Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Anthropologist.
http://www.jstor.org
life among primitive peoples has been challenged by other ethnologists, and I
am not prepared to adjudicate the dispute. But it may be pointed out that
such ignorance should not be very surprising. Once a fact becomes well known
there is a tendency to regard it as self-evident. But the relationship between
coitus and pregnancy, a condition that would not be discovered until weeks or
even a few months later, is anything but obvious. Furthermore, pregnancy does
not always follow intercourse. And knowing primitive man's penchant for
explaining so many things, the phenomena of life and death especially, in
terms of supernatural forces or agents, we should not be surprised to find some
tribes even today who do not understand the physiology of paternity.
At any rate, there must have been a time at which such understanding was
not possessed by any members of the human race. We have no reason to believe
that apes have any appreciation of these facts, and it must have taken man a
long time to acquire it. There are reasons, however, as we shall show later on,
for believing that incest tabus appeared in the very earliest stage of human
social evolution, in all probability prior to an understanding of paternity. The
reason for the prohibition of inbreeding could not therefore have been a desire
to prevent deterioration of stock if the connection between copulation and the
birth of children was not understood.
This thesis receives additional support from a consideration of the kinship
systems of many primitive peoples. In these systems a person calls many of
his collateral relatives "brother" and "sister," namely, his parallel cousins of
several degrees for example, and the children of his mother's and father's
parallel cousins, also of several degrees. Marriage between individuals who call
each other "brother" and "sister" is strictly prohibited by the incest tabu,
even though they be cousins of the third or fourth degree. But marriage with
a first cross cousin may be permitted and often is required. Now these people
may not understand the biology of conception and pregnancy, but they know
which woman bore each child. Thus we see that the marriage rules disregard
the degree of biological relationship so far as preventing inbreeding is con-
cerned; they may prohibit marriage with a fourth parallel cousin who is called
"brother" or "sister," but permit or require marriage with a first cross cousin
who is called "cousin." Obviously, the kinship terms express sociological rather
than biological relationships. Obvious also is the fact that the incest tabus
follow the pattern of social ties rather than those of blood.
But suppose that inbreeding did produce inferior offspring, are we to sup-
pose that ignorant, magic-ridden savages could have established this correla-
tion without rather refined statistical techniques? How could they have iso-
lated the factor of inbreeding from numerous others such as genetics, nutrition,
illnesses of mother and infant, etc., without some sort of medical criteria and
measurements-even though crude-and without even the rudiments of sta-
tistics?
that have been advanced in the past to account for the definition and pro-
hibition of incest. We may however briefly notice two others before we leave
the subject, namely, those of E. Westermarck and Emile Durkheim.
Westermarck's thesis that "the fundamental cause of the exogamous pro-
hibitions seems to be the remarkable absence of erotic feelings between persons
living very closely together from childhood, leading to a positive feeling of
aversion when the act is thought of,"'o is not in accord with the facts in the
first place and would still be inadequate if it were. Propinquity does not an-
nihilate sexual desire, and if it did there would be no need for stringent pro-
hibitions. Secondly, incest tabus are frequently in force between persons not
living in close association.
Durkheim attempts to explain the prohibition .of incest as a part of his
general theory of totemism. The savage knew intuitively, Durkheim reasoned,
that blood is a vital fluid or principle. To shed the blood of one's own totemic
group would be a great sin or crime. Since blood would be shed in the initial
act of intercourse, a man must eschew all women of his own totem. Thus the
tabu against incest and rules of exogamy came into being." This theory is
wholly inadequate ethnologically. Tabus against incest are much more wide-
spread than totemism; the former are virtually universal, the latter is far from
being so. And the theory does not even attempt to explain the many diverse
forms of the definition and prohibition of incest.
In view of repeated attempts and as many failures to account for the origin
of definitions of incest and of rules regulating its prohibition, is it any wonder
that many scholars, surveying decades of fruitless theories, have become dis-
couraged and have come to feel that the problem is still too difficult to yield
to scientific interpretation?
