Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)Are you looking to buy
Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans (Chandler and Sharp Publications in Anthropology and Related Fields)? Here is the right place to find the great deals. we can offer
discounts of up to 90% on
Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans (Chandler and Sharp Publications in Anthropology and Related Fields). Check out the link below:
>> Click Here to See Compare Prices and Get the Best Offers
Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans (Chandler and Sharp Publications in Anthropology and Related Fields) ReviewThis book is yet another nitpicking attack on Derek Freeman that, as usual, treats disagreements on interpretation and judgment as if they were huge errors in concrete facts that discredited Freeman.
Martin Orans implicirly admits that Samoan society was as Derek Freeman depicts it (puritanical, authoritarian, unequal, and punitive) and was not as Margaret Mead depicted it (relaxed, sexually free, egalitarian, and permissive).
Orans makes it sound as if he had proven Freeman wrong or dishonest on key matters of fact, when the actual substance of his accusation is a mere disagreement with Freeman on motives, purpose, beliefs and intentions, a topic on which neither Orans nor Freeman have any special qualifications.
The substance of Freeman's criticism is that Mead, and the anthropology profession, presented an account of Samoa that was radically false
Orans writes as if showing Freeman wrong on the issue of whether Mead was hoaxed exculpates Mead, and anthropology. It does not. Orans writes as if he is accusing Freeman of important errors of fact and substance, but when we look at the actual details he is merely accusing Freeman of attributing incorrect thoughts and intentions to Mead's actions, issues on which the truth cannot be known, and is difficult to even define, issues on which neither Freeman nor Orans have any special qualifications or ability.
Given that Mead's depiction of Samoa was untrue, and was widely accepted and taught by the anthropological profession, as Orans implicitly admits, we must conclude that Mead, and the anthropological profession, are either fools or liars, and most likely something of both. Deciding where self deception ends, and deliberate deception of others begins, is more a job for a priest than a job for anthropologist, so if Freeman has got it wrong, as Orans argues that he got it wrong, that is both unsurprising and unimportant.
Orans writes as if Freeman's weakness on the question of the extent to which Mead was hoaxed show Freeman as a bad scientist, but rather than condemning Freeman as a bad scientist, the evidence and arguments presented in this book merely condemn him as bad priest, a condemnation that is probably accurate, but hardly surprising.
Orans argues that Margaret Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, was somehow being scientific and responsible in presenting a politically motivated image of Samoa that was clearly false, and that they were well aware it was false, and that Freeman is somehow unscientific and irresponsible in presenting an image of Samoan society that is clearly true.
Freeman argues that the Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, were hoaxed largely due their strong desire to be self deceived. If, as Orans argues, they were not hoaxed, that does not make the falsehoods that they presented about Samoa any less of a hoax, it merely makes them more guilty of wickedness, but less guilty of stupidity.
Neither Orans or Freeman are trained to distinguish between wickedness and stupidity.. It is not their job.
If Orans's position on Mead being hoaxed is correct, and Freeman's position is wrong, then the conclusion we should draw is not that Mead is right, but that she was a liar and not a victim of self deception. The hoax is Freeman's excuse for Mead's behavior, not the substance of his attack on Mead, thus for Orans to attack Freeman on this issue of Mead being hoaxed as if it was the substance of his accusation, as if refuting it exculpated Mead and anthropology, is irrelevant and deceptive, an attempt to manipulate the reader. If Orans is right on this issue, and Freeman is wrong, we should think worse of Mead, and of Anthropology and anthropologists in general, not better.
Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans (Chandler and Sharp Publications in Anthropology and Related Fields) OverviewWant to learn more information about
Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans (Chandler and Sharp Publications in Anthropology and Related Fields)?
>> Click Here to See All Customer Reviews & Ratings Now
