Talk:Margaret Mead

There was an article here, but it seemed to be identical to the one at http://www.mead2001.org/Biography.htm . I couldn't spot any copyright notice over there, but in most countries stuff is copyright by default and can't be used without permission, so i think it is best to not use the article unless someone gets explicit permission.

Moved above comments here, to Talk, and added stub bio and bibliography. BruceMiller

I actually do not know any anthropologists who support Freeman, but I think it is wise to avoid definitive statements through words such as "most" or "many." But I did remove this line:

There are many anthropologists who take the middle ground, both denouncing Mead's earliest works and upholding the quality of her later, more experienced and less controversial research.

I have no objection to it being moved back into the article after "many anthropologists" is followed with a few notable examples. slrubenstein

Where's Gregory Bateson?

When I entered Gregory Bateson's name in the search bar a page came up with his information. It mentions that he was married to Margaret Mead and mentions "Trance Dance in Bali" which is a work they did together. Yet he is not mentioned at all in the page on Margaret Mead. He is not listed in the Anthropologists category. Is there a particular reason for this? Also on Freeman. It seems that Freeman's intent it is to provide a conservative 'alternative' to ideas that were taken seriously in the 20th century. The world is round? "Opinions differ" says Freeman. This is part of the well funded neo conservative goal to nullify as much of the underpinnings of post modern thought as possible. Result? Creationism is now taught side by side with Darwin's theory of evolution. Freeman's observations, based on interviews with women now thoroughly brainwashed with christian shame, have no credence. Bateson and Mead can be criticized for many things but mendacity is'nt one of them. Freeman's intent in using the surviving women Mead interviewed was not to produce new information at all but to nullify and discredit what Mead had observed before. Why? Because Mead's life and her work informed many of the women who would be at the forefront of the women's liberation movement in the second half of the 20th century. That is something the neo conservatives have wanted to root out of our academic institutions since Barry Goldwater.

Gregory Bateson is mentioned in the Wikipedia as beeing famous among other things for beeing the husband of Margaret Mead, Mead is not introduced as the wife of Bateson. Now, in my mileue (Central Europe, psychology and psychotherapy) it is the other way round - citing Mead (occasionally), I would add, "by the way she was married to Gregory Bateson and Mary Catherine Bateson is their daughter", while mentioning Bateson(often), I would expect everyone to know the name.--Georgius 18:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is not yet a Margaret Mead bio/entry

As yet, the article is much more about Ms. Mead's renowned study (on Samoa), rather than an adequate entry on Margaret Mead. She had a life. I'm no expert on Ms. Mead, but I have read things here and there (such as by Jean Houston, Stewart Brand, etc) and it's clear that Mead's continuing personal and professional lives did influence the evolution of her interests and opinions. Otherwise, there might just as well only be an entry for Coming of Age in Samoa, per se.

For a few bio models, see the entries on J.R.R. Tolkien, Amory Lovins, Gary Snyder.

As good as the one about Tolkein is the biographical article (life & work) about Jonathan Swift.

But I agree, this one on Margaret Mead leaves much to be desired, so far.

As you know, all Wikipedia articles are works in process. None are ever considered "complete." There is no one "in charge" of this article -- please go ahead and become a contributor/editor of Wikipedia! Write away! Slrubenstein 17:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How well does Mead's research hold up?

I just rewrote a good deal of Arnold Perey's recent contribution. To be clear, I did not do this because I think he is wrong; on the contrary, I am sympathetic to his views and they added important balance to the article. BUT much of what he wrote seemed like editorializing, and expressing his own opinions. This violates our policy against original research. If we can provide sources from published re-evaluations of Mead's ethnography, or contemporary published ethnography of New Guinea, then we can put those points into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent research, sometimes shaky interpretations

Thanks for noting the difference between editorializing and encyclopedia writing. I'll catch on. Yes, for some of this material I can add documentation. It isn't "opinion" as such, although some of these views definitely are my own observations. Her ethnography was of the first order, by the way--though sometimes her analyses contained too-swift summing up. Meanwhile, they were always based on something she saw and felt in the field, and she was an accurate and sensitive observer. I was a student of Mead, took courses with her, heard her lecture on Tchambuli, Arapesh, Mundugumor, complete with slides etc, and have read closely her 3 volume The Mountain Arapesh ethnography (much detail about these interesting people). Also her other work.

