Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf

8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf

1/14

Incest and Identity: A Critique and Theory on the Subject of Exogamy and Incest Prohibition

Author(s): Roy WagnerReviewed work(s):Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 601-613Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2799952.

Accessed: 16/01/2013 08:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2799952?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2799952?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/14

INCEST AND IDENTITY: A CRITIQUE AND

THEORY ON THE SUBJECT OF EXOGAMY

AND

INCEST PROHIBITION

ROY WAGNER

Northwestern

niversity

Traditionallyhe ncest aboo

has been

among

the

most

widelyreportedor

assumed) f all ethnographictraits'; t is commonly ited as an exampleof a

'universal'

spect

f human

ulture,

r

even

as

a

definitive

roperty

f

human

culture.Consequently, he prohibition

f incesthas

frequently

erved s an

a

prioripostulate

or

theories elating

o human

society,

ts

origins,

nd its con-

stitution,xemplified ecently y

the

writings

f Claude

Levi-Strauss

I969).

Whereas

Levi-Strauss

erives

is notion

of incest

rohibitionwhich

s

really

theory f exogamy)

romMauss'srules

f

reciprocitytheobligations

o

give,

to

receive,

nd

to

reciprocate),

nd

thus tresses

ts

ssociation ith

human

ymbolic

or

cognitive ulture,

s

does

Livingstone

I969),

others,

uch s Kortmulder

I968)

and Aberle

t

al.

(I963),

have

suggested

hat

ncest

rohibition

s

a behavioural

tendency,hat t is natural n origin,howevermuch man may rationalisets

existence. he issue f

whether

ncest

rohibition

s

essentially

atural

r

cultural

s

symptomatic

f the

dilemma

facing

modem

anthropology,

ith ts

deep

seated

differences

s

to

which

of

our own

categories,

atural

aw

or human

reason,

s

more

ppropriate

or he

representation

f

cultural

henomena. ascinating

s this

issuemaybe,thepossibilityemains hat roponents

f

both

lternativesre

guilty

of

reifying

hat

s

merely

n artefact

f our own didactic

onstructs,

nd that

he

problem

f

ncest

rohibition,

s

it s

commonly onceived,

s

a

pseudo-problem,

whose realcentre

f

gravity

ies elsewhere.

n this rticle should

ike to

explore

this

possibility,xamining

he

various

acets

f

the

problem,

nd to state

few

tentativeonclusions.

Those who have

argued

hat ncest

rohibition

n

human

beings

s

natural

n

origin

have

had

to

rely upon

two

rather

erilous

nferences. he first

s

that

behavioural

egularities,

r

generalisations,

an be

inferredrom

deal statements

or formulations

f

human

ulture,

r

in

other

words,

hat ncest s

a real

thing'

rather

han kindof

meaning

r a

way

of

speaking

bout

thingsWagner 968).

The

second s

thatbehavioural

egularities

bservable

mong

other nimals

re

in some

significant

ense

nalogous

o

prohibitions

n

human

ulture. oththese

assumptions

end

toward

metaphors

ased

on the

anthropomorphismf animal

culture

r the

oomorphism

fhuman

ulture,lthough

his

y

no

means

recludes

their alue s

analogies.

t s

clear, owever,

hat he

major mpetus

or

discovering

'incest'

avoidance mong other nimal

ocieties erives

rom heethnographers'

assumption

hat

ncest-prohibition

s

a

unitary henomenon

n

human

ocieties,

or that t

is in

fact

definitivef

human

ociety.

hus

our

focusreturnso

the

plausibility

f

this

ssertion,

nd to

the

question

f

whatthe

ncest abooreally s.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/14

602 MAN, DECEMBER

I972,

VOL. 7, NO. 4

When

speak

f

incest', mean ctsof a sexual or morally quivalent) ature

as understoodo be committedetween ersonsmanifestingin oles hat xplicitly

or implicitlyxclude hem.When I speak of exogamy', mean the moral n-

junction o select ecognisedexualpartnersnd/or pouses rom

ocial

units ther

than hose fwhich ne s a memberor to which ne s otherwiselosely elated).

In

all nstances,hese njunctionsre contingentpon the deal moral odesof the

culturesoncerned.

The notion f ncest resupposes conception f kin role, nd whereno con-

ception

f

this

ort

s found o be present,

he

erm

s

inapplicable,xcept erhaps

as a 'projection' n thepart f theobserver. he notion f exogamy ependsna

similar

way on the conceptualisationf social units. t

is

important

ere

to

dis-

tinguish etween he descriptivese of these erms o gloss' behaviouralcts, s

one might o in speaking f incest' among dogs,or of exogamous' troops f

primates,nd therecognitionf ncestuous r exogamic ehaviour

s

meaningful

to

the actors hemselves.n the formernstance he kinship'

nd social

units'

involved re constructsf the observer,nd incest' and exogamy' derive heir

relevance olely rom is use of such ocialcomparisons.n the econd ase ncest

and exogamy an be treateds operative ategories,

rovided f course hat

we are

precisely lear s to whatwe meanby them,

nd

what

the

ubjects

f

our

study

meanby them.

Numerous

ttempts

ave beenmadeto define he

wo

concepts

more

precisely,

by generalisingpon thecontent f particulardeologies nd codes,but,

s in

the

case of totemism', hey re

... like hysteria, n that once we are persuaded to doubt that t is possible arbitrarily o

isolate certain henomena and to group them together

s

diagnostic igns

of an

illness, r of

an

objective nstitution,

he

ymptoms

hemselves anish

or

appear refractory

o

any unifyinig

interpretation

Levi-Strauss

962: i).

The definitionalroblem ecomes ne of trying o find

ome

universal,bjective

content haracteristicf

all

conceptions

f

'incest' or

'exogamy',

so that

ts

universal

xistence

s

a 'fact' (and

hence universal

cause' forthe

fact)

an be

adduced.

n

thecase of

ncest,

uch fforts

ave

generally

ddressed hemselveso

thegenealogical pecificationsf theprohibitions,o the mportance

nd distri-

bution

of

certain

genealogically pecificprohibitions'mother-son',

father-

daughter',sibling'),

r to the extension'

f certain

basic'

prohibitionsi.e.

those

of

the

nuclear

amily).n

the nstance f

exogamy,

he

ssue

hasbecome

nmeshed

in

theproblem f distinguishingdeal ocialunits rom

ocalised esidential

roups.

