COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	anthro[f86,jmc]		Intellectual standards in anthropology
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
anthro[f86,jmc]		Intellectual standards in anthropology

This is a criticism of ``Desecrating the Holy Woman: Derek Freeman's
Attack on Margaret Mead'' by Roy A. Rappaport, president-elect of the
American Anthropological Association.

	There's a lot of stuff in this article, but what it comes down to
is defending Margaret Mead's ``Coming of Age in Samoa'' against Derek
Freeman's criticism on the grounds that what it said was what America
needed to hear in 1928.  It suggests if anthropologists behave as
Rappaport praises Mead for behaving we can't trust them to tell us what
they believe to be the truth.  We'll rather get what they consider it good
for us to believe.

	Rappaport also tells us about the sins of the eugenicists.
According to the above principle, there is no reason to take it
seriously as an attempt to tell the truth; it's merely Rappaport's
idea of what we ought to believe about them.

**** The above isn't quite fair to Rappoport.

317 - Can there be "a work of great mischief" in science?

317 - The complaints about the form of public discussion are misguided.
Discussing a book or and issue on TV doesn't preclude its discussion
in more scientific forums.

319 - Freeman regards "Coming of Age in Samoa" as a myth in the simple
sense of a mistake or lie.

If "Coming ... " was a myth or contribution to the mythos in Rappoport's
sense, then it was the responsibility of anthropologists to tell the
public that fact.  Query: to what extent has the book been required
or collateral reading in college anthropology texts.

During the era of its introduction and popularity, Coming of Age
may have served mainly as an aid to seduction.

325 - I suspect Rappoport presents a caricature of eugenics.
Rappoport is mythologizing about eugenics.

327 - This stuff about Mead as a holy woman is mere drivel based on
wishful thinking.  It is part of a literary style that intentionally mixes
fact and myth.  Calling someone holy, e.g. capable of working miracles,
doesn't make it so.  It doesn't make miracles actually happen.
The analogy between anthropological field trips and shamans' journeys
to other worlds is forced - mainly because shamans' journeys to other
worlds don't actually occur, because there aren't any other worlds.

329 - Rappoport give no references to previous criticisms of Mead's
observations.

330 - There are references to Holmes, who criticized Mead.

331 - One should check up the two uses of guilt.
However, if Mead didn't discover or didn't mention  ifoga,  she
is also deficient.

333 - What about Rappoport's criticism of "formal falsification"?
It seems to me that it is only fair to take Freeman's disclaimers
of presenting an alternative characterization of Samoan society
at face value.  It is quibbling to say that even though he
denies doing so, he really does.

335 - "The most mischievous chapters..." presumes
some unstated concept of mischievous.

336 - Freeman regards Davenport, a eugenicist, and Boas as equally
erroneous.  Since Rappoport hates Davenport, this is offensive to
him.

337 - I need to read Freeman to see what he says about eugenics.

340 - R. seems to have pretty good evidence that Davenport was
somewhat tarred by association with Grant, who is surely a loser.
However, lay supporters and elaborators of scientific doctrine
may have made major contributions to public welfare, especially
public health.  For example, to what extent was the campaign
for pure water supplies based on insufficient evidence.
It would be interesting to know why R. doesn't have more direct
commentary from Davenport on intelligence of Jews, immigration,
etc.  Did Davenport not really hold these views, was he
ambivalent about them, or was there some social inhibition
against expressing them?