Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies

by Margaret Mead

First published in 1935, Sex & Temperament is a fascinating and brilliant anthropological study of the intimate lives of three New Guinea tribes from infancy to adulthood. Focusing on the gentle, mountain-dwelling Arapesh, the fierce, cannibalistic Mundugumor, and the graceful headhunters of Tchambuli -- Mead advances the theory that many so-called masculine and feminine characteristics are not based on fundamental sex differences but reflect the cultural conditioning of different societies. This edition, prepared for the centennial of Mead's birth, features introductions by Helen Fisher and Mead's daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson. A precursor to Mead's illuminating Male & Female, Sex & Temperament lays the groundwork for her lifelong study of gender differences.

Genres: Anthropology, Nonfiction, Sociology, Psychology, Feminism, Science, History

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1935

About the author

Margaret Mead was an American cultural anthropologist who was frequently a featured writer and speaker in the mass media throughout the '60s and '70s as a popularizer of the insights of anthropology into modern American and western life but also a respected, if controversial, academic anthropologist.

Her reports as to the purportedly healthy attitude towards sex in South Pacific and Southeast Asian traditional cultures amply informed the '60s "sexual revolution" and it was only at the end of her life and career that her propositions were – albeit controversially – challenged by a maverick fellow anthropologist and literate members of societies she had long before studied and reported on. Mead was a champion of broadened sexual mores within a context of traditional western religious life.

Excerpted from Wikipedia.

Reviews

[Sean Sexton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1935, "Sex and Temperament" is Margaret Mead's work describing her observations of three distinct primitive tribes in Papua New Guinea. Mead lived with the tribes and shares detailed observations of the cultures of each tribe, as well as describing how various personality types fit into each culture.

There are more fine-grained descriptions in her book, but at a high level, she found that: 1) with the Arapesh, men and women were equally peaceful; 2) with the Mundugumor, mean and women were equally aggressive; and 3) with the Tchambuli, women were more aggressive than men.

Mead's conclusion after observing these three tribes is that personality traits that are in some cultures considered sex-based, or assigned to a particular sex, are in fact interpreted differently in different cultures and not necessarily associated with one sex or another. This argues for "nurture over nature"--each culture has its own ideas of which personality traits it considers normal and which it considers abnormal. Children of that society are then raised within those expections. In some cases, traits are additionally associated with being either male or female.

Mead's final chapters, with her conclusions, make for fascinating reading. She argues that when certain traits are tied to a particular gender, people in a culture who don't have those traits are then see as being "unmanly" or "unwomanly", rather than just atypical of that culture.

[Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned that I live in bubble, and that exploring other worlds, cultures, beliefs, as well as adopting a multiple truths approach to life...should climb up to the top of my to do list.

[Ginger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This ethnography discusses the different gender roles in three different cultures, each located in the same country: New Guinea. The Arapesh believe that both women and men become pregnant when the woman is pregnant, and will perform the same child rearing duties as women. The Mundugumor are cannabalistic and both men and women do not give a lot of physical affection to their children. The Tchambuli men believe that art is important, and it is their role in society to pursue the arts while the women make money. It is interesting to see how the roles of men and women can differ so much, even within the same country. It also brings up the question, is the role of men and women ever definite? What defines a woman? What defines a man?

[Valerie]

Margaret Mead had more notoriety than her contemporaries (compare her to her schoolmate Ruth Benedict, for example). The students of Franz Boas changed anthropology to such a degree that many of the criticisms of their work tend to blame them for not going far enough along the trails they blazed. People in Mead's time tended, for example, to criticize her for getting TOO much involved in the personal experiences of her 'subjects'--now she's considered too dry and impersonal.

Mead was a puckish, stout woman who had a lot to say about her own society. If she chose to 'tell all the truth, but tell it slant', as Emily Dickinson advised, she mostly did so to try to circumvent a sort of a priori censorship in her times, when criticism of the prevailing standards and mores were simply prevented from being published. In anthropology, where she wasn't talking about 'anyone we know', she could report honestly, and her critics were often at a loss to counter her arguments, since THEY didn't know the informants, either.

If Mead tended to pick examples that underscored her theses, she was scarcely alone in that--compare people's realization of Mendel's unconscious fudging, for example. Real lives are not that clear-cut, and the unconsciously snobbish belief that 'primitive' people lived 'simpler' lives than we was a staple even among the introducers of cultural relativism.

As a case study, it's a good introduction--but there's need for new studies. Couldn't be among these people, though--their lives have been so changed in late years that few even of the elders remember how they once lived.


Now that I've gotten hold of a copy for reference, I can add more detail about this particular edition.

This is the 'Perennial' edition, published in 2001. It has an introduction by Helen Fisher, acknowledgements and an introduction (from 1935) by Mead herself, and 'Words for A New Century' by Mead's daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson. Tellingly, it's dedicate to Franz Boas.

Mead explains how she came to choose the tribes she studied in the Acknowledgements, and gives more circumstantial detail in the introductions to each of the sections. Based on her own account, the choice of which societies to study was more or less coincidental. The three groups (Arapesh, Mundugumor, and the Tchambuli) were (note the tense) close neighbors--as such matters are reckoned in New Guinea, which is very mountainous, and which, at the time, was very heavily forested. There has been a great deal of deforestation since (as is true in many areas), and the few alpine meadows that once existed are now almost gone due to climate change--but these were mostly not inhabited by humans, at the time of the studies.

The people who were studied in this book were members of closely related linguistic, cultural, and religious groups. When discussing, for example, the 'tamberan' cults, Mead goes into some detail to explain how similar beliefs are cherry-picked by people with different emphases and ideals to support their own priorities.

It's evident that a lot more research took place among the Arapesh than among the other two tribes. It's also evident that Mead was aware that the Mundugumor at least (and, to a lesser extent, the Tchambuli) no longer lived the way that's described. Whether it was EVER true that they lived the way they described to Mead is less clear. There was evidently quite a bit of nostalgic romancing going on--quite ironic, in a lot of ways, because what was being 'remembered' was not, by our standards, particularly desirable lives. The people involved (who were not anything like 'primitive' in the sense that they had lived the same way that their ancestors had lived for many generations; by their own accounting things had changed drastically over time) had been 'pacified' to put an end to headhunting and (alleged) cannibalism. But even before they were subjected to such laws, there's quite a bit of evidence that the 'traditional' practices had declined significantly. Headhunting (and cannibalism, if it really had happened) had become more or less a matter of buying and selling victims who had been condemned to be sold for the resolution of blood-feuds--and the killing was contracted out--so that in some cases children were convinced to do the killing as a part of initiation processes. This was probably quite a bit rarer than the romances depicted, since the number of children awaiting initiation was probably not very large in any given year.

The best analogy would probably have been Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Buffalo Bill and his troupe knew perfectly well that the stories they were peddling were almost entirely fantasy. But they were telling the stories to outsiders whom they could count on to be fairly credulous--so they continued to present a pageant which had very little to do with people's actual lives--in order to justify quite egregious behavior by the interlopers against the indigenous peoples.

In this case, as in the case of Buffalo Bill, the indigenous people were probably often quite willing to accede to the conceits of the romances, because the romances represented them as being quite a bit more potent and unified than they probably really were.

Mead was almost certainly aware that this sort of fantasizing was going on. She admits that the conditions she describes no longer exist--but she doesn't discuss whether they were EVER true--or just stories she was told by people in a deprived and anomalous state.

