Unproven Assumptions Margaret Mead's Impact on American Thought It would be a significant understatement to say that Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) had an impact among anthropologists. Even greater however was its impact on the American public. Margaret Mead quickly became the best known name in anthropology, and for almost 60 years her work was used as a textbook in classrooms all across the country. But then, a few short years after her death in 1978, she suffered an equally rapid fall from grace when it was reported that the data on which she had drawn her conclusions were in error. The figure of Margaret Mead seems to generate either extreme loyalty or extreme censure on the part of many anthropologists, to a degree that would be extraordinary if it were based solely on her personal charm and the quality of her Samoan research. I believe, however, that Mead's impact goes far deeper. I believe that she is the designated representative of a particular world view, and that the degree to which she is revered or vilified is dependent to a large degree upon whether that world view is accepted or rejected, and on the assumed answer to a scientific question which has not yet been investigated scientifically. In August of 1925 Margaret Mead arrived in American Samoa to attempt to answer a question proposed by her teacher Franz Boas; to what extent is emotional turmoil among adolescent girls culturally rather than biologically determined? But the significance of this question must be sought much earlier. Ever since the beginning of the nineteenth century biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists had been trying to determine how much of human nature was inherited and how much was learned. All through this period and up until the First World War the opinion of the majority of scientists was that biology was all-important and culture contributed little or nothing. The work of men like Lamarck, Darwin, and later Mendel made this view seem more and more attractive. It is, however, a historical fact that developments in science can never remain divorced from human concerns, and the question of inheritance versus environment, the famous nature-nurture controversy, was no exception. As early as 1865 a geographer named Francis Galton began writing about an idea that would eventually become linked forever with his name. This idea, the selective breeding of humans in order to improve the species, was of course not original to Galton, but he became the figurehead and one of the chief spokesmen for what became known as eugenics. Advocating such an idea was quite naturally controversial by itself, but when this became connected with the use of genetics to justify and perpetuate racism the combination was explosive. In the early 1900's proponents and opponents of this biological determinism squared off with all the fervor of crusaders fighting a holy war. The opponents of biological determinism were not able to put forth a solid united effort until the first part of the twentieth century, but when they did they were just as dogmatic. In the years just before World War I, Franz Boas and two of his former students, Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie, published their manifesto, stating that cultural processes underlay all differences between societies, and genetic differences, to the extent that they exist at all, are inconsequential. Thus was born cultural determinism. This remained the situation, with both sides holding dogmatically to their positions, until the publication of Coming of Age in Samoa. Mead's instructions upon her arrival in Samoa, as mentioned above, were to determine to what extent the turmoils of adolescence were cultural rather than biological. In view of the recognition that Mead has since gained, it is somewhat ironic that she did not, in fact, answer this question. Nor did she show that cultural factors were more important than biological ones. Instead she succumbed to the logical fallacy of assuming the general from the specific. What she had done, or would have if her data had been correct, was show that adolescence was different in Samoa than it was in the United States. This by itself is quite important, because it set biological determinists the task of showing that there were genetic differences between Samoa and the United States that could account for this difference, or that other biological factors (diet, temperature, exercise, etc.) caused the same genetic information to be manifested differently. This however is not the same as proving that genetic factors are not the determining factor, and until that is proven, biological determinism, however unlikely it may seem, remains a possibility. But it was apparently not recognized by either the biological or the cultural determinists, and Mead's book was instantly accepted as a triumph for cultural determinism, despite the fact that almost no biological information was included, and, in fact, neither Mead nor anyone else at that time would have been able to do the gene typing necessary to show that the genetic differences between the U.S. and Samoa weren't significant. Not only was this overlooked however, it was also assumed that a defeat for biological determinism was enough to prove cultural determinism. These errors in logic are not Mead's alone. In fact there doesn't seem to be any recognition of them by either side, and even today this does not seem to be generally recognized. This failure to comprehend the actual significance of Mead's work reveals that what was being argued was not scientific theory, but world view, and by those standards, Coming of Age in Samoa proved to be an overwhelming victory for the cultural determinists. It is, of course, no great surprise that two of the fundamental tenets of this view, that stern discipline causes problems later in life, and in the desirability of unrestricted sex, were views that were popular among the generation in which Mead grew up. It was not merely a victory for nurture over nature, but for the younger generation here in America as well. Biological determinism, although defeated in America, was not dead however. In 1933 it surfaced, along with eugenics and racism, in Nazi Germany. The Second World War provided America an illustration of biological determinism as a world view taken to its logical conclusion, and the country was quite justifiably outraged. It seemed that yet another nail had been driven into the coffin of biological determinism. Postwar anthropology, with its focus on national character, bore this out. Child rearing practices from around the world were examined for clues to explain the behavior of adults, and parents in the United States were told that they were to blame for every fault that was found in their children. Whole schools of anthropology, psychology, and sociology were built of the premise that culture is the sole determiner of human nature, and Margaret Mead had proven it. In the 1960's and 70's developments in medicine caused the whole nature-nurture question to rear its ugly head once more. Human genetics became a recognized field of both biological and medical research, and the genetic cause of some diseases was determined beyond any reasonable doubt, including, to the surprise of many, some forms of mental illness. There began a slow move to the view that both culture and genetics played a role in human nature, although most anthropologists were only willing to concede biology as a factor in the case of the deviant individual. Nevertheless, the crack was there and slowly support for the new view began to grow. But it was not until Derek Freeman published his refutation of Mead's Samoan data in 1983 that the two views squared off. Those who supported the new thesis that both biology and culture play a role in human nature heralded Freeman's book as proof that their ideas were correct. Supporters of the older view upheld Mead's work and claimed that Freeman was mistaken. Again, neither side has taken a close look at what the data does and does not show. Clearly, Mead being right in her original assertions about life in Samoa is not sufficient to prove that cultural determinism is correct, nor is her being wrong enough to disprove it. Again, what is being argued is not scientific theory but world view. The cultural determinism school is opposing the culture-plus-biology school, and I predict that soon an experiment will be done or an observation made that will "prove" that cultural-plus-biology is correct, just like cultural determinism was "proven" by Mead. There does not appear to be any desire to approach the question scientifically. It must be pointed out that there are four possible answers to the problem of human nature, not two. It may be that biology is the primary determining factor, it may be that culture is, it may be a combination of the two, or there may be some as-yet-undiscovered factor, neither cultural nor biological, that is in some way and to some degree involved. Even now we can only just begin to explore possible genetic factors. It will be quite a while before we can get a thorough picture of the significance of inheritance. Determination of the precise effects of culture may take even longer. Other factors, if they exist, are of course impossible to predict. Assuming the answers will only make them impossible to find. One more question must be dealt with. In view of the abuses of the past century, racism from the biological determinists leading ultimately to the holocaust, and the unsuccessful applications of cultural determinism to American child rearing practices, resulting in a great deal of suffering among both parents and children, should we even attempt to find the answer to this question? This unfortunately I cannot answer. To go ahead is to risk even worse abuses of anthropology in the future, well intentioned perhaps, but damaging all the same. To refuse to investigate this fundamental question would forfeit any claim anthropology has to be a science. If it is to be studied however, it must be done objectively. We must learn the difference between a theory and a world view. If Margaret Mead's work teaches us that, it will have earned her a place in the annals of important influencers in the study of humanity, regardless of whether or not she was right in her reading of Samoan culture. © 1989, Joe Jefferson. All rights reserved.