8/13/2019 A Review of MEAD in 1949, Errors in Sex and Temperament

1/6

COMMENTS AND REVIEWS 355tradition of exact craftmanship which was a tradition in criticismand is evident even in minor things like Wyatt's songs; no accountis taken of the large amount of spoken, or unwritten, criticismsupposed, e.g. in Jonson's prose and in Shakespeare's useful comments on the linguistic and histrionic aspects of dram atic a rt. Eve nfrom his own premise that great works of art are not produced bymere bursts of creative inspiration (p. 62), he could have deducedthe conclusion that the development of dramatic art in the i6thcentury supposed a clear-headed and determined critical effort.It is to be regretted that the extensive and earnest scholarshipwhich the book supposes has not produced a more practicable andpertine nt guide to the literatu re of the Renaiss anc e. As the writerhimself is aware (p. 238), it is diificult to define what we mean by'back grou nd' in speaking of literature. Bu t he would hav e servedhis purpose better by fully recognizing that the important questionis not what did the Elizabethans believe, but to what tasks andtechniques in literature did their beliefs lead them, and how far didthese beliefs help or hinder the perfection of the Elizabethanachievement. L. A. CORMICAN.

A N T H R O P O L O G Y A N D T H ELAY READER

MALE AND FEMAL E by Margaret Mead {Victor Gollancz, 18/- ) .Miss Mead seems to have constructed her latest work deliberatelyin order to foil the reviewer or indeed anyone outside her large andadm iring lay public. The m ajor objections tha t one wishes to advancehave been foreseen and mentioned without, for all that, having beenacted upo n. This device is a common one amo ng those who writewith that backward glance over the shoulder to those who feel thatthe subject being discussed is one which, however much one wouldUke to, cannot be discussed in a popular manner without crudity.Thus Miss Mead wrote a few years ago:

'There are those social scientists who are unwilling to usetools which they know to be clumsj', when measured against whatwe may someday develop, as a stone axe against an electric drill.They fear the fellow scientists who may review their work . . .Because we know that we might have better tools and, in fact,are that much wiser than Stone Age man, there is no reason forus to become weaker because wiser, to be ashamed to use ourstone axes . . . we should become stronger, not weaker; bolder,not more craven; freer to act'.^

^And Keep Your Powder Dry. Introduction . Published in Engla ndas The American Character.

8/13/2019 A Review of MEAD in 1949, Errors in Sex and Temperament

2/6

356 SCRUTINYSupposing Miss Mead's constantly affirmed faith in the futureof 'our science' to be justified by the nature of that science, it isstill difficult to see in the above passage anything more than anexcuse for rushing into print with undigested and, by her ownstand ards, highly explosive notions. In the work under review muchthe same warning is given:

'We live in an age when every enquiry must be judged intermsof urgency. Are such questions abouttherolesandpossiblerolesof the sexes academic, peripheral to the central problemsofour times? Are such discussions querulous fiddling while Romeburns. I think they are not. Upon the growing accuracy withwhich we are able to judge our limitations and potentialities, ashuman beings and in particular as human societies, will dependthe survivalof our civilization, whichwe nowhave the meanstodestro y. Nev er before inhistory has mankind had such momentous choices placed in his hands. True in the past, et c' Very few would question theworth of making such an enquiry'but what relation is there between 'the roles and the possible rolesof the sexes' and the immediate problem of the civilization 'whichwe now have the means to destroy'? The prose hectors us intoseeingthe two as one.This toneofbullying exhortationisused alsotomakethereaderfeel that this book is a whole by virtue of something more than itsappearance. We aretold tha t theparadeofprimitive societies whichconstitutes the second and third sections has an immediate and'scientific' bearing upon the fourth section and that there are'findings' whicharesummedup at the end. By her own confessionwearetoldshewantsto 'give resultsand yet keep the senseof howthese findings have been arrived at'.^ but we hav e already been

told that 'Each of (the) main partsof the book standsby itself andcan be readin any order 'according to temperament and taste'.*What lies beneath this pomp and scientific appeal is a failureon Miss Mead's part to see what she is really about. The talk of'growing accuracy', primitive societies as 'laboratories' and theplanning of 'forms of civilization that can make a fuller use of allhuman gifts', cannot be taken seriously in the form in which theyare offered. An oth er reviewer^ has quite adequately demonstratedthat, from this point of view the 'results'of the bookare in contradiction with Miss Mead's intentions. Thevalueof Maleand Femalelies in its reporting and insights. This proba bly accounts for thecontrolled interest taken in Margaret Mead's work by intelligentwomen here and in Am erica. Nevertheless, Miss Mead repud iatesboth of these aims. 'I do not want merely to document vividly'. '^MaleandFemale, p. 9.^Ibid,p. 32.*Ibid,p. 6.sDiana Trilling. Partisan Review. April, 1950.^Maleand Female, p. 31.

