Origin of the Kin Folk Species - Essay Example

Origin of the Kin Folk Species I. Introduction It is quite amusing nowadays that terms that were usually used for humans such as rape or marriage are now used in biological sciences to refer to animals. I sometimes thought that maybe this association is done to lighten the normally lifeless technicalities of scientific discourse. Nevertheless, I still believe that these concepts have established tradition in human foundations with all their related rights and obligations of individuals and culturally conveyed regulations on the capabilities and limitations of humankind. Hence, I became quite enthusiastic about one of the scarcely studied issue of human sexuality, which is incest. I think incest should be classified as human social behavior where culturally transmitted prohibitions regulate sexual intercourse and marital bonds with close kin and others who perhaps be judged to be legitimately close kin. Inbreeding prevention should be applied for behavior that makes sexual contacts with close kin less likely in both humans and lower form of animals (Breedlove, 2004). This division then leaves open the concern on whether these behaviors have developed for similar rationales and whether both occurrences have similar existing functions. However, what interests me the most is not actually the biological underpinnings of incest or inbreeding avoidance but the history and exceptionality of the phenomenon itself. It is fairly astonishing to know that even in the Bible the issue of incest takes an upper hand. From the Near East, the incest edicts of the Bible, specifically those located in the two chapters of Leviticus 18 and 20, have had more profound effect on Western rules than any similar set of biblical laws. The rules of Leviticus, as well as the rules from the Roman constitution in some cases, turned out to be the law governing incestuous relations in those societies where religion’s summons prevail. For hundreds of years, not merely were the rules of Leviticus 18 and 20 reinforced but also an extreme number of others that originate from them. One rationale for the expansion was that subsequent authorities deemed the list of rules in Leviticus to be simply a limited set of models of the marital and sexual relationships that should be tabooed (Carmichael, 1997). The universality of incest taboo requires an in-depth analysis of its history and contemporary significance. Since time immemorial the phenomenon of incest has been largely explained by the hard sciences. Therefore, it is time to discuss the bizarre concept in the lens of the soft sciences, or what is referred to now as the human sciences. II. Overview: Incest and Incest Taboo According to anthropologists, incest means any sexual contact between close kin, often those inside an immediate family unit that is prohibited or socially forbidden. Of all the laws drafted around the world, incest taboo seems to be unanimously agreed to be written in the constitutions with an indelible ink. Incest taboo is a social norm that forbids sexual relationships between culturally specified relatives (Schaefer and Lamm, 1995). To simply put it, this provision states that we must choose our mating partners outside the nuclear family, both consanguine and legal associations (e.g. adopted children, surrogate mothers,etc.) Hypotheses regarding this gripping notion of incest taboo converge within sociobiology, socio-environmental theories, and psychoanalysis theories. Social scientists draw a parallel line between human sciences and natural sciences by means of interspersing Darwinian’s model of natural selection into the realm of intricate humanly facets of life. These new hybrids of the sciences are termed sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics. Proponents of the Darwinian model contend that incest taboo is the inevitable result of inbreeding avoidance. Incest taboo is considered by social scientists as a part of human behavior and just like species is similarly subjected to natural selection. Products of prohibited sexual unions are often inferior in nature and despicable in appearance (Breedlove, 2004). Following Darwin’s natural selection theory, if this is the case, then logically inbreeding will be outlived by outbreeding, thus favoring incest taboo. Adversaries of sociobiology, the socio-environmentalists, challenge that incest taboo is a practical solution for problems of human social life. As communities progress, structure of the family also changes. From preindustrial to postmodernism, and to go along with that, from extended to nuclear family. Alongside with these developments come setbacks. Survival becomes blight when industrialism kicked in, which developed into the intensification of incest taboo. To assure survival of a descent group, children were obliged to find mates outside their lineage; this is to accrue economic responsibility and military alliance from the other party which will be made possible by an exogamous sexual union (Smith, 1998). Sigmund Freud, a renowned psychoanalyst, interestingly declared that incest taboo is a product of regret of the sons who involuntarily developed a craving for a sexual relationship with their mothers. These sons planted