Upload
edson-cabelo-matarezio
View
274
Download
9
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
1/14
Incest and Identity: A Critique and Theory on the Subject of Exogamy and Incest Prohibition
Author(s): Roy WagnerReviewed work(s):Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 601-613Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2799952.
Accessed: 16/01/2013 08:32
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 [email protected].
.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access toMan.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2799952?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2799952?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
2/14
INCEST AND IDENTITY: A CRITIQUE AND
THEORY ON THE SUBJECT OF EXOGAMY
AND
INCEST PROHIBITION
ROY WAGNER
Northwestern
niversity
Traditionallyhe ncest aboo
has been
among
the
most
widelyreportedor
assumed) f all ethnographictraits'; t is commonly ited as an exampleof a
'universal'
spect
f human
ulture,
r
even
as
a
definitive
roperty
f
human
culture.Consequently, he prohibition
f incesthas
frequently
erved s an
a
prioripostulate
or
theories elating
o human
society,
ts
origins,
nd its con-
stitution,xemplified ecently y
the
writings
f Claude
Levi-Strauss
I969).
Whereas
Levi-Strauss
erives
is notion
of incest
rohibitionwhich
s
really
theory f exogamy)
romMauss'srules
f
reciprocitytheobligations
o
give,
to
receive,
nd
to
reciprocate),
nd
thus tresses
ts
ssociation ith
human
ymbolic
or
cognitive ulture,
s
does
Livingstone
I969),
others,
uch s Kortmulder
I968)
and Aberle
t
al.
(I963),
have
suggested
hat
ncest
rohibition
s
a behavioural
tendency,hat t is natural n origin,howevermuch man may rationalisets
existence. he issue f
whether
ncest
rohibition
s
essentially
atural
r
cultural
s
symptomatic
f the
dilemma
facing
modem
anthropology,
ith ts
deep
seated
differences
s
to
which
of
our own
categories,
atural
aw
or human
reason,
s
more
ppropriate
or he
representation
f
cultural
henomena. ascinating
s this
issuemaybe,thepossibilityemains hat roponents
f
both
lternativesre
guilty
of
reifying
hat
s
merely
n artefact
f our own didactic
onstructs,
nd that
he
problem
f
ncest
rohibition,
s
it s
commonly onceived,
s
a
pseudo-problem,
whose realcentre
f
gravity
ies elsewhere.
n this rticle should
ike to
explore
this
possibility,xamining
he
various
acets
f
the
problem,
nd to state
few
tentativeonclusions.
Those who have
argued
hat ncest
rohibition
n
human
beings
s
natural
n
origin
have
had
to
rely upon
two
rather
erilous
nferences. he first
s
that
behavioural
egularities,
r
generalisations,
an be
inferredrom
deal statements
or formulations
f
human
ulture,
r
in
other
words,
hat ncest s
a real
thing'
rather
han kindof
meaning
r a
way
of
speaking
bout
thingsWagner 968).
The
second s
thatbehavioural
egularities
bservable
mong
other nimals
re
in some
significant
ense
nalogous
o
prohibitions
n
human
ulture. oththese
assumptions
end
toward
metaphors
ased
on the
anthropomorphismf animal
culture
r the
oomorphism
fhuman
ulture,lthough
his
y
no
means
recludes
their alue s
analogies.
t s
clear, owever,
hat he
major mpetus
or
discovering
'incest'
avoidance mong other nimal
ocieties erives
rom heethnographers'
assumption
hat
ncest-prohibition
s
a
unitary henomenon
n
human
ocieties,
or that t
is in
fact
definitivef
human
ociety.
hus
our
focusreturnso
the
plausibility
f
this
ssertion,
nd to
the
question
f
whatthe
ncest abooreally s.
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
3/14
602 MAN, DECEMBER
I972,
VOL. 7, NO. 4
When
speak
f
incest', mean ctsof a sexual or morally quivalent) ature
as understoodo be committedetween ersonsmanifestingin oles hat xplicitly
or implicitlyxclude hem.When I speak of exogamy', mean the moral n-
junction o select ecognisedexualpartnersnd/or pouses rom
ocial
units ther
than hose fwhich ne s a memberor to which ne s otherwiselosely elated).
