Rating: 
Summary: Some clarification
Review: A few reviewers have referenced the Mead / Freeman controversy. I'd like to explain this controversy and provide some historical context for readers unfamiliar with the book.
Coming of Age in Samoa is Margaret Mead's first publication. It launched a career that made Mead one of the most famous anthropologists in American history. I find this book interesting in two ways: historically and stylistically.
Coming of Age in Samoa is historically interesting in that it represents one culmination of the conflict between cultural and biological anthropology. Mead was a student of anthropologist Franz Boas, a famous advocate of "nurture" over "nature." Mead borrowed and expanded Boas' ideas, and many cultural anthropologists still cite her work as evidence that a person's cultural upbringing--not his genetic makeup--accounts for most of his personal development.
Anthropologists that valued "nature" over "nurture" did not dig. Mead's claims were big, bold, and well-received.
But Boas' opponents (or his opponents' students and their students' students) were able to breath easy once Derek Freeman, an Australian anthropologist, published a book refuting Mead's findings. Freeman accused Mead of conducting sloppy fieldwork, approaching her subject with predetermined conclusions, and refusing to correct her work after its publication. In response, Mead supporters accused Freeman of attacking Mead personally rather than professionally. While they disagreed about the quality of Freeman's own fieldwork, these critics all thought that he could have written his critique with more tact and civility.
Coming of Age in Samoa is stylistically interesting in that it targets a general audience. Some sections seem to come from a travelogue, others from a novella. Very little sounds like the anthropological writing of Boas or other American anthropologists that preceded Mead. Mead's writing has been called unscientific, revolutionary, appropriate, novelistic, and refreshing. Because of its accessibility, it has introduced several generations of undergraduates to anthropology.
With that clarification, I'd like to offer my opinion of how Coming of Age reads in 2005.
While the book is historically and stylistically relevant, I don't find Mead's prose that exciting. For an introduction to the field, I'd start somewhere else entirely--maybe Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific, which offers a thorough representation of a culture and an ethnographer's experience with that culture. Mead's book offers clear answers to clear questions, but I don't understand why new students should seek clarity. Something like Malinowski's diary--the strange and honest account of a witness--is more valuable. Mead's book flows, but plenty of books flow. I'd start with vague and rich anthropological writing, the sort that emerges from years research among radically different people. Even if it is a little more difficult, that sort of writing will introduce you to some really meaty and unfamiliar concerns.
Rating: 
Summary: Gilligan's Island on Friday night.
Review: Coming of Age in Samoa is a pleasantly-written South Sea fantasy, heavy with the author's social agenda upon it. If you buy the agenda, apparently you can hardly help like the book. (See reviews below.) Even if I bought the agenda (and it is hard for me to look at American society and say the sexuality Mead encouraged has made people entirely free of guilt or conflict), I would still choke on her dishonesty. But as they say in the anthro business, different strokes for different folks. Some of the defenses of this book below are hilarious. "Sure, it's largely untrue. But it reads well!" (And here I thought it was supposed to be science.) "It stimulated my thinking about culture! Mead really did interview thirty live Samoans! (In some language or other.) "Besides, what scholarship from that era would not sound like fiction today?" (Uh, honest scholarship? Do you want a book list?) The interesting thing about this book, to me, is the way it illustrates human self-deception, in particular the hubris of those who claim to speak for "Science." Being interested in such curiosities, for me personally the book was worth buying. Mead's sexual fantasies are not the only instance in the 20th Century in which anthropologists sought to throw out "religious dogma" in favor of "scientific" new theories of their own cultivation. As pleasant as an idyllic trip to the islands may be, those for whom such theories hold charm should remember that honest scholarship and imagination are two different things, that vacations in Fantasy Island usually cost something, and that the one who takes the vacation is not always the person who pays the bill.
Rating:
Summary: Gilligan's Island on Friday night.
Review: Coming of Age in Samoa is a pleasantly-written South Sea fantasy, heavy with the author's social agenda upon it. If you buy the agenda, apparently you can hardly help like the book. (See reviews below.) Even if I bought the agenda (and it is hard for me to look at American society and say the sexuality Mead encouraged has made people entirely free of guilt or conflict), I would still choke on her dishonesty. But as they say in the anthro business, different strokes for different folks. Some of the defenses of this book below are hilarious. "Sure, it's largely untrue. But it reads well!" (And here I thought it was supposed to be science.) "It stimulated my thinking about culture! Mead really did interview thirty live Samoans! (In some language or other.) "Besides, what scholarship from that era would not sound like fiction today?" (Uh, honest scholarship? Do you want a book list?) The interesting thing about this book, to me, is the way it illustrates human self-deception, in particular the hubris of those who claim to speak for "Science." Being interested in such curiosities, for me personally the book was worth buying. Mead's sexual fantasies are not the only instance in the 20th Century in which anthropologists sought to throw out "religious dogma" in favor of "scientific" new theories of their own cultivation. As pleasant as an idyllic trip to the islands may be, those for whom such theories hold charm should remember that honest scholarship and imagination are two different things, that vacations in Fantasy Island usually cost something, and that the one who takes the vacation is not always the person who pays the bill.