Exogamyhas been made to appear

factual' nd real

n

many

ases

by assuming

that

heformernd the atter oincide-that

s,

ike

ncest,

t

has been

objectified

by identifying

t

with

n

empirical

ase.

Here I

propose

o treat

oth ncest nd

exogamy

s issues

nvolving

he

conscious,

moral

meanings

n

human culture

rather

han he ubliminalmplications

f affect

r

socialfunction.

shall

beginby

examining ur grounds or objectifying'he ncest aboo,and return resently

to the

question f exogamy.

* * * * *

If

kinship ere precise, bjective endering

f

genealogy

n

all cases

nd

n

all

cultures,nd

f

ts erms ndrelationsnvariablyepresentedenealogical rderings,



4/14

MAN,

DECEMBER 1972, VOL. 7, NO. 4

603

then

we

would be ustifiednspeaking f

kinship' n all instancesf

biogenetic

connexion, r

in

extending

thermeanings haracteristicf

kinship sage

to

purely

bservationalata.Butkinship

s

not

simply escriptivef

genealogy;ts

referenceogenealogicalrderingssselectivetbest, nd this

elections theresult

of

nterpretation.kinship

erm rings ogether set frelatives

nda

relationship

(Schneider

968),

or a normative ode of

behaviour,

hichhas a

real,symbolic

meaning.When

omponentialnalysis roceeds

o define'

kin

erm

with eference

to ts

genealogical enotataLounsbury964), the haracterf

the

kin

relationship,

to which he erm lso refers,

s

taken

orgranted r

gnored.

roblems

f this

ort

beset

ll

approaches hat ase themselves

n the

ssumption

hat

lassificationnd

lexical ignificationreequivalento

meaning

Wagner

970), but

hepointhere

s

particularlycute,because

the issue of incest

egulation

nvolves

preciselyhe

connexion etween indenotationndkinrelationship.hepossibility,rperhaps

the ikelihood, f marriage nd sexual

relationss

an

aspect

of

the

relationship

between ersons

including,

n

some

cases, insmen),

nd

anyparticular

ystem

f

incest rohibition

mounts o a statement

f

what kinds

f

relationshipshould

characterise

hat

ategories

f

kinsmen. ut

of

course

f

relationship

s

part

f

the

definition

f

a

kin

category,

s I

suggest

t should

be,

then

statementf

ncest

prohibitions

is-a-vis

ategories

s the

purest

nd most rivial f

tautologies,

ecause

the

very

ame

rationale,

nd the

very nterpretive

cheme hat

defines he

content

of the

relationships

lso determines

he

genealogical

orrelates f

the

corres-

ponding ategories.

Perhaps n examplewouldhelpto clarifyhematter.fwe chose o describe

system

f

ncest

rohibition

n

a

purely

enotative

ay,

treating nly

the

genea-

logical

orrelates

f kin

categories

s

objective

data',we should

have to

begin

by

making

wo

ists, eparating

ut theterms

orresponding

o

prohibited'

elatives,

and

isting

hem

eparately

rom hosewithwhom sex or

marriage

s

permitted'.

(I

am

assuming,

or

he ake of

simplicity,

hat

ll

terms an

be

classed

nambig-

uously

n one set or

the

other;

his s

certainly

ot

lways

he

ase).

Our

two ists

will

tell

us,

n a

crude

nd rather

ncomprehensiveashion,

omething

bout

the

general

utlines

fa

system

f ncest

rohibition.hey

willtell

us

very

ittle

bout

the

relationships

nvolved,

orthese re abstractedo the

simplistic

cheme: ex

and/ormarriage rohibitedersus exand/ormarriage ermitted,ndtheywill

tell us

very

ittle bout the

rationale or the

constitutionf

the

kin

categories

themselves,

or these

will be stated

n

the barest

genealogical

erms.

But

the

relationships

hat

regulate

marriage

nd

sex are

often

uite

complex,

nd

have

many

nuances

nd

qualifications,

nd there re often

ulturally

efined inds

f

behaviour

such

s

prohibitions

n

speaking,

oking, ouching,eeing, tc.),

which

have

a close

bearing

n

marriage

nd

sexual

relations;

description

hat

would

take

ccount f thesewould

have to break

down'

its

istings

nto

commensurate

number

f

gradations.

This, oo,

could

be

done,by

composing separate

ist f

genealogicallypecified

terms or achparticularspect fprescribedehaviour elevant omarriagend

incest

rohibition,

nd

for

very

ualification

f

t.Of course ach

ist

would

have

to

be

accompanied

y

a

gloss,

nd the

set

of

lists s

a

whole would

require

comprehensive

tatement

egarding

heir

nterrelationship.

t

would be

found,

n

fact,

hat he

complete

etof

ists,

aken

ogether

ith heir

losses

nd

the

tate-



5/14

604 MAN, DECEMBER I972, VOL. 7, NO. 4

ment f heirnterrelationship,mount onothing ore r ess han rationaleor he

assignment

f

certain enealogicaloci to certain ategories

n thebasis frelation-

ship, r more imply, replicationf thekinship ystemtself.n otherwords, he

system

f incest

rohibitions

s

subsumed

within he

kinshipsystem', nd can-

not

be

separated

rom

t,

for s

we have seen, he amerationale othdefines he

categoriesnd specifieshe relationshipsmong them. There

is no

difference

between kinship ystem

nd a

system f ncest rohibition,

ence here an be no

relation etween hem.

A

false roblem

s

created y

separatingelationship

rom

genealogical

enotation nd then

nquiring

bout herelation etween he two;

only

if kin

category

nd kin

relationship ere

distinct henomena ould we

properlypeak

f

a relation

etween hem.