In
all nstances,hese njunctionsre contingentpon the deal moral odesof the
culturesoncerned.
The notion f ncest resupposes conception f kin role, nd whereno con-
ception
f
this
ort
s found o be present,
he
erm
s
inapplicable,xcept erhaps
as a 'projection' n thepart f theobserver. he notion f exogamy ependsna
similar
way on the conceptualisationf social units. t
is
important
ere
to
dis-
tinguish etween he descriptivese of these erms o gloss' behaviouralcts, s
one might o in speaking f incest' among dogs,or of exogamous' troops f
primates,nd therecognitionf ncestuous r exogamic ehaviour
s
meaningful
to
the actors hemselves.n the formernstance he kinship'
nd social
units'
involved re constructsf the observer,nd incest' and exogamy' derive heir
relevance olely rom is use of such ocialcomparisons.n the econd ase ncest
and exogamy an be treateds operative ategories,
rovided f course hat
we are
precisely lear s to whatwe meanby them,
nd
what
the
ubjects
f
our
study
meanby them.
Numerous
ttempts
ave beenmadeto define he
wo
concepts
more
precisely,
by generalisingpon thecontent f particulardeologies nd codes,but,
s in
the
case of totemism', hey re
... like hysteria, n that once we are persuaded to doubt that t is possible arbitrarily o
isolate certain henomena and to group them together
s
diagnostic igns
of an
illness, r of
an
objective nstitution,
he
ymptoms
hemselves anish
or
appear refractory
o
any unifyinig
interpretation
Levi-Strauss
962: i).
The definitionalroblem ecomes ne of trying o find
ome
universal,bjective
content haracteristicf
all
conceptions
f
'incest' or
'exogamy',
so that
ts
universal
xistence
s
a 'fact' (and
hence universal
cause' forthe
fact)
an be
adduced.
n
thecase of
ncest,
uch fforts
ave
generally
ddressed hemselveso
thegenealogical pecificationsf theprohibitions,o the mportance
nd distri-
bution
of
certain
genealogically pecificprohibitions'mother-son',
father-
daughter',sibling'),
r to the extension'
f certain
basic'
prohibitionsi.e.
those
of
the
nuclear
amily).n
the nstance f
exogamy,
he
ssue
hasbecome
nmeshed
in
theproblem f distinguishingdeal ocialunits rom
ocalised esidential
roups.
Exogamyhas been made to appear
factual' nd real
n
many
ases
by assuming
that
heformernd the atter oincide-that
s,
ike
ncest,
t
has been
objectified
by identifying
t
with
n
empirical
ase.
Here I
propose
o treat
oth ncest nd
exogamy
s issues
nvolving
he
conscious,
moral
meanings
n
human culture
rather
han he ubliminalmplications
f affect
r
socialfunction.
shall
beginby
examining ur grounds or objectifying'he ncest aboo,and return resently
to the
question f exogamy.
* * * * *
If
kinship ere precise, bjective endering
f
genealogy
n
all cases
nd
n
all
cultures,nd
f
ts erms ndrelationsnvariablyepresentedenealogical rderings,
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
4/14
MAN,
DECEMBER 1972, VOL. 7, NO. 4
603
then
we
would be ustifiednspeaking f
kinship' n all instancesf
biogenetic
connexion, r
in
extending
thermeanings haracteristicf
kinship sage
to
purely
bservationalata.Butkinship
s
not
simply escriptivef
genealogy;ts
referenceogenealogicalrderingssselectivetbest, nd this
elections theresult
of
nterpretation.kinship
erm rings ogether set frelatives
nda
relationship
(Schneider
968),
or a normative ode of
behaviour,
hichhas a
real,symbolic
meaning.When
omponentialnalysis roceeds
o define'
kin
erm
with eference
to ts
genealogical enotataLounsbury964), the haracterf
the
kin
relationship,
to which he erm lso refers,
s
taken
orgranted r
gnored.
