Talk:Coming of Age in Samoa

Derek Freeman's conclusions are very controversial
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?
 * You can edit it yourself. After all...it is the wikipedian way. Mahlered 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * I agree that in a literal sense "neither Mead, nor Freeman really got it right" is true in that of course Freeman made mistakes as any researcher does. But I think it overstates it to equate them like that. This is "controversial" in the sense that people with an agenda still nit pick about this or that fact that Freman got wrong or find ways to interpret things since of course Mead wasn't completely wrong. But on some of the most fundamental claims of the book, the things about how free and easy the Samoans were about sex there is no serious debate. Mead was wrong. There is even one of the women who she interviewed many years later who says quite plainly that her and her friends were lying to Mead as a joke. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2014 (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)

Dates of research
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)
 * Inside the front of the book it says "In 1925 she won a National Research Council Fellowship and went to Samoa...". Of course she could have won the fellowship in 1925, and then planned the trip for the following year; it would probably have taken some time to organise. In the Introduction, she states she was there for nine months. 82.37.218.153 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Early verification
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! - RR


 * As I understand it, there are considerable amount of records left by Samoan fluent Western missionaries during the time of Mead. Diaries of expat Westerns, like your father, would be another source of archival evidence. Freeman, before going to Samoa, appear to have done considerable research on these material. I work as an interpretor and, consequently, I really can't take seriously a cultural research done by someone who doesn't speak the local language. Consequently, I find it hard to accept Holme's argument that Mead, who spoke no Samoan, had a better rapport than Freeman who spoke Samoan fairly fluently and stayed there considerably longer than Mead. It does remind me of an academic paper on Shakespeare in Japanese, written by an academic with a poor grasp of English or Tudor culture. So far, only positive evidences which support Mead's version of Samoa is her own work. Vapour (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that Mead spoke no Samoan? How do you think she would have interviewed any of the native girls, or even managed to live there for nine months, without some knowledge of the language? Her book contains numerous examples of Samoan words, and in Appendix 1, she spends some time explaining the different words Samoans use for relatives, and later she discusses how "to know" is translated in different contexts. She also discusses how the "k" was introduced into the language and used in some places instead of "t", and how children corrected her usage. 82.37.218.153 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Worst Book?
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

Merge with Margaret Mead#The Mead-Freeman controversy
I propose to merge the Margaret Mead 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)
 * It is perhaps the one thing most people associate with Mead today - it should be aired in the main article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying every thing should be merge here. The Margaret Mead article can have a summary and this article can have more detailed text. Now it seems like there are two detailled stories here and there. If this subject is so important, maybe it can have an article of it's own. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see some sense in that - the Mead article cites more than half a dozen articles by different anthropologists about the controversy. I do not have time, but if someone else/others could summarize those articles in this article, this article would be infinitely better and then the reverse process of summarizing it for the Mead article would work well. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Namely:
 * Gregory Acciaioli, ed. 1983 "Fact and Context in Etnography: The Samoa Controversy" Canberra Anthropology (special issue) 6(1): 1-97.
 * George Appell, 1984 "Freeman's Refutation of Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa: The Implications for Anthropological Inquiry" Eastern Anthropology 37: 183-214.
 * Ivan Brady, 1991 "The Samoa Reader: Last Word or Lost Horizon?" Current Anthropology 32: 263-282.
 * Richard Feinberg 1988 "Margaret Mead and Samoa: Coming of Age in Fact and Fiction" American Anthropologist 90: 656-663
 * Eleanor Leacock 1988 "Anthropologists in Search of a Culture: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman and All the Rest of Us" in Central Issues in Anthropology 8(1): 3-20.
 * Robert Levy 1984 "Mead, Freeman, and Samoa: The Problem of Seeing Things as They Are" Ethos 12: 85-92
 * Mac Marshall 1993 "The Wizard from Oz Meets the Wicked Witch of the East: Freeman, Mead, and Ethnographic Authority" in American Ethnologist20(3): 604-617.
 * Bonnie Nardi 1984 "The Height of Her Powers: Margaret Mead's Samoa" Feminist Studies 10: 323-337.
 * Allan Patience and Josephy Smith 1987 "Derek Freeman in Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of a Biobehavioral Myth" American Anthropologist 88: 157-162.
 * David B. Paxman 1988 "Freeman, Mead, and the Eighteenth-Century Controversy over Polynesian Society" Pacific Studies 1(3): 1-19
 * Nancy Scheper-Hughes 1984 "The Margaret Mead Controversy: Culture, Biology, and Anthropological Inquiry" in Human Organization 43(1): 85-93.
 * Paul Shankman 1996 "The History of Samoan Sexual Conduct and the Mead-Freeman Controversy" in American Anthropologist98(3): 555-567.
 * Brad Shore 1982 Sala'ilua: A Samoan Mystery New York: Columbia University Press.
 * R.E. Young and S. Juan 1985 "Freeman's Margaret Mead Myth: The Ideological Virginity of Anthropologists Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 21: 64-81.
 * These are all reliable verifiable sources, many are from the most notable journals in anthropology, so there is plenty out there to provide the contents of a great article that gets beyond sensationalist headlines to the actual controversy among anthropologists. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems like most of the further reading section in the Margaret Mead article. In fact this is the second thing which, I think, shouldn't be in Margaret Mead article itselve. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The citations are necessary to support (verify) claims made about the anthropological views on the controversy. I think in the Mead article itself, that is all they are needed for - to verify a point of view described in the article.  I bring them up here because all discuss the Mead-freeman controversy and provide different views and none of these distinct analysies are discussed in the Mead article.  If they are to be unpacked, it should be done here.  if anyone wants to improve this article, they can start by incorporating the findings/discussions of these articles into this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. What I ment was that the reference section and further reading section in the Margret Mead article should be integrated, and as you say, all "unpacked" listed publications removed. And that together is a lot of work. I am sorry I don't have the expertise here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:58, 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)