If

we

assume

that

kin

category

s

a

matterof genealogicaldenotation,

or grouping, lone, thenthe whole matter f kin relationship, aving been

excluded rom

kinship'proper,

ecomes

problematic.

erein, suspect,

iesthe

origin

f

the ncest

aboo,

or

at

least

of

the

anthropologist'serception

f

t;

it

sums

up

the relationalresiduum'

remaining

fter

inship

as been reduced

o

genealogical enotation,

nd does so in

genealogicalerms'it

is forbiddeno mate

with one's

father,mother, iblings, tc.').

Traditionally,

ocial

anthropology

as

analysed inship y

a

process

f

taking enealogical

enotationnd

relationship

'apart',

and

then

putting

hem

back

together' yexamining

he

ways

n

which

members

f a

given

culture reatvarious

genealogically

efined elatives. he

locus

lassicus

f

this

pproach

s

Radcliffe-Brown's

aper

The mother's rother

in SouthAfrica'

I965),

althoughtoriginatednRivers's ioneeringntroduction

and use

of the

genealogical

method'.

Linguisticnthropology,asing tself pon

Kroeber's llegation

hat

kin

terms re

primarily

inguisticnd 'psychological'

(I909),

has contented

tself

merely

with

aking enealogical

enotation

lone,

nd

ignoring elationship.

n both

ases,

hedissociationf

genealogical ategory

rom

kin

relationship

s

a

premiss

f didactic

rocedure,

s s

the

imilar

issociation

hat

Levi-Strauss's

iscussion

f the

atom

of

kinship'I963:

48) requires.

n

all

these

instances,elationship

s

artificially

solated s

a

thing

n

itself,

nd

the

so-called

'incest

aboo',

the

rchetype

fkin

relationship

n

and of

tself, ecomes lausible

as

a distinct

nd discrete

ntity.

The relation hat traditionalnthropology as postulated etweenkinship

denotation

nd

kin

relationship

as

argely eenfunctional,

roposing

hat he

ways

in which

ertain

enealogical

elativesre

conventionally

reated

onstitute

actors

that

ntegrateociety

nd

hold

it

together'.

his s a

key ssumption

f

Radcliffe-

Brown's

unctionalism,

nd

t

continues

o

givekinship

central

lace

n

the

ocietal

theories

f Fortes

nd

others.

ollowing

hediscussionn

the

preceding aragraph,

it

becomes

pparent

hat

he

ncest aboo s a

sine

ua

non, lmost kindof charter,

of

this

pproach.

f function

s

taken

s the

prime

reative nd

explanatory

actor

in theconstitution

f

society,

hen

kin

relationship

ust ome before in denota-

tion 'structure'), ence n incest aboois taken s theorigin fkinship,nd of

society.

The

proponents

f

a

biologicalexplanation

or

the incest aboo have

performed

hatcould

be called

'Malinowskian

ransformation'fthis ociety-

centred,

r

Durkheimian,

unctionalism.

Function',

n

this nstance,s simply

reinterpreted

s

a

natural,

ather han

cultural, ecessity;

nstead f integrating'

society,

he ncest aboo

becomes

necessary

orce n

keeping he stockhealthy



6/14

MAN,

DECEMBER 1972,

VOL.

7,

NO.

4

6o5

(Aberle t

al.

I963,

disputed yLivingstone969)

or in

holding

own

disruptive

aggression

Kortmulder

968).

Giventhis heoreticalackground,t is scarcelyurprisinghat nthropologists

have

typicallyepresentedncest egulations a

lawor

rule,

hat s

as

a

conventional

strictureoverning relationship.

hether

his law'

is

an

artefact

f

culture r

nature

s

a matter o be contendedmongthe social

and

biologicaldeterminists,

but

it is

significant

n

the light

of

our discussion

f

kinship

hatthe

primary

meaningsf

law' and rule' refer o theregulation

f human

elations.

hus,

n

terms f

kinship,

he ncest aboo

s

a rule hat

empers

man's bestial'or

natural'

tendenciesia therational

rder

f

culture,

nd thereforekindof

equivalent

f

Rousseau's ontrat

ocial,

n

arbitrarilydopted

ule

xisting ua

rule

to

provide

basis or

ulture. evi-Strauss, ho samong

ther

hings

n

avowed

Rousseauian,

hasmademuch fthis spectnchapter 'The universefrules')ofhisElementary

structuresfkinshipI969).

The

conventional otion f the

ncest aboo

s

thereforehe

result

f

twoserial,

linked

assumptions.

he first

s

that

kinship

an be defined s a

structure,

r

classificatoryet, fgenealogical

enotations,

o the xclusion f

kin

relationships.

The

second,whichfollows rom his,

s

that

hisresiduum f

kin

relationships,

comprehensibles an arbitrarily

mposed rule' epitomised

n

the ncest aboo,

determineshe

kinship ystem

n an a

priori,

unctionalense. have

presented

argumentso the ffecthat hefirst

ssumption

s a

didactic nd

theoretical

ubter-

fuge,

nd thatkin

relationship

nd

kin

category

re

inseparable y

definition.

shouldnow ike o examine he econd ssumption,ithparticularttentiono the

notion f

rule, r aw.

* * * * *

The

concept

f

law' or rule' (as

in

the rules

f a

society')

s

doubtlessargely

used s

a heuristicevice

n

anthropology,eferring

o a moral r

normativeorder'

that

governs elationships

n

a given

ociety.

he

concept

s

heuristic,ased on

resemblancend analogyrather han iteral pplication,

ecause many societies

recognise

either

odifiedlaws'

or rules' nor official'means

f

enforcinghem,

and

hence heir rders f

law'

arenot

directlyomparable

o

our own. The more

general ermnorm' sthereforeftenmployedo astoneutralisehe pecifically

'authoritarian'onnotations f

law'

or

'rule',

and

generalisingonstructsike

'social

control' r conflict

management'

re usedto

counteracthe

loaded'

and

rather

articularisticssociations f enforcement'.t

is

true, f course, hat ll

analogies resubject o thedangersf iteral

nterpretation

nd

must e buttressed

from

ime o time

withqualifications

f this

ort,

f

onlybecause nalogy s our

sole

way

of

extendingmeanings,

s

interpretive

onstructs,

o

encompassnew'

phenomena.f one analogy

s

rejected,

n

other

words, omeother nalogywill

have to

replace t,

so

why

not refine

nd

work with the

ones we have?

