This book is yet another nitpicking attack on Derek Freeman that, as usual, treats disagreements on interpretation and judgment as if they were huge errors in concrete facts that discredited Freeman.

Martin Orans implicirly admits that Samoan society was as Derek Freeman depicts it (puritanical, authoritarian, unequal, and punitive) and was not as Margaret Mead depicted it (relaxed, sexually free, egalitarian, and permissive).

Orans makes it sound as if he had proven Freeman wrong or dishonest on key matters of fact, when the actual substance of his accusation is a mere disagreement with Freeman on motives, purpose, beliefs and intentions, a topic on which neither Orans nor Freeman have any special qualifications.

The substance of Freeman's criticism is that Mead, and the anthropology profession, presented an account of Samoa that was radically false

Orans writes as if showing Freeman wrong on the issue of whether Mead was hoaxed exculpates Mead, and anthropology. It does not. Orans writes as if he is accusing Freeman of important errors of fact and substance, but when we look at the actual details he is merely accusing Freeman of attributing incorrect thoughts and intentions to Mead's actions, issues on which the truth cannot be known, and is difficult to even define, issues on which neither Freeman nor Orans have any special qualifications or ability.

Given that Mead's depiction of Samoa was untrue, and was widely accepted and taught by the anthropological profession, as Orans implicitly admits, we must conclude that Mead, and the anthropological profession, are either fools or liars, and most likely something of both. Deciding where self deception ends, and deliberate deception of others begins, is more a job for a priest than a job for anthropologist, so if Freeman has got it wrong, as Orans argues that he got it wrong, that is both unsurprising and unimportant.

Orans writes as if Freeman's weakness on the question of the extent to which Mead was hoaxed show Freeman as a bad scientist, but rather than condemning Freeman as a bad scientist, the evidence and arguments presented in this book merely condemn him as bad priest, a condemnation that is probably accurate, but hardly surprising.

Orans argues that Margaret Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, was somehow being scientific and responsible in presenting a politically motivated image of Samoa that was clearly false, and that they were well aware it was false, and that Freeman is somehow unscientific and irresponsible in presenting an image of Samoan society that is clearly true.

Freeman argues that the Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, were hoaxed largely due their strong desire to be self deceived. If, as Orans argues, they were not hoaxed, that does not make the falsehoods that they presented about Samoa any less of a hoax, it merely makes them more guilty of wickedness, but less guilty of stupidity.

Neither Orans or Freeman are trained to distinguish between wickedness and stupidity.. It is not their job.

If Orans's position on Mead being hoaxed is correct, and Freeman's position is wrong, then the conclusion we should draw is not that Mead is right, but that she was a liar and not a victim of self deception. The hoax is Freeman's excuse for Mead's behavior, not the substance of his attack on Mead, thus for Orans to attack Freeman on this issue of Mead being hoaxed as if it was the substance of his accusation, as if refuting it exculpated Mead and anthropology, is irrelevant and deceptive, an attempt to manipulate the reader. If Orans is right on this issue, and Freeman is wrong, we should think worse of Mead, and of Anthropology and anthropologists in general, not better.

Derek Freeman's absurd, non-scientific attacks on Margaret Mead's early work are handily skewered by Orans in this study. That ANY scientist's work should be expected to weather 70 yesrs of subsequent scholarship and methodological developments is completely ridiculous, but Freeman uses this ploy as a way to attack not only Mead but all of anthropology that does not share his sociobiological bias. It is indeed those who believe in culture as a shaping force in human life that are Freeman's true target, and Orans exposes him for the blaggard that he is. It is noteworthy that Freeman's attack was not published until after Mead's death, so he is a coward to boot. Mead's pioneering works are now coming to the fore as the precursors to many significant modern trends such as collaborative research, media studies and cultural studies. Her contributions are far from dead, and will live long after Freeman's silly attack is forgotten. Bravo to Orans for exposing this fraud.

Anthropologists have been in damage control since Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa (1983). Although Mead had long since ceased to be a research leader, Freeman linked her high standing with anthropology's research paradigm and threw both to the sharks. Anthropologists thus found themselves in the compromised position of defending a study of only historical interest, in order to save face. In the latest episode of the contest, Freeman inflicted a grave wound. Mead got Samoa so wrong, he claims, because she was hoaxed. 'A whole view of the human species was constructed out of the innocent lies of two young women', says Freeman. 'That one of the ruling ideologies of our age should have originated in this way is both comic-and frightening!' Plainly Freeman has fitted the dunce cap on anthropology.

