Since the controversy began, Homes's restudy has been criticized
by Freeman. Now Holmes has published his dissertation findings
along with more recent observations on the controversy. Because he
conducted the only explicit restudy of the Manu'a group, and
because of his own extensive research in the islands over three
decades, Holmes's "Quest for the Real Samoa" is worth reading.
While the book will not resolve the controversy, it does provide an
interesting perspective, some new data, and useful insights into
the controversy. . . . Holmes concludes that Mead's work will
endure, not because it was flawless or because it is a model for
contemporary research, but precisely because it was pioneering and
controversial. He sees the tragedy of the controversy in Freeman's
almost exclusive focus on Mead, which could obscure Freeman's
potential contribution to Samoan ethnography. This is where Freeman
and Holmes differe fundamentally. For Freeman, the ultimate issue
is the refutation of Mead's ideas on Samoan adolescence. For
Holmes, it is a deeper appreciation of the possibilities of Samoan
ethnography. To get beyond the Mead/Freeman controversy, it is this
latter path that should be explored. "American Anthropologist"
Holmes has a special claim to be heard, for in 1954 he did a
restudy of Tau, the same village Mead had worked in 29 years
before. While Mr. Holmes disagrees with her on various points, he
does not find the truth' to be midway between Mead and Mr. Freeman.
His work showed the quality of Mead's Samoan research to be
remarkably high, ' while Mr. Freeman's refuation was, in Mr.
Holmes's opinion, both methodologically shoddy and uncorroborated
by the evidence. "New York Times Book RevieW"
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!