roblems
f this
ort
beset
ll
approaches hat ase themselves
n the
ssumption
hat
lassificationnd
lexical ignificationreequivalento
meaning
Wagner
970), but
hepointhere
s
particularlycute,because
the issue of incest
egulation
nvolves
preciselyhe
connexion etween indenotationndkinrelationship.hepossibility,rperhaps
the ikelihood, f marriage nd sexual
relationss
an
aspect
of
the
relationship
between ersons
including,
n
some
cases, insmen),
nd
anyparticular
ystem
f
incest rohibition
mounts o a statement
f
what kinds
f
relationshipshould
characterise
hat
ategories
f
kinsmen. ut
of
course
f
relationship
s
part
f
the
definition
f
a
kin
category,
s I
suggest
t should
be,
then
statementf
ncest
prohibitions
is-a-vis
ategories
s the
purest
nd most rivial f
tautologies,
ecause
the
very
ame
rationale,
nd the
very nterpretive
cheme hat
defines he
content
of the
relationships
lso determines
he
genealogical
orrelates f
the
corres-
ponding ategories.
Perhaps n examplewouldhelpto clarifyhematter.fwe chose o describe
system
f
ncest
rohibition
n
a
purely
enotative
ay,
treating nly
the
genea-
logical
orrelates
f kin
categories
s
objective
data',we should
have to
begin
by
making
wo
ists, eparating
ut theterms
orresponding
o
prohibited'
elatives,
and
isting
hem
eparately
rom hosewithwhom sex or
marriage
s
permitted'.
(I
am
assuming,
or
he ake of
simplicity,
hat
ll
terms an
be
classed
nambig-
uously
n one set or
the
other;
his s
certainly
ot
lways
he
ase).
Our
two ists
will
tell
us,
n a
crude
nd rather
ncomprehensiveashion,
omething
bout
the
general
utlines
fa
system
f ncest
rohibition.hey
willtell
us
very
ittle
bout
the
relationships
nvolved,
orthese re abstractedo the
simplistic
cheme: ex
and/ormarriage rohibitedersus exand/ormarriage ermitted,ndtheywill
tell us
very
ittle bout the
rationale or the
constitutionf
the
kin
categories
themselves,
or these
will be stated
n
the barest
genealogical
erms.
But
the
relationships
hat
regulate
marriage
nd
sex are
often
uite
complex,
nd
have
many
nuances
nd
qualifications,
nd there re often
ulturally
efined inds
f
behaviour
such
s
prohibitions
n
speaking,
oking, ouching,eeing, tc.),
which
have
a close
bearing
n
marriage
nd
sexual
relations;
description
hat
would
take
ccount f thesewould
have to break
down'
its
istings
nto
commensurate
number
f
gradations.
This, oo,
could
be
done,by
composing separate
ist f
genealogicallypecified
terms or achparticularspect fprescribedehaviour elevant omarriagend
incest
rohibition,
nd
for
very
ualification
f
t.Of course ach
ist
would
have
to
be
accompanied
y
a
gloss,
nd the
set
of
lists s
a
whole would
require
comprehensive
tatement
egarding
heir
nterrelationship.
t
would be
found,
n
fact,
hat he
complete
etof
ists,
aken
ogether
ith heir
losses
nd
the
tate-
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
5/14
604 MAN, DECEMBER I972, VOL. 7, NO. 4
ment f heirnterrelationship,mount onothing ore r ess han rationaleor he
assignment
f
certain enealogicaloci to certain ategories
n thebasis frelation-
ship, r more imply, replicationf thekinship ystemtself.n otherwords, he
system
f incest
rohibitions
s
subsumed
within he
kinshipsystem', nd can-
not
be
separated
rom
t,
for s
we have seen, he amerationale othdefines he
categoriesnd specifieshe relationshipsmong them. There
is no
difference
between kinship ystem
nd a
system f ncest rohibition,
ence here an be no
relation etween hem.
A
false roblem
s
created y
separatingelationship
rom
genealogical
enotation nd then
nquiring
bout herelation etween he two;
only
if kin
category
nd kin
relationship ere
distinct henomena ould we
properlypeak
f
a relation
etween hem.
If
we
assume
that
kin
category
s
a
matterof genealogicaldenotation,
or grouping, lone, thenthe whole matter f kin relationship, aving been
excluded rom
kinship'proper,
ecomes
problematic.
erein, suspect,
iesthe
origin
f
the ncest
aboo,
or
at
least
of
the
anthropologist'serception
f
t;
it
sums
up
the relationalresiduum'
remaining
fter
inship
as been reduced
o
genealogical enotation,
nd does so in
genealogicalerms'it
is forbiddeno mate
with one's
father,mother, iblings, tc.').
