I'm unsure what the line is between "dated" and "of historical merit." It could be said that this book smacks too intensely of the early-to-mid 20th century; it could also be said that this is precisely how it should be. In terms of modern niceties and the strictures of political correctness, however, even someone as thoroughly progressive and up-to-date as Mead is likely to be seen as somewhat of a reactionary or, strangely enough, an ethnocentrist. She is neither.
I was joined in my reading of this book by (insofar as I can tell) two other previous readers who left me annotations. The first reader (or second, I'm not sure) was a strict feminist, and underlined everything Mead wrote about gender, especially as it pertained to marriage and the workforce. And I do mean everything. The other reader (whom I assume was a college student) simply recorded their moment-to-moment reactions to things (gems such as: "Asshole" and "WTF?"). Our second reader seemed incredulous toward Mead; how can Mead write this way about culture? How can Mead feel so protective over "her" studied people? The first reader seemed deeply confused on a moral level, for they were quick to note even the most minor of ethical breaches in our culture (the husband not partaking of household chores), yet they grew strangely abrasive when Mead said that a culture that regularly committed infanticide simply because the baby was the wrong sex was "not a good one." It seems to me that this is, quite evidently, not a good culture, especially if one is a baby. (The annotation read . . . "Wow. Ethnocentrism.")
Now, I do not know this person, but I'd wager that they are highly educated and big on tolerance and all cultures being seen as equal. Tolerance is fine within parameters, even virtuous, but often these people invoke tolerance in the face of true horror. People like this not only strike me as profoundly amoral, but also as illogical. If relativism is the way of the world, on what are they basing their notions of tolerance? Tolerance is only one ethic among many, none of which is better than another; so who says tolerance is better than intolerance? On what moral ground are they standing to make such a claim? The problem with relativism is that it's self-defeating; the moment they open their mouth to say something even remotely touching upon morality, the game's already over. And, if they get upset with you for judging a culture of careless, brazen infanticide, could you not equally get upset about their judging you? After all, shouldn't this person tolerate your views? That's the moral confusion. Here's the logical fallacy (first brought into my brain by the philosopher Louis Pojman):
A: Morality differs across different societies, so there are no universally-held morals.
B: Individual morality depends on a culture's broader morality.
Conclusion: There are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone.
Do you see the illogical jump there? Because there are many _____, therefore there are no right ________. Let's analyze this with two analogies.
1) A person comes in with a strange red ring after having hiked in the forest. Fifteen doctors look at the mark, and none of them agrees about the diagnosis. Would it be correct to say that there is no right answer to this medical issue?
2) A teacher writes an algebraic equation on the whiteboard and asks students to solve for X. The students are divided into four distinct camps, each convinced that their answer is the right one. Is the teacher justified in saying that, because there is a plethora of answers, that there is no one correct answer?
Of course, these analogies aren't perfect, because people don't accept morality as "factual." I don't really want to go farther than this, because I've already written an essay, but I hope you see my point. Given the landscape of ethical variation out there, it could be that all systems of morality make humans equally happy, satisfied, enlightened, creative, choose your own Top Value; it could also be that some cultures are, in fact, better than others. Of course, we can debate which those are (and we should), and what makes them so.
Back to Mead. The book is very enlightening on many points, but Mead has a tendency to get bogged down in extraneous life events without explaining their context. Several times she mentions people casually that she hasn't introduced, or briefly alludes to events that she hasn't sketched. And she writes an awful lot about things that she doesn't tie back to her developmental history or the evolution of her thoughts. She was clearly a very intelligent woman, very trail-blazing (sexually and academically), and very human. One could easily have spoken to her for hours.
Should you read this book, I hope your fellow-readers are as zany as mine were.