This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coming of Age in Samoa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Derek Freeman's conclusions are very controversial, and are not accepted as fact by anyone. Can someone rewrite this to indicate that the views stated by him are that of a minority of anthropologists and are not considered mainstream?
The mainstream view of this topic is that neither Mead, nor Freeman really got it right. However, anthropologists certainly tend to allign more with Freeman than they do with Mead. Also, the comment in the article "the two girls whom she spoke to" -- Mead spoke with about a hundred girls. The number with whom she truley interacted can be cut down to about 15 or so, but still, "the two girls whom she spoke to" is simply wrong, and needs to be changed (not to mention, grammatically it should be "the two girls to whom she spoke"). Gregkaleka 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Margaret Mead went to Samoa in search of a sexually permissive society, it is scarcely surprising that she found one. It is in fact astonishing how often scholars find exactly what they are looking for. Perhaps understandably many are reluctant to let go of their
fantasy of a sexual utopia, as well as question the word of demi-goddess in her field. While it would be foolish to argue that all
Samoan girls followed the strict morality of their culture it would seem clear that Mead's picture of premarital promiscuity as normal
and accepted behavior was wrong. --Roxana —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.120.218.58 (
talk)
21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The book appears to have been published in 1928. When was Mead in Samoa doing her research? I think it would good to mention that. 64.48.158.78 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC) that is my question, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 ( talk) 08:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
While certainly not an academic source, my father spent several years in Samoa in the late fifties, early sixties, and recounts the same story as Freeman. He says that he was told that the Samoans thought that Margaret Mead was arrogant and presumptive. And in response to her "holier than thou" attitude, they lied to her to have fun with the whole thing. This is much earlier than Freeman's sources and refutes the argument that the stories changed over then years. Mrmcgibby 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC
Did your father speak to the specific girls (or girls in that age group)? Although it's not of direct interest in terms of the article, it'd be interesting in its own right. And what age was your father at the time? It's one of the curses of ethnography that each ethnographer can honestly have a totally different picture of the same society depending on who they are and in which capacity they're studying it in! <sigh> - RR
The ISI entry adds little to the argument, and the document linked to dismisses a variety of other books in fairly high-handed and POV terms. The organisation itself appears to be a right-wing educational pressure group. This doesn't dismiss the criticism out of hand, but contextualises it. Citing the Discovery institute also appears to reinforce that this article has had a social conservative flick mud at it. I've deleted the ISI entry... as I mentioned, it adds little to nothing and is NPOV. The Discovery Institute link is relevant, if verging on ad hominem. I've nip 'n' tucked a bit, but this article badly needs a systematic, NPOV revision. - RR
I propose to merge the Margaret Mead#The Mead-Freeman controversy section here. This subject has little so specific and long that it shouldn't overshadow a biographical article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The controversy is a major dispute within the field of anthropology so the best thing to do may be to fork all three separate controversy sections of Mead, Freeman and "Growing up in Samoa" articles into one single article. There are lot of background of the issue. For example, pre-Mead biological theory that asserted that adolescence is biological and therefore universal in human culture. This was allegedly disproved by Mead's work, which was somewhat countered by Freeman's interactionist theory. Vapour ( talk) 14:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we mention it in three articles, that is more than enough coverage. The bibliography cites some thirteen or so articles on the controversy (full citations above in this section), and so far we have no content corresponding to those reliable sources. IF someone started adding content from/about those sources, then perhaps we would have a basis or a new article, but let's work on the ones that exist first. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It is an off topic but my background is in history. We have somewhat similar controversy in the form of Edward Hallett Carr's "What Is History?", which has more adherence outside the history department than inside. Still the book is often introduced to undergraduate student in conjunction with Geoffrey Elton's "The Practice of History". Vapour ( talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"purport" is *not* an NPOV word (take a look here if you don't believe me), and whether or not the witnesses is irrelevant to the discussion here. Saying that they converted to Evangelical Christianity is an emotionally loaded term that is being used in this context to discredit the participants. This is called Poisoning the well, and is inappropriate in an unbiased article.
You are also in danger of violating the 3-revert rule, my friend.