This

propositionmakesexcellent ense

n

manycases,

nd has

lent

ts stabilising

n-

fluence o much of contemporarynthropology.ut the

danger mplicit

n all

such

nalogies

s

that f

extending

aive

or

unspoken

ssumptionsboutour own

usages

nd

nstitutions

o

those f the ubject

ulture.

The

majorfailing f

a

theory

f social ction

basedon

norm s law' is that t

exaggerates

nd

emphasises

he

ocially upportivespects

f

human elationst the



7/14

6o6

MAN, DECEMBER

I972,

VOL. 7, NO. 4

expense

f

theirmeaningfulontent,

hat s, t

maps' a broad pectrum f quali-

tatively

ifferent eanings n to the narrow

dimensions f

conformitynd

deviance. hemessage fthesocialcontract's that ules xist nand ofthemselves

so

as

to

provide

basis or he

xistence f society,nd theDurkheimian

orollary

to this

s

that llthemeaningsnd actions n a society

anbe understood

n terms f

social ffect.

n

this iew,which

nderliesunctionalism

s well asmost ociological

theory,

he

meaningfulspects

fthoughtnd action

n

a culture

reonly ccessible

via their

ffective

ocialconsequences,nd

meaning s seen as ancillary o social

purpose

nd

effect-ideas ecome

beliefs' or 'rationalisations',

ecause social

interests

resuppose

ommitment.

n

unqualified

orm, tated s such,has the

force

f

an

ad hoc

r

arbitraryuling,

ne that

s

arbitrarilynd

factitiouslyssumed

'because

there ave to be

rules'. t

is

no wonder hatwhenDurkheimian

nthro-

pology explained ocietyn these erms omeanthropologistsegan to suspect

natural rigin

or

he

ncest

aboo,for,

s

a

'law' or norm', it has no necessary

involvement

ith he

meaningystem

f culture,

nd

mightjust

swellhavebeen

imposed

rom he outside'.

t s

onlywhen

norms nd aws

can

be

shown

o exist

as

a function

f

the

meaning

ystem

f

a

culture,

nd

to derive heir orce rom

meaning

ather han

rbitrary

iat,

hat he

rtificialistinction

etweenmeaning

and

action,

nd hence

between ulture

nd

society,

s

overcome. aws are never

imposed

without

eing presupposed,

nd thisholds true

for

the

egislative

nd

interpretativespects

f our

own

society

s

well

as for hemore nformal

orkings

of

tribal

ocieties.

What

I would

suggest, y

way

of a modificationfour

concept

f

norm',

s

that

henorms

r rules f a

society

erive

heir

moral nd

social ffect

rom

heir

meaningfulontent,

hat

s,

from

heir

elationship

o

othermeaningsn the cul-

ture.

he norms

f

given ociety, submit,

renot ll of he ame

kind; hey

dmit

of

varying

egrees

f

mportance

r

seriousness,

nd are

differentiallyobeyed'

or

respected,

lthough

he dicts fa centralisedtate

may mpart

false emblance

of

uniformityy being

codified

s

'laws', whereby

he

state nsists n token

obedience

or

symbolic

easons.

This

s

the ruler'sview' of

norms,

n

which

obedience

o even

themost

rbitrary

dictbecomes

symbol

f submissiono

the

state, view that ppears o have been nternalisedn Rousseau'sconceptionf

society).

he

varying everity

nd

significancemong

the norms f a

particular

society

s

a direct esult

f

variation

n

their

meaningfulontent,

he

way

n

which

they

make

normatively

correct' ction

meaningfuly opposing

nd

relating

o

other

meanings

n

the

culture.

f

incest

rohibition

n

fact onstitutesome

n-

trinsic

nd

meaningfulspect

r

characteristic

f human

ociety,

hen

we should

be

able

to account

or ts

normativeforce'

n

terms f

meaning;

f t s

true,

s I

have

rgued,

hat ncest

egulation

s

subsumed ithin hekinship ystem,hen his

meaning

must

lso

nvolve

kinship.

Norms,

ncluding

hevarious

kin

roles hat

help

to

define he

meaningful

cts

of 'moralperson', anbeseen s controls' or he xpressionf ndividualitynd

personal

motivation.I

An

individual

s

taught, bjured,

ncouraged,

nd

con-

strained

o

behave as

a

good child,adult,

man, woman,

etc.

should',

and

is

expected

o

try

his best.But

in

the

eventno one can

approximate

hesemodels

completely,

nd each

person

nadvertently

does

it his

own way'

and thusmani-

fests

is

own

ndividualityhrough

he ccentricities

f

his

performance.

husany



8/14

MAN, DECEMBER

I972,

VOL. 7, NO. 4 607

particular

uman

eing an only be' the dealisedmoralperson'

n

a metaphoric

sense.

But in the sameway, the expression f a person's ndividuality,hatwhich

distinguishes

im

from thers ia special kills,ttributes,eeds, esires, ersonality

characteristics,tc.,

cts s a

control n

his

moralperformance.o humanbeing

can specialise r differentiateimself ompletely; n the attempto 'become' a

ghost

r

god

n a

religious erformancehe ctor nvariablynthropomorphises

is

role. The conscious xpression f meaning husprecipitatests own dialectical

response: rying o be moral creates ur individuality,rying o be individual

createsmorality.

The differenceetween ntentionnd

performanceproduces'

ocialmeaning-

understood

s the dealised

ssumption

f

a

moral

mage

of man-and also the

individualmeaningmanifestedn personalnaming, raft pecialisation,alent,

genius,

tc.

