Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa as an Attempt to Popularize Anthropology - Essay Example

Margaret Mead’s Work Margaret Mead’s Work Franz Boas’ role in transforming contemporary anthropology earned him identify as the founder of the discipline. He managed to revolutionize anthropology from being a classified museum or federal state venture to a discipline studied as a profession at the University level (Senft et al., 2009, p. 5). Other successful anthropologists including Margret Mead and Ruth Benedict extended and developed Franz work in making the discipline a success at the university level. Mead managed through the discipline to publish literary books in anthropology for instance Coming of Age in Samoa. It is evident that Mead’s success in anthropology research depended on a firm foundation laid by Boaz on the discipline. She managed to extend Boaz’s ambition of making anthropology universal by sharing information she gained through books and doing extensive research on Boas pioneered disciplines such as cultural anthropology, nature versus nurture issues, emotional turbulence and biological development and adolescent issues. Boas maintained a viewpoint that human nature and the actions people portray emanate from civilization constraints. To ascertain his theory, Boas instructed Mead to establish if the poignant stress and turmoil that American adolescents in Samoa undergo had cultural or biological influence. Mead researched on Boas hypothesis by working as an ethnographer in American Samoa (Margaret, n.d., p. 54). In response, Mead launched an investigation in the Island of Samoa living among the society members and fulfilling all their cultural requirements as she compiled results on adolescents’ girls’ behaviors within Samoa. Mead recorded an analysis of her results in book “Coming of Age in Samoa”, published in 1928. In her study results, Mead established that youth concerns were neither constraining nor stressful among Samoan teenagers and adults. She carried out the research to from twenty-five teenage women in three villages of Samoa. Her comments indicated that the perceived time and stress, which adolescents’ experience, are because of cultural restraints. Mead’s comments supported the view that young people from different social and cultural arrangements within Samoa were free from caused stress characters that are characteristic of adolescence stage of development. Stress-free adolescence was because of total casualness or lack of concern towards youth issues. Adolescence stress was limited to and experienced by royal families such as chief’s wives and daughters. On the contrary, ordinary girls from other relatively poor families that viewed sex as a casual activity did not experience stress related issues. Mead recognized that churches did not pressurize the youth to avoid the perceived sex code. Instead, missionaries who did pressurize them never attained positive results. She realized that adolescents’ free stress among the girls was a factor caused by absence of sexual resentment among the youths. In addition, thoughts of rape cases were minimal factors that made the youth’s adolescent lives less stressful. Mead’s results and analysis showed an extension and affirmation of Boas’ prediction on human adolescent behavior among America children. Mead popularized anthropology through her studies in Samoan similar to Boas through his works. The desire of popularizing anthropology makes her ethnography unique among others. Mead explains the psychological and biological perspectives of adolescence related stress in coming of age book within American society. She further states the extent to which her findings have influenced American education policy. Mead suggested that it was only through anthropology that researchers could undertake investigations in other societies to ascertain the plights of adolescence in American society. She affirms her suggestions by solving Americans social problems, transforming child education, creating reforms in child upbringing and marriage concerns. Mead further states that an individual can only appreciate a culture if there is clear understanding of other cultural settings. Mead’s findings indeed showed apparent extension of Boas’ ideologies on psychological anthropology and ethnography (Lutkehaus, 2008a, p. 115). As the founder of anthropology, Boas developed strategies for promotion ethnography studies in the twentieth century. In ethnography studies, an anthropologist identifies a distinct society, lives among them and engages in their cultural activities while conducting research. Franz Boas, therefore, created a discipline in Ethnography science that remained the sole profession of his students including Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Mead, for instance, engaged her researches that lead to publication of her the Coming of Age in Samoa as an ethnographer. Her findings affirmed ethnography as a science and a profession to most aspiring anthropologists. The anthropologist in the mid-1990s including Ruth Benedict and Margret Mead carried out investigative research with the aim of expanding ethnography training. The scholars’ scientific research findings contributed to emergence and development of the contemporary cultural anthropology (LeVine, 2010, p. 2). Cultural anthropology studies involved research on particular cultures using archeological data, concepts and methodologies such as linguistics, ethnography to describe and discern behaviors of individuals in the society (Bailey & Peoples, 2013, p. 6). Cultural anthropology discipline pioneered by Boas’ preliminary research formed the foundation of research for future anthropologists like his students. Boas’ students including Benedict and Mead researched extensively on the discipline. Mead, for instance, developed cultural anthropology by creating methodological techniques of research in the discipline while working as an ethnographer in Samoa and Papua New Guinea. In a study of culture and the development of anthropology as a research discipline, Boaz remained instrumental in founding professional careers for Mead. Mead used Franz preliminary work in Pacific island