Our discussion of taboo, making use of the example of the Levitical proscriptions in diet and sexual behavior, should bring up some important topics for us:
--that laws and customs are "readable" as myths and legends are, and that deciphering and interpreting them offer opportunities for critical questions
--that customs and observances communicate worldview and defend societies against threats identified with the savage or barbaric (or witchcraft, or other evils)
--that the historical and cultural context of traditional and ancient texts, and inspection of problems of interpretation, may help us to develop new perspectives on even contentious contemporary issues.
For next week's discussion on taboo, purity, and the threat of disorder, please respond to the readings with a focused comment:
Have the readings offered you any new ways of thinking about what is forbidden and allowed in contemporary American society, and how people argue in public discourse about what is forbidden and allowed?
One focused paragraph should be sufficient. Please respond by 9 am October 5 so everyone has a chance to look at your comment before class.
Freud, Douglas and Leviticus all speak of either the definition of what is taboo or the definition of taboo. Freud seems to equate taboo with being a savage, Douglas seems to discount the laws of set forth in Leviticus as contradictory and therefore primitive. While the concepts of Freud and Douglas are new to me, they did cause me to think of taboos in society in a new way. Regardless of the reasoning behind the strict rules set forth in Leviticus, it is obvious that the intent was to control what the people were doing or may have considered doing at the time. That said, what the dietary restrictions in Leviticus try to accomplish is not that far removed from the laws that try to regulate marriage today. Who is "clean," who is "unclean?" According to most states, heterosexual couples are "clean" so they may enter into marriage, same sex couples are taboo or "unclean" so they may not marry. The argument against same sex marriage is influenced by the taboos that go back to Leviticus. Freud points out that taboos were used to control "primitive" people from practicing customs out of the norm for their group. Douglas talks about how some of the rules set forth in Leviticus were meant to keep other cultures from "contaminating" the Hebrew culture. Taboos exist to influence people to conform with what the leaders of society view as their ideals. Nothing has changed. Leaders still seek to influence society with their taboos even if they don't call them that. According to those against same sex marriage it is taboo because it will lead to the destruction of the family unit. That is a scare tactic. This reading made me aware that taboos are not just belief systems of individual groups. The belief systems of individual groups can influence society as a whole if those groups have enough power.
ReplyDeleteIn being raised Christian for the first 16 years of my life, I attended a Christian school, where I also attended church at every Sunday. In the past 10 years I’ve realized that much of my upbringing in the Christian community was based on a very selective teaching of the Bible. While much of what I was taught, in retrospect, feels true to the “Word of God,” I’ve also come across a great deal of Biblical law in my own personal reading that was skipped over in school, or by my parents, because it seemed too archaic or irrelevant. Perhaps the text that was skipped over just didn’t fit with the lifestyles my parents and teachers chose to lead. I’ve felt for a long time that this is the largest problem with Christianity; followers picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally and which to pass over. With the exception of it’s stance on homosexuality, much of Leviticus is looked over, rarely receiving any attention or thought. For example, in Mary Douglas’ article, the list of foods deemed clean and unclean is the furthest thing from anyone’s thought when reading Leviticus. Growing up in Maryland, where Blue Crab is an iconic food, my Christian teachers and parents never bothered to teach me that Deuteronomy 14:10 and Leviticus 11:12 both forbid the consumption of any living thing in the sea without fins or scales because it is considered to be an abomination. Over the years, I’ve found myself perplexed by which sins were considered to be “worse” than others. While I was always taught that sin is sin (all sin leads to separation from God), somehow at the same time I wasn’t being taught Biblical teachings about what foods were deemed clean and unclean because food restriction is not considered “normal” in modern American society. I feel as though when I ask a Christian today about this paradox, the response is usually something along the lines of food restriction being Old Testament law. This leads me to wonder why the idea that homosexuality being an abomination not considered to be Old Testament law as well? As seen in much of American politics today, maybe it’s inevitable that people will use the Bible when it’s convenient to them, arguing the points that they are trying to make and then at other times, when it’s not needed, completely disregard the Bible’s existence.
ReplyDeleteHodjat Tavakoli
ReplyDeleteOCT 5, 2011
Both, Freud and Douglas have mentioned several different and notable aspects of Taboo, in regards to the number of thoughts, histories and cultures. Freud acknowledges the Atkinson’s theory of the father who was slain, and regret of the sons who killed and ate him. This caused arising of the Totemism and also ethic at primal society. Thus he stated Taboo in two opposite sums: sacred and forbidden, and declared the relationship between belief and compulsion neurosis. On the other hand Douglas analyzes the holiness of dietary and set of laws from the Bible. All of this information leads me to think that Taboo is not more than a tool in man’s hands. I hereby would like to point out two key characteristics of human beings; being “clever” and “conservative”. Rulers or men in power take advantage of Taboo cleverly to strengthen the grip of their power regardless of being “sacred” or “unclean”. On the other hand, common people believe in Taboo to keep them satisfied, which indicates that the general population tends to be conservative.
To illustrate Taboo in our society, there is a group called “Go Topless” that campaign for women’s right and ask for them to be treated in the same way as men, and end the Taboo for women being topless. The campaign started in 2007 and its supporters gathered on different occasions and the last one was on August 21, 2011. Where statistics show the majority of women are not comfortable with being topless in public, breaking Taboo cleverly is being used for the goal of implementing equal rights between men and women. It seems that it’s not a matter of moral, cultural, or religious prohibition.
http://www.gotopless.org/
From Taylor King:
ReplyDelete“An individual who has violated a taboo becomes himself taboo because he has the dangerous property of tempting others to follow his example. He arouses envy; why should he be allowed to do what is prohibited to others? He is therefore really contagious, is so far as every example incites to imitation, and therefore he himself must be avoided.”
This paragraph from Freud’s essay somehow reminds me of the modern “time-out” punishment in daycare. A naughty child has to sit in a corner for doing something similar to a taboo. Then that child also becomes a taboo, because the other children will want to break the rules and be like the one in trouble. Therefore, have to be avoided by the other children, by being put in time out.
“As in the case of taboo the nucleus of the neurotic prohibition is the act of touching, whence we derive the name touching phobia, or delire de toucher.” - Frued. All throughout the Leviticus readings, touching is a key aspect of the do not does. Many of those phobias carried through to other parts of our lives. Sanity was a key issue when the Bible started heavy circulation and the Bible doubled as a teaching tool, not just in spirituality, but in cleanliness as well. Not that I am promoting the bible by any means, just the fact that people often categorize the Bible in one group, religious readings. The discussion of how it played a large roll in the human sense outside of mentally, is understated to a great deal. Even today in school I walked by two stalls full of feces from students who likely did not want to touch the toilet flush for sanitary reasons. The problem that occurs is that the entire restroom is now subject to a build up of bile that will slowly build up in the surrounding atmosphere making it unsanitary for a large portion of people, those who use the restrooms. To me it seems that some of the issues addressed by religious practices have to an extent, taken a full swing and are now causing the problems that they sought to remedy.
ReplyDelete