Martin Orans's study gives anthropologists something to cheer about. It removes the dunce cap by presenting what to my mind is a conclusive rebuttal to the duping allegation. But it achieves something more important. Orans shows by example how to get beyond the storm of controversy and personal antagonisms and the mystique of prestige to examine the issues on the evidence. The book is a model of composure heedless of fear or favor. There is no impulse to vanquish, no concern to save or diminish face, no demonization or valorization of paradigms, no flag-waving. Refreshing!

The issue is the reliability of Mead's Samoan ethnography. Orans places this examination on a factual basis by comparing the text of Coming of Age with Mead's field records. The leading questions informants and what are their reliability? how did she evaluate the information she collected? what was her methodology for weaving the extraordinarily intimate portrait of Samoan psychology? does the evidence support her global claim that coming of age in Samoa was unperturbed by adolescent storm and stress, and does this evidence support the conclusion that adolescent psychology and behavior are not materially affected by the biology of sexual maturation?

The contested ethnographic terrain concerns Mead's descriptions of sexual moeurs and of aggression. According to Freeman, she greatly inflated the degree of permissible sexual congress and greatly diminished the degree of competition and aggression. Orans examination of the field record shows that Mead collected substantial evidence of norms and practices restraining adolescent sexuality. Freeman's countervailing evidence adds little to what she knew. Orans writes, Mead 'knew perfectly well' that free love did not prevail in Samoa. There is very little support in the field materials for numerous particular claims about sexual license and no support for generalizations that depicted Samoa as a free love paradise. Mead purported to have obtained the information primarily through interviews with adolescent girls. But the records of these interviews are sparse and do not support her claim. Her principal informant on sexual practices was indeed not a girl but a male of her own age, who did not remotely suggest Mead's sensational reports of stress-free homosexuality and lesbianism among adolescents.

How on earth, then, did Mead arrive at her celebrated conclusions? Orans points out that Mead did in fact report many of the restrictions on adolescent sexuality. The result was a deeply inconsistent text, which she reconciled by repeatedly suggesting that strict norms were winked at in practice. For example, the conspicuous Christian worship of the Samoans she squared with free love by claiming that they did not internalize the teaching on sinfulness of the flesh. In addition, Mead made 'extravagant claims' on the basis of 'exceedingly limited data . . .'. This she did because she was 'not [on] a voyage of discovery' but was 'out to make the strongest possible case for her position'.

The rebuttal to the hoax allegation is straight-forward. Mead did not record the specious information and demonstrably did not credit it because she knew-and stated in her book-that ceremonial virgins were chaste. In addition, by the time the duping occurred, she had already collected testimony that she interpreted as evidence of promiscuity among adolescents of common status. So the prank was not credited and added nothing to what she thought she knew.

This book takes its title from Orans' assessment of Mead's global claims to have proved the independence of cultural practices from biology in this test case, and in particular to have proven that Samoan adolescents are free of stress. These arguments are so vague that they cannot be empirically tested and hence haven't reached the threshold required of scientific claims. 'Not even wrong', Orans advises, is 'the harshest scientific criticism of all'. It strikes both Mead's global claims and Freeman's purported refutation.

In drawing out 'lessons for us all', internal contradictions and grandiose claims to knowledge that she could not possibly have had and is so weakly supported by data, could have survived and formed the foundation for an illustrious career raises substantial doubt regarding improved standards of research'. This statement is highly 'incorrect', viewed from the perspective of controversy, but it is wholesomeness itself judged from the point of view of the rejuvenation needed by anthropology. Orans' book deserves to be studied in every graduate seminar on method and evidence.

It is not a criticism to note that the author has not spoken the last word. While we can now better understand how biases shaped Mead's evaluation of her evidence, there remains the problem of claims made in the complete absence of evidence. These are many, the most sensational being alleged homosexuality and lesbianism. In addition, she endowed herself with omniscience about adolescent experience that only novelists can have.

Did she, then, spin a yarn?

Hiram Caton Griffith University Editor, of America, 1990.