8/7/2019 aa.1964.66.3.02a00220

1/3

Book ReviewsGENERAL AND ETHNOLOGY

Six Cultures: Studies of Child Rearilzg. BEATRICEB. WHITING(ed.) New York: JohnReviewed by MARGARETMEAD,The American Museum o j Natural History

This massive study can be viewed in two ways: as a resource for teaching, whichenables stu de nts to confron t successively six contrasting cu ltures in th e pages of a singleheavy volume, or as the first published vo lume of a major research enterprise.The research design called for concentration by six research teams, each consistingof a man an d a woman worker, on obtaining comparative da ta on child rearing prac-tices, in cultures abo ut which m uch was a lready known, in a cultural context relevant tothe inquiry. T his design climaxes m any years of work by Joh n W hiting and his associ-ate s in reducing intrac table an d incompa rable field mate rials to units t ha t can be com-pare d by relatively simple statistical techniques. I n the face of much criticism b y criticswho have dealt with the approach as a whole (e.g., Edward Norbeck, Donald E.Walker, and Mimi Cohen, The Interpretat ion of Data : Puber ty Ri tes , AmericanAnthropologist, 64 (19621,463-85) an d also by field workers who hav e felt th a t the ir ownfield work was distorted b y a Procrustean framew ork, John Wh iting and his collabora-tors have continued to insist tha t the correlation of a series of isolated ele men ts of childrearing w ith elements of th e whole cultur e, selected for theore tical relevance, will pro-duce results of scientific impo rtanc e.Th is project, majorly financed by the Ford Foundation, ga ve the investigators anoppo rtunity to design the research well in advance and to m ake certain th at each tea m,using like methods, would collect comparable samples of parent-child behavior. At thesam e time each field team was accorded generous leeway in stressing th ose aspe cts of theparticular culture in which they themselves were most interested. The general con-ceptual scheme of the project is presented in a chart (p , 5 ) :

Wiley a n d Sons, 1963, vi, 1017 pp., illustra tions. $12.50.

E- - MaintenanceSystemsEconorn*is\ sjlructun

1Child RearingPractices

Adult Adult BehaviorLeisure timeactivity, elc.Cultural ProductsReligious beliefsTheories of diseaseFolk talesChild BehaviorGamesCultural ProductsFantasySayingsRecreationConcepb of world

T he principal emphasis on comparability was in th e selection of the six samples.Each field team worked in a community of between 50 and 100 families and with asam ple of 24 mo thers , each of whom had at least one child aged 3 to 10years. Th e moth-ers were interviewed on a standard schedule and the children were systematically ob-658

8/7/2019 aa.1964.66.3.02a00220

2/3

Book Reviews 659served and interviewed. These s tand ard results are com bined here w ith m ore generalobservations in th e sections on child rearing. Th e six cultures studied are Nyansongo: aGusii community in Kenya (Rob ert A. LeVine and Barb ara B. LeVine); the Ra jput s ofKhalapur, India (Leigh Minturn and John T. Hitchcock); Ta ira: an Okinawan village(Thomas W. Maretzki and Hatsu mi Maretzki);the Mixtecans of Juxtlahuaca, Mexico(Kimball Romney and Romaine Rom ney); Taron g: an Ilocos barrio in the Philippines(William F. Nydeg ger and Corinne Ny degg er); and the New E ngland ers of OrchardTown, U S A . (John L. Fischer and Ann Fischer).T he six field teams were provided with a guide (John Whiting et al., Field Guidefo r aStudy of Socialization i n Five Societies, 1954), which contains a discussion of the ninerelevant behavioral system s to be studied in th e field and the hypotheses to be testedby this com parative work. Th e theory underlying the choice of behavioral systems an dthe full hypotheses to be tested ar e not presented in this volume, bu t a re only brieflyreferred to in the introduction.Dr. Whiting states in her introduction th at this volume presents the c ultural mate-rial, Fur the r volumes will present a preliminary testing of the basic hypotheses, usingthe cultural m aterial already presented, and also a n analysis based on individ ual differ-ences in the behavior of children and th e metho ds of child rearing reported by individ-ual mothers (p. 6). T h e introduction closes with an expression of hope t h at readerswith different theoretical intere sts will be able to use the m aterials for purposes of com-parison and also th at relevant da ta for a fuller testing of some of th e hypotheses m ay beobtained through furth er studies. T he present volume contains no conclusion, no inte-grating state m ent ab out the six cultures tha t are described. Each of th e cultur al studiesis presented flatly in two sections. Part I presents the ethnographic background ar-ranged in categories particular to each field teams research interests; Part 11,on childtraining, presents generalized statements and statistics, for example, on the number ofmothers who said they would let their babies wait for food. T h e arrangem ent is more orless uniform throug hout, an d th e stu de nt who is unfamiliar with anthropological mono-graph s should get from this presentation some sense of the comparabilities and in-comparabilities which the ethnographic method provides.No at te m pt is made in this volume to deal with one very serious theoretical issueth at h as been raised in th e past in discussionsof comparative work in which a section ofa larger society-a ward in a great city , a pea san t comm unity in a complex class orcastesociety, a small town in a modern nation-is treated a s a un it th at is comp arable with atribal group like the Gusii (studied by the LeVines). The perfunctory nature of thematerial on Orchard Town (studied by the F ischers) provides new grounds for discuss-ing this uncritical approach to the problem that is involved. It is time th at we had afull dress stud y of the comparability of com mu nities of different types and of th e cir-cumstances in which it is useful to t reat a part-society as a whole uni t.For purposes of really testing the value of ca refully organ ized research specificallycarried out for cross-cultural comparison, the present volume is quite insufficient. Aseries of flat statemen ts or small statistics abo ut child rearing, which are n ot integratedwith the m aterial on th e culture as a whole, provides a n inad equ ate frame of referencefor the reader who does not yet h ave the rich additional information which the researchgroup is still in th e process of analyzing. However, this indeterm inancy ab ou t the wayin which the materials will fit into th e final ambitious research plan in no way detr actsfrom some of the richness of the m aterials in th e individual studies. Bu t jus t because thedifferent pairs of field workers were left free to develop their own styles and (within thelimits of the formal outline) methods of presentation, th e materials are not subject to