seeds of hatred for their fathers because of jealousy. Yet, these sons are fearful of their fathers’ reprisal and fatal competition between the sons themselves. As a result of this fear, the sons circumvented their sexual sentiments for their mothers; thus, giving birth to incest taboo (Paludi, 1999). If you will endeavor in analyzing these theories on incest taboo, you will, I presume, sensibly choose the arguments of the socio-environmentalists. The Darwinian model is flawed for traditional societies do not possess a credible proof that inbreeding will produce appalling offspring. They are diffident to this scientific knowledge and rather turn to other factors such as the wrath of nature spirits to explain this occurrence. Besides, what Darwinians’ are pointing out is the fate of the products of incest taboo and not its origin. Incest taboo developed not because of natural selection but because of everyday human challenges. Humanity explored the possible frontier for survival hence they thought of a resourceful way to make surviving modestly painless; that is to forge marital unions between two lineages or clans to build economic and military ties. III. The Origins of Incest and Incest Taboo Claude Levi Strauss, a renowned modern anthropologist, claims that incest taboo has been one of the survival mechanisms of humankind. Through forcing individuals to find a mate outside of their family unit, unrelated, battling tribes and clans have been united through marriage and society has thrived (Ember & Ember, 1999). However, during the ancient times the rules against incest were usually violated. Approximately around 1225, the concept of incest came into being and was introduced into Middle English as an official term to express the misdeed of familial incest as people in the modern period know it. Moreover, it was also applied to refer to sexual contact between couples who were married, one of whom had pledged celibacy, which is also termed as ‘spiritual incest’. The word incest originate from the Latin term ‘incestus’ or ‘incestum’, which is the significant use of the adjective ‘incestus’ which is defined as polluted or impure (ibid, 321). It is a widespread knowledge among the historical intellectual community that incestuous marriages were common at some stage of the Egyptian history particularly during the Graeco-Roman period. Archaeologists unveiled numerous papyri and Roman documents that confirm to several husbands and wives being siblings. One of the most popular incestuous relationships was committed by the royal family, particularly the dynasty of Queen Cleopatra who married several of her brothers (Wolf, 2005). The story of Oedipus, with an overriding theme of unintentional incest between mother and son, ends in tragedy and illustrates ancient taboos against incest as Oedipus is chastised for incestuous deeds through blinding himself. In the continuation to Oedipus, entitled Antigone, his four children also suffered the same fate as they were castigated for their parents’ incestuous actions (Simkins, 2002). In the Roman times, incestuous unions were looked upon with disgrace and disgust due to the people’s belief that it is a violation of the laws of gods and mankind, and were unequivocally outlawed by an imperial decree in AD 295, which categorized the concept of incestus into two types of uneven severity; one is applied to both Romans and non-Romans in the Empire, whereas the other one was only applied to Roman citizens. Hence, logically, an Egyptian could select a cousin as a wife, but a Roman could not; although the act of incest being undesirable within the Roman Empire, Caligula the Emperor is believed to have had blatant sexual contact with his sisters (ibid, 3). The prohibition against incest in Ancient Rome is revealed by the reality that politicians would use allegations of incest as mockeries and ways of political marginalization (ibid). IV. Incest in the Bible Once the relationship between the commandments in Leviticus 18 and particular narratives in the book of Genesis the bizarre orientation and design of the rules are not mystifying at all; the rationale that the ban on sexual contacts with parents is the first in the progression of Leviticus 18, and that it was designed at all, is because folklores in the book of Genesis established the lawgiver’s concerns. Furthermore, since the Levitical decrees were put together as a response to the legends, and not to the actual events in ordinary life, it becomes logical why several of the rules strike people as questionable. For instance, in Lev 18:17 a quite unusual rule against a man committing incestuous relationship with three different generations of women, namely, “a woman, her daughter, and her granddaughter” (Carmichael, 1997, 14). Leviticus 18:6, 7 “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover; she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness” (ibid, 15). The two most primitive incidents of incestuous action in the book of Genesis involve drunkenness; the first instance is Noah’s and then the Lot’s. The two events have much in similarities, namely, the contribution of wine, the scheme toward the parent from the children taking advantage of the intoxicated father, and the