"Cultural icon," professional maven, "true public intellectual," staff-toting "prophet," and even, "Mother of the World" and "Grandmother to the Nation" - such are the phrases that have surfaced in descriptions of Margaret Mead. She was an "indomitable," "controversial" and "revolutionary" woman in her personal style, her topical interests and her methodological concerns. She was opinionated, she was difficult, and, as a result, at times she seems to loom larger than life even decades after her death. But she's ours - as a Barnard graduate, an anthropologist, a New Yorker, an American and as a world citizen. These characteristics most certainly mark the cultural icon: we celebrate Mead's life because she was daring, outspoken and willing to experiment with new topics, ideas, and technologies. Her face has graced a
and even a wall at Epcott Center, because she stands out as remarkable woman of her times. Margaret Mead was, during her lifetime, a "household word," her activities rendering anthropology intelligible to the average American. As these conference presentations attest, there is also a timelessness about Margaret Mead's character, so that she emerges, most certainly, as a woman of our time, too.
What, then, do the presenters at the conference teach us about Margaret Mead? First, that by the late 1920s Mead had emerged as a vanguard figure within the burgeoning field of American cultural anthropology, and she then defined, throughout the rest of her life, a series of trajectories for the discipline both within its own professional boundaries and in the everyday world beyond. As
as on the shelves at grocery store check-out counters.
As such, throughout the twentieth century Mead's presence defines several significant rites of passage, within a wide array of realms as well as for a host of players. Consider, for instance, the emergence of anthropology in the public sphere; or the indomitable presence of women in our discipline (and, as this conference attests, Barnard's own central position in this development, too); or, perhaps, the rapid ascension of photographic media as a significant research tool; as well as (as
in particular underscores) the ascension of the indigenous production of ethnographic films. With just this handful of examples in mind, one can argue that, without Mead, the world (or at the very least anthropology) could never be the same. I offer this statement not as a romantic reading of her life, but as an observation based on the power of her pioneering spirit. No matter how difficult, or peculiar, or even controversial she may have been, it was her daring and experimental character that enabled Mead to shape the trajectory of our discipline in radical ways. Thus, her ghost still haunts our discussions of gender, ethnocentrism, biological reductionism and the politics of visual representation even now in the twenty-first century. She has transformed us and, as such, the collective anthropological mind as well.
A question that surfaces regularly in conferences such as this that celebrate Mead's life is, why does Mead lack a counterpart today? That is, why has no one taken up her staff and become the public prophet of anthropology? One might easily argue that the discipline is much larger (and, thus, more fragmented), rendering such a singular role impossible in this current world of ours. Further, it is certainly difficult to dispute that her own unique character and talents are difficult to match. As