The differencesnd

similarities

erceived ulturally

o

exist

mong

human

beings

re

thus

nterdependent

n

their

efinition.

very

ct of

differentia-

tion

s

meaningfulnly

n

so far s it retains hemoral nd normativestandard'

for

humanity

s its

context; very xpression

f moral

significance

s achieved

over nd

against

ndividual

ifference.ultural

imilarity

nd differencere

there-

fore

elative o

one

another; ociety rovides

he

tandard,

he

quation

r

organisa-

tion,

n

terms

f

which

girl

s

pretty, poet

s

clever,

nd thehunter an obtain

pots

from

he

potter,

r

the atter

cquire

meatforhis

table.

Differentiation,

n

turn,

erves

s

the

ontext ormoral

dealisation.

This interplay rovides hedynamic hroughwhichmeanings embodied n

social action;

n

societies

uch as

our

own

where

aws

are rendered

automatic'

through

odificationnd

enforcement,hisdynamic e-assertstselfn the egis-

lative nd

udicial nterpretation

o

which aws

and

their

nforcementre subject.

Whether

r not

codificationnd

enforcementre

present, owever,

ontrastive

cultural

meaning

sthe ltimate

atent

fnormativeorce.

he Rousseauianmodel

of

society,

ased

on

the

notion f

rule

s

such,

iewsnormative orce n an absolute

sense,

hat

s,

as a

'discipline'

hat

s

necessary,rrespective

f

ts

content,

or he

maintenancef

ocial

rder,

ndthe

neo-Rousseauians

mong ontemporary

ocial

scientists,y basing

heir

nalyses pon conformity'

nd

'deviance',

make the

sameassumption.What I would suggest ere s that aw and normative orce

should

e

approached

n

relative

erms,

n

so far

s

they ltimately

erive

rom he

contrastive,

utable elationshat

enerate

ultural

meaning.

Kin

relations

an be

understoods

a

particular odality

f

thenorms hrough

which

ocial

meaning

s

objectified,

nd individual

xpression

s

controlled.

We

might

hink

f

kinship'

n

this

way

as a

symbolisation

f

how

various ategories

of

people

should

ct

owards

ne

another,

ouched n

terms f

the

metaphorshat

define

umanness.

recisely

ecause

hey eneralise

hehuman

ondition, rawing

upon

vital'

attributeshat

ll

persons

hare n

common

or

are

thought

o),

the

content

f

these

metaphors

asbeen imited o a

few

recurrent

hemes.

haracter-

istically,heynvolve rocreationndthe ctivitiesndsubstancesssociated ith

it,

food

nd

nurture,

nd animation

'soul'

or

spirit'). deologies hrased

n

terms

of

blood',

blood

and

bone',

body

and

spirit',

male

sperm

nd

mother's

milk',

or the

giving

nd

receiving

f

food

re

ubiquitous

n

world

thnography.

he

error

of

many

raditional

inshiptudies,

s discussed

reviously,

as

been

hat f

reifying



9/14

6o8 MAN, DECEMBER

I972,

VOL. 7, NO. 4

these mageries,nterpretingbiological'

metaphor s if t were naturalisticact

(or some

form f

folk mpiricism;ee Schneider

972).

Following our discussion f norms,however,we mightexpect that these

'generalising' ocietalmetaphors,s the objective ontrol n the expression f

personal

r

group dentity, ill oftenbe

reflectedn that expression. hus if

'blood' is

the crucial

ymbolof

humanness,pecific loodlineswill be distin-

guished

s 'Smith'

blood, Jones' blood etc. A marriage, r exchange f vital

fluids,

etween

wo

individuals

manifesting

Smith' blood would

n effect

istin-

guish heparticipantss Smiths' ratherhan uman eings; t would makeuse of

the

forms

hrough hichhumanitys constitutedo assertndividualdentity.n

the bjectiveanguage f deology, hiswouldamount o a 'mixing' of one sub-

stance

with tself, hich

s

indeedone

of theways n which ncest s commonly

defined.

But

by

o

doing, yfailing

o

be

human nd converting generaldeological ct

into a private marriage',the incestuous ffenderimultaneouslyiolatesthe

morality

f

personal

motivation. he

ways

n which

person

an differrom thers

are

all

contingentpon

his

essentialumanity;

f

his kills, alents, esires,ctions,

etc.,

fail o

'anthropomnorphise'im,

he reflection

s

on

his

volition.

He is

then

saidto be

bestial'or

monstrous',

o have no

shame', o temperingfhisdesires

towards

thers,

o

be

inhuman'

by

default r inclination.

Thus,

because f the

nterdependence

fsocial meaning ndpersonalmorality

resulting

rom hedialectic

f

controls',

ailure o

achieve

he deal

metaphor

f

'being' human-however his s culturallyefined-has mmediateonsequences

for

the actor's

personal dentity.

he formal

xpression

f

cultural

meaning

an

no

more

be

separated

rom

personal

motivation

nd inclination

han

kin

cate-

gorisation

an

be

separated

romkin

relationship. person

dentifies imself

through

is social

actions,

nd

acquires

or loses)

his

'humanity' hrough

is

personal

cts

nd nclinations.ecausethecontrols re

nterlinked,very ct,

nd

every situation,

s

simultaneously

social' and

'individual'; people belong

to

cultures,

nd

cultures

re made

up

of

people.

But

identity,

s a

formof cultural

meaning,

oes not

necessarily ertain

o

individuals

lone.

Social

units, arge

or

small, ncluding

erritorial

omplexes,

bloodlines, amilies, ations nd lineages re all differentiatedn theprocess f

identifyinghem,

nd thisdifferentiation

s

as

intimately

ound

up

in

a

dialectic

with

he ultural

mage

of

humanness

s is that f

kinship.

ust

s the ncest aboo

emerges

s

an artefactf thebelief n natural'

kinship,

o the

rgumentseriving

exogamy

rom ocial

needshave

proceeded

rom he

reificationf

dealised ocial

units

s

groups

on

the

ground'.

This s the ense f

Tylor's

amous

ictum

hat:

Again

and

again

in the world's

history, avage

tribes

must have

had

plainly

before

their

minds

the

simple practical

lternative

etween

marrying-out

nd

being

killed

out

(I889).

