Abstract
Incest in mythology and in practice, like other acts generally forbidden, has its sacred and ritual character. In many myths relating to the creation of man or the founding of a tribe, incest is the foundation. The history of the human race shows that incest has been permitted, usually in the case of royalty or aristocracy. Even where incest is allowed, it is, however, hedged with prohibitions for the majority of mankind.
The author examines theories on the prohibitions against incest. One is that of biological consideration, incest being detrimental to the race. Tribal society, however, had little knowledge or fear of physical degeneracy as a result of incest, and there are many instances where one consanguinous relationship was permitted, while another equally close was interdicted.
Another theory suggested is that erotic attachment to a family member is unlikely due to propinquity. If this were true, there would be no need to impose taboos and laws against the practice of incest. Even prior to psychoanalytic concepts laying open the affectional ties within a family which may predispose to incest, ambivalent feelings towards important figures were recognized.
Some held that while promiscuity and incest prevailed early in human history, these were automatically interdicted following the setting up of tribal systems where exogamy is the rule. Consanguinous marriage is a deep sacrilege. This theory breaks down in view of the existence of endogamic marriage in various societies.
The theory postulated by Freud is fear of the father. The early omnipotent father refused sexual access to his wives and daughters and the sons united and killed him. The resulting guilt was expressed in the incest taboo. This is refuted by most anthropologists but has validity as an understanding of unconscious incestuous motivations.
The author's view is that in fact incest was rare and sporadic in primitive society due to the conditions of life itself, which sharply limited its possibility. Incest taboo, therefore, emerged in a situation where incest could occur only infrequently and like other exceptional acts was at the same time an offence, or a privilege and liberty reserved for exceptional people. Incest must be seen as an act generally prohibited, occasionally sacred and permitted, like homicide. The author makes the point that if unbridled homicide were permitted, the structure of society, which represents the best guarantee for personal security, would be endangered. Man curbs his homicidal impulses in order to survive, but homicide is institutionalized where it seems either to protect society, benefit it, as in war, or propitiate the gods. Incest, like murder, can be classed as a socially isolating practice. Such practices tend to render an individual an object of suspicion and danger, but also superior and sacred. Avarice can also be included as an extreme form of isolation which renders a person antisocial. The miser and the hermit deprive the group not only of their substance but of their participation. In many primitive groups refusal to participate is delinquency. Nevertheless, in certain instances isolation is permitted. Privileged status is given to royalty, the priesthood, the witch doctor, etc.
Every form of isolation is a potential threat, including sex, which is to some extent isolating, separating participants from the group, disrupting for a time normal social relations. Of all sexual practices, incest is the most isolating, as it does not permit the family to be placed at the disposition of society and risks damaging the culture. Every society realizes implicitly the danger and creates the kind of regulations it requires to ensure social interchange.
The point is also made that the incest taboo and oedipal complex are both rooted in the culture and in the individual. Culture, from the point of view of the assimilation of laws and values of society, can be considered a psychological phenomenon. Psychological and cultural factors are required to make strong and durable psychological and cultural prohibitions.
This can be seen from an anthropological viewpoint if we postulate instrumentalism applied to the individual in his socio-cultural functioning. Man operates on three levels: (1) as an individual who uses others for security, prestige and power; (2) as an individual who sees others in a reciprocal relationship where he allows himself to be used for reciprocal needs; and (3) at the service of his culture. Personality, therefore, is not a closed entity but reacts both to the laws of nature and to social and cultural values. An individual must form a certain perception of himself, his reciprocal engagements, his social rôles. In discussing the formation of identity, the author quotes Erikson: “The conscious feeling of having a personal identity is based on two simultaneous observations: The immediate perception of one's selfsameness and continuity in time; and the simultaneous perception of the fact that others recognize one's sameness and continuity.”
The author goes on to describe the development of the child, the establishing of social relations, rôle playing, the kind of apprenticeship that enables him to move out of the narrow range of childhood and which parallels society's growing expectations. There exists also a deep tendency for isolation, for protection, and for non-demanding. The oedipal revolt to some degree resolves this ambivalence and is the first psycho-social crisis. The parents' rôle is to deny him gratification of early cravings and to enable him to make an appropriate sexual identification. Incest barriers are thus created early.
Incest prohibitions are, therefore, based mainly on cultural, sociological and psychological factors. The picture of an incestuous man is not that of an antisocial being but of one not rooted in reciprocal relations. Society is dangerous to him because incest is the triumph of primary instrumentation. He does not fight society but refuses to be involved, seeing society's demands as attacks on his autonomy. He is occasionally a socially amorphous being, a man who has not learned the rules, because they were not transmitted to him. The incestuous man reconstructs his family along the model of a kingdom where he has total authority, or he returns to an earlier mode where he is the sole heir and benefactor, incest therefore assuming for him its sacred rôle. The incestuous man remains always isolated and alone as his sexual objects always seek to rejoin society and try to defeat him.