 * The controversy is not a major dispute within anthropology. It was understandably a major dispute when Freman's book was published, and I can see for pedagogic purposes why it would be used in an undergraduate introductory course, but I do not think it is talked about in any graduate programs, and is not a matter of current debate for anthropologists.  I do not think there has been any article or book dedicated specifically to this controversy that has been published in fifteen years, maybe even twenty years. I am not sure Freeman's "interactionist" theory is such a big deal; all anthropologists agree that puberty and adolescencde are marked by biological changes.  All anthropologists agree that there is remarkable plasticity in how people in different societies respond to these changes.  We do not yet have enough hard evidence to be confident about what is really universal, we need more research and some people are doing it although there is not a lot of funding.  But this is not a central element of Mead's book on Samoa.  I have read and reread the book several times and her main argument is (1) that because pre-adolescent girls spend a lot of time taking care of their younger siblings, and helping their mothers, non-"aristocratic" adolescent girls enjoy a period of relative freedom from responsibility before they get married and start having children, and (2) that the way kinship is organized - open networks linking many households, which mean when members of a family have a fight (as adolescents often get themselves into), they can just leave their parents' home and move in for a few weeks with an aunt and uncle, thus further taking pressure off of the family in general and adolescents in particular.  Boas and Mead wanted to prove that Samoan culture and American culture were very different, not that there is no relationship between biology and human behavior.  Her ethnography in fact depends on clear biological changes as markers for people's lives in her analysis.  I understand that one argument may have consequences for the other, but if you read their work in its historical context, it is clear that they were obsessed with two basic points: different societies have different cultures, and non-Western cultures "work" for the members of their societies at least as well as our culture works for us.  They were also interested in the ways different societies "borrow" or appropriate cultural elements from other societies, and were interested in variation within a society e.g. how individuals (Kwakiutl, Samoans, whatever) could manipulate elements of their society creatively and in different ways i.e. no society is homogeneous or unchanging.  Virtually all anthropologists accept these arguments today, with no controversy.  Major controversies today include, the extent to which an "outsider" can or should represent another culture; is globalization really something new, and if so does it have its own culture, or how has it changed other cultures; can anthropologists help people devise sustainable development projects; should intellectual property rights apply to indigenous knowledge of their environment; what are the implications of the mapping of the genome and molecular genetics for how we identify ourselfs socially (e.g. think of race); and of course older ("Mead-like") questions about the degree to which our beliefs about the body, sexuality, aesthetics, family, econonomy, politics, etc apply to other societies.  When it comes to gender and sexuality most anthropologist simply (and accurately) consider Mead old-fashioned.  The people who really matter today in any debate about anthropology and sex/gender are probably Marilyn Strathern (the Gender of the Gift) and I guess Ann Stoler (Race and the Education of Desire and Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power)  If you want to make any claims about notability, these books are the ones anthropologists are debating today.  It is waaaaaaaaaay beyond Mead.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely, you summary deserve a separate article. ;) Main thrust of my argument is that there should be a separate article focusing on the controversy. Vapour (talk) 16:57, 19 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)
 * Is it not much better to shrink/fork the controversy sections in all three articles and merge it into one article. With the current arrangement, the same materials are duplicated in three different articles with each sections having slightly different spin. Plus any additional inputs, such as the ones you previously wrote have to be added in three different articles. On the other hand, if we merge two into the other one, how do one decide which sections get absorbed into the other? Surely, no choice in this regard is neutral unless we set up a separate article.  Vapour (talk) 20:05, 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)