It's not necessarily relevant whether the stories she was told were literally true, since what she was studying was people's ideals--and how people were able or unable to live up to those ideals. Many of the case studies are not of people who comfortably live up to the ideals, but of people who CAN'T live up to the standards--and to an analysis of WHY they can't.

This is at least partly because almost no people can live up to their societal ideals easily--and many can't do so at all. The ideals are not, after all, intended for mediocre people--or for people who are temperamentally unmatched to the ideals. There's no need to try to indoctrinate those who naturally accord with the ideals--they'll do as their nature dictates. What's needed is to convince people who AREN'T naturally aligned with their societies' ideals to try to live up to those ideals.

In terms of the questions examined in this book, what's at issue is the temperamental assumptions behind sex roles. None of the three groups in the book have the same assumptions about what kind of temperament is 'masculine' or 'feminine' as the (more or less) consensus assumptions of 'Western' societies. The Arapesh believed that neither men nor women are 'naturally' passionate, aggressive, or sexy. They regarded sex as more or less a sidelight, in or out of marriage. The Mundugumor believed that both men and women were 'naturally' aggressive, socially and sexually; impersonal, lacking in tenderness, and competitive. The Tchambuli believed that men were 'naturally' flirtatious, dramatic, and artistic, and that women were 'naturally' domestic, practical, impersonal, and humorous.

But these are all ideals, of course. Real people aren't this simple, as individuals or as group members. Some people are gregarious, gentle, and generous. Others are asocial and standoffish. Some people are shy, and others are extroverted. But most people are ALL of these things, in one mixture or another--varying at different times of their lives, and in response to their personal and family experiences as much as in response to their inherent (and innate, which is different because it includes an average of 9 months of intrauterine experience) 'natures'.

One thing that Mead doesn't pay sufficient attention to, I think, is that all three of the groups profiled have a strong reluctance to think that anything might be just happenstance. They seem unable to believe that any ills or problems could be matters of simple bad luck. They had (apparently) no idea of contagion or protective hygiene. Any standards of cleanliness seem to have been predominantly aimed at preventing vengeful persons from practicing sorcery. Even the Arapesh, who believed that they were unable to be (or remain) angry at relatives, still felt the need to explain suffering by arguing that 'those people over there' WERE practicing sorcery--using personal property conveyed to them by relatives overcome by (temporary) anger, which the 'foreign' sorcerers keep against the time when they will (or may) be paid to cast spells.

This belief that all ills are personally directed against individuals is, in a way, comforting. It not only means that we are not tiny motes at the impersonal mercilessness of a senseless universe--it also conveys the hope that if we can mollify our enemies (or at least counter their spells), we may be able to recover our health.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, or just fortuitously) it ISN'T true. SOME of our ills may be deliberately launched against us. Most, however, ARE impersonal--and attempting to forestall them by natural and supernatural means can even be worse than useless, since it can prevent research into more effective preventatives, treatments, and cures. Not that there's any certainty that such remedies exist, of course.

The general contention in this book (that human temperaments are not bipolar and sexually dimorphic, but are personal and variable) is buttressed by the tribal and personal case studies in the book. It is not, however, as Mead contends, an explanation of homosexual and transgendered experiences. It does tend to support the idea that our RESPONSE to homosexuality and transgendered people is culturally bound. But it isn't an argument that such behaviors are an artifact of our assumptions. I suspect that both phenomena occurred in ALL of the peoples profiled: but that Mead didn't observe it because she didn't know how to detect it in societies whose underlying assumptions were different than in 'Western' societies. For example, there is one man among the Mundugumor who is described as behaving in kindly, generous, nurturing ways. He is somewhat vilified as being unrealistic, not only because his behavior was not consistent with 'manly' behavior as defined by his people, but also because his behavior was inconsistent with 'feminine' behavior in his society. He was also mocked for fantasizing that there had been (or might yet be) a society in which his behavior would be normal. This is seen as 'unrealistic', which is taken as an insult. But when the primary assumptions of your own society are uncongenial, being 'unrealistic' may be a perfectly viable defensive position. And after all, this man's behavior would have been perfectly 'normal', if he'd been born an Arapesh. So why revile him for not being a good Mundugumor? He might be better advised to move to where he'd be welcome--as many non-Arapesh women do in the book. Sounds more like a candidate for adoption than remediation, to ME.

One important point that seems underemphasized in this book is that competitiveness is not identically mapped on scarcity. The Arapesh are materially quite poor, while the Mundugumor are relatively rich--and yet the Arapesh are schooled to be gentle and nurturing, and the Mundugumor to be harsh and competitive.

Note that ALL of the societies in the book practiced infanticide. Not consistently--some women among the Mundugumor, for example, chose to rescue and adopt infants who had been exposed to die. They induced lactation by encouraging attempts at suckling, and supplemented this with coconut milk. They did so at least partly because women in the Mundugumor society were taught to desire sons, and men daughters--so that men tended to intervene to save daughters and women to save boys. But they also did so in order to justify raising children even when they were not married.

[Atticus06 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Il problema che io mi pongo è di studiare il condizionamento delle personalità sociali dei due sessi, nella speranza che una simile indagine getti qualche luce sulle differenze dei sessi. Io condividevo l’opinione generale della nostra società, che vi fosse un temperamento sessuale congenito (…) Ero lungi dal sospettare che i temperamenti da noi considerati come congeniti ad un sesso potessero essere invece semplici variazioni del temperamento umano.
New York, gennaio 1935                                                                                            
Margaret Mead

A due settimane di distanza dalla fine della lettura rimugino ancora su questo libro. Il racconto delle differenti organizzazioni sociali presenti tra i gruppi che ha visitato e studiato in Nuova Guinea Margaret Mead, mi ha fatto riflettere sul concetto di affetto parentale, tra genitori e figli, o tra parenti consaguinei. Lo stesso concetto di “parentela” è più ampio di quello che noi attribuiamo solo ai parenti di sangue, come avviene per molti popoli che hanno vissuto e che vivono in un relativo isolamento, con valori diversi da quelli occidentali o più diffusi. Ma l'organizzazione sociale e il temperamento e i sentimenti provati dai Mundugumor mi hanno inquietato. A parte la tesi più importante del saggio che, grazie alle osservazioni e lo studio di questi popoli, già nel 1935 circa, ci rivelava importanti informazioni sull’influenza dell’educazione nel definire il genere sessuale che, come oggi sappiamo, grazie alle conferme date da etnologia, sociologia e psicologia è dovuta ai condizionamenti e non è un attributo “naturale”, dove gli individui di genere femminile possono comportarsi come ci aspetteremmo si comportassero quelli di genere maschile e viceversa in base al condizionamento sociale e non per temperamento, quello che mi ha incuriosito di più è il comportamento e il sentimento di questa tribù — i Mundugumor — che in pratica, semplificando, odia i propri figli e i propri parenti, specialmente se maschi. Dove i figli sono visti al principio come una scocciatura (ironica e inquietante la parte dell’allattamento e la cura nei confronti del neonato) e in seguito con rivalità (tra gli uomini). A differenza degli Arapesh, che fondamentalmente vivono per gli altri, dove avere il maggior numero di parenti (di sangue e non) è importante, dove l’indole viene plasmata fin dall’infanzia, soffocando l’aggressività e favorendo la sottomissione e l’accomodamento, tra i Mundugumor vige l’individualismo più sfrenato, dove per educazione ci si scambia il minor numero di parole e tra fratelli la sola forma di contatto possibile è quella di : ingiuriarsi e azzuffarsi in pubblico. Dove se un uomo o una donna sono allegri, sensibili, paterni o materni, [...]occupano un posto infimo nella scala dei valori sociali e l’aggressività e la violenza sono attributi comuni e considerati ”normali”.