apprehension with future generations. The lawgiver considered both the incidents and applied them to formulate the first rule of his chains of decrees on incest (Gilman, 1998). The first episode in the Bible which elevates the issue of incestuous action is the misdeed of Ham against his father Noah. Ham gazes upon Noah’s nudity and tells his two brothers, She and Japheth, who warily walk diffidently and wrap their father with a garment. The moment Noah knew that Ham has transgressed him he curses Ham to a lifetime of enslavement to his brothers. Whatsoever the specific nature of the wrongdoing, the Holy lawgiver used the incident to be a sign of the potential sexual transgression of a son against his father (ibid). The second occurrence relevant to the rule takes place when Lot’s daughters had their father drunk and lie with him with the intention of producing children by him. The lawgiver then established the corresponding male misdemeanor, a son’s sexual intercourse with his own mother. This decision on the part of the lawgiver is an instance of how the association between a law and a narrative can be of an indirect character. It is also a logical judgment since the lawgiver addresses males, as the edicts in Lev 18:18 and 19 specify which is forbidden against taking a woman as an enemy wife to her sister and tempting and prodding a woman during her menstrual period (ibid). The rules are focused on the males, but people should be cautious to the distinct likelihood that in specific circumstances the masculine second person pronoun ‘thou’ may count the female counterparts. It can be assumed that the lawgiver transferred from Noah’s state of affairs, in which a son violated against his father, to Lot’s circumstance, in which daughters transgressed against their father (Carmichael, 1997). V. Anthropological Perspective on Incest and Incest Taboo Perhaps the most firm regulation, found in all societies and cultures, is the incest taboo, which forbids sexual intercourse or marriage between numbers of categorized kin. The most widespread feature of the incest taboo is the ban of sexual contact or marriage between mother and son, father and daughter, and brother and sister. There is no known society in the contemporary times that has allowed either sexual contact or marital bonds between those pairs. A small number of societies in the past, nevertheless, did allow incest, more often than not within the royal and nobilities, though commonly it was prohibited to the rest of the population. For instance, the Incan and Hawaiian aristocracy allowed marriage within the family. Perhaps the most famous example of tolerated incest involved Cleopatra of Egypt (Ember & Ember, 1999). Yet, despite these exceptions, the reality remains that no culture that exist today allows or approves of incest within the immediate or nuclear family. Hence, the question is, why is incest taboo universally accepted? Several assumptions have been proposed by various social scientists. Childhood-Familiarity Theory The childhood-familiarity assumption, put forth by Edward Westermarck, was given substantial attention in the early 1920s. Westermarck claimed that individuals who have been intimately related with each other since childhood, such as siblings, are not actually sexually involved to each other and hence would shun from marriage with each other. This theory was consequently rebuffed because of proofs that some children were sexually attracted to their parents and siblings. Researchers have advanced, however, that there perhaps be something behind Westermarck’s assumption (ibid). Yonina Talmon and Arthur Wolf, two brilliant anthropologists, conducted researches on the societies of Israel and Taiwan. The findings of their studies suggest that children raised together are least likely to be sexually attracted to each other when they become adults. Such disinterest is consistent with Westermarck’s conception that the incest taboo may be more of a prevention of particular mating than a prohibition of them. Although Westermarck was discussing about the development of sexual distaste during the earliest stages of childhood, some researchers have questioned how the childhood-familiarity theory could clarify the extension of incest taboo to first cousins. The theory indicates that first-cousin marriage should be disallowed in cultures in which first cousins are raised together in the same community. However, that is not the case because such societies are not more probable to forbid first-cousin marriage (Wolf, 2005). Even though there is something about familiarity in childhood that normally results in sexual apathy, social scientists are still left with the dilemma of why cultures have to forbid marriages that would normally be prevented due to disinterest. Family-Disruption Theory On the other hand, the family-disruption assumption is frequently associated with Bronislaw Malinowski and can be basically understood as follows, “sexual competition among family members that would create so much rivalry and tension that the family could not function as an effective unit” (Ember & Ember, 1999, 320). Since the family has to function effectively for the survival of the society, society has to reduce competition within the