Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario, N6A 5C2, London, Ontario, Canada.
J Youth Adolesc. 1992 Oct;21(5):499-527. doi: 10.1007/BF01537393.
This paper presents an analysis of the Mead/Freeman controversy with a focus on Mead's claim that "coming of age" in 1920s Samoa was accomplished with relative ease. It is concluded that, while Mead appears to have engaged in some inappropriate generalizations to the rest of Samoa from the small island of Ta'u, Freeman's counterevidence to support his claim that adolescence on Ta'u would have been problematic is weak and easily dismissed. Accordingly, Freeman's claim to have refuted Mead's findings is based on evidence that itself is easily refuted. Thus, Mead's pioneering study, which was the first to argue that adolescent "storm and stress" is not universal, continues to stand the test of time.
本文对米德/弗里曼的争议进行了分析，重点关注米德的观点，即 20 世纪 20 年代在萨摩亚“成年”相对容易。结论认为，尽管米德似乎从较小的图瓦岛对萨摩亚其他地区进行了一些不恰当的概括，但弗里曼提出的反驳证据表明，图瓦岛的青春期可能会有问题，这一证据是薄弱的，很容易被推翻。因此，弗里曼声称反驳了米德的发现，这一说法的依据是本身就容易被推翻的证据。因此，米德的开创性研究继续经受住了时间的考验，该研究首次提出青春期的“风暴与压力”并非普遍存在。