Le differenze tra queste due tribù, e quelle con i Ciambuli, mi hanno fatto riflettere sull’amore. Quello filiale; quello fraterno; quello parentale. Se valutiamo quello che accade tra i Mundugumor, che non provano affetto per i figli o le mogli, o per i propri fratelli, e se confrontiamo questo “temperamento” con quello di molte situazioni sociali fino all’ottocento o i primi del novecento, dove in alcune nazioni “civili” (gli Stati Uniti per esempio) c’erano leggi contro il maltrattamento degli animali ma non contro il maltrattamento minorile, dove bambini e bambine venivano frustati, picchiati, puniti e malnutriti, vissuti come un peso, si può arrivare alla risoluzione che l’amore, l’affetto, siano un costrutto sociale. Che proviamo questo sentimento perché nella società in cui viviamo, nella nazione, nella città, nel gruppo familiare, ci si educa a voler bene. Ma non è una cosa naturale. L’isolamento delle tribù studiate dalla Mead, lontane, come scrive, dalla corrente principale della storia umana, ci permette di capire quanto il condizionamento sociale possa creare individui e società diverse da quelle a cui siamo abituati. Dove anche il sentimento che proviamo per qualcuno è una costruzione. Inconscia, che proviamo realmente, ma non perché “ci viene naturale” o perché come indole amiamo i nostri cari. La proviamo perché abbiamo ricevuto un condizionamento a tali sentimenti. Lo stesso motivo per cui la maggior parte delle donne ama il rosa e gioca con le bambole e la maggior parte dei maschi amano i motori e il calcio. O perché in alcune società ci si sente attratti fisicamente da un certo tipo di donne o uomini, con attributi fenotipici peculiari, diversi da quelli di società lontane. Perché vengono condizionati così fin dall’infanzia. Indicativo in questo caso il comportamento dei Ciambuli, dove le donne si rasano la testa e gli uomini sfoggiano lunghi boccoli di cui amano prendersi cura. E

[...] mentre la vita degli uomini è un tessuto di litigi inconsistenti, di malintesi, di riconciliazioni, di confessioni, di smentite, di proteste, il tutto accompagnato da doni, la vita delle donne è singolarmente sgombra da personalismi e da dispute. Su cinquanta liti maschili se ne troverà a malapena una femminile. Solide, responsabili, potenti, la testa rasata e disadorna, le donne siedono in gruppo e ridono insieme, magari organizzando all’improvviso una danza notturna, senza uomini, nella quale ogni donna ripete con impegno, tutta sola, il passo di danza che le è sembrato più eccitante. Ancora una volta si dimostra la solidarietà delle donne e l’inconsistenza degli uomini.,

una situazione che in occidente fa parte del cliché a parti inverse, su cui si basa ancora oggi gran parte del senso comune, o della comicità.

Onora il padre e la madre, diceva la bibbia.

[26]Se uno viene a me e non odia suo padre, sua madre, la moglie, i figli, i fratelli, le sorelle ed anche la propria vita, non può essere mio discepolo. diceva Gesù secondo il vangelo di Luca, nella traduzione che si leggeva fino a qualche anno fa.

Giusto per dire che a prescindere dal periodo storico, dalla collocazione geografica, dal credo religioso, tutto ciò che proviamo, decidiamo, pensiamo, viviamo, è frutto di condizionamenti esterni. D’altronde anche nelle neuroscienze si spiega come i geni vengano influenzati dall’ambiente. Puoi avere dei geni che fanno propendere il tuo carattere all’aggressività, ma se l’ambiente non stimola quei geni potresti non diventare un individuo aggressivo, e viceversa, se l’ambiente in cui vivi stimola quei geni, quel temperamento verrà fuori. (Cfr. Sapolski, L'uomo bestiale).
E sì, riguardo all’affetto come costrutto sociale non sarò di certo stato io a capirlo per primo, e un maggior numero di letture specialistiche mi avrebbe sicuramente fatto capire prima certi concetti ma, pur pensandolo, a volte in modo poco elaborato, è sempre complicato accettare che qualcosa non è come abbiamo sempre sentito o saputo.
E quindi questo libro è sicuramente da recuperare, perché la Mead è stata precorritrice di un cambio di paradigma che, grazie all’etnologia e ai suoi studi, ha aiutato l’emancipazione del pensiero verso quella comprensione dei generi sessuali a cui oggi portano tutti gli studi di materie interdisciplinari. E perché leggere antropologia e etnologia è uno dei modi migliori per capire l’essere umano come individuo, del passato e del presente.

[Dolly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel like it's unfair to give such an important anthropological work a low rating, but in terms of my personal enjoyment of the book, it really was "just okay." Like most early anthropological texts, the writing is dry. Margaret Mead positions herself distantly from her "subjects," and looks at the three New Guinean societies with an etic perspective. I think it's worth looking at if you're a student interested in how the early study of anthropology impacted feminism or gender roles (i.e. the impact of studying another culture on one's own) -- but I would look for other sources if you're interested in the actual societies themselves.

[Fishface · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting study of sexual mores and beliefs in "primitive" societies. They seem a lot less primitive than some Americans I know, frankly. Only the chauvinsim of the age allowed the author to describe them that way. There's more to living than cars and flush toilets!

[Marilyn Boyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this be better than her earlier work and very clear. The three tribes and their differences were well laid out and after reading Lily King’s Euphoria, it was fascinating. Mead’s work us far different than Bateson’s, so that was interesting, too.

[Elisa Martínez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una excelente etnografía sobre la diferencia sexual, que muestra, además, la importancia de la diversidad y los problemas de la desigualdad.

[Juliana. · Rating 4 out of 5]

En un tiempo donde se estaba convencido de la inferioridad de las mujeres, así como de la
inmutabilidad de los roles desempeñados por cada sexo dentro de la sociedad, la labor de
Margaret Mead se hace relevante. Hija de su época, se interesó por temas que no habían
sido tratados detenidamente hasta el momento, como la infancia y la mujer. Es así como,
influenciada e instruida por el trabajo de Franz Boas y Ruth Benedict, cuestionó las ideas
instauradas en aquel entonces como “verdades absolutas”. Los imaginarios alrededor de los
sexos aún se encontraban sujetos a creencias del determinismo biológico y a la
inmutabilidad. Sin embargo, Mead defendía una posición opuesta, convencida de que
precisamente había cuestiones relativas de la cultura que moldeaban los comportamientos
de las partes. Una afirmación como esta no solo abría paso a una nueva perspectiva de los
roles establecidos, o a la desmitificación de las creencias que rodeaban tanto a mujeres
como hombres. También se trató de una situación escandalosa, blanco de críticas, ya que,
una respuesta clara a ello significaba importantes consecuencias a nivel social.

