Sexual Taboo and Social Boundaries - Research Paper Example

Sexual Taboo and Social Boundaries As for pederasty, I don’t know anything at all about it. What do people know? Do people know why a man chooses such and such a position for making love? Pederasty was imposed on me like the color of my eyes, the number of my feet ... I had to accommodate myself to it even though I knew that it was condemned by my society. Jean Genet (White, 1993) Human sexuality is not static, neither always predictable nor easy to understand. Sometimes it is equally difficult to understand the response of a particular society, in a particular context to human variations in sexuality. One such variation, consistently evident in human society is homosexuality (Rubin, 1984). By examining the social, economic, ecological, and political order of a society, however, it is possible to arrive at some understanding of that society’s response to sexual variation. Using three texts, listed as prescribed in the References section of this paper, it is proposed that sexual taboos, notably those relating to homosexuality, can be explained as they manifest in the ancient world, and consequently in present-day Western societies, by a close examination of the conditions within the societies in which they occur. Current Western society has been significantly influenced in its attitudes to sexuality by the pre-occupation of late Nineteenth Century society with vices (Rubin, 1984). It was during this era that strongly Judeo-Christian morality, as determined by the political powers of the time, came to be instituted in law, in education, indeed in every aspect of social life. Among the prohibitions on masturbation, sex workers, expressions of sexuality in the young, and countless others, the criminalization of homosexuality in Britain, was implemented in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 (Rubins, 1984). Hence, consensual or non-consensual sex acts between were legally prosecuted in Britain until 1967 (Rubin, 1984). In the United States, a wider social movement began in the post-World War II late 1940s, in which the equating of homosexuality with Communism as a risk to the values of the country prompted what Rubin (1984) calls purges. But even before this the … first anti-obscenity law was passed in the United States in 1873 (Rubin, 1984). Police and other government agencies were relentless in the rooting out of such subversive (writer’s italics) elements. Homosexuality again, in the 1970s and early 1980s was the focus of attention. In this instance, though, not only the government agencies were involved. Queerbashing has become a significant recreational activity for young urban males. (Rubins, 1984) – evidence of a wider societal rejection of homosexuals. What is it about present society that has led to such responses toward particularly male homosexuality? Some clues are to be found in an examination of earlier human societies and civilizations. Davies (1982) argues that such taboos are the result of a society wishing to strengthen its identity by excluding groups such as homosexuals. She further proposes that such exclusion clarifies the boundaries between different status groups within religious or military organizations. Early Christian teaching – notably in the Old Testament Christian Bible book of Leviticus – is cited in this argument as evidence of the punitive and definitely exclusionary nature of such societies. Other arguments support the introduction into the world of dualistic religions, setting into opposition good and evil, flesh and spirit and male and female (Greenberg, 1988). Prior to the widespread acceptance of these religions, polytheistic religions did feature aspects of homosexual, ritualistic practice, such as temple prostitution (Greenberg, 1988). As social and economic conditions altered, such religions declined. With the growth of larger cities, in which the religious and political power of regions was centered, trade routes opening up throughout Europe and Asia, and the perceptions of the aristocratic classes as hedonistic and decadent, the rejection of homosexuality increased (Greenberg, 1988). Thus, similarities can be found in the ancient world and the more current history of Europe and the Americas, to tie social and economic change to attitudes towards homosexuality. Just as Industrialization and Urbanization have transformed rural and peasant populations of today into an urban and industrial workforce, and … created new formats for political and ideological conflict. (Rubin, 1984), populations in the ancient world experienced … the emergence of vast empires … (which) helped prepare the way for syncretic transnational monotheistic religions … (Greenberg, 1988). It appears that vast social change is likely to cause the necessary insecurity and lack of definition among members of society, prompting the exclusion of groups within the population perceived as different – and the consequent strengthening of the sense of identity within the mainstream society. This claim is supported by the thoughts of Michel Foucault, whose History of Sexuality is cited by Rubin (1984). Foucault proposes that human sexual practices are … constituted in the course of historically specific social practices. This assertion supports the contention of this writer, elaborating on Rubin (1984) – that sexuality is formed by exposure to society and history, and not biologically, in isolation. Further, the attitudes and responses to homosexuality, particularly, are not determined by anything other than the conditions in a specific society. Hence, today, right-wing movements’ reactions against homosexuality must, in part, be attributed to the sexual and societal freedom of the 1960s and 70s, according to Rubin (1984). This argument is extended when she contends that Western cultures tend to take sex and sexuality far too seriously – and consequently systematic mistreatment of communities of differing sexuality are consistently prosecuted, and persecuted. This in turn may lend some credence to the anthropological theories of Mary Douglas, as cited extensively in the last section of the Greenberg (1988) article. Douglas’s thinking defined group as a variable in society that allows individuals strongly to identify with the group within society to which they belong. Grid is presented as a second variable that reflects a clear, strongly adhered to set of social rules and institutions within a society (Greenberg, 1988). A perhaps accurate description of the current nature of Western societies during the 1960s and 70s according to Douglas would be as having both weak group and weak grid (Greenberg, 1988). Morality in the era had become personal, as had religion. Social roles were perhaps not clearly defined in terms of even gender, and social control over sexuality was low. Similarly late ancient Greek and early ancient Roman cultures, argues Greenberg (1988) exhibited weak group and grid. Homosexuality could be practiced without social disapproval. In contrast to this, however, the early Christian church espoused that even thought could be sin (Greenberg, 1988). Further, that early Christian response began to reflect the growing asceticism of the early Christian age, as the vast empires of the past began to disintegrate. Homosexuality, particularly, began to be overtly rejected and despised. Perhaps a current parallel exists – as the economic, political, and social influence of the North American and European cultures show signs of weakening, and the Asian countries begin to exert particularly economic influence on the world, a more moralistic and oppressive approach will emerge in the Western world. It is important to note that Greenberg (1988) does not accept the anthropological theory proposed by Douglas wholeheartedly. He particularly highlights the failure of the theory to take into account forced and exploitative relationships within society. But as a generalized measure of a society, this writer leans toward a tacit acceptance of Douglas’s thoughts. Added clarity is also possible when considering the proposals by Davies (1982), as mentioned earlier in this essay. Boundaries within hierarchical institutions such as the military, or the churches, are perceived as protective of the distinctions between groups, and the status levels on which power is grounded. Thus sexual relations which threaten the boundaries of such institutions, or the exclusivity of membership in those institutions, are taboo (Davies, 1982). The respect with which such institutions are viewed within the given society makes for a high grid, high group society, within which homosexuality is almost definitely rejected. Thus it is interesting that the current Western world may reflect such a society. The militarization of the United States post-9/11 may have had some influence. The overturning of the same-sex marriage legislation, recently in the state of California surely reflects current attitudes. Rubin (1984) writes that … it is precisely in times such as these when we love with the possibility of unspeakable destruction, that people … become dangerously crazy about sexuality. Evidently, more study will reveal closer ties between responses to sexual behaviors of groups and individuals within society, and the nature of a specific society. The historical, social, and economic analysis considered in this paper certainly suggests that different societies are characterized by very specific responses to homosexuality and other sexual variations. In conclusion, the words of Rubin (1984): The time has come to think about sex. References Readings as prescribed: Davies, C. (1982) Sexual Taboo and Social Boundaries in The American Journal of Sociology Greenberg, D. (1988) Sexual Asceticism in the Ancient World in The Construction of Homosexuality Rubin, G. (1984) Thinking Sex: Notes on a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Sexuality And: White, E. (1993) Genet. Picador, London (p.440) Read More