controversy

Freeman controversy continues

Quest for the Real Samoa: The Mead/Freeman Con troversy & Beyond. By Lowell Holmes. Published 1987 by Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc., Massachusetts. Price U 5529.95 The 1983 publication of Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropologi cal Myth turned an obscure professor into a media event From the day the story appeared in the New York Times until it was seriously reviewed, Derek Freeman en joyed the reputation as, at best, a David in the world of anthro pological giants, at worst, a rather cranky iconoclast. But when all the brouhaha died away, his book was exposed for what it was: an irresponsible and intellectually dishonest attempt to, in his own words, “bring down Margaret Mead”.

In his fair and lucid book, The quest for the Real Samoa, Lowell Holmes draws on his own studies done in the “fifties in Samoa, and traces the story of the so-called Mead/Freeman debate.

Refuting the findings of Mead has been a sort of vocation of Dr Freeman’s. For 40 years he made notes, lectured and pub lished errata lists of her typos.

His book was a disappoint ment, partly because out of nearly 400 pages, only 165 dealt with refuting her work.

Nearly 50 pages dealt with the old “nature/nurture” debate which he added little to.

Then there are the notes and index, with unfortunate omis sions. There is no bibliography.

Footnotes are clustered to gether, so that up to 26 foot notes will be listed under one number: multiple back-track ings are necessary to find a source (perhaps that’s the point). He did not, alarmingly, describe his testing methods (so crucial when disputing an other’s), rate his literary sources

(especially since they are often obscure), or describe the re liability of the records on which he relied.

He disputed the fact that Mead’s informants were reliable with regard to their statements on their virginity, for example.

Freeman said that the vast majority of Samoan girls are virgins prior to their marriages.

How did he know? He asked them and their families. How did he get at the truth? On page 239, he wrote. ‘We collected information on whether these girls and young women were virgins ...”

A clue as to his methods is given in his Acknow ledgements: “Finally my very special thanks are due to my daughters, Jennifer and Hillary, who, through their friendships with Samoan girls of their own ages, provided me with in formation and insights of a particularly valuable kind. ” We seem to have returned to girls interviewing girls, but at least Mead was a trained anthropologist.

Freeman’s method was to use some of Mead’s sentences from her work and then spend a chapter knocking them down.

There is such a wealth of literature on Samoa, by amateurs and anthropologists alike, that it wouldn’t be difficult to set up any argument you wished. However he does not quote generally from scientists on Samoa: he quotes from works by satirists, poets, cartoonists, artists, travel wri ters, explorers, etc.

His major charge, that Mead was “duped” by Samoan girls, is found in a satirical travel essay/cartoon book called Tales from the Margaret Mead Tap room. This is a scientific argu ment? Well, it made for good magazine stories on the Mead/ Freeman Debate, as it was quickly dubbed.

Lowell Holmes says that he believes that “through selective

use of the anthropological liter ature on Samoa, Freeman has built a case that is far from accurate.”

Less gentlemanly is Colin Turnbull who said that “his random collection of quota tions” was ‘unscrupulously selective as ever”.

The question arose, natural ly, why did Freeman wait till Mead was in her grave to publish?

He answered this in his book, saying “my researches were not complete until 1981, when I finally gained access to the archives of the High Court of American Samoa for the 19205.” (Located in Fagatogo, not, as the purist-in-Samoan spelling Freeman would have it, “Fagatoga”.) But, Holmes writes, I spent several weeks going through government records both in 1954 and 1962; in 1954 I discovered the startling fact that in that year the third most common cause of infant mortal ity was arteriosclerosis (15 deaths).

No, there was only one place for Freeman to do a serious study. But he was too late.

Lowell Holmes did it in the ’fifties. Freeman adds little to Holmes’ A Restudy of Manu’an Culture 1957 and Tau (1958).

A dualism exists in Samoan society, much as it does in other societies. Freeman denies this, insisting, as he did in his perso nal attack, on his own dark vision. But how can both vi sions of the same society be true, assuming they are legiti mate visions?

Victorian England appears to us now as the epitome of virtue, prudency and sexual repre ssion. Yet it was during the Victorian age that pornography and vice flourished: yellow backed novels, lewd photos and specialised bordellos thrived. Are both of these im ages of the same society? They could and they were and we’d be foolish to insist on one or the other.

Freeman’s book was shoddy and ill-considered. Holmes’ summary of this adventure in anthropology is instructive and informative. He is more gen erous than most critics when he suggests that the book Freeman might have written “could have been a great contribution.”

Joseph Theroux.