Response To Mead's Perspective

456 Words1 Page

While there are many manifestations of adult societies view of youth as being too resistant or too rebellious, it is also commonly assumed that teenagers and adolescence are the opposite. The emphasis on protecting youth populations often depict youths as compliant and susceptible pawns who are unprepared for the complexity of adolescence. In the anthropological texts we have read in class, as well as in the discourse surrounding the texts, we can recognize the consequence of not acknowledging the validity and dynamic nature of resistant behaviors in teenage years. When youth are believed to be passive recipients of culture or as easily influenced their active role in the construction and disruption of societal norms is overlooked. When Margaret Mead studied young women in Samoa, she performed her own form of resistance. Mead pushed against the boundaries and expectations within the field of anthropology to conduct research that was sensitive and nuanced. …show more content…

Freeman’s well-known critique of Mead’s research accuses her of being too inexperienced and naively believing inaccurate testimony her subjects offered her. It is plausible that the resistance to Mead’s research is impacted by the fact that she was a very young woman at the time and thus lacked the perspective to conduct an accurate ethnography. Many of the other ethnographies we discussed in class about youth lacked extensive testimony from the subjects of the studies. Often this comes across as though the ethnographers do not trust the narratives of the youth they are studying. While youth may be malleable as a concept and liminal as a period of time, it is not a period of unengaged, unknowing interaction with the world. Viewing youth through the lens of resistance helps elucidate the need for more trusting narratives around youth culture and in representing youth

Open Document