Neal Blaikie wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> Margaret Mead did not make a small improvement that was later replaced
>> by a large improvement. She made a horrendous mistake and screwed up
>> the entire field of anthropology for decades.
>
>This is a gross overstatement, and suggests you may be ignorant
>of the vast body of anthropological work that has nothing to do
>with Mead and is not influenced by her.
Mead's influence within anthropology was immense. It was Mead
who gave almost limitless credibility to Franz Boas' whole
program of repudiating every 19th century belief about society
and anthropology that he could. For all the evils of 19th
century views, Boas and Mead went way too in the other direction,
especially in causing entire abandonment of the very idea that
there is a "human nature". Only in the last two decades of the
20th century were these baleful influences finally countered
successfully.
But the wreckage within anthropology caused by Boas and Mead
pails in comparison to the untoward influence they exerted on
greater western civilization. Almost every kind of socialism,
and every government program designed (with the best of intentions,
of course) to improve the lives of people, got support from what
was being proclaimed within the social sciences at the time,
which in turn rested to a great degree on the supposed
"scientific" results obtained by Margaret Mead.
Would you please give some examples from "the vast body of
anthropological work... not influenced by her"? (Thanks!)
>No one in the field has ever held her up as some sort of
>icon or queen bee (or even as anthropology's Einstein)...
That was not my impression, and little else can explain the
vehemence in many quarters against Derek Freeman.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:04 MDT