family unit. The familial incest taboo is hence reinforced to preserve the solidity of the family. But there are irregularities in this assumption. Society could have formulated other rules about the sexual access of one member of the family to another that would also remove risky troublesome competition. Moreover, there is uncertainty on whether brother-sister incest is disruptive. Sibling incest would not disrupt the power of the parents if the children were permitted to marry once grown ups (ibid). The family-disruption theory, then, has been concluded to insufficiently explain the origin of incest taboo. Cooperation Theory This assumption was suggested by the early anthropologist Edward B. Tylor and was detailed by Leslie White and Claude Levi-Strauss. It stresses on the value of incest taboo in fostering cooperation among family units and hence assisting communities to continue to exist. As Tylor perceived it, particular functions required for the wellbeing of the community can be achieved merely through large numbers of people working together. In order to eliminate doubt and aggression between family clans and establish such cooperation likely, ancient people formulated the incest taboo to guarantee that individuals would get married to the members of other family groups. The ties forged by intermarriages would contribute to the preservation and survival of the communities together. Hence, Tylor elaborated the incest taboo as a response to the option “between marrying out and being killed out” (ibid, 321). Yet, even though marriage outside the family advanced cooperation with other groups, why then would it is essential to disallow all marriages within the family? Although the incest taboo might boost cooperation between families, the necessity for cooperation does not sufficiently explain the emergence of the incest taboo in all societies; other traditions might also encourage alliances (Wolf, 2005). Moreover, the cooperation theory does not explain the sexual attribute of the incest taboo. VI. Conclusion The concept of incest has truly been one of the most interesting, yet also one of the most ignored concepts in natural and social science researches. Nevertheless, a hard fact still remains, which is incest as historically defined and contemporarily discouraged. History claimed that ancient civilizations witnessed incestuous relationships particularly within the royal family due to the latter’s concern of handing over their wealth and dynasty on another family clan through intermarriage. Apparently, then, the impetus to commit incest during the ancient period is an economic and political one. As time went on from then, the act of incest has undergone various modifications because of necessary adjustments to the dynamics of society. Hence, natural and social scientists alike endeavored in explaining the benefits and disadvantages of incest to the individual, to the family and to the society at large. There are a number of theories that were formulated with regard to incest and incest taboo, and some of them were aforementioned. The theories were well-grounded because of the empirical methods that were applied to these studies. However, dilemmas still exist. It seems that there is no comprehensive theory that would sum up all the elements surrounding the concept of incest and incest taboo, which is rather impossible to generate. Therefore, in understanding incest and incest taboo, one must not only delve on one discipline such as sociobiology, psychoanalysis, or anthropology but on the conglomerates of the assumptions put forth in various academic disciplines. Lastly, the prohibition of incest or what is referred as incest taboo should be examined closely particularly with respect to the rules promoted by the Lawgiver. An examination of the biblical ruling has the potentiality to produce an intensive theory that would explain the presence of incest as the driving force of all the civilizations that emerged throughout the world. Works Cited Breedlove, S. M. (2004). Human Sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 169+. Carmichael, C. (1997). Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus: 18-20. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ember, M. & Ember, C. (1999). Anthropology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. . Gilman, S. (1998). Sibling Incest, Madness and the Jews. Social Research , 401. Paludi, M. A. (1999). The Psychology of Sexual Victimization. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Schaefer, R. T. & Lamm, R.P. (1995). Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shaffer, J. (1999). Familial Love, Incest and Female Desire in Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century British Womens Novels. Criticism , 67. Smith, G. P. (1998). Family Values and the New Society. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Wolf, A. P. (2005). Inbreeding, Incest and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Other References Ford, L. A. (2002). Telling, Re-Telling and Talking About Telling: Disclosure And/as Surviving Incest. Womens Studies in Communication , 53+. Simkins, R. A. (2002). Taboo or Not Taboo: Sexuality and Family in the Hebrew Bible. Theological Studies , 649. Read More