Traditionally,
ocial
anthropology
as
analysed inship y
a
process
f
taking enealogical
enotationnd
relationship
'apart',
and
then
putting
hem
back
together' yexamining
he
ways
n
which
members
f a
given
culture reatvarious
genealogically
efined elatives. he
locus
lassicus
f
this
pproach
s
Radcliffe-Brown's
aper
The mother's rother
in SouthAfrica'
I965),
althoughtoriginatednRivers's ioneeringntroduction
and use
of the
genealogical
method'.
Linguisticnthropology,asing tself pon
Kroeber's llegation
hat
kin
terms re
primarily
inguisticnd 'psychological'
(I909),
has contented
tself
merely
with
aking enealogical
enotation
lone,
nd
ignoring elationship.
n both
ases,
hedissociationf
genealogical ategory
rom
kin
relationship
s
a
premiss
f didactic
rocedure,
s s
the
imilar
issociation
hat
Levi-Strauss's
iscussion
f the
atom
of
kinship'I963:
48) requires.
n
all
these
instances,elationship
s
artificially
solated s
a
thing
n
itself,
nd
the
so-called
'incest
aboo',
the
rchetype
fkin
relationship
n
and of
tself, ecomes lausible
as
a distinct
nd discrete
ntity.
The relation hat traditionalnthropology as postulated etweenkinship
denotation
nd
kin
relationship
as
argely eenfunctional,
roposing
hat he
ways
in which
ertain
enealogical
elativesre
conventionally
reated
onstitute
actors
that
ntegrateociety
nd
hold
it
together'.
his s a
key ssumption
f
Radcliffe-
Brown's
unctionalism,
nd
t
continues
o
givekinship
central
lace
n
the
ocietal
theories
f Fortes
nd
others.
ollowing
hediscussionn
the
preceding aragraph,
it
becomes
pparent
hat
he
ncest aboo s a
sine
ua
non, lmost kindof charter,
of
this
pproach.
f function
s
taken
s the
prime
reative nd
explanatory
actor
in theconstitution
f
society,
hen
kin
relationship
ust ome before in denota-
tion 'structure'), ence n incest aboois taken s theorigin fkinship,nd of
society.
The
proponents
f
a
biologicalexplanation
or
the incest aboo have
performed
hatcould
be called
'Malinowskian
ransformation'fthis ociety-
centred,
r
Durkheimian,
unctionalism.
Function',
n
this nstance,s simply
reinterpreted
s
a
natural,
ather han
cultural, ecessity;
nstead f integrating'
society,
he ncest aboo
becomes
necessary
orce n
keeping he stockhealthy
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
6/14
MAN,
DECEMBER 1972,
VOL.
7,
NO.
4
6o5
(Aberle t
al.
I963,
disputed yLivingstone969)
or in
holding
own
disruptive
aggression
Kortmulder
968).
Giventhis heoreticalackground,t is scarcelyurprisinghat nthropologists
have
typicallyepresentedncest egulations a
lawor
rule,
hat s
as
a
conventional
strictureoverning relationship.
hether
his law'
is
an
artefact
f
culture r
nature
s
a matter o be contendedmongthe social
and
biologicaldeterminists,
but
it is
significant
n
the light
of
our discussion
f
kinship
hatthe
primary
meaningsf
law' and rule' refer o theregulation
f human
elations.
hus,
n
terms f
kinship,
he ncest aboo
s
a rule hat
empers
man's bestial'or
natural'
tendenciesia therational
rder
f
culture,
nd thereforekindof
equivalent
f
Rousseau's ontrat
ocial,
n
arbitrarilydopted
ule
xisting ua
rule
to
provide
basis or
ulture. evi-Strauss, ho samong
ther
hings
n
avowed
Rousseauian,
hasmademuch fthis spectnchapter 'The universefrules')ofhisElementary
structuresfkinshipI969).
