innate aspect of the human brain, hardwired in at birth, or does the development of language rely solely on education received during one's formative years? Members of the Genie team, as the researchers working with her were often called, thought that Genie could either prove or disprove the
critical period hypothesis, which had been popularized a few years before Genie's discovery by Eric Lenneberg's
Biological Foundations of Language (1967). Unfortunately, many believe that in their zeal to perform groundbreaking research the Genie team lost sight of what was best for Genie. Her case leaves us with so many questions. Who deserves most of the blame for the
condition that Genie is in today? Her father? Her mother? The Genie team? Does her
brother deserve to share any of the blame? What can her case tell us about the importance of heredity and environment, or nature and nurture, on the development of a human being? Would Genie have been the way she is today regardless of her upbringing, as we can't rule out the possibility that she was in fact mentally retarded from birth (as her father was told and evidently believed)? Did her case prove the legitimacy of the critical period hypothesis or did the team give up on her too soon? Finally, and most importantly, how could this case have been handled differently and what could still be done for Genie today? What say you? I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.