where she discussed on nature versus nurture debate that was a contentious argument among elites in the society for a long time (Strother, 2009, p. 15). She further elaborated on childhood development, their socialization and behavior change. Nature versus nurture in psychology relates to questions on whether it is the environments or biological factors that mostly influence psychological development of human beings. In nature versus nurture studies, researchers study disciplines such as intelligence, sexuality, aggressiveness and behaviors of human beings within the society. Mead extensively researched on this debate and concluded that environmental factors influence more on mental development of individuals in the society. Mead, therefore, successfully extended Boas preliminary research on the question of nature versus nurture. There is a significant distinction between Mead’s style of writing and strategies and that of her mentor, Boas. Boas’ literary works adopted the text-driven writing formats while Mead presents her research in mental format. In text-driven styles, the researcher’s beliefs and opinions are essential in building theory for the study. On the contrary, psychological methods use the behavior and thinking of research subjects to build a hypothesis and make inferential conclusions. Besides being a founding father of anthropology, Boaz is considerably an intellectual as known by the public. Mead built her popularity and success on anthropology promoted by Boas. Their specialty in work and interest were in some way completely different. Mead decided to operate from the foundation that her mentor, Boas, left. She devoted her life to making the museum great despite restraint from university professors and the institutions calendar. On the contrary, Boas decided to give up on his perceived role at the museum and switched his focus in college education and graduate training on anthropology as a discipline. He managed to reform museum national museum sector to anthropology study laboratory. Mead also expanded Boas’ research on the difficulties and drawbacks of the universal process of development and growth of humans. She managed to expand Boas’ work on universality and cultural relativism by focusing on proposing possible explanations on the controversial issues of nurture and nature of human beings (Muckle, 2013, p. 12). Mead also extended Boas’ research on childhood development and socialization including personality and character of human beings. Mead ascertained that environmental issues had a greater influence on children development than the perceived hereditary factors. The information and ideas that a society feed their children determines their ability to manage life issues such as stress related to adolescence (Lutkehaus, 2008b, p. 178). Mead maintained focus on the inherent relationship between psychology and anthropology through her research and publications including the research she did in 1925 in Samoa. Research results from Samoa addressed the debate about the relationship between emotional disturbance and natural development. Her research indicated that physical developments of adolescents do not cause emotional confusion in Samoa regions of United States of America. She further narrated that the relationship in debate had no linkage with the natural development but determined ones transition to adulthood. All these scholarly works published in her book coming of age in Samoa helped in universal understanding of anthropology according to the desires of Boas. Mead maintained her research focus in superficially explored topics as processes of child development and upbringing based on the foundation of Boaz’s early findings on the subject. She further addressed the question of thinking of ignorant children and adults (Modgil et al., 2013, p. 31). Her research concluded that children who are ignorant frequently have their thinking based on the beliefs, realities and spirits acquired through their development process and as they become of age. Mead further focused on extending Boas’ policy and passion for education. She was Boaz student and appreciated the success she gained from Boaz’s advice and mentorship. She became interested in continuing her mentor’s quest of transforming other students and professionals just like Boaz did to her. She accomplished her desire by publishing books and training prospect anthropologists through lecturing at University level just as Boas did. Mead’s interest was to elaborate the audience of anthropology, contrary to Boas, who did not believe in the notion. Her focus on increasing audience of anthropology manifested in 1959 when she encouraged aspiring anthropologists and her book readers to end wars using social science art. She received rewards for her exemplary encouragements when leaders endorsed her with Presidential Medal of Freedom after her death in 1978. Kornblum, 2011, explains that Mead extended Franz Boas’ research on the perceived inequality between women and men (p. 327). She accomplished the gender difference study through application of anthropology in communities around America. She highlighted dominance of the female figure along the lake regions of Papua New Guinea and remedies to various challenges that they experienced. Boas and Mead, however, shared several essential features in their anthropology research ideas. All of them anthropologists were cultural relativists and not determinists. They both advocated publicizing of the anthropology discipline in the society in public forums such as Universities. Mead and Boaz also advocated use of anthropology in solving societal problems such as wars. Mead believed that the sole role of anthropology in the society was to address universal thinking among members of the society, but it should integrate cultural relativism. It is evident from Mead’s anthropological research that she logically extended Boaz pioneered ideas on cultural studies. The later aim was to explain the emergence of culture as a distinctive entity in the context of historical background. Mead, on the contrary, focused on perceived social network of community members to explain observed differences between communities’ behaviors