Rating: 
Summary: Closer than Freeman, ironically
Review: Freeman's nonsense aside, which seems to be taken as gospel by one or two reviewers below (apparently, Mead's Samoa is ladden with cultural intentions, but Freeman's work is not with his sociobiological intentions), this is a good book. I think Freeman is dishonest, and the fact that he couldn't attack Mead until after she was DEAD, speaks to me of a cowardly academic disgrace. For shame that he has any followers at all. Mead is not my favorite author: her writing is discontinous, but this book is a good work. Seeing as how many people haven't even realized just how conservative this book is, they believe that the author has had a clear social agenda. The agenda is there folks, but it is not the one you think. Mead's Samoa is probably more correct than Freeman's for a variety of reasons, but to go into various details would require several books. For those with access to JSTOR, I would strongly urge to look at some critical reviews of Mead and Freeman. For those that have access to HRAF, I would suggest looking at short ethnographies of the area. Now, which sounds more accurate? Neither will be completely, but Freeman's work is the REAL emperor without cloths, and its followers should take a closer look at the world ethnographies before they advance either Freeman, or downright simplistic (and insulting) sociobiological nonsense that was already buried some 20 years ago.
Rating: 
Summary: How do we read Margaret Mead?
Review: I am not an anthropologist, and I am not qualified to judge the claims of either Mead's detractors or defenders. Clearly, she was writing as the product of her time-- and in fact noted in the preface to the 1952 edition that this kind of book would provide more evidence about the time and place the author was from than about the culture being studied. It is certainly a pleasurable book to read. She paints a picture of an approach to childhood that sets ours off in a not-too-flattering light-- it successfully questions the values of her own culture regardless of how well it captures Samoan culture. I can understand why people from Samoa might find that "regardless" offensive, but I find it (again) a rather hopeless thing to try and judge. I do not find this book less valuable because I question its truth-- I do not know any scholarly book from the 1920s whose veracity would not be tested-- and at this point in time I think everyone who reads it is not accepting it as an authoritative view. File it under history of our cultural thought or under Utopian philosophy if you'd rather not file it under anthropology-- but I'd still recommend that you read it and file it somewhere.
Rating:
Summary: How do we read Margaret Mead?
Review: I am not an anthropologist, and I am not qualified to judge the claims of either Mead's detractors or defenders. Clearly, she was writing as the product of her time-- and in fact noted in the preface to the 1952 edition that this kind of book would provide more evidence about the time and place the author was from than about the culture being studied. It is certainly a pleasurable book to read. She paints a picture of an approach to childhood that sets ours off in a not-too-flattering light-- it successfully questions the values of her own culture regardless of how well it captures Samoan culture. I can understand why people from Samoa might find that "regardless" offensive, but I find it (again) a rather hopeless thing to try and judge. I do not find this book less valuable because I question its truth-- I do not know any scholarly book from the 1920s whose veracity would not be tested-- and at this point in time I think everyone who reads it is not accepting it as an authoritative view. File it under history of our cultural thought or under Utopian philosophy if you'd rather not file it under anthropology-- but I'd still recommend that you read it and file it somewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Clearly I'm Clueless
Review: I can't see what is so bad about this book. I was disappointed that she left out several things that I thought was important, but ethnographers can't thing of everything (...) What I saw was a picture of a society on the very brink (but not yet) of being toppled by the intrusion of missionaries (as so many have been and continue to be). An interesting society. I also so many similarities to Malinowski's Trobriand work which I find intriguing. Yes, I am clueless. I enjoyed this book and used it, among other works, for research. I can't imagine why it would offend anyone. Her limitations made it impossible for this to be seen as an authoritative work, of course, but nobody is an authority, especially in the anthropological community, since culture is always in a constant state of evolution. So why the attacks? Would she be so attacked if she weren't a woman? If she weren't dead? So she blew some theories out of the water. I haven't seen anybody come up with any evidence to support those theories since.
Rating:
Summary: I am shocked to say, I really enjoyed this book.
Review: I had to read this book for an essay I was writing, but I did not think I would enjoy it. I figured it would be the kind of book you half heartidly read because you have no choice. Boy was I wrong. I loved the book. I enjoyed reading about Meads adventures, and sure...they say that she was tricked and lied to, but I still believe she was ahead of her time and discovered a lot about the culture.