In the same work in which he presented his theory, but some pages earlier,
Freud said: "Still, in the end, one is compelled to subscribe to Frazer's resigned
statement, namely, that we do not know the origin of incest dread and do not
even know how to guess at it."'12
Ralph Linton treats of the subject as follows:13
The causes which underlie such limitations on marriage,technically known as
incest regulations,are very imperfectlyunderstood.Sincethese regulationsare of uni-
versaloccurrence,it seemssafe to assumethat their causesareeverywherepresent,but
biologicalfactorscan be ruledout at once. Closeinbreedingis not necessarilyinjurious
.. Neither arepurely socialexplanationsof incest regulationsaltogethersatisfactory,
since the formswhichthese regulationsassumeare extremelyvaried. . . It seems pos-
siblethat therearecertainpsychologicalfactorsinvolved,but thesecanhardlybe strong
o10Westermarck, 1921, Table of Contents for Ch. 20. 11 Durkheim, 1898, pp. 50 fif.
Freud, 1931, p. 217. Frazer's statement was: "Thus the ultimate origin of exogamy and with
12
it the law of incest-since exogamy was devised to prevent incest-remains a problem nearly
as dark as ever." (Totemism and Exogamy, Vol. I, p. 16".)
18Linton, 1936, pp. 125-126.
new path in the hope of finding an adequate solution of the problem of incest.
The solution has already been found, and that long ago.
Confusion in this field of ethnological theory has been due to circumstances
such as we have just described. Theorists who have sought biological or psy-
chological explanations of incest tabus have been on the wrong track; they
have only led us into blind alleys. Those who have sought a culturological
explanation have succeeded fully and well.1"The culturological point of view
is younger and less widely known than the psychological or even the sociologi-
cal. Although it was set forth simply and adequately by the great English
anthropologist, E. B. Tylor, as early as 1871, in the first chapter of Primitive
Culture-which was significantly enough entitled "The Science of Culture"-
it has not become widely known or appreciated among social scientists, even
among cultural anthropologists. There are some who recognize in the new
science of culture only a mystical, fatalistic metaphysic that should be shunned
like the Devil.19 So habituated to psychological interpretations are many stu-
dents of human behavior that they are unable to rise to the level of culturo-
logical interpretation. Thus, Goldenweiser looked to psychology for ethno-
logical salvation:20 "It seems hardly fair to doubt that psychoanalysis will
ultimately furnish a satisfactory psychological interpretation of this 'horror of
incest'." Professor William F. Ogburn observes that:
Incest taboosand marriageregulationsmay be quite fully describedhistoricallyand
culturally,yet there is somethingdecidedlystrangeabout incest and about marriage
prohibitions.One'scuriosityis not satisfiedby the culturalfacts."2'
And even men like Lowie and Wissler, who have done excellent work along
culturological lines in other areas, have relapsed to the psychological level
when confronted with the problem of incest. Thus Lowie once declared that
"it is not the function of the ethnologist but of the biologist and psychologist
to explain why man has so deep-rooted a horror of incest."22And Wissler is
inclined to turn over all problems of cultural origins to the psychologist, leav-
ing to the anthropologist the study of traits after they have been launched
upon their cultural careers.23
The science of culture has, as we have already indicated, long ago given us
18Cf. White, 1947b. 19 Cf. White, 1947a, especially pp. 189-205.
20Goldenweiser, 1922, p. 242; and 1937, p. 303.
21 Ogburn, 1922, p. 175. What Professor Ogburn means apparently is that culturology cannot
tell us all that we want to know about incest. This is true; psychology must be enlisted in the in-
quiry also. But one must insist upon a sharp and clear distinction between the psychological
problem and the culturological problem. Psychology cannot account for the origin or the form
of the prohibitions; only culturology can do this. But for an understanding of the way the human
primate organism behaves-thinks, feels, and acts-within, or with reference to, one of these
cultural forms, we must go to psychology. See White, 1947b, especially the closing pages.