The
conventional otion f the
ncest aboo
s
thereforehe
result
f
twoserial,
linked
assumptions.
he first
s
that
kinship
an be defined s a
structure,
r
classificatoryet, fgenealogical
enotations,
o the xclusion f
kin
relationships.
The
second,whichfollows rom his,
s
that
hisresiduum f
kin
relationships,
comprehensibles an arbitrarily
mposed rule' epitomised
n
the ncest aboo,
determineshe
kinship ystem
n an a
priori,
unctionalense. have
presented
argumentso the ffecthat hefirst
ssumption
s a
didactic nd
theoretical
ubter-
fuge,
nd thatkin
relationship
nd
kin
category
re
inseparable y
definition.
shouldnow ike o examine he econd ssumption,ithparticularttentiono the
notion f
rule, r aw.
* * * * *
The
concept
f
law' or rule' (as
in
the rules
f a
society')
s
doubtlessargely
used s
a heuristicevice
n
anthropology,eferring
o a moral r
normativeorder'
that
governs elationships
n
a given
ociety.
he
concept
s
heuristic,ased on
resemblancend analogyrather han iteral pplication,
ecause many societies
recognise
either
odifiedlaws'
or rules' nor official'means
f
enforcinghem,
and
hence heir rders f
law'
arenot
directlyomparable
o
our own. The more
general ermnorm' sthereforeftenmployedo astoneutralisehe pecifically
'authoritarian'onnotations f
law'
or
'rule',
and
generalisingonstructsike
'social
control' r conflict
management'
re usedto
counteracthe
loaded'
and
rather
articularisticssociations f enforcement'.t
is
true, f course, hat ll
analogies resubject o thedangersf iteral
nterpretation
nd
must e buttressed
from
ime o time
withqualifications
f this
ort,
f
onlybecause nalogy s our
sole
way
of
extendingmeanings,
s
interpretive
onstructs,
o
encompassnew'
phenomena.f one analogy
s
rejected,
n
other
words, omeother nalogywill
have to
replace t,
so
why
not refine
nd
work with the
ones we have?
This
propositionmakesexcellent ense
n
manycases,
nd has
lent
ts stabilising
n-
fluence o much of contemporarynthropology.ut the
danger mplicit
n all
such
nalogies
s
that f
extending
aive
or
unspoken
ssumptionsboutour own
usages
nd
nstitutions
o
those f the ubject
ulture.
The
majorfailing f
a
theory
f social ction
basedon
norm s law' is that t
exaggerates
nd
emphasises
he
ocially upportivespects
f
human elationst the
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
7/14
6o6
MAN, DECEMBER
I972,
VOL. 7, NO. 4
expense
f
theirmeaningfulontent,
hat s, t
maps' a broad pectrum f quali-
tatively
ifferent eanings n to the narrow
dimensions f
conformitynd
deviance. hemessage fthesocialcontract's that ules xist nand ofthemselves
so
as
to
provide
basis or he
xistence f society,nd theDurkheimian
orollary
to this
s
that llthemeaningsnd actions n a society
anbe understood
n terms f
social ffect.
n
this iew,which
nderliesunctionalism
s well asmost ociological
theory,
he
meaningfulspects
fthoughtnd action
n
a culture
reonly ccessible
via their
ffective
ocialconsequences,nd
meaning s seen as ancillary o social
purpose
nd
effect-ideas ecome
beliefs' or 'rationalisations',
ecause social
interests
resuppose
ommitment.
n
unqualified
orm, tated s such,has the
force
f
an
ad hoc
r
arbitraryuling,
ne that
s
arbitrarilynd
factitiouslyssumed
'because
there ave to be
rules'. t
is
no wonder hatwhenDurkheimian
nthro-
pology explained ocietyn these erms omeanthropologistsegan to suspect
natural rigin
or
he
ncest
aboo,for,
s
a
'law' or norm', it has no necessary
involvement
ith he
meaningystem
f culture,
nd
mightjust
swellhavebeen
imposed
rom he outside'.
t s
onlywhen
norms nd aws
can
be
shown
o exist
as
a function
f
the
meaning
ystem
f
a
culture,
nd
to derive heir orce rom
meaning
ather han
rbitrary
iat,
hat he
rtificialistinction
etweenmeaning
and
action,
nd hence
between ulture
nd
society,
s
overcome. aws are never
imposed
without
eing presupposed,
nd thisholds true
for
the
egislative
nd
interpretativespects
f our
own
society
s
well
as for hemore nformal
orkings
of
tribal
ocieties.
