Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle

For my term paper for Anthropology of Homosexualities, and based on related reading in our class, I chose to review and report on "Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and Their Circle." I personally had no idea either of these women had any connections to the queer community prior to taking this class despite having heard of them, so it was exciting to learn about women who not only shaped the face of anthropology for all time, but also coalesced with one another on their work, on their growth and development, and in love. I would like to mention before we even get started that this book has wonderful pictures that helps bring the book to life. Allow me to show you an example. Now, I am not going to attempt to lure you to read this book by telling and showing you that it has pictures, but how many non-fiction books have you read that have been made bearable and even good by the inclusion of pictures? Be honest with yourself and I think my point is made.([...])If you take the time to read this entire review, you will see I give it somewhat of a mixed bag review. Please in no way allow this to deter you from reading the book. I am pretty much able to admit I have a huge crush on both Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead now as a result of reading this book, coupled with a need to stifle my desire to switch majors again and my rededication to finding a suitable mentor. I laughed, I cried, (I may have nodded off a few times) and I used the dictionary a lot. Tangible proof that this book impacted my life is evidenced by my new flapper haircut and 1940's feminine aesthetic. It takes an influential book to do all of that! But I digress. This is a solid book by a notable researcher. Lois Banner wrote the introduction to Mead's book on Ruth Benedict, a situation that shows a deep respect for her on Mead's end. I bring up some points about the book that were noticeable to me, a sophomore at City College. In looking around at other book reviewers, a tad late in the game, I am pleased and relieved to see I am not the only person that found the things I found to not work a tad off.I also attempted to remain more formal in this paper, as you will see following this paragraph. As you may have already inferred, I prefer to use a less formal and more familiar voice in my writing. However, out of respect and admiration for all of these women I honestly tried to stay on point and provide solid critical analysis. So if you are out there reading this someday, Lois Banner, please do not be offended. I loved your book, really. And besides, what do I know? I may be an advanced reader, but really I am brand new to the study of anthropology!In writing this epic work of regarding two huge personalities and careers, Banner took on a giant task and ended up with an amazing book about the lives and times of Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and their families, friends, adversaries and colleagues. She goes into great detail and provides some amazing insights and in-depth analysis of these powerful women's scope of influence; on others, themselves, and each other. However it is not without its problems. I feel that her analysis is too far reaching at some points and she seemingly take some liberties. I will expound on that idea as this review proceeds. She starts the book off with a short teaser of Ruth and Margaret's personal relationship, diving straight into the depth of their complex arguments and reasoning for where they were in their lives. This is a snapshot of Rome in 1926, and the prologue was never really brought to any pleasing conclusion in the full text, as it was barely ever mentioned again outside of the idea of Benedict's Sibyls.This is immediately followed with an in-depth and obviously well researched genealogical profile of both women. The first four chapters of this book are really dry. It was a challenge to make it through this part of the book, and that is not an exaggeration. Expectations are set to read about two brilliant dykes and here I am trying to shuffle 30 different names vague relations and quickly connections... it could have been done in a more imaginative and inviting manner. She could have looked to the writing style of Ruth she obviously coveted and remembered that not everyone reading the book had any concept of either of these women prior to reading it. Of course I am not saying it is not a needed part of the book or that it will be dry reading to all readers. She goes further than that and tries to highlight any reform work being done by woman in their respective families and pioneering attitudes towards women by the male figures in their lives. It brings into focus their similarities and differences which will provide great insight into some aspects of their relationships. It serves its purpose; it is just dull and a taxing way to start a book.Speaking of dull and boring, I do not want this to be a play by play of the book which is what it is already well on its way to becoming. Forgive me, dear reader, as I lapse out of this and into something a little more critical, in some ways flattering, and hopefully more interesting. So a main point in my book review that I feel the need to mention is that I was left at the end of the book feeling more confused than enlightened in some respects and inspired and motivated in others. I guess in some ways the confusion comes from Banner's analysis of Mead's work. Perhaps it really was as scattered as she presents it, but I feel like in her concurrent role as an educator perhaps she could have pushed herself to come up with a more concise and easy to follow version.However, I do get the impression that trying to document Mead's life was an enormous challenge and Banner did bring this part of her personality across clearly. Maybe to gain insight into Mead's life and theories you have to accept the fact that there is no neat and pat timeline and to the extent that her genius was influenced by the cultures she visited, the mentors she chose, the lovers she pillow-talked with and the breakneck pace at which all of these things simultaneously occurred. And if that is indeed the case, which I suspect it to be, perhaps Banner really did do the best job that anyone could. I will also say that the conclusion left me scratching my head, as it was abrupt. I would have liked to see one more chapter dedicated to Mead's life after Benedict's death.However, considering the questions you pose of us, perhaps I will shape this portion my review with my responses to them. And then get back to the play by play, if it is still necessary.Based on your knowledge, did the anthropologist "get it right"?Yes and no. I think that she did beautiful and complex research. I would have no basis to complain about that. It is obviously a labor of love and admiration and her dedication and devotion certainly come through. That alone is reason enough to read this book. Banner was thoroughly entranced with these fascinating women and their many interwoven friends, ideas, and lovers.I think where I liked this book was the valid connections she made. By pouring over their letters, research, and books she does an amazing job of bringing to light the depth of this relationship. She is a great detective for the most part, and she obviously is a talented historical researcher. She took what I am sure an enormous, overwhelming amount of information and brings it together in a readable and real fashion.I feel like I want to be careful in being too harsh in my criticisms of this book. Even as Mead and Benedict realized in their time that the woman's rights movement had made leaps and bounds, I feel that the queer community has as well and I should not have fear about pushing back the movement in finding one writer's analysis a little overreaching. However, I think that this fear speaks to the importance of this book, and its