Margaret Mead

...

Despite making several pertinent points in this article, Mead makes several generalizations. Such as while talking about the current peasant population, she tells that how they’re not as anxious as hungry were the primitive people, regarding college admissions, or whether to buy a Ford or Cadillac etc. She also says that an unfortunate event such as a bomb explosion in a city we have not heard of, will create only ‘vague anxiety’, trying to portray the image that it would not induce any fear in us unless we are directly affected. This however is untrue as even in this age, people stress over many unimportant things and any activity globally, directly affects our activities. This can be seen in case of any society where in case a single theft, all the houses around start being more cautious by increasing their security level. By using example of the peasant population and mentioning; ‘e. They are hungry, cold and, in many parts of the world, they dread that local warfare… But surely they are not anxious. ‘ Mead further shows unfair representation of the whole population generally. This makes the reader doubt the validity and logical standing of the argument as she focuses only on a small part of population. One of the biggest logical fallacy in this argument is her main belief that how the fears have faded away with time. She did not clearly differentiate between the fears of older times and the new age anxiety, which are same but only different in nature due to time difference. Fear in older times can be seen in this example; ‘The untouched savage in the middle of New Guinea isn't anxious; he is seriously and continually frightened --of black magic~, of enemies with spears who may kill him or his wives and children at any moment.’ Whereas the new time anxiety has been portrayed by this example; ‘People who are too anxious either refuse to go into cars at all … drive so tensely and overcautiously that they help cause accidents.’ This is what Mead views as ‘Fear vs Anxiety’. The only difference is in the causes whereas the emotion remains same- fear of injury or death. Hence, Mead fails to distinguish between the modern day and old times anxiety and could not uphold the claim of how the society overcame fear when the effects are still the same.

Margaret despite the flaws in her content, has used a language that is soft in its tone. This is because she wants to convey her initial purpose across, that is boasting the claim of how our society is advanced overtime. She maintains a serious attitude while writing however it consists of real life examples that are more relatable to the readers. The coherence can be seen as she successfully transitions from one claim to another as also evident by this; ‘Worry in an empty context means that men die daily little deaths. But good anxiety -- not about the things that were left undone long ago, but which return to haunt and hardy men's minds… intense concern. She also uses questions to make her claim stronger; ‘But if, then, our anxieties are actually signs of hope, why is there such a voice of discontent abroad in the land?’ Considering Mead’s background, she has expertise in the field of study of primitive people, she refers to people of South Sea Island and elaborates a scenario with minor details while making a comparison with people from New Guinea in current world. As Mead was not able to elaborate her claim very efficiently, she practises begging the question- the limited use of evidence to prove her claim, which the reader can point out. She should have stated a known expert in this field to make her statement more credible and to provide a dual-sided aspect on her work, which was not obvious in her work. The paragraphs were well written and comprehensive, but the lack of logical statements along with credible evidence reduce the overall effectiveness of her work.

This essay sheds light on a very interesting topic and shows the evolution of mankind by making a comparison of ideologies in two different eras. Mead established a sound base for the reader to understand the main issue discussed. However, as the essay progressed, the lack of logical statements overshined her expertise in this field. A comparison must not be made on basis of sound assumptions, but evidence from real life which she could not do. Mead tried to encapsulate in her work the change that came in the definition of anxiety whereas naming the modern age fears as ‘anxiety’ does not make it any different. The causes might be different but the implications remain the same. For this purpose, it can be said that this article can be subject to changes for making it a more time worthy read for its audiences.