Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in

The apparently readily comprehensible descriptive discourse in Margaret Mead’s famous ethnographic study Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) (CAS) presents a discursive challenge that is greater than one might expect from a book that has gained a wide readership. Through theoretical analysis, and in relat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Janez Krek
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-01-01
Series:SAGE Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902083
id doaj-084a4490cc5943859b43e2b20e955718
record_format Article
spelling doaj-084a4490cc5943859b43e2b20e9557182020-11-25T03:46:29ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402020-01-011010.1177/2158244020902083Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in Janez Krek0Univerza v Ljubljani, SloveniaThe apparently readily comprehensible descriptive discourse in Margaret Mead’s famous ethnographic study Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) (CAS) presents a discursive challenge that is greater than one might expect from a book that has gained a wide readership. Through theoretical analysis, and in relation to the notorious Mead/Freeman controversy, we seek to contribute to understanding CAS as discourse, and even more specifically as educational discourse. Three research questions are addressed: How can the account of Samoan culture presented by Mead in CAS be understood as discourse? How can her account of early childhood education be understood in relation to Freeman’s account? Is Mead describing permissive education when describing patterns of early childhood education in Samoa? We argue that Mead produced an overlapping research discourse that has appealed to the wider public because of its cultural suppressed message aimed at the unconscious in culture. Mead’s and Freeman’s contradictory accounts of Samoan cultural patterns in relation to early childhood education can be explained by differences in the perspectives of the social and hierarchical positions of respectable elders and chiefs (Freeman) and of young girls who were caregivers of even younger children (Mead). Finally, we argue that early childhood education in Samoa at that time was clearly not permissive. Young Samoan girls internalized the symbolic Law (Lacan) and were therefore able to act in an authoritative way as caregivers. In the field of education nearly a century later, Mead’s descriptions of early childhood education in Samoa still provide an intricate case study.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902083
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Janez Krek
spellingShingle Janez Krek
Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in
SAGE Open
author_facet Janez Krek
author_sort Janez Krek
title Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in
title_short Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in
title_full Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in
title_fullStr Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in
title_full_unstemmed Understanding the Discourse of Early Childhood Education in
title_sort understanding the discourse of early childhood education in
publisher SAGE Publishing
series SAGE Open
issn 2158-2440
publishDate 2020-01-01
description The apparently readily comprehensible descriptive discourse in Margaret Mead’s famous ethnographic study Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) (CAS) presents a discursive challenge that is greater than one might expect from a book that has gained a wide readership. Through theoretical analysis, and in relation to the notorious Mead/Freeman controversy, we seek to contribute to understanding CAS as discourse, and even more specifically as educational discourse. Three research questions are addressed: How can the account of Samoan culture presented by Mead in CAS be understood as discourse? How can her account of early childhood education be understood in relation to Freeman’s account? Is Mead describing permissive education when describing patterns of early childhood education in Samoa? We argue that Mead produced an overlapping research discourse that has appealed to the wider public because of its cultural suppressed message aimed at the unconscious in culture. Mead’s and Freeman’s contradictory accounts of Samoan cultural patterns in relation to early childhood education can be explained by differences in the perspectives of the social and hierarchical positions of respectable elders and chiefs (Freeman) and of young girls who were caregivers of even younger children (Mead). Finally, we argue that early childhood education in Samoa at that time was clearly not permissive. Young Samoan girls internalized the symbolic Law (Lacan) and were therefore able to act in an authoritative way as caregivers. In the field of education nearly a century later, Mead’s descriptions of early childhood education in Samoa still provide an intricate case study.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902083
work_keys_str_mv AT janezkrek understandingthediscourseofearlychildhoodeducationin
_version_ 1724506151688601600