It is

understandable

hat

Tylor,

s the author

f

a

doctrine f

survivals',might

haveconsidered one-to-oneorrespondenceetween ocialunit nd ocalgroup

to be

part

of

a

prior volutionary

tate

f

man,

but

ater

uthors

who have used

this

rgument,

uch as White

I948),

have had no such

excuse.

n

point

of

fact,

world

ethnography

hows

many

nstances

such

as the

peoples

of

the northern

Northwest

oast

n

America,

rtheDani

ofthe

Baliem

Valley

n

West

rian)

where



10/14

MAN,

DECEMBER I972,

VOL.

7,

NO.

4

609

members

f two or

more xogamous

nitswill nhabit

he amecommunity

nd

intermarryithin t.

n such asesunit

xogamy ecomes

illage ndogamy,

nd

theproblem f marryingut' versusmarryingn' isa matter f definition.ut

so, would

argue,

s

the ssue f

exogamy tself:t turns pon

the dentification

f

specific, amedunits

s against

he ocial

collectivity.

An

examplemayhelpto

illustratehe point.

Consider

society omposed f

exogamous

totemic'

units,

with

names uch s

'eagle',

'badger',

etc.

The social

identityf each unit s

createdhrough

hemetaphorf

being' eagles r

badgers

in

relation o theother

nits

n

the

ocietyas

human

beings,

s a kind

of human

being,

hey rebadgers). he

metaphormaybe

highly

laborated,

ith

ll

sorts f

mythic

nd

ceremonial

mbellishments,

ncludingegends

f

descent rom

agles

or

badgers,

r it

maybe barely tated, ut

n

either

nstance he ffects to

differ-

entiate heunitfrom thers nd implicitlyeny tssimilarityo them they re

'alike' as eagles re to

badgers,

ather

han

s

men to

men).

The

meaning

f the

societal

whole, n

the

ther

and,must easserted

hrough

his

ery

ifferentiation,

lest he

metaphor

f

separateness'ecomes

conceptual

eality.

he

eagles'

and

'badgers' must

anthropomorphise

hemselvesy

intermarrying,omething

hat

'real' eagles nd

badgers

ever

do, andthus ffirmheir

umanityas

badgers

hey

are human

beings).

Of course he

oregoing

s an

extreme

nstance,

aluable

argely

or ts

llustrative

effect,

ut

the

nterdependencef social

meaning the

deal

of

humanness)

nd

unit

dentity

hat t

depicts

s crucial

to the

understanding

f

exogamy.

The

identityfa socialunitmaybe constitutedhroughtotemic'metaphors,s nour

example,

or

through erritorial,

istorical,

r

religious

ymbolisations,

nd the

units

hemselves

ay appearas

moieties,

ouseholds,

art-societies,

r

lineages,

but n

any case t s the

tension

etween his dentitynd

the dealof a common

humanity

hat

xogamy

maintains.The phenomenon

f

ndian

aste

ndogamy,

as

analysed

y

Levi-Strauss

I966:

ch.

4) presents n

interesting

nversion f this

relationship,

n

which

thecultural

efinitionf man

differentiates,hereas

he

moral

ollectivity

s

asserted

hroughhe

xchange f

services.n this ystem

here

aredifferent

inds f

men,

ll

ofwhom

re like

n

their

eeds.)An ndividual

ho

marries ithin is

own

exogamous

nit

ompromisescultural

mageof

man

by

default; eparticularisesisownhumanity yassertingimselfs one kind fman.

As an

infractionf

cultural

orm,

uch

an

actmay or

may not

be

considered

serious;

requently

t

is

dismisseds a

trivialmatter.

he

ideologicalmportance

of the ocial

unit-and

thereforef

there-affirmation

f one's

humanity

hrough

its

particular

ymbols-is

likewise

highlyvariable over the

range of

human

societies. he

wide

variety

f

attitudes

nd

punishmentsnvolvinghebreach f

exogamy-ranging

rom

strongly rofessed

oncern o almost

complete

n-

difference-wouldeem

to

reflect

hisvariation.

Although hey

re

generally ifferent

n

intent

nd effect,ncest

prohibition

and

exogamy

re

nevertheless

oth

aspects r

consequences f

a

more general

phenomenon:he nterdependencefsocialmeaning ndindividualpersonal r

unit)

dentity.ociety xists,

nd

achieves

meaning,

hrough

he

anthropomor-

phism

f

personal

nd

group

ndividuality;he

ignificancef

personal r

group

identity

s

attained

hrough

hevariousways

of beinghuman'.

ncestuous

cts

and

breaches

f

exogamy iolate his

nterdependencey

nverting

t,causing

he



11/14

6Io

MAN, DECEMBER I972,

VOL. 7, NO.

4

actor o

dehumanise' imself

hroughheforms

y whichhumanity

s character-

istically

sserted.

The variationsn theprohibitionf marriage r sexualrelationsncompassed

by thevarious ultures

nownto ethnography

o indeed onstitute

fascinating

subject

or nthropologicalpeculation

nd nvestigation,ut

have tried oshow

that his ubject

s virtually

denticalwiththat

f the respectiveinship

ystems.

The universality'

f the ncest aboo

ultimatelyeduces o

theuniversalendency

among

social anthropologists

o

separate

incategory

romkin relationship

s

part

of their nalysis,

nd to assume hatgenealogy,

ecause t s useful

n under-

standing hem, onstitutes

'common

denominator'

f all kinship

ystems. he

'remarkable' act

hatkinshipystems

ll over theworld

prohibitmating

mong

close

relatives ecomes

ess remarkable

hen

we

realise hat hoseverykinship

systemsandhencethe incest aboo' itself) etermine ho is a 'close' relative,

and that he determination

nd theprohibition

re one

and the amething. he

illusion f an incest

aboocan onlybe

sustained

y a belief

n

'real'

or objective'

kinship,

or

f

siblings'

re differenthings

n differentultures,

owcan sibling

incest'be the ame

thing

n all

of

them? he regularities

f

human

eproduction

provide nly

hebarest

utline f

kindifferentiation,nd

are

often isregarded

r

blurred

ver

n

the

ct of

nterpretation,

ut t s this

ct,

nd

only

econdarily

he

fact

f

procreation

tself,

hat urnishes

he

meaning

f

kinship.

