1225–1274) advocated alliance theory and asserted that incest hindered child development. 354–430) proposed a natural aversion to incest and an "inherent sense of decency" that prevents incestuous relationships. In addition to alliances, Augustine (c.e. 56–120) offered a theoretical framework similar to Plutarch's, suggesting alliance networks as the reason for the incest prohibitions in Roman society (Honigmann 1976). If family members were to engage in sexual relationships with each other, role conflicts and jealousies would destroy the effectiveness of the family institution. Familial conflict theory argues that incest restrictions exist to prevent destructive conflicts within the family. This network works because rules of incest force individuals to find sexual and marriage partners outside their own families. Alliance theory concludes that the incest taboo exists to create an outward reaching network of cooperative kin, which is a primary social structure essential for human survival. His writings anticipated two modern theories: alliance theory and familial conflict theory. 46–120?) was one of the earliest Western scholars interested in the incest taboo. In technologically advanced societies scientific explanations have commonly replaced religious beliefs, and religious sanctions have been replaced by legal penalties and concerns about genetic harm to progeny. In many instances, the incest taboo is intricately entwined with religious tenets and proscribes supernatural sanctions against violators or against the society as a whole. In other communities, the act of incest is considered horrifying or unthinkable, and transgressors may be put to death or expelled from the society. In some societies, members simply express disapproval or distaste when incest occurs, as might be expected in the presence of bad manners. Sanctions for taboo violations reflect a similar cross-cultural diversity. Likewise, many societies deem the incest taboo extremely serious, whereas other groups view the taboo more casually. Whereas it appears that most societies have some sort of incest prohibition, the rule is not strictly universal. There are many cross-cultural variations in the incest taboo. In turn, these sexual regulations are an important component of the extensive normative structure regulating family, marriage, and kinship systems, and ultimately the larger society. A thorough understanding of the incest taboo necessarily recognizes this rule as an important part of a larger system of sexual regulations. This includes distantly related individuals to which an actual genealogical connection cannot be made (Murdock 1949). In societies composed of unilineal descent groups (e.g., lineages, clans, and moieties), the incest rule often includes all or most of a person's descent (kinship) group. Typically included in the taboo are nuclear (parents and children) and immediate (e.g., grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and first cousins) family members. Closely related to the incest taboo are the rules of exogamy that usually prohibit marriage between the same categories of kin forbidden by incest rules (Murdock 1949). Thus, interest in the incest taboo has an extensive history.Īlthough the incest taboo varies in meaning by society, it is frequently an important rule of prohibition, commonly encompassing religious sanctions, and usually forbidding sexual contact between particular categories of relatives and family members. Historically, western scholars believed that the incest taboo-long proposed as a cultural universal-is vital to understanding the human condition. The incest taboo is one of the oldest and most perplexing mysteries encountered by students of human society.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |