A Strong refutation of Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa. Prof. Freeman (Anthropology, Emeritus, Australian National Univ.) maintains that Mead was mistaken--in both methodology and conclusions--about Samoa; and that her popular classic bas perpetuated an idea of cultural determinism that warrants radical revision. He suggests that Mead went to Samoa inadequately trained and also, to a great extent, primed: a student of Franz Boas, she was intent on finding evidence to discredit biological determinism and promote ""the Boasian paradigm""--an explanation of human behavior in purely cultural terms. This Samoa seemed to do, with its portrayal of an adolescence without turbulence in a society punctuated by few conflicts. A ""negative instance"" was thus used to confute the biologists and establish the sovereignty of culture. But succeeding anthropologists failed to discover the peaceful paradise Mead described; reports from her contemporaries (and earlier travelers) suggest a more complex social system with adolescent turmoil and other troubles as prevalent as elsewhere; and biological and psychological findings of the last 50 years also tell us much about human development. Was Mead so dramatically overdetermined? Freeman demonstrates that she went into the field with little preparation, lived with a non-Samoan family, generalized from a small population, and limited her sample to girls. Moreover, the girls she interviewed probably deceived her, especially in answer to questions about sex. Freeman stockpiles his evidence quite thoroughly, consulting a broad range of sources (including eyewitnesses, local newspapers, tribal songs, civic records) and using insights from other disciplines. A well-sustained and provocative argument.