* *

* *

*

I shallnowattempto summarisehepoints educed rpostulated ere s a set

of

conclusions,

nd

add to these ome observations

elating

he

discussiono other

areas

ofanthropology.

i.

The

notion f

an incest

aboo

s a

consequence

f the

way

in

which nthro-

pologists

ave

traditionally

pproached

inship,

ubdividing

setof

genealogically

specified inship

erms

rom

he

corresponding

in

relationships.

his division

corresponds

o the

classical

ichotomy

f 'structure'

nd

'function',

n which

the

atter,

s the

dynamic,

ntegrativespect, rovides

hecreative

and

hence

he

explanatory)mpetus

or

the constitution

f

society.

The

static,

erminological

aspect

s

codified

n

genealogical

erms s

a set of

categories,

hich

may

then

be

assigned o a typologicalniche i.e. 'Eskimo', 'Iroquois', 'Crow', etc.). Kin

relationships

re

likewise yped

nd

reified s those

of

joking',

avoidance',

or

'respect',

s

well

as being

abstracted

nd

simplified

nto what

s

known as the

incest aboo.

It is

suggested

ere

that

kinship

annotbe

simply quated

with

genealogy,

nd

that

kin

relationships

annot

e

meaningfully

eparated

rom

kin

categories.

2.

Explanations

f the

ncest

aboo must

perforce

e conceived

n

functional

terms,

f

only

because

'taboo'

operates

o

regulate

uman

ction,

nd

is thus

functional

n effect.Culturally'

based

explanations

ave stressed

he a

priori

necessityfthe egulation

f

mating

or

he xistence

fhuman

ociety:

naturally'

based ttempts

ave

substituted

enetic

r behaviouristic

ecessity

or

ocial

need,

but otherwise he

two

arguments

re

very

much alike.

3.

In

either

ase,

the

eparation

f cultural

meaning in

the

form f structure'

or

kin

category')

rom

ultural

ction

'function')

orceshe

explanation

fthe

incest

aboo

as

an

arbitrarilymposed

rule',

with

no

necessary

onnexion

o the



12/14

MAN,

DECEMBER

1972,

VOL.

7,

NO.

4

6ii

meanings f

the societiesn which t

occurs.

Thisconception

oincideswith

the

Rousseauian

deal of a social

contract, ased

on the alleged priori

ecessity f

discipline s such for theexistence f society, ndwith theconventionalocio-

logicalanalysis

f society hrough

conformity'

nd

deviance'.

Our

reluctance

to

separatemeaning rom

ction, r kin

category rom

in

relationship,owever,

suggests

differentpproach, nd a

differenterspective n the

ssue of

incest

prohibition.

4. The

severity ithwhich

breaches

f

ncest ormshave

been

nterpreted

y

social

cientists

as beenaccentuated

y the

enlightenment

iew

of norm

s

law,

and

by thenotionof

natural'kinship. f

kinship

s

seen

as a

'real

thing',

based

on

thebiologicalfacts f

reproduction

s manifested

n

genealogy,

hen

ncest

('inbreeding')

ecomes realthing

lso. n the ct of

reification,

ultural

orm

s

apprehendeds if t werea cultural ecognitionndadaptation fnaturallaw'

(as

our

own

laws' of

science epresentnd

formulatenatural aw'),

and thus

t

attains he

inevitability

f natural aw. 'Incest'

becomes

an

absolute

tandard

against

which

personal onduct kin

relationship)s

measured

nd

udged.

I

have

argued,

owever, hat

ersonal ction nd

nclination,ndthe ultural

ategorisa-

tion

upon

which ocial deology s

based, re nterdependentnd relative

o

one

another.Members f

society re like n their

ifferentiation,

nd

different

n

their

alikeness.

When anindividual ails,

nder he ppropriate

ircumstances,

o create

the

metaphor f common

humanity

hat

orresponds

o social

norm,

hismust

invariably

eflect pon hisown

motivation,ndultimately

is dentity.

5.

The usages thatanthropologistsave heretoforebjectifieds the incest

taboo', 'kinship' see

Schneider972), and

exogamy' are

related and

in some

cases

dentical)

manifestationsf the

way inwhichmoral

meaning

s

constituted

in

humancultures.

lthough heir eification

s often

xcused on heuristic r

didactic

rounds

'breaking own' a

culture

n

order ostudyt more

ffectively),

this

nevitably

eads to their

dentifications traits', ndto

theposing

fartificial

'problems' s to how the

raits rerelated, ow

they ame ntobeing,

tc.Hence

a

general

perhaps he eneral)

haracteristicfhuman ulture

omes o be

explained

and

accounted or n

varying nd over-specific

ays, ccording o its

particular

manifestations.he

practice f

exogamy s traced o the

need

to

forge

ocial

bonds, he incest aboo' is seen s a mechanismo prevent enetic amage, tc.

The

acts

dentifiables 'incestuous'

n various ultures

ary s

widely as the

respective

inship ystems,ust as

exogamy arieswith he

constellation

f social

ideology.A 'universal'

tatementf an 'incest

taboo' is possible

only to the

degreethat

genealogical losses,

uch as 'father', mother',

sibling',

etc., are

considered

cceptable s

substitutesor hekin

relationships

f all societies.Many

anthropologists,

specially hose

committed o

traditionalsages,will

perhaps

protest

hat his s a

necessaryimplification,

nd that he

universal enealogical

model

s

essential

or

purposes f

comparison.ollowing

Hocart I937),

I

would

argue

that

howeveruseful

hegenealogical

riterionmaybe, it

projects false

uniformityndconcretenesspon thedata, ndconceals hefact hat heessence

of

kinships

interpretation

fgenealogy, ather

hangenealogy tself

The genea-

logical

model s an

assumptionade

forcomparative

urposes; henotionof an

incest

aboo is

an artefactf that

ssumptionnd

ts mplications,nd

its deriva-

tion' from

he

data

amounts o aninferenceuilt

upon aninference.