Aunque en su carrera como antropóloga publicó numerosos escritos, no se entrará en
materia respecto a sus obras en general. En el presente texto se hablará particularmente de
su libro “Sexo y temperamento”, fruto de una serie de investigaciones realizadas en Papúa
Nueva Guinea. Por medio del trabajo etnográfico, reunió material de tres pueblos nativos
que le permitieron explorar su cuestionamiento en cuanto al comportamiento humano y
sobre la relación que existe entre personalidad y cultura: si los individuos se comportan a
partir de “temperamentos naturales” propios de un determinante biológico o si se trata de
constructos influenciados socialmente. Cada estudio, publicado en un principio como una
monografía independiente, fue reunido en un solo volumen debido a la estrecha relación de
los mismos en cuanto a su propósito. La razón por la que decidió buscar respuestas dentro
de estas culturas se debió a que creía que, al ser sistemas de organización con una
complejidad alejada de la sociedad civilizada, sería una herramienta útil a la hora de
cuestionar los comportamientos de su propia cultura, ir de lo simple a lo más intricado.

El principal interés de Mead fue demostrar por medio de la descripción de estos pueblos,
cómo pueden variar las características de aquellas categorías que se han establecido como
“femeninas” o “masculinas”. La obra cuenta con cinco partes, una introductoria, tres donde
nos presenta detalladamente a las comunidades Arapesh, Mundugumor y Tchambuli. Y, por
último, las conclusiones del estudio. Mead aclara en su introducción, que lo que buscaba
era relatar cómo estas tres sociedades han agrupado sus conductas sociales, y la manera en
que varían estas en relación a lo que se ha denominado “común”. Aquí nos expone cómo el
entramado cultural establece los papeles desempeñados en sociedad. Estos se implantan
durante la crianza, por medio de la educación del individuo moldeando así su carácter
según los patrones establecidos.

Comienza por ilustrar que la dependencia de la formación de un sistema social se da dentro
de un contexto y que las elaboraciones aquí presentadas como construcciones, difieren
dependiendo de cada cultura. Dentro de estas, se dan tendencias dominantes que llegan a
definir cada generación dentro de la misma. Las estructuras pueden variar en lo más mínimo aun así se trate de pueblos vecinos (como se verá más adelante). Estos sistemas de
creencias son los que establecen y rigen las normas, ya que la fuerza contenida en ellos es
la que permite el funcionamiento de las sociedades. A continuación, se hablará del análisis
que realizó a la conducta del sexo, desde el punto de vista del temperamento, basado en que
cada grupo tiene actitudes definidas dentro de un orden cultural. Mead admite que ella
misma pensaba que había un comportamiento natural femenino o masculino, pero gracias a
su estudio se dio cuenta de que no es así. De esta forma avanza con sus relatos sobre los
pueblos.

Ahora bien, su estadía en Nueva Guinea será ilustrada de manera general. Guiada por el río
Sepik, nos adentra hacia los Arapesh de las montañas. La manera más acertada para
describir este grupo y su funcionamiento, es que ellos ven el mundo como una huerta que
debe ser cuidada. Esto no con el fin de aprovecharse o jactarse de la misma sino en función
del bienestar y crecimiento de la comunidad, asignando así una enorme importancia a la
cooperación con el fin de obtener un objetivo en común. Son un pueblo pacífico, armonioso
y caracterizado por rasgos que llamaríamos “maternales” o “femeninos”. Aquí el niño crece
en un ambiente seguro y de confianza y se le permite trazar sus propios planes. Tanto los
hombres como las mujeres comparten un carácter tranquilo, carente de estímulos de envidia
o codicia. Presentan una clara preferencia por este tipo de personalidad y es por eso que no
exigen a ninguno de sus sexos condiciones especiales o habilidades técnicas en el
desarrollo de sus papeles. Únicamente buscan la congruencia con sus valores y emociones
expresando su carácter en actividades cooperativas y benéficas para todos. Debido a lo
anterior, no ejercen ningún tipo de presión sobre los sujetos para que realicen alguna labor
particular. Sin embargo, es obligación de todos el cuidado y crianza de sus niños.

Durante la infancia se dan las influencias decisivas en la personalidad Arapesh. Todas las
relaciones afectuosas y de parentesco son caracterizadas por la confianza y reciprocidad. Se
enseña a los pequeños por igual. Sus roles dentro de la vida matrimonial son un tanto
curiosos, ya que las relaciones sexuales se dan únicamente con fines domésticos y si ambas
partes se encuentran de acuerdo. Pueden llegar a la poligamia por diversas causas,
principalmente por esa búsqueda del bien común y al marido se ve como un guía, pariente
cercano que aporta al bienestar y crecimiento de su mujer. Cuentan, también, con esta
figura intrigante del “gran hombre”, que se espera alguien pueda representar. Se caracteriza
por rasgos totalmente opuestos a su ideal temperamental, lo que hace que eviten o rechacen
el cumplimiento de este papel. Se trata de un rol de liderazgo, conducta exigente y que se
otorga demasiada importancia a sí mismo, siendo difícil de sobrellevar para estos
individuos…Son en resumen, un grupo cuyas dinámicas armoniosas y actitudes maternales
rigen una vida en busca del bienestar y la tranquilidad.

A continuación, Mead abandona a los Arapesh y nos presenta un drástico contraste en el
siguiente pueblo. Los Mundugumor, habitantes del río, viven de manera hostil y en
constante lucha por la supervivencia. Remiten a algo así como un campo de batalla. Aquí se
da un extremo opuesto de conducta, porque tanto sus hombres como mujeres se pueden
definir como activamente masculinos, viriles y sin ninguna característica de ternura o suavidad. Los Mundugumor son caníbales, dedicados a la caza de cabezas, que no respetan
sus propias normas y muestran un marcado espíritu de competencia. Entre ellos incluso las
mujeres se consideran como hábiles y fuertes adversarios, nunca débiles, siempre
desafiantes. Se puede llegar a comprender la agresividad de este pueblo, debido a las
condiciones en que se desenvuelven sus miembros. Desde que una mujer resulta
embarazada, el ambiente para el niño es adverso. Esta noticia es desafortunada para el
padre, quien deja de prestar atención a la madre y la culpa por haber quedado encinta.
Tanto un hijo como una hija traen desgracias; un varón será un rival hostil para la figura
paterna y una hija le será eventualmente arrancada. Para la madre es la situación opuesta.

La llegada al mundo de estos sujetos es más como una lucha, donde el enojo y la crueldad
son dominantes. El éxito equivale a la capacidad de violencia del sujeto, que genera una
especie de repudio entre los sexos, puesto que cada individuo representa una amenaza entre
sí. Desde muy temprana edad se desarrolla una actitud alerta, celosa y de pelea, además de
un despiadado individualismo que motiva incómodas relaciones entre los parientes. Se
establecen según el parentesco masculino y cada hombre aspira a vivir solo, rodeado de sus
esposas. Su prestigio y poder dependen del número de estas. Las dinámicas familiares son
tensas puesto que su estructura determina que todo padre e hijo sean rivales, ya que a
medida que el pequeño crece, se vuelve una amenaza y significa una declinación para su
progenitor. En general, cada pariente causa al individuo una sensación de aprehensión,
desconfianza e ira que le obliga a estar en constante estado de alerta. Resumiendo, es un
pueblo que construido sobre una base donde los hombres se pelean por las mujeres y ellas
los evitan o provocan, solo hay espacio para un ambiente hostil y cruel.

