Psychology Today blogs

Evolutionary Psychology Blogs  

Exotic Culture that Never Was: Part I

Margaret MeadMargaret Mead and the Samoa:

In a previous post, I explained that, at the most abstract level, all human cultures are the same and there is only one human culture. Nothing illustrates this point better than the recent (and somewhat shameful) history of the social sciences. It shows that every time there was news of a discovery of a new, exotic culture in a remote region of the world, completely different from the Western European culture, it turns out that the discovery was a hoax. Every time, it turns out that there are no human cultures that are radically and completely different from other cultures. The first such example is Margaret Mead’s research on the Samoa.

In 1923, Margaret Mead (1901-1978), one of the most celebrated anthropologists of all time, was an anthropology graduate student of Franz Boas (1858-1942) at Columbia University. Boas was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, and was therefore politically and personally motivated to prove wrong the Nazi policy of eugenics. While this is an admirable goal in and of itself, Boas unfortunately chose the wrong tactics to achieve it. He wanted to show that biology had nothing to do with how humans behave, and that environment -- culture and socialization -- determines human behavior completely. He was a strong proponent of cultural determinism.

In order to demonstrate that culture and socialization determine human behavior in its entirety, Boas gave his graduate students (including Mead) the impossible task of finding a human culture radically different from the Western culture, where people behave completely differently from Americans and Europeans. Margaret Mead was sent to Samoa with this mandate from Boas.

On August 31, 1925, Mead arrived in American Samoa to conduct her research. She was to spend six months doing her fieldwork. Unbeknownst to Boas, however, Mead was involved in another, secret research project, and spent almost all of her time in Samoa doing this other work. She was to leave Samoa in a month, and she had not done any of the fieldwork for Boas on the topic of cultural and behavioral variability to find evidence that Samoan behavior was completely different from American behavior. She decided to finish this work quickly by interviewing two young local women about the sexual behavior of adolescents in Samoa on March 13, 1926.

Mead knew that in the United States and the rest of the Western world, boys were sexually aggressive and actively pursued girls, while girls were sexually coy and waited to be asked out on dates by boys. “How different are things in Samoa? How are Samoan boys and girls when it comes to sex?” Mead asked her two young female informants, Fa’apua’a Fa’amu and Fofoa Poumele.

Fa’apua’a and Fofoa, just like young women everywhere, were quite embarrassed to talk about sex to a total stranger. So they decided to make a big joke about it out of sheer embarrassment. They told Mead the opposite of how things were in Samoa. They told her that boys were quite shy, and girls actively pursued boys sexually. It was a hoax, but in the minds of Fa’apua’a and Fofoa, the story that they were telling Mead was so outrageous and so obviously untrue that they couldn’t believe that anyone in her right mind would believe them.

Except that Mead did, for this was exactly the type of “evidence” that Boas had sent her to Samoa to gather. Here now was evidence that sexual behavior of adolescents could be completely different from (nay, the opposite of) how it is in the United States. So culture does completely determine human behavior after all! Mead was ecstatic. She left Samoa in April 1926 and published her “findings” in Samoa in a book called Coming of Age in Samoa in 1928. The book immediately became an international bestseller and later a classic in cultural anthropology, and, among other things, formed the foundation of modern feminism. Feminists pointed to the “evidence” in the book to support their claim that, given different “gender socialization,” Western boys and girls could be completely different. Boys could be more like girls, and girls could be more like boys. So, in a sense, modern feminism was founded on the basis of a hoax.

More than sixty years later, on May 2, 1988, Fa’apua’a, who was then 86 years old, told a Samoan government official (who happened to be the son of Fofoa, who passed away in 1936) that everything she and her friend told Margaret Mead about the sexual behavior of Samoan boys and girls on that fateful night of March 13, 1926, was untrue. It was a hoax. As it turns out, overwhelming ethnographic evidence by now shows that Samoan adolescents are no different from adolescents anywhere else in the world. Boys are sexually aggressive and active, and girls are sexually coy and shy.

Comments

thanks

thank for the info. many people think that it is an ideology that males are aggressive and active n girls are coy n shy, n they take offend. but as u clearly show, it is innate, males n females are different !


Actually, you're wrong

This post only shows that the Samoa story was a hoax. Nothing in this article provides evidence that sex "differences" in human sexual behavior are innate. Do us all a favor: Before you post again, please take a few psychology, sex education, and English classes.