22 Lowie, 1920, p. 15. 28 Wissler, 1927.
And in our own society today, the economic basis of marriage and the
family is made clear by suits for breach of promise and alienation of affections
in which the law takes a very materialistic, even monetary, view of love and
romance.28 Suits for non-support, alimony, property settlements upon divorce,
the financial obligations between parents and children, and so on, exhibit
further the economic function of the family. Marriage for many women today
means a greater economic return for unskilled labor than could be obtained in
any other occupation.
It is interesting to note, in this connection, that Freud who, according to
27 Ogburn, 1933, pp. 661-662.
We recall, also, Benjamin Franklin's account of his proposal to marry a girl providing her
parents would give him "as much money with their daughter as would pay off my remaining debt
for the printing-house." He even suggested that they "mortgage their house in the loan-office"
if they did not have the cash on hand. The parents, however, thought the printing business a
poor risk and declined to give both money and girl. "Therefore," says Franklin, "I was forbidden
the house, and the daughter shut up." (Franklin, 1940, p. 78.)
28 One court ruling observes that "the gist of the action for alienation of affections is the loss
of consortium. 'This is a property right growing out of the marriage relation' ... " (Supreme
Court of Connecticut, Case of Maggay vs. Nikitko, 1933), quoted in Turano, 1934b, p. 295.
Another legal statement says that "the law generally takes the rather worldly view that
marriage is a 'valuable' consideration; a thing not only possessing value, but one the value of
which may be estimated in money, and therefore, in a sense, marriage engagements are regarded
as business transactions, entered into with a view, in part, at least, to pecuniary advantage."
(Ruling Case Law, Vol. 4, p. 143, quoted in Turano, 1934a, p. 40.)
marriage has been restricted to the ruling families of a few advanced cultures,
such as those of ancient Egypt, Hawaii, and the Inca of Peru. But this is not
"royal incest,'" as Reo Fortune calls it,31or "sanctioned incest" to use Kimball
Young's phrase.32Incest is by definition something criminal and prohibited.
These marriages between siblings of royal families were not only not prohibited;
they were required. They are examples of endogamy, as the prohibition of
brother-sister marriages are examples of exogamy. Solidarity is a source of
strength and effective action in society, as cooperation is a way of achieving
security. And endogamy promotes solidarity as exogamy fosters size and
strength of mutual aid groups.
In view of the fact that a sure clue to the reason for the origin of prohibi-
tions of incest was set forth by Tylor as early as 1888, it is rather remarkable
that we should find anthropologists and sociologists today who juggle with
"anti-incest responses" and who look to psychoanalysis for ultimate under-
standing. As a matter of fact, we find the reasons for exogamy set forth by
Saint Augustine in The City of God (Bk. XV), more than 1400 years before
Tylor:
For it is very reasonableand just that men, amongwhomconcordis honorableand
useful,shouldbe boundtogetherby variousrelationships,and that one manshouldnot
himself sustain many relationships,but that the variousrelationshipsshould be dis-
tributedamongseveral,and shouldthus serve to bind togetherthe greatestnumberin
the samesocialinterests.'Father'and 'father-in-law'arethe namesof two relationships.
When, therefore,a man has one personfor his father, anotherfor his father-in-law,
friendshipextendsitself to a largernumber.
He comments upon the fact that Adam was both father and father-in-law
to his sons and daughters:
So too Eve his wife was both motherand mother-in-lawto her children. .. while
had there been two women,one the mother,the other the mother-in-law,the family
affectionwouldhave had a widerfield.Then the sister herselfby becominga wife sus-
tained in her single persontwo relationshipswhich,had they been distributedamong
individuals,one being sister, and anotherbeing wife, the family tie would have em-
braceda greaternumberof persons.
Saint Augustine does not, in these passages at least, make explicit the ad-
vantages in security of life which would accrue to the group as a consequence
of exogamy. But he makes it quite clear that community of social interest and
"greater numbers of persons" in the group are the reasons for the prohibition
of incest.
