Scrutiny of sociologist Margaret Mead's research in Samoa cast doubt on her conclusions as to the freewheeling sex lives of the natives. A Facebook entry quoted Australian anthropologist Derek Freeman, who wrote on incongruities between Mead's published research and his observations of Samoans:
“In my early work I had, in my unquestioning acceptance of Mead's writings, tended to dismiss all evidence that ran counter to her findings. By the end of 1942, however, it had become apparent to me that much of what she had written about the inhabitants of Manu'a in eastern Samoa did not apply to the people of western Samoa.... Many educated Samoans, especially those who had attended college in New Zealand, had become familiar with Mead's writings about their culture...[and] entreated me, as an anthropologist, to correct her mistaken depiction of the Samoan ethos.”
This is more than an academic discussion since her ideas about the happy Samoans were appealing to Westerners who wanted a real-life Edenic model for their own sex lives. The huge numbers of divorces and abortions and so on suggest that whether or not Mead accurately reported and theorized about the Samoans, life here and now isn't so idyllic with absolute freedom without consequences as an imaginary model.
But what was more disturbing was the remark by the person who posted the Freeman quote:
"Anyway...so what? Pretty much all of Freud's ideas have been [discredited] as well [sic]...doesn't make his research any less important."
Freud's methods, case studies, and conclusions have been found fraudulent to a large degree. So what? This is a shocking statement from any presumably educated, and so far free, American.
We've long been used to saying "So what?" about our politicians, since they can be expected to tell lies, big and small, and only the willfully blind are surprised. If elected to high office, the politicians and the lies are "important" anyway, whether or not their ideas are sound. So what?
History shows that some economic systems are more productive than others. The USA has been extremely productive, so that people are pouring over the borders illegally by the millions. So what? Let's destroy that system. Common sense tells us that individuals are more productive and satisfied if they take responsibility for themselves. So what? We'll hand over our autonomy to the government. The government's own studies tell us that the proposed health care bill won't do what it promises (insure everyone) and will cost more than we and our children can pay. So what? The promise is that everyone, weak and strong will be taken care of, and isn't that a pleasant thought, even if untrue. Even doing the math won't convince some people.
Why do people ignore evidence that contradicts their cherished theories, as Freeman did? Why do they say "So what?" to truths that cast doubts on their favorite gods? What makes them eventually look at the evidence more closely, as Freeman did? Why does the "Question authority" generation unquestioningly accept a package of opinion stamped "progressive" regardless of the facts?
Many intelligent people continue to read only on one side of the political spectrum, year after year. Some of them won't engage in discussion on issues which they hold to be "intractable" on both sides. If they have doubts, so what? If this is you, take a chance and read the magazines and books and watch the TV shows that present ideas that you think are wrong. Really talk to and listen to someone who disagrees with you. Try it for one month.
Comments