Word: meads
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Mead had a penchant for looking at an institution, be it childbirth or birth control, from a new and different angle, applying new concepts and precepts gleaned from a life of continuous observation. Because she was far more willing and even anxious to experiment than most of her more conservative co-workers, many of them criticized...
...with degrees in sociology and anthropology from Barnard, Mead wanted to study social change in another culture. Franz Boaz, the dean of American anthropology and Mead's teacher, directed her to look at adolescence and sex roles in Samoa instead. Out of the Samoa experience emerged Growing Up in Samoa, a bestseller. But along with instant success came instant criticism that was to dog her throughout her career. Mead, many anthropologists argued, over-simplified, over-generalized, drew conclusions from sketchy evidence and interjected herself and her psychological interpretations too often and too much...
...public loved it, though. After Samoa Mead continued to travel and write, occasionally turning out technical monographs to placate her vociferous peers, but more often than not producing books for popular consumption. True to Boaz, she examined sex roles in different cultures, rejecting the idea that one predetermined set of universal roles can be applied to all cultures indiscriminately. However, she did not limit herself to discussing sex roles or exotic cultures. She voiced opinions and passed judgments on any number of things in Western society, from marijuana to marriage, and her outspokenness drew more fire from critics who thought...
...levels, the criticism from anthropologists and non-anthropologists alike is not entirely unfounded, though the reasoning behind it is unfair. the "science" Mead sought to popularize is the study of man. Unlike physics or calculus or other hard sciences there is no justification for anthropology confining itself to scrutiny by a specialized elite. It concerns itself with examining something tangible--humans--by means of a very common human device--observation. Mead had no practical training before venturing into the field. Basically she did little more than what all of us are capable of doing if we set our minds...
...contending that Mead interprets too freely, critics ignore the fact that anthropology can never be a science. Mead's conclusions can stand because anthropological interpretations are always theoretical. No experiments can prove them right or wrong, since observed systems and institutions can easily be distorted to fit any proposed paradigm. Nor does anthropology deal with predictable data because man is an essentially is an unpredictable organism. Finally, anthropology isn't objective. It involves an observer interacting directly with other humans. Try as the anthropologist might to analyze and objectify what he sees, some amount of subjectivity is bound to seep...