and their way of life. Mead argued that distinctiveness of a community was a factor of individual personality. She affirmed that Freudian psychology contributed to the uniqueness of different societal and cultural settings (Casey & Edgerton, 2008, p. 495). Margret Mead and Ruth Benedict were both students of Boas. They managed to extend Boas’ anthropological literature to become famous scholars in the discipline. Mead, for example, researched on cultural studies initiated by Boas through design of integrated methods for studying the ethnography (Benedict, 2011, p. 399). Ruth Benedict’s anthropology research work focused more on nature and culture of human beings. Benedict had a human nature, which remained the guiding principle throughout her anthropological work. In her career as an anthropologist, Benedict built her career on elements such as religion, aesthesis, and intellectualism. She had strong professional ties with Margret Mead and Franz Boas because the later was her teacher and mentor. Ruth Benedict seemed to influence Mead thinking at certain instances during their research on transmission of culture. Anthropologists needed to understand the patterns of psychology that always shapes the society. Benedict solved the intriguing issue by recommending that the pattern relied on the social capabilities of members of the community when she wrote her book on Patterns of culture. Mead and Ruth Benedict had a serious friendship that lasted for about twenty years. Benedict was first a mentor to Mead, a colleague and later lover. The relationship between Mead and Benedict thrived through healthy conversations, poetry work sharing and involvement with Edward Sapir who was Boas students (Bowman-Kruhm, 2003, p. 114). Ruth Benedict and Mead represented feminine figure in education and research. Their commitment in teaching and research inspired many female individuals in the society to pursue education as an option. Their research work was feminine centered as they aimed at improving and comprehending the styles and living demands of female human beings. For instance, Mead’s main agenda in her books such as coming of age in Samoa, aimed at understanding the complexities of the adolescent girls in Samoa, she closely interacted with the girls and mentored many of them in education and general life process. Benedict had similar ideas with Boas regarding some concepts in anthropology. Both of them believed in cultural tolerance. Both of them ventured in publicizing tolerance and expounding on the culture that most researchers considered being inferior. The two researchers explained cultural relativism as a state of acceptance and belief that other cultures different from one’s worth (Nanda & Warms, 2013, p. 12). They stated that the behaviors or deeds of one culture might seem taboo to the other culture, but cross-cultural understanding would help in universal acceptance of other cultural settings. Contemporary society presently treats religions as equal and legitimate with the aim of mutual understanding and respect. As much as Franz Boas was the founding father in anthropology, he invested much of his knowledge in development of the discipline. His students successfully accomplished his works by researching extensively on the literary works and opinions that he pioneered. His effort and those of his students remained a legacy in anthropology studies. Similar to Mead, Benedict published anthropology books, journals and poetry. She too believed in educating the society through publications and research. Benedict published books such as Patterns of culture and The Chrysanthemum and the Sword that extensively explained anthropological issues. Both Ruth and Mead researched on personality formation of individuals, social behaviors in society and cultural configuration (Erickson & Murphy, 2008, p. 106). All their research on these disciplines conclusively analyzed on their literary books, journals and poetry publications. Boas established the concept of psychological anthropology in an attempt to relate culture and personality. He aimed at finding a relationship between cultural interaction and mental process development. His, students Benedict and Mead, extended the pioneered work through research and publications. Mead published the book, coming of age in Samoa and that of Ruth called patterns of culture, defined reasons as to why certain cultures were associated with distinct personalities. The two students mentored by Boaz explained further their mentor’s work after they successful distinguished those traits that result from learning. Bibliography Bailey, G., Peoples, J., 2013. Essentials of Cultural Anthropology. Cengage Learning, Boston. Benedict, R., 2011. An Anthropologist at Work. Transaction Publishers, Chicago. Bowman-Kruhm, M., 2003. Margaret Mead: A Biography. Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa Barbara. Casey, C., Edgerton, R.B., 2008. A Companion to Psychological Anthropology: Modernity and Psychocultural Change. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Erickson, P.A., Murphy, L.D., 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Kornblum, W., 2011. Sociology in a Changing World. Cengage Learning, Boston. LeVine, R.A., 2010. Psychological Anthropology: A Reader on Self in Culture. John Wiley & Sons. Lutkehaus, N., 2008a. Margaret Mead: The Making of an American Icon. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Lutkehaus, N., 2008b. Margaret Mead: The Making of an American Icon. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Margaret, M., n.d. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Study of Adolescence and Sex in Primitive Societies. Penguin, London. Modgil, S., Modgil, C., Brown, G., 2013. Jean Piaget. Routledge, London. Muckle, R.J., 2013. Indigenous Peoples of North America: A Concise Anthropological Overview. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Nanda, S., Warms, R., 2013. Cultural Anthropology. Cengage Learning, Boston. Senft, G., Östman, J.-O., Verschueren, J., 2009. Culture and Language Use. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam. Strother, R., 2009. Margaret Mead: Cultural Anthropologist. ABDO, Minnesota. Read More