Foreword

Modern descriptions of primitive people give us a picture of their culture classified according to the varied aspects of human life. We learn about inventions, household economy, family and political organisation, and religious beliefs and practices. Through a comparative study of these data and through information that tells us of their growth and development, we endeavour to reconstruct, as well as may be, the history of each particular culture. Some anthropologists even hope that the comparative study will reveal some tendencies of development that recur so often that significant generalisations regarding the processes of cultural growth will be discovered.

Modern accounts of peoples described as primitive present their cultures by organizing information around different aspects of human life. We learn about inventions, household economics, family and political organization, and religious beliefs and practices. By comparing these findings and studying information about cultural growth and development, we try to reconstruct each culture’s history. We do so as well as we can. Some anthropologists even hope that comparing cultures will reveal patterns of development that recur often enough to support meaningful generalizations. These generalizations would describe how cultures grow.

To the lay reader these studies are interesting on account of the strangeness of the scene, the peculiar attitudes characteristic of foreign cultures that set off in strong light our own achievements and behaviour.

For general readers, these studies are interesting because of their unfamiliar settings and the distinctive attitudes found in foreign cultures. These attitudes make our own achievements and behavior stand out sharply by comparison.

However, a systematic description of human activities gives us very little insight into the mental attitudes of the individual. His thoughts and actions appear merely as expressions of rigidly defined cultural forms. We learn little about his rational thinking, about his friendships and conflicts with his fellowmen. The personal side of the life of the individual is almost eliminated in the systematic presentation of the cultural life of the people. The picture is standardised, like a collection of laws that tell us how we should behave, and not how we behave; like rules set down defining the style of art, but not the way in which the artist elaborates his ideas of beauty; like a list of inventions, and not the way in which the individual overcomes technical difficulties that present themselves.

However, a systematic account of human activities tells us very little about an individual’s attitudes. Their thoughts and actions appear only as expressions of rigidly defined cultural patterns. We learn little about their reasoning, friendships, or conflicts with other people. A systematic account of a people’s cultural life almost entirely leaves out the personal side of individual lives. The picture is standardized, like a collection of laws telling us how we should behave, not how we actually behave. It is like rules defining an artistic style, but not showing how artists develop their ideas of beauty. It is like a list of inventions, not an account of how individuals overcome the technical difficulties they encounter.

And yet the way in which the personality reacts to culture is a matter that should concern us deeply and that makes the studies of foreign cultures a fruitful and useful field of research. We are accustomed to consider all those actions that are part and parcel of our own culture, standards which we follow automatically, as common to all mankind. They are deeply ingrained in our behaviour. We are moulded in their forms so that we cannot think but that they must be valid everywhere.

And yet, how personality responds to culture should concern us deeply. This response makes studying other cultures a valuable and useful field of research. We tend to see all the behaviors within our own culture as common to all humanity. These include the standards we follow automatically. These behaviors and standards are deeply ingrained in how we act. They shape us so thoroughly that we cannot help believing they must apply everywhere.

Courtesy, modesty, good manners, conformity to definite ethical standards are universal, but what constitutes courtesy, modesty, good manners, and ethical standards is not universal. It is instructive to know that standards differ in the most unexpected ways. It is still more important to know how the individual reacts to these standards.

Courtesy, modesty, good manners, and following clear ethical standards are universal. But what counts as courtesy, modesty, good manners, and ethical standards is not universal. We can learn from knowing that standards differ in the most unexpected ways. Even more important is knowing how individuals respond to these standards.

In our own civilisation the individual is beset with difficulties which we are likely to ascribe to fundamental human traits. When we speak about the difficulties of childhood and of adolescence, we are thinking of them as unavoidable periods of adjustment through which every one has to pass. The whole psycho-analytic approach is largely based on this supposition.

In our own society, individuals face difficulties that we tend to attribute to basic human traits. When we discuss the difficulties of childhood and adolescence, we see these stages as unavoidable periods of adjustment. We think everyone must go through them. The entire psychoanalytic approach is largely based on this assumption.

The anthropologist doubts the correctness of these views, but up to this time hardly any one has taken the pains to identify himself sufficiently with a primitive population to obtain an insight into these problems. We feel, therefore, grateful to Miss Mead for having undertaken to identify herself so completely with Samoan youth that she gives us a lucid and clear picture of the joys and difficulties encountered by the young individual in a culture so entirely different from our own. The results of her painstaking investigation confirm the suspicion long held by anthropologists, that much of what we ascribe to human nature is no more than a reaction to the restraints put upon us by our civilisation.

Anthropologists doubt that these views are correct. But until now, hardly anyone has made the effort to understand a traditional society deeply enough to explore these problems. We are therefore grateful to Miss Mead for immersing herself so fully in the lives of Samoan youth. She gives us a clear picture of young people's joys and difficulties in a culture so different from our own. Her careful research confirms what anthropologists have long suspected. Much of what we attribute to human nature is merely a reaction to the limits our civilization places on us.

Franz Boas.

Franz Boas.