What
I would
suggest, y
way
of a modificationfour
concept
f
norm',
s
that
henorms
r rules f a
society
erive
heir
moral nd
social ffect
rom
heir
meaningfulontent,
hat
s,
from
heir
elationship
o
othermeaningsn the cul-
ture.
he norms
f
given ociety, submit,
renot ll of he ame
kind; hey
dmit
of
varying
egrees
f
mportance
r
seriousness,
nd are
differentiallyobeyed'
or
respected,
lthough
he dicts fa centralisedtate
may mpart
false emblance
of
uniformityy being
codified
s
'laws', whereby
he
state nsists n token
obedience
or
symbolic
easons.
This
s
the ruler'sview' of
norms,
n
which
obedience
o even
themost
rbitrary
dictbecomes
symbol
f submissiono
the
state, view that ppears o have been nternalisedn Rousseau'sconceptionf
society).
he
varying everity
nd
significancemong
the norms f a
particular
society
s
a direct esult
f
variation
n
their
meaningfulontent,
he
way
n
which
they
make
normatively
correct' ction
meaningfuly opposing
nd
relating
o
other
meanings
n
the
culture.
f
incest
rohibition
n
fact onstitutesome
n-
trinsic
nd
meaningfulspect
r
characteristic
f human
ociety,
hen
we should
be
able
to account
or ts
normativeforce'
n
terms f
meaning;
f t s
true,
s I
have
rgued,
hat ncest
egulation
s
subsumed ithin hekinship ystem,hen his
meaning
must
lso
nvolve
kinship.
Norms,
ncluding
hevarious
kin
roles hat
help
to
define he
meaningful
cts
of 'moralperson', anbeseen s controls' or he xpressionf ndividualitynd
personal
motivation.I
An
individual
s
taught, bjured,
ncouraged,
nd
con-
strained
o
behave as
a
good child,adult,
man, woman,
etc.
should',
and
is
expected
o
try
his best.But
in
the
eventno one can
approximate
hesemodels
completely,
nd each
person
nadvertently
does
it his
own way'
and thusmani-
fests
is
own
ndividualityhrough
he ccentricities
f
his
performance.
husany
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
8/14
MAN, DECEMBER
I972,
VOL. 7, NO. 4 607
particular
uman
eing an only be' the dealisedmoralperson'
n
a metaphoric
sense.
But in the sameway, the expression f a person's ndividuality,hatwhich
distinguishes
im
from thers ia special kills,ttributes,eeds, esires, ersonality
characteristics,tc.,
cts s a
control n
his
moralperformance.o humanbeing
can specialise r differentiateimself ompletely; n the attempto 'become' a
ghost
r
god
n a
religious erformancehe ctor nvariablynthropomorphises
is
role. The conscious xpression f meaning husprecipitatests own dialectical
response: rying o be moral creates ur individuality,rying o be individual
createsmorality.
The differenceetween ntentionnd
performanceproduces'
ocialmeaning-
understood
s the dealised
ssumption
f
a
moral
mage
of man-and also the
individualmeaningmanifestedn personalnaming, raft pecialisation,alent,
genius,
tc.
The differencesnd
similarities
erceived ulturally
o
exist
mong
human
beings
re
thus
nterdependent
n
their
efinition.
very
ct of
differentia-
tion
s
meaningfulnly
n
so far s it retains hemoral nd normativestandard'
for
humanity
s its
context; very xpression
f moral
significance
s achieved
over nd
against
ndividual
ifference.ultural
imilarity
nd differencere
there-
fore
elative o
one
another; ociety rovides
he
tandard,
he
quation
r
organisa-
tion,
n
terms
f
which
girl
s
pretty, poet
s
clever,
nd thehunter an obtain
pots
from
he
potter,
r
the atter
cquire
meatforhis
table.
Differentiation,
n
turn,
erves
s
the
ontext ormoral
dealisation.