8/7/2019 aa.1964.66.3.02a00220

3/3

660 American Anthropologist [66, 19641furth er analysis as th ey stan d. The re is no way, for example, in which to te st, in thispresentation, th e investigators assumption t h a t if these hypotheses ar e correct, wewould expect consequent differences [following on different childhood situations] in th esocial control systems (p. 11, italics supplied). Th is sta te m en t is, in fa ct, a hypothesisab ou t the direction of change, and it can be tested only by material on change in thead ult social control system an d in child rearing practices.The university teacher m ay well find this book a suitable source for intensive stu dyby st ud ent s who are beginning to grasp the com parative method. Th e rest of us mustput this first publication on the shelf until later volumes appear and the full, granddesign is worked out. The book is pleasantly illustrated, but apparently no modernmethods of instru m ental recording (such as photography) were systematically used toincrease th e compa rability of th e materials obtained in t he field.

Structural Models in Folklore. ELLI-KAIJAKBNGKs,and PIERREM A R A N D A .(MidwestFolklore, vol. 12, no , 3.) Bloomington: Indian a U niversity, 1962. pp . 133-192, notes.Reviewed by ALAND U N D E S ,Urtiversiiy of Califomia, Berkeley

This monographic article, brilliant in conception, appears to have been deliveredsomewhat prem aturely. It at te m pt s to bring th e techniques of m odel construction andstru ctu ral analysis to bear u pon t he tra dit ion ally theory-poor discipline of folklore.How ever, in a ttem ptin g to provide models for essentially all the genres of folklore andin seeking to define both structure and folklore in two brief opening paragraphs, theauth ors cannot avoid being somewhat t entativ e and superficial.Starting with the unproved assumption that folkloristic genres are binarily based,th e Mara nd as apply a modified version of th e LBvi-Strauss bra nd of struct ural analysisto a variety of traditional forms including charm s, myths, and riddles. Four m odels arepresented (in both wr itten an d graphic form). Inasmuch as all the models hav e an iden-tical poin t of dep arture, nam ely, a situat ion requiring med iation, th e critical differentiaof the four models are the outcome alternatives. In Model I, Zero Mediation, no at-tem pt is made to alter t he initial sta te of disequilibrium. In Model 11,Failing M edia-tion, an at tem pt is made by a mediator, bu t it is unsuccessful. In Model 111,SuccessfulMediation: N ullification of the In itial Im pac t, the m ediator is able to remedy th e initialsituati on. I n Model IV, Successful Mediation: Per mu tation of t he Initial Im pac t, thefinal situat ion is not ius t equal to, bu t in fact greater or better than the initial one.Assuming th a t these model distinctions are valid (and it is unfortun ate th a t only oneillustration of Model I1 is provided), th e question must be raised as to the universalityof th e models. Tex ts analyzed by th e aut ho rs include Cheremis sonnets, Finnish leg-ends, and A merican Ind ian creation m yths. Ideally, model construction should first beculturally relative before atte m pting t he construction of cross-cultural models. It is notaltogether clear whether or not the a utho rs consider th a t their m odels ar e applicable toworldwide folklore. If they are so applicable, one would wish to see the models testedagainst folklore materials from such a rea s as Africa an d Oceania.

A more serious question concerns the possible confusion of the s tru ctu re of text withthe structure of context. For example, in the analysis of charm structu re, i t is claimedth a t one of the co nstitue nt structur al elements is the healer himself, that is, th e personuttering th e charm. T he au thors themselves comment upon the fact t ha t the m ediatorin this instance appears outside the text, but they fail to realize that their stateddefinition of folklore as unrecorded m entifacts could hardly include the uttere r of a

$1.00,