De esta manera abandonamos a los Mundugumor y nos desplazamos hacia las márgenes del
lago, donde Mead nos adentra en el lluvioso paisaje de los Tchambuli. Este pueblo es
particularmente curioso ya que se trata de una especie de “utopía artística”. Su vida gira en
torno al arte y tanto mujeres como hombres contribuyen a este eje central. Es un caso
peculiar, puesto que, a pesar de vivir bajo una supuesta estructura patriarcal, de tendencia
patrilineal, es la mujer quien presenta una posición de poder y dominio. Se podría decir es
una inversión de los papeles considerados “comunes” en occidente, ya que de ella dependen
enteramente. La vida Tchambuli es relajada y no requiere del trabajo diario a pesar de que
su principal sustento es el comercio. Otorgan un gran valor a su vida social y ciclos rituales
y gracias a que no todos los días son de mercado, pueden dedicarse a este tipo de
actividades. Cuentan con una organización dual: el grupo del sol y el grupo de la madre.
Habitan en casas según su sexo, las de los varones son inviolables pero en ellas suelen
darse peleas frecuentes, mientras que las de las mujeres son felices y de trabajo eficiente.
Ellas se caracterizan por ser un grupo sólido, jovial, rector y libre de rivalidades.

Los días de mercado dependen enteramente de las mujeres, quienes se dedican a la pesca y
al tejido de mosquiteros que se intercambian con otros pueblos. Esta labor es la que permite
el sustento y mantenimiento de la relevante vida ceremonial y artística de la comunidad.
Mientras tanto, los hombres se dedican enteramente al perfeccionamiento de sus artes, y
eventualmente son enviados a realizar los intercambios comerciales. La actitud de las mujeres hacia los varones es tolerante, de aprecio y amable, mientras que ellos son menos
responsables y subordinados desde un punto de vista emocional. En general priman la
generosidad, hospitalidad y abundancia. Y como base segura para la conducción de la vida,
los matrimonios se conciertan desde los vínculos emocionales y sanguíneos de la
comunidad. Mead considera que los Tchambuli son un caso complejo en el problema,
puesto que las personalidades se oponen y complementan entre sí, sin embargo, de manera
contraria a lo que es “común” en nuestra cultura.

Así pues, la estadía de la autora en estos pueblos le permitió llegar a una serie de
conclusiones. Retomando lo ilustrado al principio, pudo afirmar que no todos los sexos
cumplen los mismos ideales ni desempeñan el mismo rol en todas partes, debido a que estas
cuestiones son resultado del contexto, entorno y condiciones que se les ofrece para su
desenvolvimiento. Es por esto que es complicado determinar las estructuras de personalidad
en algo tan simplista o específico como una dualidad entre los tipos de comportamientos.
Esto llega a violentar, a su vez, a la individualidad de los sujetos que no encajan dentro de
los patrones que son impuestos. Mead plantea que las actitudes temperamentales
consideradas femeninas, pueden llegar a ser igualmente masculinas, así como las mujeres
pueden llegar a aprender lo mismo que los hombres (como es el caso Mundugumor, incluso
el Arapesh en sentido opuesto). El condicionamiento social del individuo es determinante
en el desarrollo de la personalidad, fuerza que le moldea de una u otra manera debido a la
maleabilidad de su naturaleza humana.

Continúa diciendo que, debido a lo anterior, cada sujeto se encuentra en capacidad de
alcanzar su “pleno desarrollo humano”, formar diferentes habilidades intelectuales,
artísticas, así como rasgos emocionales. La sociedad puede ser vista como un mosaico,
integrado por cada tipo de personalidad que resulta de estos condicionamientos. La autora
avanza diciendo que sería lógico hacer un lugar para condiciones temperamentales
múltiples y divergentes, construir sobre las diferentes potencialidades para dar espacio a la
variedad de la especie. Así podría reconocerse los auténticos dones individuales en ambos
sexos y su capacidad de adaptabilidad. La construcción de tantos tipos de diversidad no
debe ser sacrificada de tal manera que dichas posibilidades sean reducidas a dos únicas
categorías. Por consiguiente, debería ofrecerse un lugar a todas las potencialidades y
capacidades que tiene la naturaleza humana y no forzarlas a entrar en un molde en el cual
no pueden encajar.

Pienso oportuno considerar lo valioso de estas observaciones y sus implicaciones en el
momento en que salieron a la luz. Llama mucho mi atención la enorme diferencia que se
presenta entre los pueblos a pesar de ser vecinos, así como el contraste de su temperamento
con lo que se tiene como ideal en la sociedad en que vivimos y que puede llegar a ser un
tanto irónico. Creo pertinente resaltar algo que no mencioné en la narración de cada pueblo,
pero que Mead trata, y es la figura del inadaptado. Esta se evidenció en las tres
comunidades. Es curioso como precisamente una insistencia en la determinación de un
temperamento es la que lleva a este tipo de sujeto, que inevitablemente aparece siempre de
una u otra manera, debido al potencial humano para desarrollar diversas conductas.

Probablemente, estas personas vistas como inadecuadas, generan alarma al ir en contravía
de los valores de la sociedad porque de cierta forma comprometen el funcionamiento de la
misma. Lo cual me lleva a pensar en las dinámicas dentro del sistema establecido. Aunque,
como fue planteado, los roles desempeñados en sociedad no se determinan según un
“patrón universal de comportamientos”, hay una clara distinción del papel que ocupa un
sujeto dentro del entramado. Existe una diferenciación a nivel social, que, si bien no se
debe asignar de manera tan limitada, es necesaria para la existencia y operación óptima
colectiva.

Para concluir, los planteamientos de Mead invitan al análisis y cuestionamiento de la propia
cultura, sobre todo al considerar que son enteramente asumidos desde una mirada
occidental. Resulta inquietante. Además, para su época, se entiende el motivo de discusión
sobre la exactitud o validez de sus afirmaciones, las cuales fueron apoyadas en
observaciones e interpretaciones propias. Sin embargo, ¿se estaba cuestionando únicamente
su método? ¿o también tuvo que ver con el hecho de que fuera una mujer en un nuevo
campo, interesada en un tema al que no se le había otorgado relevancia?

Referencia

Mead, M. (1961). Sexo y temperamento en tres sociedades primitivas. Segunda Edición. Editorial
Paidós.

08/06/2022

[Jukka Aakula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Margaret Mead on yksi antropologian historian suuria nimiä. Hän tutki yhdessä silloisen miehensä RO Fortunen kanssa Uuden Guinean heimoja 30-luvulla. Hänen kirjansa Sukupuoli ja Luonne kolmessa primitiivisessä yhteiskunnassa on osin aika kiisteltykin tutkimus. Kirja on evoluutiopsykologian kannalta oleellinen koska sen on tulkittu edustavan vastapuolta eli kantaa, että ihminen on ensi sijassa ehdollistamisen ja kasvatuksen tuote. Toisaalta ei Mead ollut mitenkään kategoorisesti sillä kannalla etteikö persoonallisuus tai sukupuolierot saata myös olla osittain biologian synnyttämiä / perinnöllisiä.

Luin kirjan ensimmäisen kerran 22 vuotiaana ja se teki valtavan vaikutuksen ja nyt uudelleen. Kirjan oleellinen sanoma on minusta yksilön vapautumisen eetos. Osa Meadin antropologisista väitteistä on osoittautunut kyseenalaisiksi mutta minusta kirjalla on tietty arvonsa.