Great Read for anyone who likes to learn about society and cultures
Rating: 
Summary: Mead's Samoa hoax has been exposed
Review: In the unpaginated 'Preface [to the] 1973 Edition', Margaret Mead stresses that her description of Samoan moeurs should be read as applying to conditions at the time of her research. She finds it needful to 'shout' that advice because during her 1971 brief visit to Samoa, 'young critics even asked me when am I going to revise this book and look unbelieving and angry when I say that to revise it is impossible'. This is a reference to an abrasive session with students who told her that her description of fa'aSamoa (Samoan custom) was false and insulting. They were miffed by her styling Samoans 'primitives' and her pronouncement that since anthropologists enjoy an 'immense superiority', they can 'master the fundamental structure' [of primitive society] . . . 'in a few months' (p. 8). In keeping with this arrogance, Samoans attending university were told by their instructors that their experience of fa'aSamoa was not valid evidence against Mead's scientific study. And, as we've just seen, Mead refused to revise her book even when she knew that it was mistaken in many particulars. For Samoans this patronizing manner was the familiar voice of the papalagi (the colonial power). Mead's hosts on her field trip, aware that she enjoyed the protection of the Pacific Fleet admiral and boss of Western Samoa, went to great lengths to provide reliable information. When they learned of what they call her luma fai tele ('shameless defamaton'), they could not comprehend how she could have betrayed their hospitality. They were also aggrieved that she deceived them about her marital status. For she accepted the title taupou (ceremonial virgin) although as a married woman she was ineligible. Then she disgraced the title by carrying on with Aviata, a young man regarded as a rake. While Samoans long knew the mendacity of this book, its correction in academic circles commenced only with the 1983 publication of Derek Freeman's Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Harvard University Press). That event shook anthropology to its boots. Such was Mead's prestige that the popular mind identified her with anthropology. If her credibility was seriously questioned in respect to the most widely believed anthropological study ever published, the credibility of the profession was at risk. That is why Freeman was attacked with great vehemence, even by those who agreed with his critique. Freeman's book initiated a reappraisal of Coming of Age in Samoa. Martin Orans and Freeman have recently published studies of her Samoa investigations based on her field notes. They confirm that Mead's account of Samoan sexual moeurs is a travesty. But they go beyond that. Mead recorded the accounts given by her informants, but by ignoring key facts, twisting others, and inventing still others, she contrived to represent Samoa as a free love duck pond. She also misrepresented the research she carried out. She was funded to conduct a study of adolescent girls; and she states that she spent 'six months accumulating an intimate and detailed knowledge of all adolescent girls in the community'. Her field notes tell otherwise. She devoted her time to assembling ethnography; the funded study never got off the ground. She states that she conducted 'all' her interviews with these girls in the Samoan language ('I spoke their language and ate their food'). Orans found however that her information on adolescent girls came from 'English-speaking informants using English to communicate'. He notes that 'no conversations in Samoan are recorded in any of the field materials'. This is consistent with Freeman's finding that the study of adolescent girls was not conducted at all. Mead built her picture of free love by tossing off unsupported one-liners. The 'inept lover is a laughing stock'. There are 'no neurotic pictures, no frigidity' in Samoa. Masturbation 'is a universal habit'. Homosexual activity is 'very prevalent' and is regarded as 'simply play'. '[Samoan] girls' minds were perplexed by no conflicts . . . [to have as] many lovers as possible and then to marry . . . these were uniform and satisfying ambitions'. The field materials do not show that Mead collected any evidence whatever about masturbation, homosexuality, or incidence of neuroticism and frigidity. She had but one informant about intimate sexual practices--an eighteen year old school teacher. In 1981 that person told Freeman that he had an affair with Margaret. Thus Samoa's alleged free love amounts to no more than a loose wife's gullibility to the pillow talk of her teenage lover. Such is the 'science' that made this book famous. Research on Mead's field notes clarifies a feature of this book that has puzzled many readers. It is the drastic and repeated inconsistency between Mead's descriptions of Samoan vigilance of virginity and punishments of straying girls, and the attribution of a casual attitude toward sexuality. What we now can see is that Mead patched her free love pillow talk into descriptions given to her by her adult informants. How is that anthropologists for so long were taken in by Mead's yellow anthropology? One part of the answer is that many weren't taken in. The controversy brought to light numerous statements to this effect. Thus Weston LaBarre wrote: "When I was a graduate student in anthropology at Yale in the late '30's, Mead's Sex and Temperament came out. Puzzled that even a big island like New Guinea should have had three tribes waiting to be discovered to prove her point about the non-biological nature of gender, I went to Edward Sapir with my puzzlement. He said laconically, 'She's a pathological liar'. I was startled as much by what he said, as by the fact that an eminent anthropologist and chairman of a department should say this to a mere graduate student. But over the years, I have come to believe that this is literally the case." The next round in the evaluation of Mead's anthropology, we may hope, will collect and critically assess this largely unpublished expert opinion. Hiram Caton, Editor, The Samoa Reader: Anthropologists Take Stock. University Press of America, 1990.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, breathtaking, charming and timeless!
Review: Margaret "menarche" Mead is hardly the geeky immaculate virgin mother of cultural anthropology that she makes herself out to be. She personally watched me "come of age" in Samoa, and I have to say in retrospect that it was kind of dodgy. At the time, I thought nothing of her seemingly innocent suggestive X-rated conversations, lewd photographs and sensual erotic massages. Only later, when I secretly read her diary, did I realise that all the time she was deliberately betraying and manipulating my most confidential teenage thoughts and emotions, as well as thoroughly documenting the measurements of my physical development. And only much, much later did I further realise that she had also corrupted our culture, introducing us to prostitution, bribery, tequila, chocolate and syphilis. The fact that she did so under the guise of academic research makes me wonder where she got her gynecological training and who was funding this scandalous project. That said, the book stands the test of time as a vivid reminder of the tragic consequences of blind ambition. Bravo, Miss Mead !
|