13/14

6I2

MAN,

DECEMBER I972, VOL. 7,

NO. 4

6.

Because

of

thepriorityssignedo it n

thefunctionalist

iew ofsociety, he

incest

aboohas

ome

o

be a

symbol

f

man's

mergencerom

'savage' tate,

amediatingermnthe rogressionrombeast' oman,ike he iscoveryffire

or thefabulous

missing

ink'.

Perhaps

his s

why thefolklorend

popular

literature

f

nthropology

as

lways

maintainedhat ribal

eoples

'primitives')

are

obsessed ith ncest

rohibition,

nd

why

olonial

dministratorsave ften

elected

o

punishases

f

ncest ith xtreme

everity

n

an

attempt

o

gain

he

respect

f

thenatives'

seeWagner967:

I30).

Nevertheless,t seems s

if

few

social

ystems

re s

deeply

ommitted

o

the

ymbol

f

exual

ntercourse

nd

he

proprieties

f exual onducts ourown s

Schneider968;

Hsu

97I:

Introduc-

tion),

nd

hat ur dea

f

he

ncest-obsessedative

may

e

implynothernstance

of dealisationf he

primitive'.

7.

Thestudyfnon-humannimalocietiesanprovide nique nsightsnto

the

nature

f

ocietys

a

pan-biotic

henomenon

Count958),

if

only ecauset

affords

reater

ariational

erspectives

han

he

tudy

f

human

ocietieslone

could

urnish.he

points

fresemblance

r

analogy

etweenhese ocieties

nd

their

uman

ounterparts

fferome

antalisingpportunities

or

generalisation

on this

evel. hediscussionf his rticle ould

rgue

or

considerableestraint

in

the

pplicationf termsike incest'

nd

exogamy'

as

well

as

human

in

terms)onon-human

ocieties.

evertheless,indings

uch s

Sade's

emonstration

of

mating

voidance

ith

emale

iological

arentsmong

hesus

onkeys

I968)

suggest

he

ossibility

hat

nalogues

four

ocietal

onstitution

ay

e found

n

some on-humanituations.he ikelihoods that hesere piphenomenafthe

broaderocial

mplications

f exual

estures

nd

postures

such

s

mounting)

n

those

ituations.

NOTES

The critical rgument f this rticle wes much to the work of David M. Schneider,whose

penetrating ssay What is kinship ll about?' (I972) carries he inquiry to

its ultimateroots.

I am grateful o Professor chneider, s well as to Philip K. Bock and Stephen

Tobias fortheir

helpful ommentson the earlierversion of this article.

I

The only parallel to thisconcernwith motivation hat could find

n

the

iterature n the

incest taboo is Talcott Parsons's I954) comment on the necessityboth

to frustrate nd to

encourage a child's erotic mpulses n socialisation quoted

in

Schneidern.d.).

REFERENCES

Aberle, D., U. Bronfenbrenner,. H. Hess, D. R. Miller,

D. M. Schneider

J.

N.

Spuhler

I963. The incest aboo and the matingpatterns f animals.Am. Anthrop.

5,

253-65.

Count,

E.

W.

I958.

The

biological

basis of human

sociality.

Am.

Anthrop.

0,

049-85.

Hocart,A. M. I937. Kinship systems.Anthropos2,

545-5I.

Hsu, F. L. K.

I97I.

Kinshipnd ulture.hicago: Aldine.

Kortmulder,

K.

I968.

An

ethologicaltheory

f the ncest aboo

and

exogamy.

Curr.

Anthrop.

9,

437-49.

Kroeber,A. L. I909. Classificatoryystems frelationship.J.

.

anthrop.

nst.

39, 77-84.

Levi-Strauss,C. I962. Totemismtrans.)R.

Needham. Boston: Beacon Press.

I963. Structuralnthropology.ew York, London:

Basic Books.

I966.

The avagemind.

ondon: Weidenfeld Nicolson.

I969. The elementarytructuresfkinshiptrans.) . H. Bell,J.

R. von Sturmer R.

Needham

(ed.).

Boston: Beacon

Press.

Livingstone, . B. I969. Genetics, cologyand

the

origins

f ncest nd

exogamy.

Curr.

Anthrop.

10, 45-6I.

Lounsbury,F. G. I964. The structuralnalysis

f

kinship

emantics.

n

Proceedingsf

the

Ninth

Internationalongress fLinguistsed.) H.

G. Lunt.

The

Hague:

Mouton.



14/14

MAN,

DECEMBER 1972,

VOL. 7, NO.

4

613

Parsons, T.

I954.

The incest taboo in relationto social structure nd the socialisation f the

child.Brit. . Sociol. , OI-I7.

Radcliffe-Brown,A. R. i965. Structurendfunctionn primitiveociety. ew York:

The Free

Press.

Sade, D. S. I968. Inhibitionof son-mothermating among free-ranging hesus

monkeys.

Sci. Psychoanal.2,

i8-3

8.

Schneider,D. M. i968. American inship: cultural ccount. nglewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice

Hall.

I972.

What

is

kinship

ll

about?

In

Kinship

tudies n theMorgan

Centennial

ear

ed.)

P. Reining. Washington D.C.: Washington Anthropological ociety.

n.d. Attempts o account forthe incesttaboo (unpublishedmanuscript).

Tylor, E. B. i889. On a method of investigating he development of institutions

pplied

to

laws of marriage nd descent.J. R. anthrop.nst. 8, 245-72.

Wagner,

R.

i967. The curse fSouw:principlesfDaribi landefinitionnd

lliance.

hicago,

London: Univ.

of

Chicago

Press.

i968.

Comment

on Kortmulder:

An

ethological theory

of the incest taboo

and

exogamy. urr. nthrop., 446.

1970.

On

measuring nd understanding. aper presented

t the

69th

Annual

Meeting

of the American

Anthropological

Association.

White,

L.

A.

I948.

The definition nd

prohibition

f incest.

Am.

Anthrop. 0,

4i6-35.

Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf