"Instead of being presented with stereotypes by age, sex, color, class, or religion, children must have the opportunity to learn that within each range, some people are loathsome and some are delightful"
About this Quote
Mead cuts against the comforting liberal habit of treating “diversity” as a feel-good poster. Her line is bracing because it insists that the antidote to prejudice isn’t a newer, friendlier stereotype. It’s the messy, morally adult recognition that every category contains the full spread of human behavior. “Loathsome” and “delightful” land like a dare: if you want children to see people clearly, you have to let them encounter the reality that virtue and cruelty don’t correlate neatly with identity labels.
The specific intent is pedagogical and political at once. Mead isn’t arguing for cynicism; she’s arguing for accuracy. She wants kids trained out of the reflex to pre-judge groups and into the harder work of judging actions, character, and choices. That’s why she lists age, sex, color, class, religion: not as a checklist of protected identities, but as the standard sorting mechanisms societies use to offload thinking onto prejudice.
The subtext is an anthropologist’s skepticism toward “natural” social hierarchies. Mead spent her career showing how much of what Americans treated as inevitable about gender roles, adolescence, and family life was culturally engineered. Here she’s warning that engineered categories become moral alibis: we excuse our likes and dislikes as “just how those people are.”
Context matters: mid-20th-century America was living through mass schooling, desegregation battles, Cold War conformity, and a booming child-rearing industry eager to manufacture the right kind of citizen. Mead’s sentence refuses both bigotry and the sentimental gloss that can replace it. It asks education to do something rarer: produce discernment instead of doctrine.
The specific intent is pedagogical and political at once. Mead isn’t arguing for cynicism; she’s arguing for accuracy. She wants kids trained out of the reflex to pre-judge groups and into the harder work of judging actions, character, and choices. That’s why she lists age, sex, color, class, religion: not as a checklist of protected identities, but as the standard sorting mechanisms societies use to offload thinking onto prejudice.
The subtext is an anthropologist’s skepticism toward “natural” social hierarchies. Mead spent her career showing how much of what Americans treated as inevitable about gender roles, adolescence, and family life was culturally engineered. Here she’s warning that engineered categories become moral alibis: we excuse our likes and dislikes as “just how those people are.”
Context matters: mid-20th-century America was living through mass schooling, desegregation battles, Cold War conformity, and a booming child-rearing industry eager to manufacture the right kind of citizen. Mead’s sentence refuses both bigotry and the sentimental gloss that can replace it. It asks education to do something rarer: produce discernment instead of doctrine.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Margaret
Add to List