Webbbbbbber ( talk) 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(re-indent) So can we all agree to leave it as is until someone can find the information? Drew Smith W hat I've done 03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Has any source ever pointed out that if premarital sex was a matter of pride among peers then the rapport Mead could have had may not necessarily mean they were less likely to lie to her, but equally likely or even more so since if they they felt her a peer they may wanted to boast about sexual conquests, even if they never had them if that was the norm in their society? (As seems to occur a lot in modern Western society among teenagers, especially males.) Or in other words, it seems easily possible they were just as willing to lie no matter how they felt about the person just in different directions? (Of course if they felt Mead was some naïve foreigner they might have been even more willing to make up stories just for the hell of it but that's already discussed I guess) To some extent:
implies this but only in a roundabout fashion and it seems a key point that someone studying this must have considered. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Current Anthropology, Vol. 54, No. 1, February 2013, The “Fateful Hoaxing” of Margaret Mead, A Cautionary Tale, by Paul Shankman. He presents an analysis of the interviews with the woman which led Freeman to believe that Mead had been hoaxed. He also discusses whether it is likely that Mead's conclusions of the sexual conduct of Samoan teenagers was based on informations from this woman.
His conclusion is
/ Pastisch ( talk) 09:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This edit [1] by Slrubestein completely misreprssents scholars. He lists scholar who commented on the issue as 'challenging' Freeman. The first two I checked supported him over Mead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.1.214.45 ( talk) 12:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That section only has one link which is currently dead. I tried using the wayback machine to find it but none of the archived links worked either so I'm deleting that link and since that link is the only thing in the section deleting it as well. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The quote from the book in the section "Mead" (about all the choices an American woman has) is really long and I don't think the length is justified. You can get her point with less than half the quote and having the whole thing there serves no purpose and I think makes the article harder to read. I'm going to cut down the quote to about half the length or so, I think it will still easily make the point that way. --
MadScientistX11 (
talk) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Done --
MadScientistX11 (
talk)
21:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently reference 5 is:
"Mead ignored violence in Samoan life, did not have a sufficient background in—or give enough emphasis to—the influence of biology on behavior, did not spend enough time in Samoa, and was not familiar enough with the Samoan language." Library of Congress, "Afterward: Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead." It sounds like it's the Afterward to a book called Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead but if so who is the author? -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just started reading the book by Orans but I want to document what I think is a mistake in the current version of the article. It currently says " Taking the positivist stance, Orans concludes that..." In the introduction (p. 11) Orans says: "The requirement of verifiability is considered by these anthropologists to be a manifestation of "positivism" which they regard as outmoded" Perhaps he will say something different later on in the book but my reading of the introduction is that Orans does not consider himself, nor should he be considered, a positivist. We have to distinguish between a scientific approach and a positivist approach. Orans is striving to be scientific which is not the same as being a positivist. He references positivism as the slur applied by other anthropologists to criticism of Mead not as a philosophy he adheres to. Positivism is an outmoded philosophy. Few people take it seriously anymore. It was a reaction to Freudianism and other unverifiable approaches to the social sciences. But it went way to far as reactions often do. Positivism essentially defined science as being only about things that could be directly measured and ruled out theorizing about things like internal states. I don't know of a modern scientist who takes it seriously. A positivist would claim that virtually all cognitive science or say the linguistic research by people like Chomsky is not science. Modern critics of Mead such as Pinker are absolutely not positivists. Pinker is all about internal states. Requiring a researcher to provide verifiable and falsifiable hypotheses as Orans does is NOT positivism, it's just good science. I plan to change this but want to finish the book before I make more edits but wanted to document this now in case anyone disagrees and wants to discuss. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 19:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I also find this murky:
...Mead's conclusions hinge on an interpretive or fabricated, rather than positivist, approach to culture.
Is it claimed that Mead was wrong, or worse: "not even wrong"?
Let us shoot the weasels there.
Proposal: Add culture clash to see also, because the book itself, as well as the controversy around it clearly follow this theme. Strikefinger ( talk) 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
"Orans concludes that due to Mead's interpretive approach – common to most contemporary cultural anthropology – her hypotheses and conclusions are essentially unfalsifiable"
In order to make a scientific hypothesis, it must be falsifiable. https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/1.19/primary/lesson/hypothesis-ms-ps/ /info/en/?search=Scientific_method
If as Orans states Mead's hypothesis (and those of contemporary anthropologists) are not falsifiable, than they are not science. This statement regulates Mead's book (and apparently the work of most contemporary anthropologists) to the level of a commentary or memoir--not a scientifically verifiable study. 2601:245:C100:5E5C:5520:7C5A:DB38:3E9E ( talk) 02:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"As Fa'apua'a told Freeman, in her 80s, that she and her friend had been joking, Freeman defends her testimony in the introduction of his second book about Mead: Both that the octagenarian's memory was very good, and that she swore on the Bible, as a Christian, that it was true"
This is not attributed to any RS and appears to be an editor's statement of passive-aggressive disbelief rather than a quote from a RS. This and other statements like it (the article is littered with them) should be restated or removed per WP:NPOV. 2601:601:4082:2CC0:D15:C4B:FDBA:5A18 ( talk) 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coming of Age in Samoa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Derek Freeman's conclusions are very controversial, and are not accepted as fact by anyone. Can someone rewrite this to indicate that the views stated by him are that of a minority of anthropologists and are not considered mainstream?