8/13/2019 A Review of MEAD in 1949, Errors in Sex and Temperament

3/6

COMMENTS AND REVIEWS 357'Perhaps the greatest annoyance that the anthropologisthas to faceis from those who . . . insist upon regarding any statement aboutour contemporary culture as brilliant intuitive insi gh t . ' ' ' Eve n inher repudiation, incidentally, she assumes that we will find thedocumentation 'vivid' and the insights 'brilli ant '. Neve rtheless itis insight that is being used as any anthropologist must use it withthe difference that Miss Mead usesit as though it were self-sufficient.The waysin whichwedress,eat orwriteand so on, form withthe values of our society a complex which we call our culture. Itis never necessary for us to define culture, as the anthropologistmust, as that which in communal life is evident to the senses andwhich is rendered meaningful by the society. The anthropologistm ay not assume that any cultural fact observed among an alienpeople has the same meaning as a similar fact among his ownpeople. Initially and inevitably he will make such assumptionsbuthe will makeit hisbusinessto replace themby more refined notionsbased upon an analysisof the society behind such facts, i.e. he willdo what the people themselves never need to do. The psychologistmust also have the primary social analysis before him in order tostudy the mental processesof thepeople in question.Miss Mead calls herself a cultural anthropologist and so, presumably, feels justified in neglecting the primary social analysis.An example of the sort of major error into which she thus falls isprovided by Sex and Temperament, one of her most popular workswhich is devoted for the most part to the Arapesh of New Guinea.The Arapesh were found to regard 'both men and women as in-herently gentle, responsive and co-operative'. We are told that'Warfare is practically unknown among the Arapesh'. Dr. R.For tunewho has also worked among the Arapesh has described insome detail their highly organized social pattern of warfare. Warwas suppressed by the administration in 1914 and hence the oldwarriors were not inclined to talk about it, but the tradition wasvery much alive,i If we compare his account with that of MissMead we see, for instance, that the woman Amitoa whom shedescribes as a temperamental deviant is merely a conservativewhois behaving in accordance with the expressed social ideals of somesixteen years earlierandstillin atraditional m anner. In thelightofthis factual correction Miss Mead has, in her latest work, merelymodified her earlier expression to 'They engage very little in warfare'.11but as Fortune's report would callfor a total reconsiderationof her chciracterization she does not consider its implications. Itis unfortunate that this contradiction has not had the attention itdeserves from other anthropologists.If it Sunwisetoapplythe psychological theoriesof one societyIbid,p. 452.^Sex and Temperament, p. 134.

^Ibid,p. 23.^ Arapesh Warfare, American Anthropologist. XLi, 1939.^ ^ ale and Female, p. 67.

8/13/2019 A Review of MEAD in 1949, Errors in Sex and Temperament

4/6

358 SCRUTINYto another, it is a step further in the wrong direction to build uptheories in the field based not upon careful case histories but merelyupo n observation a nd surm ise. The re can be no serious justification(and none is offered) for the theory advanced in Chapter IV.^^Why after all when Miss Mead sees a little boy (society alien butunspecified) strutting along with a stick or a knife must she assumetha t this is a 'conce ntrated ph allic exagge ration' and follow on toconclude that 'The little boy is sure about his specific maleness butseems to be not so sure of his adeq uacy to operate it ' ? If the samebehaviour were observed in our own society, presumably a differentexplanation would be offered. Once again a prim ary social analysiswould have made evident the folly of such an immediate applicationof po pu lar psycho logy. He re as elsewhere Miss Mead slips over thedifficulty b y a know ing gesture to her aud ience . Often as no t,howev er, the appea l is not so explicit. The A merican child, we aretold, 'is bo rn against the force of gravity'.^^ Th is is not followed upbut we are left with the impression that this is in some way significant to the enquiry which is being 'judged in terms of urgency'.It is interesting to note how often the word 'potentialities' occursin Miss Mead's psychological discussions:

