A rhetorical analysis of a scientific controversy: Margaret Mead versus Derek Freeman in cultural anthropology

This rhetorical criticism focuses on the pivotal text in a scientific controversy in, cultural anthropology. In 1983, Derek Freeman published a refutation, Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth. The purpose of these textual analyses is to examine the form of Freeman's refutation as it is revealed in his choice and strategic patterning of language. This study concludes that the form of the refutation was dissatisfying. Freeman's refutation is analyzed using Burke's methods of entitlement, cluster-agon analysis and structure. The analyses reveal that despite Freeman's explicit disclaimer that he was interested only in the scientific import of Mead's research, his implicit arguments attack Mead personally.;The entitlement reveals the primary agon to be between two agents, Mead and Freeman, rather than two sets of evidence. The cluster-agon analysis reveals Freeman's god-term to be "science." Freeman identifies his "research" with "science" explicitly and divides Mead's "research" from it. He associates her "research" with "depiction," "error," "unscientific choices," the "ideology of cultural determinism," and "myth." Freeman's account of Mead's errors is personalized interpretation. Freeman identifies Mead with "romantic notions," "ideology," and "youth": She is therefore capable of being duped by Samoan adolescents. In contrast, he identifies himself as an "expert," "insider," and "spokesperson for Samoa.";The structure reveals that despite the quantity of evidence Freeman adduces to support his claims, the evidence is fragmented and decontextualized. The textual analyses reveal Freeman's refutation to be dissatisfying on its own scientific terms where expectations of accuracy, objectivity, and critical rationalism are explicit.;These findings clarify and contribute to the current discussion in the controversy. Freeman argues that scholars resist his refutation because it requires a paradigm shift within the discipline. The findings of this study support cultural anthropologists' claims that their resistance results from a text ethnographically problematic and dissatisfying by its own scientific standards.;Given cultural anthropology's current exploration into the scientific and rhetorical dimensions of its ethnography, this rhetorical study of the Mead/Freeman controversy serves to illuminate its suasory components and contributes to the growing interest in the rhetoric of science.