The mainstream view of this topic is that neither Mead, nor Freeman really got it right. However, anthropologists certainly tend to allign more with Freeman than they do with Mead. Also, the comment in the article "the two girls whom she spoke to" -- Mead spoke with about a hundred girls. The number with whom she truley interacted can be cut down to about 15 or so, but still, "the two girls whom she spoke to" is simply wrong, and needs to be changed (not to mention, grammatically it should be "the two girls to whom she spoke"). Gregkaleka 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Margaret Mead went to Samoa in search of a sexually permissive society, it is scarcely surprising that she found one. It is in fact astonishing how often scholars find exactly what they are looking for. Perhaps understandably many are reluctant to let go of their
fantasy of a sexual utopia, as well as question the word of demi-goddess in her field. While it would be foolish to argue that all
Samoan girls followed the strict morality of their culture it would seem clear that Mead's picture of premarital promiscuity as normal
and accepted behavior was wrong. --Roxana —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.120.218.58 (
talk)
21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The book appears to have been published in 1928. When was Mead in Samoa doing her research? I think it would good to mention that. 64.48.158.78 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC) that is my question, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 ( talk) 08:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
While certainly not an academic source, my father spent several years in Samoa in the late fifties, early sixties, and recounts the same story as Freeman. He says that he was told that the Samoans thought that Margaret Mead was arrogant and presumptive. And in response to her "holier than thou" attitude, they lied to her to have fun with the whole thing. This is much earlier than Freeman's sources and refutes the argument that the stories changed over then years. Mrmcgibby 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC
Did your father speak to the specific girls (or girls in that age group)? Although it's not of direct interest in terms of the article, it'd be interesting in its own right. And what age was your father at the time? It's one of the curses of ethnography that each ethnographer can honestly have a totally different picture of the same society depending on who they are and in which capacity they're studying it in! <sigh> - RR
The ISI entry adds little to the argument, and the document linked to dismisses a variety of other books in fairly high-handed and POV terms. The organisation itself appears to be a right-wing educational pressure group. This doesn't dismiss the criticism out of hand, but contextualises it. Citing the Discovery institute also appears to reinforce that this article has had a social conservative flick mud at it. I've deleted the ISI entry... as I mentioned, it adds little to nothing and is NPOV. The Discovery Institute link is relevant, if verging on ad hominem. I've nip 'n' tucked a bit, but this article badly needs a systematic, NPOV revision. - RR
I propose to merge the Margaret Mead#The Mead-Freeman controversy section here. This subject has little so specific and long that it shouldn't overshadow a biographical article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The controversy is a major dispute within the field of anthropology so the best thing to do may be to fork all three separate controversy sections of Mead, Freeman and "Growing up in Samoa" articles into one single article. There are lot of background of the issue. For example, pre-Mead biological theory that asserted that adolescence is biological and therefore universal in human culture. This was allegedly disproved by Mead's work, which was somewhat countered by Freeman's interactionist theory. Vapour ( talk) 14:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we mention it in three articles, that is more than enough coverage. The bibliography cites some thirteen or so articles on the controversy (full citations above in this section), and so far we have no content corresponding to those reliable sources. IF someone started adding content from/about those sources, then perhaps we would have a basis or a new article, but let's work on the ones that exist first. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It is an off topic but my background is in history. We have somewhat similar controversy in the form of Edward Hallett Carr's "What Is History?", which has more adherence outside the history department than inside. Still the book is often introduced to undergraduate student in conjunction with Geoffrey Elton's "The Practice of History". Vapour ( talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"purport" is *not* an NPOV word (take a look here if you don't believe me), and whether or not the witnesses is irrelevant to the discussion here. Saying that they converted to Evangelical Christianity is an emotionally loaded term that is being used in this context to discredit the participants. This is called Poisoning the well, and is inappropriate in an unbiased article.
You are also in danger of violating the 3-revert rule, my friend.
