Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead, is one of America’s best known anthropologist who used insights from her work to write ‘One Vote for this Age of Anxiety’ in 1968, which was first published in The New York Times. She examined a vast variety of ethnic and geographical groups, from the South Pacific tribes to people in the West on which she wrote books such as ‘Coming of Age in Samoa’ that constituted as the major reason for her fame in coming years. She analysed the contemporary American societies and went as far to making comparisons between the societies of different time periods on issues that although changed, but remained prevalent in both the ages. In her essay, she talks about anxiety-a feeling of unease such as worry or fear, and how it rose from technology and advancement of the new times. She believes it to be a less undesirable state than what it seems at first. Contrasting the societies of various ages, she mentions how along with the evolvement of society the anxiety level not only fell but the prerequisites for it to exist, changed. Mead has the distinction as an observer of this phenomenon in American culture, to give this state of mind a positive outlook. Though Mead introduces a thought provoking idea by introducing a new post-modernist perspective to define this term, it can still be subjected to different responses by its audience who might oppose this new definition by firmly sticking to the old definition that categorises anxiety as a mental disorder.

In the article, she mentioned how this feeling has denoted a milestone in human advancement. By comparing the modern American societies to the ‘peasants’ of primitive times, she mentions the difference that arose in its definition overtime. The desperate need of food and shelter in older times increased the vulnerability of individuals in past. This made them prone to attack, developing fear and terror in their hearts, to which Mead refers to as anxiety for them. Whereas, now she reinstates its definition by saying ‘For most Americans, there remains only anxiety over what may happen, might happen, could happen.’ She symbolises this as a ‘hope’ for this society that we now have freedom from fears and wants and that the only anxiety that remains now is because of the inevitability of future and is ‘born of our knowledge of what is now possible for each and for all.’

Mead continues to compare the definition of anxiety in both the primitive and current time-period. She uses an analogy to elaborate the lives of a primitive man such as those of the South Sea Island by mentioning that how he would just keep sitting, waiting for the breadfruit fall onto his lap. One aspect, which she explained regarding this does however deserve appreciation i.e. the part where she rejects this phenomenon of calling such people or savages ‘paradisiacal’. But she also completely changes the outlook of what one might have on this issue. She believes that one no longer feels anxious along with personal terror. Anxiety, according to Mead, does not come under terror or despair but instead is the inevitability of the future. For her, “Anxiety is the appropriate emotion when the immediate personal terror—of a volcano, an arrow, a stab in the back, and other calamities all directed against one’s self—disappears.” She tries to make her claim stronger by giving an example of peasant population of the world-how the common emotions such as that of cold, hunger or even danger cannot be called anxiety. However, the argument by which she establishes the new boundaries of this term remain unclear and logically flawed. Anxiety cannot be diminished so easily. It plays a bigger role in our lives than what Mead thinks it does. It is the motivation for many bad deeds such as selfishness, theft or even murder. Moreover, by denying its existence in the current world or declaring mild feelings of fear or terror as ‘vague anxiety’, Mead fails to acknowledge the factual side to this issue. Had anxiety just been a small issue, acute medical cases in hospitals were not to be treated with such diligence.

Meads also further clarifies her position on the meaning of anxiety in the current age. Her answer lies in the inevitability of life. She tells us that anxiety only exists in a relatively safe environment and is built on a constant thought that ‘something unspecified and undeterminable may go wrong.’ As she places anxiety of this era against terror and fear of primitives in the past, she makes clear that people in this time are only worried about ‘what may happen, might happen, could happen.’ Mentioning realistic examples like one may not have a second drink while driving or meeting Billy’s teacher even when the performance result is fine, can make the audience relate more to her definition of anxiety. However, her definition is based solely on Americans. Even if she did write this article only for natives of America, her version of anxiety would have been considered incomplete by other natives. This limits her audience to a very small number of people. This can be proven by the fact that she takes pride in the technological advancements overtime and says; ‘Out of a productive system of technology drawing upon enormous resources, we have created a nation in which anxiety has replaced terror and despair, for all except the severely disturbed.’ Freedom from terror and despair, has not yet been fully achieved on a global level. There are still cases of bloodshed due to wars or famine and so not everyone can end the deeply rooted fears which she thinks we have successfully accomplished as a society.

Even now that Mead finds hope in this time, stemming from the freedom she thinks we have attained from fear, she still has one more idea to introduce with the purpose of ending any voice of discontent. She wanted to get in touch with the ultimate fear of death. She upholds the claim that by acknowledging the fact that ‘death is unescapable’, we can start worrying less about doing all the things in the right manner. Death is unpredictable, and so per Mead, and in no way, can it be banished. However, its effects on our activities and anxiety level can be mitigated by accepting it as a reality of life, the biggest of all. Her vivid analysis on this thought is comprehensive as she accedes with this phenomenon saying that acceptance ‘might transmute our anxiety about making the right choices, taking the right precautions, and the right risks into the sterner stuff of responsibility.’ Mead, however forgets to take in sight her audience for this article. Death is an undeniable truth but not something one can experience to learn from. The closest we can get to death is through loss of a loved one that can make one ponder over its real implications yet, not everyone can relate to this. Inability of a reader to connect with the author via an example that he has not experienced leaves room for lack of understanding on this issue. It is also self-contradictory in its nature. At one point, Mead mentions that people in this time period have let go of the fears or terrors, but later on embraces death as an utmost reality. Even if one is asked to accept that death is to believe that this life is temporary and the vulnerabilities one faces during his existence, make it harder for the two to co-exist - accepting the spontaneity of death and having no fear. It’s a natural phenomenon to fear death and so the assumption Meads makes about the fears fading away overtime, seems inaccurate.