Mead kuvaa kolmea heimoa, joiden kesken vallitsee valtava erot siinä miten ihmisten edellytetään käyttäytyvän. Kahdella heimolla miesten ja naisten roolit eivät Meadin mielestä eroa juurikaan - toisessa heimossa kaikkien oletetaan olevan huolehtivia & yhteistyökykyisiä, toisessa heimossa kaikkien oletetaan olevan agressiivisia ja itsekkäitä. Kolmannessa heimossa vallitsee sukupuoliroolit jossa nainen on käytännöllinen ja vahva, mies keskittyy rituaaleihin, tansseihin, koristeluun, kieroiluun ja juoruiluun. (Näitä pelkistyksiä on sittemmin kyseenalaistettu https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/view...)

Meadin väite on erikoinen: ainakin esimerkin primitiiviset kulttuurit ehdollistavat ihmisiä sillä tavalla, että yksi persoonallisuustyyppi standardoidaan kaikkia koskevaksi normiksi. (Tai kolmannen heimon osalta naisen ja miehen persoonallisuustyyppi erikseen.) Kehittyneemmissä kulttuureissa sama logiikka pätee, mutta niin että eri yhteiskuntaluokkien ja sukupuolten jäsenten edellytetään usein elävän eri mallin (persoonallisuustyypin) mukaan.

Mead on esitetty feministiksi mutta hänen kirjansa ei erityisesti puhu naisten vapautumisesta vaan yksilöiden vapautumisesta erityisesti.

Mielenkiintoisin on minusta lopulta kuitenkin se väite, että vaikka perinteinen yhteiskunta on pakottanut eri ihmiset tiettyyn malliin, se on kuitenkin luonut arvokasta monimuotoisuutta. Vaikkakin monimuotoisuus on ollut sellaista että yksilö ei ole voinut valita minkä muotin mukaan elää, vaan hän on ollut sidottu oman yhteiskuntaluokkansa, sukupuolensa tai uskontokuntansa muottiin. Meadin mukaan on vaarana että tasa-arvo-kehitys alentaa faktisesti monimuotoisuutta, kun edellytetään että kaikilla pitäisi olla samanlaiset arvot, vaikka jotkut asiat kuten sukupuolikäyttäytyminen olisikin vapaampaa kuin nykyään.

Lainauksia

"Sellainen standardisoitu yhteiskunta, jossa miehet, naiset, lapset, papit ja sotilaat opetetaan omaksumaan samanlainen ja yhtäpitävä arvojärjestelmä, tuottaa välttämättä sellaisia poikkeavia yksilöitä, joita olemme huomanneet arapešien ja mundugumorien keskuudessa, yksilöitä, jotka riippumatta sukupuolesta tai ammatista kapinoivat, koska he luonteenlaatunsa takia eivät pysty hyväksymään kulttuurinsa yksipuolista korostusta. Tällöin tosin yksilöt, jotka ovat sopeutumattomia erityisesti heille määrättyyn psykoseksuaaliseen rooliin, katoaisivat, mutta heidän mukanaan katoaisi tieto siitä, että on olemassa useampi kuin yksi mahdollinen arvojen järjestelmä.
Siinä määrin kuin miehille ja naisille hyväksyttyjen persoonallisuuksien erojen poistaminen merkitsisi kaikkien niiden ilmeneminen tukahduttamista, joita kerran on pidetty erityisen feminiinisinä tai erityisen maskuliinisina, siinä määrin sellainen kehitys sisältäisi yhteiskunnallisen menetyksen. Samoin kuin juhla on iloisempi ja viehättävämpi, jos eri sukupuolet ovat pukeutuneet eri tavalla, samoin on myös vähemmän aineellisten asioiden laita. Jos vaatetus sinänsä on symboli ja naisen hartiahuivi vastaa hänen luonteensa väitettyä pehmeyttä, henkilökohtaisten suhteiden koko järjestelmä on siten monipuolisempi ja enemmän tyydytystä tuottava. Runoilija voi sellaisessa yhteiskunnassa ylistää hyveitä, vaikkapa naisellisiakin hyveitä, joilla ei koskaan olisi sijaa sosiaalisessa utopiassa, joka ei sallisi mitään eroavuuksia miesten ja naisten persoonallisuuksien välillä.

Siinä määrin kuin yhteiskunta - väitetyn erilaisen luonteenlaadun nojalla - sallii jonkin ikäryhmän tai yhteiskuntaluokan tai sukupuoliryhmän pyrkiä päämääriin, jotka ovat toisilta ryhmiltä kiellettyjä, siinä määrin kukin yhteiskunnan jäsen ottaa osaa rikkaampaan elämään. Vaatetuksen, tapojen ja yhteisöllisen reagoinnin mielivaltainen määrääminen vanhempien yhteiskuntaluokan, sukupuolen, ihonvärin tai sen viikonpäivän nojalla, jona kukin on syntynyt, tekee varmasti vääryyttä yksilöiden kehitykselle, mutta samalla tekee mahdolliseksi runsaspiirteisen kulttuurin muodostumisen. Monipuolisimman yhteiskunnan on yksilön vapauden kustannuksella kehittänyt muinainen Intia, jossa ilmeni tuhansia yhteensovittamattomia käyttäytymistapoja, asenteita ja ammatteja, jotka olivat määräytyneet syntymän perusteella. Jokaiselle yksilölle oli siellä suotu varman roolin antama turvallisuuden tunne, vaikka se saattoikin olla epätoivon turvallisuutta. Ainakin jokainen sai olla tyytyväinen siitä, että hän oli syntynyt erittäin monipuoliseen yhteiskuntaan.

Tarkastellessamme poikkeavien yksilöiden asemaa historiallisissa kulttuureissa huomaamme, että ne, jotka ovat syntyneet monipuoliseen yhteiskuntaan, mutta persoonallisuutensa täyden kukoistuksen kannalta väärään sukupuoleen tai väärään yhteiskuntaluokkaan, ovat joka tapauksessa paremmassa asemassa kuin ne, jotka ovat syntyneet yksinkertaiseen yhteiskuntaan, joka ei lainkaan käytä hyväkseen heidän luonteensa erityisiä taipumuksia. Raju nainen yhteiskunnassa, joka sallii rajuuden vain miehille, voimakkaasti tunteellinen aristokratian jäsen kulttuurissa, joka sallii tunteiden suoran ilmaisun vain rahvaalle, rituaaleihin mieltynyt yksilö, joka on kasvatettu protestantiksi maassa, jossa on myös katolisia kirkkoja, kaikki he voivat löytää jossain yhteiskunnan muussa ryhmässä ilmaistuina tunteita, joiden ilmentäminen on heiltä itseltään kielletty. Tällainen henkilö saa tiettyä tukea näiden arvojen pelkästä olemassaolosta, arvojen, jotka ovat hänelle luontaisia, mutta joita hän henkilökohtaisesti ei voi kokea syntyperänsä tai sukupuolensa takia. Niille, jotka tyytyvät katsojan osaan tai elämään mielikuvitusmaailmassaan, tämä saattaa melkein riittääkin. He voivat olla tyytyväisiä katsellessaan paraatia katukäytävältä ja istuessaan teatterin katsomossa tai kirkon penkissä kokien tunteita, joiden suoranainen ilmentäminen ei ole heille mahdollista. Elokuvat antavat karkeaa korviketyydytystä niille, joiden tunne-elämä on nääntymässä nälkään, ja samanlaista korviketyydytystä hienommassa muodossa antaa monipuolisissa yhteiskunnissa taide ja kirjallisuus yksilölle, joka ei viihdy sukupuolessaan, yhteiskuntaluokassaan tai ammatissaan.
...
Sellainen [monimuotoisuuden hyväksyvä] sivistys ei uhraisi niitä tuhansien vuosien kuluessa saavutettuja voittoja, joihin yhteiskunta on päässyt erilaisuutta korostavien normien avulla. Yhteiskunnan tähänastiset ansiot säilytettaisiin, ja jokaista lasta rohkaistaisiin hänen oman todellisen luonteenlaatunsa pohjalta. Nyt meillä on naisille määrättyjä toimintakaavoja ja miehille määrättyjä toimintakaavoja. Silloin meillä olisi toimintakaavoja, jotka ilmaisisivat erilaisia taipumuksia omaavien yksilöiden erilaisia pyrkimyksiä. Kullakin mielensuunnalla pitäisi olla omat eettiset säädöksensä, omat sosiaaliset symbolinsa, oma taiteensa ja oma elämäntapansa.