Proof that Satoshi Kanazawa is an idiot

I love how in one post you try to simultaneously perpetuate stereotypes and demolish feminism. Your post does not "prove" anything about all girls being "sexually coy and shy" and all boys being "sexually aggressive." As always, you take one "fact" and, without using other supporting evidence, make unprovable generalizations. So what if the Samoa story was a hoax? This is ONE story. This is ONE small factor in the development of feminism. That doesn't make feminism any less valid, and it certainly doesn't disprove cultural determinism or the role of socialization in determining gender roles and behavior in general. When are you going to get serious and start writing posts that are actually worth reading? It's as though your freedom from peer review has caused you to run rampant. All you seem to be concerned with is using your unsupported generalizations to perpetuate stereotypes and increase inequality between the sexes. Your blog rights should be taken away; you write poorly in every sense and your "logic" is nonexistent.


why the hatred?

LB: What part of womens role has always been that of motherhood-parenting, being near a child that needs gentle care, patience, holding, touching, cleaning, fetching and you get my point are you having trouble grasping? Well, when women used to be so busy attending to young ones someone had to provide food. Providing food in our times is a matter of getting out a discovery card, navigate through the isles, pray for no traffic accidents and so on. Patience is highly advised. In the old times patience was not advised because a flamingly pissed off boar knows no reason, government welfare that allows people to not worry about providing but gives them the false illusion that they can waste their time online attacking anyone that dares to think and draw conclusions was non-existent so one had to be aggressive to feed his family.
Those were necessary roles back then. Nature never belittled a gender it simply assigned their roles and gave them different tools to carry them out.
There is nothing wrong with that, so why the hatred?


Did you even read my post?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reply. There is no hatred in my post; I only point out that Kanazawa's blog is based on anecdotal evidence. His not-so-subtle attempt to destabalize feminism is ridiculous. I do think he needs much more research to back up his ludicrous generalizations. If he can provide the sources, fine; if not, he needs to take up a new hobby. Nothing you have written applies to anything I wrote. You obviously do not understand what you're reading.


Seriously though, point me

Seriously though, point me towards a culture that women aren't coy and shy when it comes to sex. Come on -do it! Tell me, will you go after a coy and shy man that will constantly look down and you have to make all the moves? will you take him to dinner, buy him flowers? send a card? reassure him that he isn't fat? pay for his hair-removals, clothes, facials e.t.c? After kissing him stopping to make sure that it is going where it is supposed to be going and assuring that the pace isn't fast? How many other things can I even list here? I doubt you will because even if those are your intentions probably a man like that already has a suitable partner and that is another man!


Point out to me a culture

Point out to me a culture where there aren't exceptions. Yes, men do tend to be more interested in sex overall, but that does not mean there are not many, many promiscuous women. In fact, a recent blog mentioned cultures where women believe multiple sex partners are necessary for conception to take place; thus these women are very promiscuous. Some people are "loose", some aren't. The point is that you cannot pigeonhole all women as sexually "coy" and "shy". This is a stereotype straight out of the Victorian era. Why don't you get with the times?


LB: Let me point out the

LB: Let me point out the obvious problem with your comment. You appear to be a regular reader of Satoshi's blog. Rather curious for someone who claims he's "not worth reading"? Like a moth to a flame... or, in your case, a feminist to a fact.


How is it a problem that I'm

How is it a problem that I'm willing to keep my mind open and read things that I might not agree with? You tell me what the problem is with that.


to LB: ur wrong

there is many studies that showed that it is INNATE. check stuff from steven pinker, daniel dennett and many other people who do think that it is biological that men n women are different. so rather than tellin me to read psych , u better read them , cause u obviously dont read much.


There are no studies that

There are no studies that "prove" the "innate differences" between men and women. You obviously do not understand the subtleties of research. And yes, you DO need to study some psychology--study anything, for god's sake, learn how to spell, capitalize, type. Write something professional, mature, and well-thought out, and then I will consider what you have to say. Just because a few people think that there are biological differences (and duh, there are) does not erase the fact that men and women have MUCH MORE in common than they differ. People like to focus on the differences, but especially in the psychological realm these differences are very small.


Whats wrong with being different?

Why is it such an atrosity that males and females have innate differences? I am a female and love and respect my femininity and yet I am not in the least bit offended by the idea that males are naturally more agressive. They have more testosterone. Duh! Testosterone is also the hormone that greatly affects females sexual drive and we have less of it. So what? We are sexual creatures with our own way of having our desires fufilled. This article was simply pointing out the fallacy that the feminist movement used to be based on ( That equality requires that we are all exactly the same and that without socialization boys would be just as likely to play with dolls and girls fake guns). There are mounds of evidence that suggest these differences are innate and feminism has adapted in turn. Why try to take feminism back in the evolutionary chain by protesting outrage over the notion that men and women are innately different? We celebrate cultural differences why not gender differences? Margret Mead was in a sense saying "Look at how wonderfully different this culture is, it just proves that men and women are exactly the same." I personally would like to thank Satoshi for pointing out such ridiculousness.