3' Fortune, 1932, p. 622. R. H. Lowie also speaks of brother-sister marriage in Hawaii and
Peru as "incest" (Lowie, 1940, p. 233). J. S. Slotkin, too, in a recent article (Slotkin, 1947, p. 613)
appears to identify incest with certain specific forms of inbreeding rather than with a kind of union
that is definedand prohibitedas a crime.
32
Young, 1942, p. 406.
between restrictions upon sexual gratification and social evolution that has
been set forth earlier in this essay. One of the principal themes of Civilization
and Its Discontents" is "the extent to which civilization is built up on re-
nunciation of instinctual gratifications. ... This 'cultural privation' domi-
nates the whole field of social relations between human beings" (p. 63). He
sees that "the first result of culture was that a larger number of human beings
could live together in common" (p. 68); that "one of culture's principal en-
deavors is to cement men and women together in larger units" (p. 72). Thus,
although he proceeds from different premises, Freud comes to essentially the
same conclusions as ours.
There is, then, considerable understanding of incest and exogamy extant
in the literature today. Yet, in a comparatively recent review of the whole
problem a prominent anthropologist, John M. Cooper, has concluded that
"the desire to multiply the social bonds [has] in all probability not been [an]
important factor" in the origin of incest prohibitions.43How far he is from an
understanding of the problem is indicated by the two "chief factors" which he
cites: "(a) sex callousness, resulting from early and intimate association... ;
(b) the distinctly social purpose of preserving standards of sex decency within
the family and kinship circle." The first factor is contrary to fact; intimacy
fosters incest rather than callousness. The second explains nothing at all: what
are standards of sex decency, why do they vary from tribe to tribe, and why is
it necessary to preserve them?
The culturological theory of incest receives support from a comparison
of primitive cultures with our own. The crime of incest is punished with greater
severity in primitive societies than in our own, as Reo Fortune44has observed.
Among the former the penalty of death is quite common; in our society punish-
ment seldom exceeds ten years imprisonment and is often much less. The
reason for this difference is not far to seek. In primitive societies, personal and
kinship ties between individuals and families were more important than they
are in highly developed cultures. The small mutual-aid group was a tre-
mendously important social unit in the struggle for security. The very survival
of the group depended to a considerable extent upon alliances formed by
exogamy. In advanced cultures the situation is different. Society is no longer
based upon kinship ties, but upon property relationships and territorial dis-
tinctions. The political state has replaced the tribe and clan. Occupational
groups and economic organization also become important bases of social life.
The importance of exogamy is thus much diminished and the penalties for
incest become less severe. It is not to be expected, however, that restrictions
make cooperation compulsory and extensive, to the end that life be made
more secure. These institutions were created by social systems, not by neuro-
sensory-muscular-glandularsystems. They were syntheses of culture elements
formed within the interactive stream of culture traits. Variations of definition
and prohibition of incest are due to the great variety of situations. In one situa-
tion, in one organization of culture traits-technological, social, philosophic,
etc.-we will find one type of definition of incest and one set of rules of exog-
amy; in a different situation we find another definition and other rules. Incest
and exogamy are thus defined in terms of the mode of life of a people-by the
mode of subsistence, the means and circumstances of offense and defense, the
means of communication and transportation, customs of residence, knowledge,
techniques of thought, etc. And the mode of life, in all its aspects, technological
sociological, and philosophical, is culturally determined.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
COOPER, J. M.
1932 Incest Prohibitions in Primitive Culture. Primitive Man, 5: 1-20.
DURKHEIM, E.
1940 The Symbol: the Origin and Basis of Human Behavior. Philosophy of Science, 7:
451-463.
1947a The Expansion of the Scope of Science. Journal of the Washington Academy of
Sciences, 37: 181-210.
1947b Culturological vs. Psychological Interpretations of Human Behavior. American
Sociological Review, 12: 686-698.
WISSLER, C.
1927 Recent Developments in Anthropology, in: Recent Developmentsin the Social Sciences,
E. C. Hayes, ed. Philadelphia.
1929 An Introduction to Social Anthropology.New York.
YOUNG, K.
1942 Sociology, a Study of Society and Culture. New York.