Historiallisen kehityksensä aikana oma kulttuurimme on turvautunut moniin keinotekoisiin erotteluihin luodakseen rikkaita ja toisilleen vastakkaisia arvoja. Silmiinpistävin näistä erotteluista on nojautunut sukupuoleen. Näiden erojen pelkkä poistaminen ei riitä yhteiskunnalle, joka tahtoo kehittää toimintakaavoja, joissa kunkin yksilölliset lahjat pääsevät ilmenemään sen sijaan, että ihmiset pakotettaisiin heille huonosti sopiviin muotteihin. Jos tahdomme saavuttaa korkeamman kulttuurin, joka sisältää runsaasti toisilleen vastakkaisiakin arvoja, silloin meidän täytyy hyväksyä ihmisen mahdollisuuksien koko asteikko ja siten luoda nykyistä vähemmän mielivaltainen yhteiskuntajärjestys, jossa jokainen inhimillinen taipumus saa oikean paikkansa".


Oma kommenttini

Arvojen moninaisuus ei tietenkään ole pelkästään hyvä asia.

Jonathan Haidt lainaa kirjassaan The Righteous Mind Bertrand Russellia joka toteaa, että sosiaalinen koheesio toisaalta ja vapaus toisaalta ovat molemmat välttämättömiä hyvälle yhteiskunnalle:

"Sosiaalinen koheesio on välttämättömyys, eikä ihmiskunta ole vielä koskaan onnistunut luomaan sosiaalista koheesiota vain rationaalisin argumentein. Jokaisella yhteiskunnalla on kaksi vastakkaista riskiä: yhtäällä luutuminen liian kurin ja perinteisiin jämähtämisen takia ja toisaalla moraalinen turmeltuminen tai ajautuminen vieraan vallan alaiseksi sitä kautta, että yksilökeskeisyys ja yksilön itsenäisyys tekee yhteistyön mahdottomaksi."

[Charluff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve just skimmed the book to get the main ideas and found it super interesting. It compares three different aborigine societies from Papúa guinea to observe if individual traits come from nurture or nature.

Though it dates back to 1930s (I recommend reading the conclusion at the end), it states that each society determines traits that are accepted as normal, and imprints them to each individual when they are kids. If an individual does not live up to the expectations, he/ she becomes an abnormal and gets bullied.

This is specially relevant when it comes to male/female traits that we are raised to believe are normal, when in fact it’s just something that we’re imprinted to believe as normal.

“If we are to reach a richer culture, with richer values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find it’s fitting place.”

[Christopher Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Almost gave it three stars because the bulk of it is a dry read. That's not against the content, which is excellent and illuminating, but simply the experience of reading it.
But good lord, that preface and the concluding chapters! Some of the most brilliant stuff I've ever read. I would encourage anyone to at least get this from a library and read those parts. I'll be revisiting those soon enough, I read them too quickly. Fantastic quotes, and very applicable to my own life and many people I've known closely.

[Zoe :) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il était fascinant de lire comment les sociétés peuvent différer, soulignant ainsi leur diversité intrinsèque. Mead a réussi à ouvrir les yeux des perspectives occidentales, en mettant en lumière que l'idée d'une seule société considérée comme supérieure et idéale est profondément ethnocentrique. Son livre illustre parfaitement cette réalité, montrant qu'il n'existe pas de modèle universel de société qui soit intrinsèquement meilleur que les autres.

[Ffiamma · Rating 4 out of 5]

attraverso lo studio delle abitudini e dei costumi di tre popolazioni della nuova guinea, margaret mead ci fa vedere l'influsso del sesso sul temperamento e ci mostra che le differenze tra uomini e donne sono spesso create dai condizionamenti sociali. studio degli anni 30, molto chiaro e affascinante- da perdercisi dentro.

[Waris Ahmad Faizi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provocative!

"Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies" is a significant work by renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead, originally published in 1935. In this groundbreaking book, Mead explores the relationship between culture, gender roles, and human behavior by examining the social practices of three different South Pacific societies: the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli (Chambri) tribes in Papua New Guinea.

The book presents a comparative study of these societies and their distinct approaches to sex, gender, and temperament. Mead's research challenges prevailing Western assumptions about the universality of gender roles and behavior by showing that these roles can vary significantly between cultures.

Mead's findings are summarized as follows:

Arapesh: Mead describes the Arapesh as a gentle and nurturing society. Both men and women in this society exhibit what Westerners might consider "feminine" traits, such as cooperation, affection, and a focus on building strong social bonds. In Arapesh culture, both genders are expected to be emotionally expressive and caring.
Mundugumor: The Mundugumor, in contrast, is portrayed as an aggressive and competitive society. Both men and women in this society exhibit what Westerners might consider "masculine" traits, such as aggression, dominance, and a focus on personal achievement. In this culture, both genders are expected to be assertive and competitive.
Tchambuli (Chambri): Mead characterizes the Tchambuli society as having an unusual reversal of gender roles compared to Western norms. In Tchambuli culture, men are more focused on personal appearance and relationships, often displaying more "feminine" traits, while women take on a more practical and assertive role, resembling traditional Western male characteristics.

Mead's work challenges the idea of fixed, biologically determined gender roles and underscores the role of culture in shaping these roles. She argues that the behaviors and temperaments of individuals are influenced by the social norms and expectations of their societies.

Overallm, "Sex and Temperament" is a landmark text in the field of anthropology and gender studies. It not only contributed to the understanding of the cultural relativity of gender but also had a significant impact on the feminist movement and discussions of gender roles and identity. Margaret Mead's research remains a critical resource for scholars and researchers examining the complex interplay of culture, society, and gender.