place in showing how our history as a community exists even if it is shrouded and needs to be rooted out. It was scary for Mead and Benedict to be queer and I feel nervous for both of them at times. I felt connected to both of them and felt I got to know secrets and things I would never otherwise know. This is a huge triumph and in the end what makes the book totally worth reading. Banner has a great oversight into both women's lives as their duel biographer. She highlighted their work on gender issues, women's issues, and their interconnectedness. I think where she misses the mark is in her armchair analysis of both women, and for attaching too much meaning to small snippets of something as subjective as the women's poetry.This extrapolation is present throughout the book and the "harness" incident is how I remember it most clearly. (pgs 185 and 223) I understand that a certain amount of conjecture is going to occur in a book compiled in the manner as this one was, and I give her credit for working directly with Mead and perhaps that having shed some additional insight into these ideas. However, it does not take away from the fact that her aureate description of the women's poetry is a tad bombastic. (Please note my attempt at irony here.)Was the ethnography wordy, inconsistent, or complicated? Was an argument well formed and completed?Well, it is a 400+ page book, so yes on the wordy count by default. I think I already touched on the one glaring inconsistency, which is starting the book with a daring teaser foreshadowing their tryst and then leaving the reader high and dry when that is the only real mention of this meeting of the women. I think the other place that Banner was the most inconsistent was with her analysis of Mead. I felt more satisfied and informed with the information presented about Benedict. At this point I will admit that my biographical knowledge of these women was next to nothing prior to reading this book and I had only read parts of their work as it relates to women's history, queer studies and this anthropology class. I, of course, get the feeling that Margaret was harder to "get" for Banner. As many times as she changed her lovers, her career focus, her theories, she changed her anthropological mind. I think perhaps my point in bringing this up was that I could have felt just as confused about Mead doing my own research and I suppose I feel a little let down. Mead's theories are many and far-flung, and admittedly so mutable it is hard to hold on for the ride. Banner, as her biographer, could have done a better job presenting Mead's development as an anthropologist and reformer in a linear and easy to follow fashion. It was as if she got so caught up in the detective work in deciphering Mead and Benedict's love affair that she just lost her concentration in explaining Mead's actual theories. Which, when I think of it, is kind of adorable and perhaps I should not be so harsh, but the squares thing really kind of bugged me.So the best concrete example of this I could come up with would be her explanation of Mead's "squares." I have read and re-read this part of the book and still have no clear idea on what the final outcome of this collaborative thinking Mead engaged in with her then husband Reo Fortune and her future husband Gregory Bateson and so thoroughly integrated into her life and social circle. I would further go ahead and say I find this disappointing with Banner's position as a history and gender studies professor and that perhaps this fact alone allows me to hold her to this higher standard.Coming back to the glowing part of the review, I feel that almost all of her arguments and insights are very enlightening and well supported. I would especially point to the characterization of both women. I have already made my case for the instances I felt she fell short of the mark. The journey of Mead, as steered by Benedict as her teacher, life coach, lover and colleague, is an amazing thing to watch unfold. Banner has an astute grasp of the path and mutation of their views and ties it in with their male counterparts and lovers. I also find the way that both Mead and Benedict find ways to excel even amidst oppression for being women in the times they lived. One example of this is how it was made abundantly clear that some fieldwork was only able to be preformed by women, and by doing it and doing it so well opened the door for women to do all sorts of fieldwork and beyond in the field. I also appreciated Banner's careful consideration to the important female friendships they held outside of one another and how they built a powerful network of these women. I think at some point the Ash Can Cats must have been called an intelligentsia and their networking was sophisticated and effective. Banner makes a point to emphasis their loyalty to their friends, including their male allies. Her treatment of the fluidity and complexity of all of their various relationships outside of each other is also well done. Another theme throughout the book was the crossing of disciplines and Banner's bringing to view both of the women's response to the major scientists and thinkers of their times and the corresponding movements. This was very well done in relation to Boas and the line Benedict had to tow as his virtual replacement and both of their relationship with him in general. This also had an impact on their dealings with other members of the scientific community and this is well explored as well. This brings me to one other point in the book I felt was awkward. At the beginning of the last four chapters Banner addresses the reader and asks for us to remember that for the next four chapters spanned the trials and tribulations of World War II and the Nazi regime without really talking about it outside of the work the women did. She did such a wonderful job of interweaving the other time periods, I just wonder why the sudden jump in writing styles. It was almost not worth mentioning except it felt jerky and out of place.How valid are the conclusions?I feel her conclusions in regards to Mead and Benedict are insightful and valid despite my minor exceptions presented. At the conclusion of the book, I am compelled to read "Blackberry Winter," Mead's personal memoir at the very least. Both of them are very inspirational women even though I personally identified with Mead more. The end result of this book was my learning a comprehensive review of the development of these two women geniuses and social reformers along with a wonderful perspective on this slice of history and their place in it. It gave me insight into the different types of queer culture before there was "queer" or a clear culture. I love the way through Banner's book we witness the development of anthropology from one of the most surprising and productive friendships in it and that that they are woman in our recent history who succeeded in so many ways, when it was not as acceptable to be a woman in positions of power or influence. It was thought provoking and, yes, at times sort of confusing but in a sort of enjoyable way. And in a definitive conclusion, I would urge anyone who has an interest in history, unique historical perspectives, feminism, anthropology, lesbians, early development of queer theory and gender diversity would gain a wealth of information about that broad range of topics and more. Besides, I would again remind you that it has pictures. Who does not love a 400+ book with pictures! [...]WORKS CITED:Banner, Lois W. Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle. New York:Knopf 2003.Maksel, Rebecca. "Love among anthropologists." The Women's Review of Books 21.4 (Jan 2004): 15(3). General OneFile. Gale. City College of San Francisco. 2 Dec. 2008<[...]>. "Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle. (Nonfiction)." Publishers Weekly 250.26 (June 30, 2003): 69(1). General OneFile. Gale. City College of San Francisco. 2 Dec. 2008<[...]>.