 * Vapour, as long as none of those articles is long, I see no need to spin off another article. That said, above are listed thirteen articles that are from reliable and notable sources.  The fact is, I do not have the time to read through all of them to develop an article that explains the different facets of this controversy and provides an accounts of the distinct discussions and views.  If you have the time to do that, my hat goes off to you! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Mead-Freeman controversy
"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)
 * Saw your post on editor assistance, thought I'd stop by to help. But I read the entire article, and found nothing that supports either point of view. So I checked the talk page here, and found your little post. Saying someone is "purported" to do something is a very good way to maintain neutrality. If I say you have posted numerous times, I am promoting the POV that you have posted numerous times. If I say you are purported to have posted numerous times, I'm establishing that while it is not my POV, it is one of many POV's about the subject. Honestly, taking purported out would make the article more biased, rather than fix it.  D   rew   S    mith 05:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Purported means many people believe this.  It means not all people believe this, or are certain about this.  This is accurate and NPOV.  I think the issue here is, some people have a problem with our NPOV policy.  NPOV is about verifiable claims, not the truth.  To suggest that something is not an established fact or the truth does not mean that it is wrong.  It means it is a view, which is all we are tryinb to convey.  Moreover, converting to Evangelical Christianity does not poison the well.  For some readers, it increases the credibility of the purported witnesses!  Saying someone converted to Evangelical Christianity can be debrecating only if you (Webbbbbbber) do not like Evangelical Christians.  So, you do not like Evangelical Christians.  That is your business.  But this is not about what you think.  It is about providing an accuragte account that complies with our policies.  That they converted to Evangelical Shristianity is a relevant issue in this article, and there is nothing disparaging about it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * purported is on the list of WP:Words to avoid. It does not mean "many people believe this".  If you consult a dictionary, you will see that it means  "to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) " And specious, in case you are unfamiliar with the term, means "having a false look of truth or genuineness".  Far from NPOV.


 * In regard to Evangelical Christians, I have no special feeling for them one way or the other. Converting to Envangelical Christianity may not poison the well in general; that depends, as you say, on the opinion a person has on Envangelical Christians.  But context must be taken into consideration here, and the context is sexual mores.  Evangelical Christians are noted for having very conservative views on sex: whether this is true or not, I don't know, but this is the common perception.  So, by mentioning this, the writer is implying that the speaker biased.  Rather than establishing or implying a bias (poisoning the well), the witness's words should speak for themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbbbbbber (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They are described as Evangelical Christians because that is how they are described in the body because that is how they are described by verifiable sources because it is indeed salient to the topic. If you want to propose an alternative to "purported" that you do not consider POV, by all means suggest away, I think we all welcome improvements. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In regard to purported: Any objections to changing "...purports to document..." to "...documents..."?