[P K · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'd rate this 2.5 I found the idea of this book super exciting. Mead was exploring cultures along the Sepik at a magical time when the tribes were documented by the Australian government, but had thus far had very little contact with most of the world. Mead was writing at a time when ideas about the inherent qualities of each gender were so entrenched in many people that it seemed ridiculous to question them. If I had been a woman in the 1930's I imagine I would have constantly felt a little out of place and freakish that my desires aligned so poorly with the cultural expectations for my gender. It would have been life changing, and so self affirming to see that the relationship between men and women (and the expectations for each sex) vary so widely depending on cultural context, that it's not biologically immutable at all. In the Arapesh people men and women are both gentle and very conflict averse. Mundugumor society on the other hand is a violent and cut-throat competition with little emotional intimacy for both men and women. Among the Tchambuli, women are dominant and have bigger responsibilities than the men. Additionally, Mead herself would have been such a radical outlier. A female scientist exploring areas so remote and uncontacted that she was the first to record the intimate details of these societies. The independence of mind and lifestyle and her pioneering research would have helped to redefine my ideas of what women could successfully do. So I understand that Mead's work holds important scientific and cultural value, and a part of me was swept away by the romance and adventure. However, Mead's books just aren't tightly written. There were lots of interesting sections, and much more synthesis and meta analysis of the cultures than in Coming of Age in Samoa, but some sections were so repetitive and just dragged on and on. Single anecdotes go on for multiple pages beyond their usefulness or interestingness. In short, the situation really stimulated my imagination and some sections were very readable, but the book as a whole, and Mead's books in general from what I've read so far, would really benefit from a good editor.

[Melissa Dawdaughter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This ethnography is great in so many ways. Mead’s descriptions of life in three different societies are wonderful, balancing analysis of social structure with details of the day to day life of her subjects in a way that makes it an easy and enjoyable read, unlike the dry tomes of so many of her contemporaries.

However did I manage to pass a course in gender and sexuality without reading this wonderful book? All I can say is that my then anthropology lecturer had the most animated, strange facial expressions and intricate make-up, that I spent most of the lectures watching the way she spoke, rather than actually listening to what she said. Not much of an excuse, it’s true.

Actually, it was R.A. Wilson’s book “Prometheus Rising” that introduced me to Mead’s work. In it, Wilson asks the readers to check out Mead and then write “a five page proof demonstrating that the taboos in our tribe make more sense objectively than the taboos of the tribes she studied”. Wilson’s aim is, I think, to encourage The Reader to question the extent to which ideas we hold as innate and scientific, are actually a result of cultural conditioning.

The questions that Mead addresses regards gender stereotypes are more relevant than ever today. Mead’s hypothesis, having studied three societies (two of which don’t have concepts of male and female temperaments but see both men and women as equally nurturing –in the case of the Arapesh- or equally aggressive and hostile – in the case of the Mundugumor) is that perceived sex differences are a result of social conditioning and not a result of biology.

Considering the sudden increase in people reporting body dysphoria, it is interesting to see a study that examines social constructs of sexuality and also gives a fair amount of time to analysis of people who, due to their individual characters, cannot meet the expectations of their society.
I am sure that there are criticisms of Mead’s work and method to be made. In fact, having read this I am now interested to read other books on this subject to understand to what extent Mead’s hypothesis is borne out by other studies, and what criticisms have been levelled at her methodology. To me, this is a sign of a really good book: stimulating the mind, encouraging the reader to learn more about the topic, and asking us to question our assumptions.
I love this book. If you are interested in human nature/nurture and gender constructs, then you should read this.

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gran antropóloga y material excelente,me hubiera gustado ver más imágenes de las culturas de las que se habla.Se revela la gran importancia de la cultura y como moldea toda la personalidad y sociedad entera resultando en muchos aspectos positivos y negativos.Mas allá de ello se habla también de como influye y es influida en cuanto al sexo y papeles masculino,femenino u otras variantes.Algo complicado de leer en los últimos capítulos.Genial libro.

[vit ☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

li, ou li meio por cima pra uma disciplina, que acabou dia 20 de maio, por isso é a data do término da leitura.
num geral, gosto bastante da escrita da mead e como ela aborda essa diferença entre o comportamento desses povos, e como ela tenta entender eles mesmo sabendo que ela tem uma visão própria que vem formada da cultura na qual ela está inserida.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written, but very dated compared to our current society. I can definitely see why it caused controversary at the time of its publishing. Excellent example of our studies of other peoples, and our biases inherent in those studies.

[Rogelio Fernandez]

anger

[Nicolette · Rating 4 out of 5]

- přehled o primitivních kulturách
Autorka to píše krásně a čtivě. Přesto u některých kmenů se pozastavuje více, u některých méně.
Přesto jsem si ke knize vytvořila určitý antropologický vztah.

[LaanSiBB]

Weight of sex and upbringing expectations can be expanded into other parts of cultural studies

[Billy · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great course in anthropology!

[Nora Linnea · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bok om antropologisk feltarbeid fra 30-tallet! Planen er å få bruk for den i bacheloroppgaven. Vil si den er litt rotete, men at hun «rydder opp» i konklusjonen

[Leo · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[David Rodríguez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pero cómo vas a escribir algo así en los años 30????? Gracias por ser la menos rancia de la época.

[Arianne X · Rating 5 out of 5]

Celebrating Diversity in Modern Societies

Mead’s ultimate and enduring contribution is in creating a space for tolerance, understanding and acceptance of the natural diversity that occurs in any society with respect to socially defined traditional gender role expectations. That is, based on her study of ‘primitive’ societies, she teaches us how to embrace and celebrate diversity in modern societies. But this is often overridden by rigid temperamental qualities and social expectations educated into both sexes.

Mead tells us that there is no one right or correct way to go about courtship, marriage, and sex. In fact, there are many ways of sorting through sexual identity and relationships. What are too often thought of as innate differences between the sexes are really socially programmed differences. What is ‘naturally’ masculine or ‘naturally’ feminine is a product of cultural conditioning, not biological determinism. In other words, the social is mistaken for the biological. In our cultural paradigm, what is true and natural or false and unnatural is the result of cultural conditioning and social programing, not the biology of sex. The trouble occurs when deviations form cultural conditioning and social programming are assumed to be biologically based and unnatural and used as a means of sorting, judging, and condemning any deviations as well, unnatural.

Mead shows us that socially defined differences in temperament, manner or perspective between male and female do not have an innate basis in nature. There is no natural or biologically pre-determined sexual temperament. Forcing males and females into socially defined gender roles deprives society of value-added individual skills which never develop because they are repressed since they do not fit into predefined social gender roles. This also leads to individual lives of frustration which imposes added social cost. Both males and females suffer when there are strict socially defined gender roles (social fictions) for each sex. Regimentation of gender roles based on sexual identity is debilitating. The resolution is to build a society which creates a space for many divergent perspectives and temperamental tendencies without regard to biological determinism in the areas of sex and skin color and without regard to social conditioning in the areas of social class and gender role. This will eliminate the unhealthy drive to unnaturally instill temperamental qualities in some people while extirpating temperamental qualities in other people based on sexual identity at birth. Patterns of behavior should be based on individual qualities thus enhancing diversity. Gender, class, and color can all be limiting and artificial molds for individual human beings which stifles creativity and deprives society as such.

[Carter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was written in 1935 and writing style/language being indicative of that time period was somewhat dry and formal. This is understandable because of both the time frame and the fact that this book was written for educational purposes/scholarly audiences. This made the book somewhat of a long read.

However, Margaret Mead did a fantastic job of addressing her initial concern, that of the differences in male and female behavior in the context of cultural norms. She was able to follow three vastly different tribes and provided a detailed account of aspects usually associated with gender, such as expressions of emotion, parenting style and contributions to the tribe (who provides the food, who is involved in important ceremonies, etc.).

She also did a fantastic job of concluding the book by applying this information to modern society and discussing the impact of gender roles as they affect modern society. Overall, an interesting read and the conclusions she drew are still relevant today.