As to Gregory Bateson, he was, at one time, her husband and is an outstanding anthropologist in his own right. His Naven concerning a New Guinea ceremonial is deeply insightful and can be of use today. They did collaborate on trance in Bali.--Arnold Perey 19:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you are contributing. Hopefully, our main policies are clear. Surely you have a lot to add, but all of us try to write in a relatively impersonal style, in part because no article belongs to any one author, and in part because we must be very careful not to put our own views in the article, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the "first hand account by an anthropologist who studied with Mead" original research? It appears that the anthropologist in question is the editor who added the information. Wikipedia has a strict ban on material of this type. -Willmcw 21:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

premiere, premier, etc

Whatever it means, it's a pretentious word in this context. According to my dictionary, "premiere" as an adjective is the same as "premier". And for "premier", the adjective, it says "first in rank, position, or importance. First in time. EARLIEST." So not only is it pretentious, it is equivocal. So I'm glad you changed my edit to "first" rather than back to "premiere". But, of course, it is also (arguably, I suppose) also her most important work. Hayford Peirce 15:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section?

The addition of a "trivia" section seems somewhat frivolous, and even moreso when one considers that this section currently contains only one fact, and that this one fact is not even related to Margaret Mead. Margaret Mead's "small group of dedicated citizens" quote has been featured in the mission statement of every single activist group formed since it was first spoken. Does the fact that a quote of Mead's prefaced a book otherwise entirely unrelated to her life really deserve inclusion in this article? Does it really deserve its own section?

Is there any valid reason for keeping the section? It seems that at the moment it serves no purpose, and that even if it were to be expanded, any facts about her life might be more appropriately integrated into her biographical information. If they aren't relevant enough to include as biography, are they relevant enough to include at all? I hesitate the delete the section outright myself without prior discussion, so please contribute if you disagree with me.

I agree. We already have a long list of quotes, including that one. We already have an even longer list of quotes at Wikiquotes, incluindg that one. If we didn't have the quote in two other locations, this particular mention is still of little importance. Thank you for spotting this - I'm going to delete it. -Willmcw 05:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the source of that quote. Does anybody know its context? Where/when it was said or written and for what purpose? Thanks. 13:30, Nov. 1, 2005 Argentina Dan 19:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate Studies Institute

I removed the part about the collegiate studies institute naming her book as worst book of the 20th century because puritan values. Their stated claim is against the scholarly value of her research. The drawn connection with American puritan values is unprovable unless you can read minds. If someone wants to put it back in adjusted, go ahead, but I removed the single sentence as it was because it is not "encyclopaediac".

--Erik

Weird Republic = BatSh*t Crazy (and racist)

Hey so I clicked on the Weird Repubublic link about Margaret Mead. It's a poorly written peice of extreme polemic (which isn't necesarily a bad thing) but I wonder just how relevant it would be to someone wanting to learn more about Margaret Mead. I mean if you go on the Weird Republic site there are links to the "Brown vs. Board of Education Hoax" and "Race Norming for Dummies", whoever writes this site is not only out of his mind but is a paranoid anti-communist racist homophobe too. I don't know if this is enough to disqualify the link in of itself, but I can't imagine it provides any new or relevant information. I'm thinking either get rid of it entirely or just put a qualifier, something like "The Margaret Mead Hoax: The Batsh*t crazy perspective".

--24.127.127.236 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thomas Clough certainly isn't a notable critic. I can't imagine adding links to the articles on other topics he's written about, like the IRS, the Electoral College, the New York Times, etc. He does recommend reading Freeman, who we've already listed. I suggest we remove the link, as it is not needed to provide NPOV. -Willmcw 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Dispute

While I don't have a Wikipedia username yet (will rectify shortly), I ran across this article during some studies and it seems to be generally non-neutral. It takes a somewhat harsh stance towards any criticism of Mead--the section regarding Freeman spends more time criticising Freeman (better handled on his own page) than on discussing Mead herself. The comment to the effect that male anthropologists miss things that female anthropologists do not is basically an unsupportable opinion at this point. In all, it's best to avoid hero worship in an article, so I thought I'd tag it for now, and hopefully we can get it cleaned up soon. --Thanks!