This interplay rovides hedynamic hroughwhichmeanings embodied n
social action;
n
societies
uch as
our
own
where
aws
are rendered
automatic'
through
odificationnd
enforcement,hisdynamic e-assertstselfn the egis-
lative nd
udicial nterpretation
o
which aws
and
their
nforcementre subject.
Whether
r not
codificationnd
enforcementre
present, owever,
ontrastive
cultural
meaning
sthe ltimate
atent
fnormativeorce.
he Rousseauianmodel
of
society,
ased
on
the
notion f
rule
s
such,
iewsnormative orce n an absolute
sense,
hat
s,
as a
'discipline'
hat
s
necessary,rrespective
f
ts
content,
or he
maintenancef
ocial
rder,
ndthe
neo-Rousseauians
mong ontemporary
ocial
scientists,y basing
heir
nalyses pon conformity'
nd
'deviance',
make the
sameassumption.What I would suggest ere s that aw and normative orce
should
e
approached
n
relative
erms,
n
so far
s
they ltimately
erive
rom he
contrastive,
utable elationshat
enerate
ultural
meaning.
Kin
relations
an be
understoods
a
particular odality
f
thenorms hrough
which
ocial
meaning
s
objectified,
nd individual
xpression
s
controlled.
We
might
hink
f
kinship'
n
this
way
as a
symbolisation
f
how
various ategories
of
people
should
ct
owards
ne
another,
ouched n
terms f
the
metaphorshat
define
umanness.
recisely
ecause
hey eneralise
hehuman
ondition, rawing
upon
vital'
attributeshat
ll
persons
hare n
common
or
are
thought
o),
the
content
f
these
metaphors
asbeen imited o a
few
recurrent
hemes.
haracter-
istically,heynvolve rocreationndthe ctivitiesndsubstancesssociated ith
it,
food
nd
nurture,
nd animation
'soul'
or
spirit'). deologies hrased
n
terms
of
blood',
blood
and
bone',
body
and
spirit',
male
sperm
nd
mother's
milk',
or the
giving
nd
receiving
f
food
re
ubiquitous
n
world
thnography.
he
error
of
many
raditional
inshiptudies,
s discussed
reviously,
as
been
hat f
reifying
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
9/14
6o8 MAN, DECEMBER
I972,
VOL. 7, NO. 4
these mageries,nterpretingbiological'
metaphor s if t were naturalisticact
(or some
form f
folk mpiricism;ee Schneider
972).
Following our discussion f norms,however,we mightexpect that these
'generalising' ocietalmetaphors,s the objective ontrol n the expression f
personal
r
group dentity, ill oftenbe
reflectedn that expression. hus if
'blood' is
the crucial
ymbolof
humanness,pecific loodlineswill be distin-
guished
s 'Smith'
blood, Jones' blood etc. A marriage, r exchange f vital
fluids,
etween
wo
individuals
manifesting
Smith' blood would
n effect
istin-
guish heparticipantss Smiths' ratherhan uman eings; t would makeuse of
the
forms
hrough hichhumanitys constitutedo assertndividualdentity.n
the bjectiveanguage f deology, hiswouldamount o a 'mixing' of one sub-
stance
with tself, hich
s
indeedone
of theways n which ncest s commonly
defined.
But
by
o
doing, yfailing
o
be
human nd converting generaldeological ct
into a private marriage',the incestuous ffenderimultaneouslyiolatesthe
morality
f
personal
motivation. he
ways
n which
person
an differrom thers
are
all
contingentpon
his
essentialumanity;
f
his kills, alents, esires,ctions,
etc.,
fail o
'anthropomnorphise'im,
he reflection
s
on
his
volition.
He is
then
saidto be
bestial'or
monstrous',
o have no
shame', o temperingfhisdesires
towards
thers,
o
be
inhuman'
by
default r inclination.
Thus,
because f the
nterdependence
fsocial meaning ndpersonalmorality
resulting
rom hedialectic
f
controls',
ailure o
achieve
he deal
metaphor
f
'being' human-however his s culturallyefined-has mmediateonsequences
for
the actor's
personal dentity.
he formal
xpression
f
cultural
meaning
an
no
more
be
separated
rom
personal
motivation
nd inclination
han
kin
cate-
gorisation
an
be
separated
romkin
relationship. person
dentifies imself
through
is social
actions,
nd
acquires
or loses)
his
'humanity' hrough
is
personal
cts
nd nclinations.ecausethecontrols re
nterlinked,very ct,
nd
every situation,
s
simultaneously
social' and
'individual'; people belong
to
cultures,
nd
cultures
re made
up
of
people.