Spot On

I do have to say, Kanazawa, that you are either well-loved or well-hated by your readers. Your generalizations can sometimes be simplistic, but your body of work speaks eloquently of your knowledge and understanding of your field. You push the boundaries, cross the lines, break the rules, and after everyone is done huffing and puffing in anger at the nerve of you, some small part of them has to admit there's rationale to your madness. Clever post.

I agree with Becky


its all about the price ...

... there are borders between "cultures" where girls are aggressive and active, try to catch as much men they could get to their bed. Everywhere where rich and ugly meets poor and beauty - go as wealthy western stranger to Tehran, Moscow, Bangkok, Peking and Sofia. There are enough gold digger girls which dream is to get pregnant from some rich stranger (after they checkup and copy the passport). All women are prostitutes everywhere every time - if the deal is good enough they can get aggressive and active - we guys are just customers.


LB: Nut, 13 year old, or both?

LB, sounds like someone struck a nerve. Do you think you might be reacting a little too emotionally? Why not use some of that energy to actually read a few articles on sex differences? You might want to look at the work of Camilla Benbow, David Geary, Doreen Kimura, John Colapinto, Matt Ridley, Craig Palmer, Randy Thornhill, Bobbi Low, Geoffrey Miller, David Perrett, and Gerianne Alexander, as well as the dozens of other articles Kanazawa has written. My guess is that he has published more peer-reviewed articles than you’ve ever read. Where do you get off telling a recognized expert in his field to take a few classes? What kind of expertise do you have?
If you had ANY you wouldn’t be making these ridiculous posts. Really, your ignorance is only exceeded by your emotional instability.

Blog rights? What make believe planet do you live on where people have blog rights that can be taken away? It really sounds like you’re 13 years old…

And why should Kanazawa take an English class? What does that have to do with anything? Have you been reading some lame postmodern cultural criticism in your chick lit class? Thats not science dear, but evolutionary psychology is. You might want to learn the difference between the two.

One last thing, don’t use “us” in your little diatribes… “do us all a favor”? Since when do you speak for anyone but yourself? Was there some vote I missed? Are you the duly elected spokes-nut?


WOW, you really must have

WOW, you really must have nothing better to do with your time. You do not know me, and it ridiculous to make claims that I am "emotionally unstable," a "nut", a "thirteen-year-old," etc. Also, I am certainly entitled to complain about the lack of research Kanazawa presents to back up his articles. And what kind of expertise do YOU have, to resort to this childish name-calling? It sounds like YOU are the thirteen-year-old. Don't you have anything better to do than pick on people?

All I did was point out the flaws and holes in Kanazawa's articles. His claims were not solidly backed up. His only goal seems to be writing "controversial" material, whether or not he presents evidence to support it. All he seems to care about is getting people to buy his book. I don't care how many peer-reviewed articles he has written; he is an intelligent man but he's not showing it on this blog, and little that he writes here can be taken very seriously.

Blog rights? I think PT has a say in who writes on their website; this is hardly a ludicrous notion. Yes, PT can--and should--take his right to post away. If he wants to post elsewhere, fine, but he's making the site and the field of evolutionary psychology look bad.

"Chick lit" class? And you think I'M the one who needs to grow up? I'm only interested in the rational and empirical. And evolutionary psychology is a science, I didn't deny that, but Kanazawa's blog and claims are NOT a science. There is nothing empirical about his claims; nearly every one of them is a stretch.

When I speak for "us", I am speaking for intelligent, rational, emotionally stable people like myself. From your emotional and illogical name-calling outburst, you do not seem to be such a person. And you should not be speaking for yourself, because you obviously do not do it very well.

It seems to me that YOU are the one who is emotionally unstable and ignorant, since you completely missed the points I made in my response. You have a lot of growing up to do.


Pure B.S.

The author seeks to provoke, more than inform. He overstates his already very shaky argument and leaves out information crucial to truly understanding the situation. Mead's study was not declared a hoax by anyone with any serious understanding of the issues involved. Kanazawa fails to mention, for example, that Samoa had been Christianized in the years between Mead's study and the subsequent "debunking" of her findings.

What do you think, is a complete change in religion from animistic to sex-hating Christian relevant to this discussion?

Kanazawa is the Rush Limbaugh of evolutionary psychology -- very provocative, but really a parody of the science.


Interesting, Kanazawa.

Interesting, Kanazawa. Recently I read a article in PT suggesting some differences between the genders are innate, but are suppresed in by parental raising and socialization. Every article I read about nature vs. nurture just confirms what has been apparent all along: they all contribute; genetics, parental raising culture(the last two consideribly overlap). I also just read your contribution to the article "Science Unleashed" in which you stated the "50-0-50" ratio, that adult personality is 50% genetics, 0% how you are raised, and 50% socialization. I find those numbers very arbitrary, and I strongly disagree, for reasons stated above.


Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Blogger  

Find a Therapist
Choose the best match from
thousands of profiles.