 * By the way the term "Evangelical" appears only once in the article, so it does not appear in the body, as you say, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find verifiable sources that use the term "Evangelical". But this is beside the point.  The point is that describing a witness as such in the context of discussing sexual mores implies that that witness is biased.  I do not think it is necessary or NPOV to imply bias here.  Webbbbbbber (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The many critics of Freeman claim just that, that the "witnesses" were biased and changed their stories for him. There is a lengthy bibliography, or used to be unless someone cut it.  Unfortunately, the article lacks a good account of the many articles written on the topic.  But they should be there in the bibliography.  Also, "documents" is biased, unless we say "documents some of the women who claim that they ... " Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The scholarly sources are in note 15 I think (or was it 13?). I cannot, but I wish one of th thousand of Wikipedia volunteer editors could read through those article and provide a good account of what they say. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. we can change the word purported to something less POV, preferably one that means what we all thought purported meant.  D   rew   S    mith 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We could say "claiming" but perhaps others would consider that too to be deprecating? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to read "which claims to document" instead of "which purports to document". It helps the readability as an added benefit! D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming in from WP:EAR at Drew Smith's request for more uninvolved opinions, I'll somewhat agree that "purport" has POV connotations. That's why it's on WP:WTA. However WTA is a guideline, which means there's definitely room for exceptions- which certainly occur, as one can see from the number of hits "purport" and its various inflected forms have on Wikipedia. So the question here is whether this particular usage of "purports" is problematic in the same way that is suggested at WTA. WTA would suggest that the problem definition of "purport" would be the second one at purport... which seems to be the case here. But that doesn't necessarily make it POV-charged, and the specifics of this case need to be considered. Another consideration is whether there is another appropriate term. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)::::The words to avoid list was talking about purported as used in the context "so and so was purported to have done thing A to person B" and is used to cast doubt. The usage of purports, now claims, in this article is not to cast doubt, but to show that doubt exists. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, my reading of the sentence is that the people in the documentary were purportedly Mead's informants. Which implies there exists a doubt as to whether those people actually were Mead's informants. If that's the case, maybe it's best to say "...which depicts Mead's informants, though their identity as such has been questioned by..."? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that, though to be honest I haven't looked at any of the sources, so I don't know who is doing the questioning. Maybe webbbbber can provide some questioners for us? D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  08:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know the source of the statement. I'll mark it with a fact tag, and maybe one of the other article editors will come forward.  Then I'll be happy to check it out! Webbbbbbber (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do not know either - I am just assuming whoever put it in was acting in good faith. i think adding the fact tag is perfectly reasonable.  I have seen the film and (yeah, I know this does not count) I personally do not doubt they were among her informants, I just have no way of know if they are representative of her informants and I do not think they were all of her informants ... just a personal view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(re-indent) So can we all agree to leave it as is until someone can find the information? D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * um, sure ... but don't unsourced statements get removed after a certain amount of time? Webbbbbbber (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let's tag "purport" and if no one can elaborate on it in a satisfying way maybe we remove it in three months?  Is that acceptable? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, it's claims now. D  rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "purports" or "claims", it's the entire statement that is unsourced. We need to find the source that indicates that Frank Heimans directed a film called Margaret Mead in Samoa in 1988. I'm checking to see if imdb has it. Webbbbbbber (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. imdb turns up no movies with the title Margaret Mead in Samoa, and the only movie directed by Frank Heimans is something called The Occult Experience.  I'll have to check some other databases.  Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It exists, I have seen it, but some time ago. I think it may have been made for television. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mead's rapport and honesty of communication

 * in practice they engaged in high levels of premarital sex and boasted about their sexual affairs amongst themselves
 * They suggested that such women, in this new context, were unlikely to speak frankly about their adolescent behavior. Further, they suggested that these women might not be as forthright and honest about their sexuality when speaking to an elderly man as they would have been speaking to a woman near their own age.
 * Lowell Holmes, who completed a lesser publicized restudy commented later, "Mead was better able to identify with, and therefore establish rapport with, adolescents and young adults on issues of sexuality than either I (at age 29, married with a wife and child) or Freeman, ten years my senior"

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:
 * After an initial flurry of discussion, many anthropologists concluded that the truth would probably never be known

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)
 * You cannot boast about sexual adventures ou have not had. You seem to think people live in a place with privacy, where people do not know what is going on.  But when a community consists of a bunch of houses that have split bamboo walls, if they have walls at all, and thatched roofs, and everyone knows everyone else, it is pointless to boast about something that didn't happen.  Aside from the fact that others will see the amorous couple or at least hear them, for a boast to work, the sexual partner has to make a similar boast.  And if both are willing, why think they did not actually have sex?  You seem to be trying to interpret how Samoans think about sex based on your own experiences in your own "modern Western society."  Haven't you read Mead's book?  Isn't her point that the Samoans were not a modern Western society and did not make assumptions we do? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Samoans didn't, and don't live in huts. D rew S mith  What I've done  12:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When Mead did her fieldwork, typical houses consisted of a circle of pillars with a thatch roof. They had no doors (or locks, Mead specifies).  Non-anthropologists seem to fixate on the teen-age sex part of the book, which reallly takes up less than one chapter.  Mead's argument about the Samoans involves much more - key points to her argument are a general lack of privacy, in fact she describes the Samoans as "a civilization which suspects privacy" and children grow up watching babies being born, adults having sex, and people dying.  This is one of the reasons she believes helps explain why their adolesence (transition to adulthood) is less traumatic or difficult than it is for people in the West, where so many of the facts of life are hidden from children. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This recent article might be worth mentioning in the controversy section
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
 * "Yet analysis of Mead’s relationship with Fa’apua’a demonstrates that she was not an informant for Mead on adolescent sex, and an examination of the three interviews used by Freeman does not support his interpretation of them. In fact, responding to direct questioning during the interviews, Fa’apua’a stated that Mead did not ask her questions about her own sexual conduct or about adolescent sexual conduct. Nor did she provide Mead with information on this subject. Crucial passages from these interviews were omitted by Freeman in his publications on the alleged hoaxing. Based on the interviews themselves, there is no compelling evidence that Mead was hoaxed."