'Those of us who believe in awareness, . . . beUeve that onlyby a greater understanding of man himself can we build a worldin which human beings can realise more of their potentialitiesand l ive in greater harmony one with another ' .1It is surprizing to hear of potentialities at this point on the road tosocial determinism, where little Manus become big Manus and littleAmericans big Americans and no attention has been drawn to anydy nam ic factors in the societies discussed. Th is, how ever, isher philosophy of potentiality and enters in defiance of her ownethnography.Miss Mead shows herself aware of the questions which arise forbelievers in anthropo logy as a 'Scienc e'. Th e m ain problem isperhaps best formulated by Beatrice Webb in the Introduction toMy Apprenticeship:

'Assuming that there be, or will be, . . . a science of society(in the sense in which we have a science of mechanics or a scienceof chemistry) is man's capacity for scientific discovery the onlyfaculty required for the reorganization of society according to anideal? Or do we need rehgion as well as science, emotional faithas well as intellectual curiosity'.Miss Mead trys to deal with this in a very interesting Appendix'^i^Chapter IV, 'Even-Handed, Money-Minded, and Womb-EnvyingPat terns ' .^^Male and Female, p. 268.^*Ibid, p. 431.15Appendix II. 'The Ethics of Insight-Giving'.

8/13/2019 A Review of MEAD in 1949, Errors in Sex and Temperament

5/6

COMMENTS AND REVIEWS 359but even if Beatrice Webb's prejudice as to the issue is quite clearin the passage quoted, we cannot say that Miss Mead makes anysatisfactory a pproac h to the problem at all. W hereas the formerassumed that there was, or might be, a science of society, MissMead has demonstrated and, by this point in the book, half confessed, that all we can do is understand and gain insights into theways of other societies. We are in fact far away from the portentous'urge ncy ' of the opening cha pter. The relation of power to ethicscannot be profitably discussed with the aid of a long and strainedmetaphor about hitching waggons to stars and extending over threeand a half pages.i** Miss Mead plays with this happily and succeedsin removing the problem from the level of discussion to that ofrhetoric and finally palms off the following passage as a solution:

'The whole dilemma of knowledge and freedom can be solved,I believe, only by a climate of opinion in which those who workand those with whom they work, those who write and those whoread, those who teach and those who are taught, those who cureand those who come for curing, learn to share together the beliefthat increased knowledge can indeed make men free, that onecan fashion one's culture closer to the image of all human hearts,however different, without manipulation, without the power thatkills, without the loss of innocence that deprives us ofspontaneity'.1^

The trick mentioned above of lifting a problem from the levelof discussion to that of rhetoric is one constantly employed in thisbook. The passages quoted in this review have not been selectedto dem ons trate this bu t inevitably do so. Only by neglecting thisfact can any coherent statement be derived from her work forconside ration. It is obvious and he r wide sales testify tha t she knowsher audienc e well. It is to be deplored tha t it does not know he rbetter. D. F. PococK.

CORRECTION ^The last line of Mr. Pocock's review, 'SocialAnthropology: Past and Present', in the last number of Scrutinyshould have run: ' into the mass [not 'mess'] of ethnographicliterature'.

i^Ibid, pp. 437-40.^Ubid,p. 44 5.

8/13/2019 A Review of MEAD in 1949, Errors in Sex and Temperament

6/6

36o SCRUTINY

ANNOUNCEMENTCHAU CER THE MAKER by John Spdrs {Faber Faber, 12/6) .

This book, a large part of which appeared in its first form inScrutiny, has now been published . In accordance with our generalpractice, it will not be reviewed in Scrutiny.

'ESSAYS IN CRITICISM'W e are glad to welcome the first numbe r (Ja nu ary 1951) ofa Quarterly Journal of Literary Criticism which, under the aboveArn oldian title, comes from M essrs. Basil Blackw ell, Ox ford. Th eEditor is Mr. F . W . Bateson . Price 4s. Ann ual Sub scription : 15s.net post free or $2.10.

INDEX TO 'SCRUTINY'VOLUMES I to XVI.

This is now obtainable of Messrs. Deighton, Bell & Co., Ltd.,Trinity Street, Cam bridge. Price 2s. yd. po st free.