ECI - Paper 2
OK, after four hours (give or take) of my re-reading the text, typing ideas on the text, staring googley-eyed at the text, cussing out the text, and then staring at a dark room, it’s finally done. Admittedly I was not as prepared for this as I had hoped I’d be. Obviously when the teacher says to read over the essay, what he actually means is to read and take notes and compose thoughts and ideas into written sentences that you will later use in your *insert ludicrous number of pages* paper won’t beat the tar out of you =..= I really do wish he’d just go ahead and actually say that as opposed to scaring us.
Anyway, here it is for ill or nill. My second English Comp paper. It’s supposed to be a 3 page summary of Margaret Mead’s “Sex and Temperament”. Interesting material when I’m not trying to dissect it.
Summary of Margaret Mead’s “Sex and Temperament”
In the first four paragraphs, Mead explains what she is trying to convey by eliminating what she feels is irrelevant. She goes on to add that the purpose of this paper is not focusing on or catering to either sex, because to do so would be to ignore the core issue. The issue she wishes to convey, via her own research into more primitive societies, is that all members of a society are expected to fulfill the roles that their society constructs. She maintains that focusing on one gender over the other is biased, because “the growing boy is shaped [. . .] as inexorably as is the growing girl.” (860) She declares that every culture, even our modern societies, have devised roles for the sexes; and, each society will punish or puzzle over those individuals who defy the norm. In some cases these roles are opposites and in others more diverse, but all societies expect conformity to these roles.
In paragraphs five and six, Mead gives illustrations of the different tribes she has studied and their beliefs on sex temperament. She admits that she was surprised at their views on acceptable behavior, more so because two of the tribes held no notion that men and women had specifically different temperaments. She also implies that these primitive peoples are in fact more civilized, in that they do not assume their ways are the right ways, thus marking every other society as wrong. She admits that she also subscribed to the idea of masculine and feminine attributes, realizing that, “the temperaments which we regard as native to one sex might instead be mere variations of human temperament” (862). This epiphany into social conditioning is what motivated the study of sex and temperament.
In paragraph seven through twenty-two, Mead explains (in vivid detail) how the personalities a society constructs for its members to fill can be a powerful and dangerous tool. She adds that there are at least three options in crafting a society. Firstly, she illustrates the society of flattering opposites, in which both sexes are standardized as entirely dissimilar. The problem with this method is that it wastes the unique talents of the individual, forcing them to conform or be ostracized. This would create amazing stories of rebels and deviants, but the social stigma they would carry before being venerated would be a difficult one. The second method would be to diversify all roles, removing any distinction as masculine or feminine. This would create a more relaxed, albeit dull society in which all things have lost their complexity. The danger within a society that stresses the uniqueness of every individual is the radical even dangerous methods a nonconformist may go to in order to prove themselves as notable. She adds that society does not need to standardize its members or utterly abolish sexual diversity, but understand the collective as well as the variances within a group.
Mead continues on in paragraph twenty-three and twenty-four, stating that in a society that looses its rigid views of sex differences often shift their views to confine members of class or rank. She then elaborates that this confines the members of a society whom are wealthy within a state of arrogance, while the poor are expected to remain subservient. However, this will be of little comfort to the aggressive pauper or the malleable aristocrat. It almost seems as if she is trying to convey a human need to define members of a society into a strict role, even if what defines a person is as trivial as eye color. She argues that we must broaden our view of history and human behavior, and understand that even the liberation of a certain sect will inevitably imprison another.
In paragraph twenty-five and twenty six, Mead illustrates another way that society can enrich the whole while not abandoning the individual. The main goal would be a focus on actual distinctions, loosing the rigidity one faces over contrived differences as opposed to genuine differences. She emphasizes the fact that a society can celebrate its individuals as well as its over-all culture by eliminating the unrealistic expectations that inhibit both the sexes. This allows both man and women to exercise their individual gifts to aid their society. And in doing such, society would allow its children to grow, nurturing their unique gifts into fruition and not focus on the confines of their sex. It is mind-boggling to imagine how many could benefit if their own temperament and personality were actually taken into account as opposed to the biological form one is born into. She acknowledges the history of societies, declaring that this society would not forget the “standards of diversity” (869) it was built upon. In such a setting, she states, society would grow and flourish, because that cultural lifestyle would cultivate the capabilities inherent within each of its members.
In her closing paragraph, Mead reminds the reader of past societies necessity to uphold “artificial distinctions” (870) most obviously between genders. She argues that the individual will not gain anything by demanding equality and denying all differences. Instead she encourages a wider vision, one in which we acknowledge and understand the extensive portrayal of characteristics within a single individual. She concludes that the ideal society would be one in which sex is not a defining factor, but the personality and the gifts an individual possesses are the qualities that determine their place in society. Mead’s overall message is to focus on what is real as opposed to what has been fabricated to appear real.
WORKS CITED
Mead, Margaret. “Sex and Temperament.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for CollegWriters. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 8th ed. Boston : Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 854-71. Print.
I think I’ll go and pack my head in ice now =..=