Webbbbbbber ( talk) 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(re-indent) So can we all agree to leave it as is until someone can find the information? Drew Smith W hat I've done 03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Has any source ever pointed out that if premarital sex was a matter of pride among peers then the rapport Mead could have had may not necessarily mean they were less likely to lie to her, but equally likely or even more so since if they they felt her a peer they may wanted to boast about sexual conquests, even if they never had them if that was the norm in their society? (As seems to occur a lot in modern Western society among teenagers, especially males.) Or in other words, it seems easily possible they were just as willing to lie no matter how they felt about the person just in different directions? (Of course if they felt Mead was some naïve foreigner they might have been even more willing to make up stories just for the hell of it but that's already discussed I guess) To some extent:
implies this but only in a roundabout fashion and it seems a key point that someone studying this must have considered. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Current Anthropology, Vol. 54, No. 1, February 2013, The “Fateful Hoaxing” of Margaret Mead, A Cautionary Tale, by Paul Shankman. He presents an analysis of the interviews with the woman which led Freeman to believe that Mead had been hoaxed. He also discusses whether it is likely that Mead's conclusions of the sexual conduct of Samoan teenagers was based on informations from this woman.
His conclusion is
/ Pastisch ( talk) 09:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This edit [1] by Slrubestein completely misreprssents scholars. He lists scholar who commented on the issue as 'challenging' Freeman. The first two I checked supported him over Mead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.1.214.45 ( talk) 12:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That section only has one link which is currently dead. I tried using the wayback machine to find it but none of the archived links worked either so I'm deleting that link and since that link is the only thing in the section deleting it as well. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The quote from the book in the section "Mead" (about all the choices an American woman has) is really long and I don't think the length is justified. You can get her point with less than half the quote and having the whole thing there serves no purpose and I think makes the article harder to read. I'm going to cut down the quote to about half the length or so, I think it will still easily make the point that way. --
MadScientistX11 (
talk) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Done --
MadScientistX11 (
talk)
21:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently reference 5 is:
"Mead ignored violence in Samoan life, did not have a sufficient background in—or give enough emphasis to—the influence of biology on behavior, did not spend enough time in Samoa, and was not familiar enough with the Samoan language." Library of Congress, "Afterward: Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead." It sounds like it's the Afterward to a book called Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead but if so who is the author? -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just started reading the book by Orans but I want to document what I think is a mistake in the current version of the article. It currently says " Taking the positivist stance, Orans concludes that..." In the introduction (p. 11) Orans says: "The requirement of verifiability is considered by these anthropologists to be a manifestation of "positivism" which they regard as outmoded" Perhaps he will say something different later on in the book but my reading of the introduction is that Orans does not consider himself, nor should he be considered, a positivist. We have to distinguish between a scientific approach and a positivist approach. Orans is striving to be scientific which is not the same as being a positivist. He references positivism as the slur applied by other anthropologists to criticism of Mead not as a philosophy he adheres to. Positivism is an outmoded philosophy. Few people take it seriously anymore. It was a reaction to Freudianism and other unverifiable approaches to the social sciences. But it went way to far as reactions often do. Positivism essentially defined science as being only about things that could be directly measured and ruled out theorizing about things like internal states. I don't know of a modern scientist who takes it seriously. A positivist would claim that virtually all cognitive science or say the linguistic research by people like Chomsky is not science. Modern critics of Mead such as Pinker are absolutely not positivists. Pinker is all about internal states. Requiring a researcher to provide verifiable and falsifiable hypotheses as Orans does is NOT positivism, it's just good science. I plan to change this but want to finish the book before I make more edits but wanted to document this now in case anyone disagrees and wants to discuss. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 19:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I also find this murky:
...Mead's conclusions hinge on an interpretive or fabricated, rather than positivist, approach to culture.
Is it claimed that Mead was wrong, or worse: "not even wrong"?
Let us shoot the weasels there.
Proposal: Add culture clash to see also, because the book itself, as well as the controversy around it clearly follow this theme. Strikefinger ( talk) 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
"Orans concludes that due to Mead's interpretive approach – common to most contemporary cultural anthropology – her hypotheses and conclusions are essentially unfalsifiable"
In order to make a scientific hypothesis, it must be falsifiable. https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/1.19/primary/lesson/hypothesis-ms-ps/ /info/en/?search=Scientific_method
If as Orans states Mead's hypothesis (and those of contemporary anthropologists) are not falsifiable, than they are not science. This statement regulates Mead's book (and apparently the work of most contemporary anthropologists) to the level of a commentary or memoir--not a scientifically verifiable study. 2601:245:C100:5E5C:5520:7C5A:DB38:3E9E ( talk) 02:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"As Fa'apua'a told Freeman, in her 80s, that she and her friend had been joking, Freeman defends her testimony in the introduction of his second book about Mead: Both that the octagenarian's memory was very good, and that she swore on the Bible, as a Christian, that it was true"
This is not attributed to any RS and appears to be an editor's statement of passive-aggressive disbelief rather than a quote from a RS. This and other statements like it (the article is littered with them) should be restated or removed per WP:NPOV. 2601:601:4082:2CC0:D15:C4B:FDBA:5A18 ( talk) 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)