I am really satisfied. The item met my expectations. The more important for me it was that there was not notes or high lights on the book, that is why I chose that one.

The book was very well researched and extremely detailed. 430 pages before the end notes. It went into great detail about the sexual activities of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict and I think the intent was to relate it to the research that each woman did, but end the end it was totally boring. I felt like I was reading someone's doctoral thesis.

Found the book interesting...there was one flagrant error and I need to write to the author to have her correct it should she write another edition....

Was not the kind of reading I was looking for. Written more like research article. Will look for a book that describes Mead's work regarding cultures and sociology.

On page 178 of Professor Lois W. Banner's "Intertwined Lives" there is a short passage about the diarist W. N. P. Barbellion, in which it is stated that:(1) His "Journal of a Disappointed Man" ends with his suicide.(2) He was a "feminized young man" who "gave up his male lover to marry a woman".(3) His "Journal of a Disappointed Man" "inspired youthful suicides".I have spent 30 years researching Barbellion's life - 30 years interviewing people who knew him or who knew people who knew him, visiting places associated with him, inspecting old documents in archives and poring over acres of brittle, discoloured newsprint. And in his defence I would like to state that:(1) He did not commit suicide; he died of multiple sclerosis.(2) There is not a scrap of evidence of his having been sexually deviant, let alone of his having had a male lover.(3) Marie Bloomfield's suicide - discussed by Professor Banner - remains the only one inspired by "The Journal of a Disappointed Man" I have ever heard of.Since I have never come across these disgraceful falsehoods outside of "Intertwined Lives" I am at a loss to know where Professor Banner came across them. Furthermore, in the notes on page 479 of her book there is a reference to Richmond H. Hillyar's "W. N. P. Barbellion". It looks impressive. The casual reader will think she has done her homework. But she could not even get this right, either while writing her book or while proofreading it. The author's surname was Hellyar.What really disturbs me is the thought that this garbage might be repeated by some lazy hack - a type all too common in the world of letters - then by another of his tribe and yet another and so on, till one day my subject is generally perceived as an effeminate homosexual who committed suicide and inspired others to do likewise.I have written to both Professor Banner and her publisher, requesting that these errors be corrected in the electronic edition of her book and any future print edition. Neither has had the courtesy to reply. Hence this review.When a book is so woefully, so deplorably inaccurate on a subject I know, I can only shake my head in disbelief, sigh in dismay and wonder how accurate the rest of it is. Hence the single star - the lowest rating this website allows.