“MORE LIKE FIGHTING THAN LIKE WAITING”: MEAD, METHOD, AND THE PROPER OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Authors

Maureen Molloy, University of AuklandFollow

Abstract

This paper examines the critical reviews of Margaret Mead’s and Reo Fortune’s early books and Mead’s responses to them. It argues that these reviews demonstrate a consensus about proper anthropological practice and the proper object of anthropological knowledge. Mead’s response was to go the offensive. She demonstrated her competence in the traditional fields of anthropology through her authorship of Kinship in the Admiralty Islands (Mead 1934) and her ability to generate “pure” knowledge and to provide historical context in The Changing Culture of an Indian Tribe (Mead 1932a). Most significantly, however, Mead challenged the consensus about the proper object of anthropological knowledge by arguing for a broadened and more subtle understand- ing of what constitutes “culture” in her 1933 article “More Comprehensive Field Methods.” Mead’s work broke new ground in anthropology and more closely resembles contemporary anthropology than the boundaries of the discipline her critics were trying to police.

Recommended Citation

Molloy, Maureen (2009) "“MORE LIKE FIGHTING THAN LIKE WAITING”: MEAD, METHOD, AND THE PROPER OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE IN ANTHROPOLOGY," Pacific Studies Journal: Vol. 32: No. 2, Article 9.
Available at: https://digitalcollections.byuh.edu/pacific-studies-journal/vol32/iss2/9