The Margaret Mead and derek Freeman debate vs Lets' Abolish high Essay

The Margaret Mead and derek Freeman debate vs Lets Abolish high inform by robert Epstein - Essay ExampleA second article titled The Margaret Mead and Derek Freeman Debate, written by Ann M. Bender, Trevor Humphries, and Trevor Michael illustrates the ongoing contention brought on by the nature versus nurture debate. We are a mathematical point of intersection of twain biology and culture and both Margaret Meads book Coming of Age in Samoa, as well as Epsteins article, reinforce this understanding of the debate about how much of our jejune years are a product of biology and how much comes from society.Epsteins article, which calls for a rethinking of adolescence, traces a logical path that concludes that our concept of teenager is a product of our culture. Indeed, Epsteins book, which served as a basis for this article, has been the subject of a considerable number of positive reviews. Authors, professional psychiatrists, and former(a) academic professionals have stated their acc eptance and praise. Epstein does make several salient points about our view of the teenage years, how we got this way, and the potential problems that it causes. Yet, Epstein seems to contradict his own view of nature. He seemingly supports the nature argument by stating, technically speaking were non really children anymore, and presumably through most of human history we bore our juvenility when we were quite young ourselves. However, in the same writing he argues about the impact of society when he laments the teenage years as a time when he couldnt own property or do any interesting or fulfilling work, and he had no choice but to attend high indoctrinate for several more years before getting on with his real life. While biology propels the be into adulthood, society meters its progress and deliberates the impact of socialization. Unfortunately, Meads book, which also found that teenagers are a product of their culture, was heavily criticized and its results were questioned. In fact, both books highlight the need for teaching children how to chance upon, and the vital skill of being able to think and indite critically. These are traits of nurture that nature could never provide.Margaret Mead made several of the same points as Epstein in her book, unless was heavily criticized by Derek Freeman. Though Freemans criticism largely rested on the quality of the process and not the results, his criticism does attempt to neutralize the view that adolescence is the product of culture. Clearly, both Epstein and Mead were correct in their assessment that adolescence is mould from cultural expectations. We see this when a young man steps up to be the breadwinner when a laminitis has suddenly disappeared from the family scene. It is apparent when a young girl becomes the homemaker when the family faces life without their mother. Freeman, though maybe technically correct, did sociology and anthropology a disservice by diminishing the importance of Meads work and her revolutionary insights. Epsteins view that we should teach our children how to learn and send them off as teenagers to discover knowledge makes more sense in a globalized partnership with few borders or obstacles to information.In conclusion, the ages old argument about nature versus nurture is not an each or and exclusive argument. Teenagers are molded by human nature as well as the society in which they are