/Pastisch (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that reference. The article is available online, I just downloaded it. Here is the link if anyone else wants to take a look: http://dirwww.colorado.edu/Anthropology/people/bios/documents/FatefulHoaxingpdf.pdf Interesting that when I searched for it one of the first links that came up was:  Is the “Fateful Hoaxing of Mead” a hoax? Not making a comment on either article, haven't read them yet, just it's amusing for each book or article there seems to be a counter-book, almost like particle theory in physics where each particle has it's anti-particle :-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So I took a look at the articles. My anti-particle theory was wrong also, the other article in spite of the confusing title actually supported the "Mead wasn't hoaxed" theory. I'm still reading the sources here so may change my mind but from my reading so far I think there are two things that need to be differentiated. The first is the question: "was Mead hoaxed?" the second is the question "was Mead wrong?" From what I've seen so far there seems to be a good case that whether she was hoaxed is controversial and we may never know. But that she was wrong in some important ways, I think that is irrefutable. So far the defenses of Mead I've read don't really dispute that Mead's claim about how relaxed the Samoans were about casual sex and virginity is not consistent with subsequent ethnographic research. I plan to edit the article more to address the controversies and eventually remove the tags. If anyone has opinions please document them here. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your efforts are appreciated, I have been meaning to work on this article for a long time using more of Shankman's work. You should get his book as well if you dont have it already. I also think we should have a dedicated article on the Mead-Freeman controversy. There is certainly enough literature on it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

False consensus
This edit 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)
 * Nah Slrubensteins evaluation of the consensus was right. He is just citing all the scholars that have written about the issues, not just the ones that sided with Mead. But we should update this with some of the more recent sources like Shankmans book. It gives a complete evaluation of the debate and the evidence and the scholarly consensus, which is not in Freemans favor within Anthropology although some non-anthropologists still consider his work to have refuted meads - particularly Evolutionary Psychologists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing Videos section
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)

Quote in Mead section
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) ✅ --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know what this reference is supposed to be??
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)

Orans and Positivism
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 think I was the one who used that wording and I while I understand your point that he doesnt represent actual pre-popperian positivism I think it is not unfair to call his insistence on Poppers falsifiability criteria and the objective natural of empirical knowledge is a positivist stance. I think that the term is used differently in social sciences than in its strict sense as the school of positivism - it is still used to refer to schools of thought that maintain that results of empirical investigations are, or should be, objective facts about the world. It is certainly a very reductive view of what social sciences are and should be and one that most anthropologists today do not subscribe to. I think that is important to point out, that Orans is trying to hold Mead to a standard of scientific inquiry that is based on the natural sciences and that is not mainstream in contemporary anthropology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to the term "Popperian" as well. It's just science. If you want to say anthropology doesn't need to be scientific that's fine -- I mean I disagree but I acknowledge that a lot of people think that. I haven't found anything where Orans says he believes in Positivism or explicitly is a "Popperian". "Popperian" has connotations that are not appropriate to apply to Orans. It implies someone who for example wouldn't allow internal mental states in a scientific model of human psychology or social behavior. Unless you can provide evidence that Orans has that extreme view I think it's wrong to call him either a Popperian or Positivist. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a tendentious and incorrect claim to say that the falsifiability criterion is "just science". It is one view of science, and it was one that didnt exist when Mead did her work, one which is not today prevalent in Anthropology, or in Science and Society studies, and one which is empoverished and reductionist in the extreme. I am however thinking that we should probably not apply any label to Orans that is not explicitly sourced, so I think the best way to proceed is to read some reviews of Orans book and see how they characterize his stance. I know that severeal reviews objected to the applicability of his "rigorous" stance, but I dont remember how they characterized it. I think the point that is important is that Orans piece was basically an element in the ongoing discussion within anthropology (par of the larger the "culture wars") about the kind of science that the discipline is supposed to be. It is also important to note that he is judging Mead by a yardstick that didnt exist when she was writing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 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
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)

Unfalsifiable Hypothesis
"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/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

NPOV?
"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)