Margaret Mead, the Enemy of Religion
Margaret Mead remains, long after her death, a polarizing public personality. Mead was born in 1901 and studied under the earliest professor we now call anthropologists. While still in her 20's, she published a book about Somoan culture.
She had mastered to Somoan language and lived in a village for a long time. The book she published was the most popular book on anthropology ever. That made the book and Mead the target of anger an demonization all of her life and it continues to this day. She wrote many other books that also contributed to the anger against her.
Mead's 1920's book praised, instead of criticized as immoral, the casual sex practices of young people in the Somoan culture. Any hint that casual sex was not sin went, and still goes in many religious circles, against absolute moral standards. She advanced the idea that different cultures have different definitions of approved sexual activity, including homosexuality, as well as definitions of family. Perhaps she invented the concept of "relative" moral standards.
While some of the criticism of Mead was about the methods she used to collect information about cultural practices and that later anthropologists came to different conclusion, Mead still stands tall as the one who challenges orthodox religion's hold on the origin of moral values. She did not condemn standards of other societies even though they were different from Western societies. By treating each society as equal to others she put a finger in the eye of preachers and religious pundits across the Western world.
Anthropology is somewhat a sister discipline to both sociology and archaeology. It has helped reveal the narrowness of understanding societies fostered by both history and religion. When someone suggests to me I should study more about religion I like to suggest they should study more sociology and anthropology. There is little doubt their religious views came from their society's values rather from some independent source.
Casual sexual practices, as you glibly note, leads to wonderful life experiences as sexually transmitted diseases, loss of fertility and probably a few other problems. Monogamy has the advantages of a stable family life, no STDs and no loss of fertility. Isn't it funny how good Christian values also translate into healthy lives.
ReplyDeleteMatt; "Casual sexual practice, as you glibly note...."
DeleteYour ancestors, and mine, had what we would call casual sexual practices. They did not even know sex led to babies. At that time, social mores held no condemnation of it. It worked for them. Now we have different mores. Gay marriage is becoming common place, hetero marriage is declining. New "moral values" come along when they are needed.
Oh, yes, it "worked for them". Perhaps, since it worked for them, you could write a paper about how it work for Chicago, Detroit or Baltimore? What's the purpose of progress if it "worked for them"?
DeleteI'm trying to help you understand your own social history. Back a few generations your ancestors were not Catholics. They were not Catholics because the Catholic denomination and Christianity had not been invented. Once Christianity had been invented rules changed as time went on and today you follow the rules that happen to be in place now. Your ancestors probably practiced abortion, even celebrated it, because is was necessary to survive when there was not a lot of food. You are a product of those past moral standards.
Deletethere was a time when there we no Christians in the world. no s....t sherlock. that aside how do you know that our remote ancestors practiced, even celebrated, abortion? give us a reference or two. for my part, I think that they would not have practiced population control: more likely it seems that they would want more tribal members, not fewer. very early tribes were likely very small, perhaps on the edge of dying out. interestingly, it is believed that we nearly became extinct about 80K years ago. as to Mead and her pal Benedict, I know little about them. they were cultural relativists, certainly. and their work has been criticized by some more recent anthropologists. maybe their ideology interfered with their "findings" .
DeleteUnknown "..aside how do you know the our remote ancestors practiced, even celebrated, abortion?"
DeleteThis post is why I sometimes dump yours before publishing. Information that is common knowledge to most everyone else is new to you. It is common knowledge infanticide of various kinds was practiced. Why was it practiced? Ancient people could add up the months of winter, drought, fishing off season, etc. They could add up how much food was used during those months. Too many mouths to feed meant the babies die anyway. Please make some effort to think things through before you post. Here is a source I found in two minutes. Its says population control through abortion and infanticide was a "common practice in the ancient world."
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2006/sindaco1/Infanticide.html
Unknown: Try Aristotle "No deformed child should be raised." Ancient Rome saw no moral problem with disposing of infants. Eskimos practiced it. Good grief this is so well known.
Deletehttps://earlychurchhistory.org/medicine/infanticide-in-the-ancient-world/
Here, this one will surprise you, professors donate $95 of $96 to Democrats, $1 to Republicans - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/22/study-professors-donate-to-democrats-more-than-republicans-95-to-1/
ReplyDelete