Post B6iADBPlwzWsERv55E by sofia@kittyy.mom
 (DIR) More posts by sofia@kittyy.mom
 (DIR) Post #B6iADBPlwzWsERv55E by sofia@kittyy.mom
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       quite relevantAt least since Margaret Mead’s work in Samoa one hundred years ago, anthropologists have gathered data that would allow them to “veto” claims of universality made by WEIRD social science (LeVine 2007, 250). Mead (1928), in finding that Samoan adolescents did not experience the emotional conflict predicted by psychologist Granville Hall (1904) in his landmark work, exercised this veto. It meant that Hall’s claim of universality for this adolescent trait was unsupportable. A modern example can be found in Attachment Reconsidered: Cultural Perspectives on a Western Theory (Quinn and Mageo 2013). But these “border crossings,” until recently, have been comparatively rare. This is at least partly due to rhetorical and epistemological barriers where lab scientists remain unaware and uninformed about relevant work by ethnographers. By and large, anthropologists and psychologists have stayed within disciplinary boundaries, even though cross-pollination can be very enlightening (Lancy 2020).