Return from the Natives: How Margaret Mead Won the Second World War and Lost the Cold War by Peter Mandler (review)

Return from the Natives explores Margaret Mead’s awakening to the possibilities of using anthropological knowledge and research techniques to reduce cultural friction between the Allies during World War II, as well as her postwar efforts to use anthropology as a means of improving international relations. As his subtitle indicates, Mandler finds that Mead succeeded in her first task but failed in her second.

Mead’s wartime “white” propaganda work (spreading positive messages about Americans) is contrasted with the “black” propaganda (undermining the Japanese) of Gregory Bateson, Geoffrey Gorer, and others. Mead’s most significant wartime contribution was to use her exceptional writing and analytical skills to decrease intercultural conflicts by plainly explaining American cultural mannerisms to the British as American troops amassed in Great Britain before D Day. In Mandler’s view, Bateson was less brilliant and Gorer considerably less daft than commonly supposed. Gorer’s war work stressed, at times, imagined cultural differences between enemies, whereas Mead’s work strove to build positive intercultural relations between allies. Mead emerged from the war with hopes of adapting her wartime successes to broaden Americans’ acceptance of other cultures and to build peace in the postwar world—a project that became increasingly mired in Cold War politics. After the war, Mead and Ruth Benedict founded the Research in Contemporary Cultures program, for which a steady flow of Cold War funds produced a series of national character studies that Mead hoped would improve Americans’ acceptance of other cultures. Yet these studies largely failed to break free of the Cold War era in which they were immersed.

This clever, well-researched, and well-written book has much to teach specialists and generalists interested in mid-century social-science history. Mandler’s command of the archival material supporting this book is impressive. He presents a wealth of new information about Mead and her circle during the war years, helping us to understand her transformation from a disengaged intellectual into a tireless public advocate devising projects aimed at shaping behaviors and altering governmental stances. Mandler’s deep command of the details of this history is clear; his chapters about Mead’s intellectual and personal involvement with Gorer during and after the war provide significant new information.

Yet, others may not share Mandler’s interpretations of this narrative. Although he portrays Mead’s 1953 decision to forgo her national-character research and “return to the field” as a move away from public-policy initiatives, she continued to do considerable Cold War political and military work during this period. Her national-character studies, however, left her increasingly isolated. To Mandler, Mead’s acceptance of military-linked funds was justified by her attempt to promote a shared world; others might not be so willing to dismiss materialist motivations. Mandler tends to ignore the dissenting minority, radical, views of the time; this narrowing of discursive borders creates a universe in which choices sometimes appear to be too circumscribed. Yet, despite this fluidity of interpretation, Mandler’s new study of American anthropology’s most iconic character is both rich and important.