But
identity,
s a
formof cultural
meaning,
oes not
necessarily ertain
o
individuals
lone.
Social
units, arge
or
small, ncluding
erritorial
omplexes,
bloodlines, amilies, ations nd lineages re all differentiatedn theprocess f
identifyinghem,
nd thisdifferentiation
s
as
intimately
ound
up
in
a
dialectic
with
he ultural
mage
of
humanness
s is that f
kinship.
ust
s the ncest aboo
emerges
s
an artefactf thebelief n natural'
kinship,
o the
rgumentseriving
exogamy
rom ocial
needshave
proceeded
rom he
reificationf
dealised ocial
units
s
groups
on
the
ground'.
This s the ense f
Tylor's
amous
ictum
hat:
Again
and
again
in the world's
history, avage
tribes
must have
had
plainly
before
their
minds
the
simple practical
lternative
etween
marrying-out
nd
being
killed
out
(I889).
It is
understandable
hat
Tylor,
s the author
f
a
doctrine f
survivals',might
haveconsidered one-to-oneorrespondenceetween ocialunit nd ocalgroup
to be
part
of
a
prior volutionary
tate
f
man,
but
ater
uthors
who have used
this
rgument,
uch as White
I948),
have had no such
excuse.
n
point
of
fact,
world
ethnography
hows
many
nstances
such
as the
peoples
of
the northern
Northwest
oast
n
America,
rtheDani
ofthe
Baliem
Valley
n
West
rian)
where
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
10/14
MAN,
DECEMBER I972,
VOL.
7,
NO.
4
609
members
f two or
more xogamous
nitswill nhabit
he amecommunity
nd
intermarryithin t.
n such asesunit
xogamy ecomes
illage ndogamy,
nd
theproblem f marryingut' versusmarryingn' isa matter f definition.ut
so, would
argue,
s
the ssue f
exogamy tself:t turns pon
the dentification
f
specific, amedunits
s against
he ocial
collectivity.
An
examplemayhelpto
illustratehe point.
Consider
society omposed f
exogamous
totemic'
units,
with
names uch s
'eagle',
'badger',
etc.
The social
identityf each unit s
createdhrough
hemetaphorf
being' eagles r
badgers
in
relation o theother
nits
n
the
ocietyas
human
beings,
s a kind
of human
being,
hey rebadgers). he
metaphormaybe
highly
laborated,
ith
ll
sorts f
mythic
nd
ceremonial
mbellishments,
ncludingegends
f
descent rom
agles
or
badgers,
r it
maybe barely tated, ut
n
either
nstance he ffects to
differ-
entiate heunitfrom thers nd implicitlyeny tssimilarityo them they re
'alike' as eagles re to
badgers,
ather
han
s
men to
men).
The
meaning
f the
societal
whole, n
the
ther
and,must easserted
hrough
his
ery
ifferentiation,
lest he
metaphor
f
separateness'ecomes
conceptual
eality.
he
eagles'
and
'badgers' must
anthropomorphise
hemselvesy
intermarrying,omething
hat
'real' eagles nd
badgers
ever
do, andthus ffirmheir
umanityas
badgers
hey
are human
beings).
Of course he
oregoing
s an
extreme
nstance,
aluable
argely
or ts
llustrative
effect,
ut
the
nterdependencef social
meaning the
deal
of
humanness)
nd
unit
dentity
hat t
depicts
s crucial
to the
understanding
f
exogamy.
The
identityfa socialunitmaybe constitutedhroughtotemic'metaphors,s nour
example,
or
through erritorial,
istorical,
r
religious
ymbolisations,
nd the
units
hemselves
ay appearas
moieties,
ouseholds,
art-societies,
r
lineages,
but n
any case t s the
tension
etween his dentitynd
the dealof a common
humanity
hat
xogamy
maintains.The phenomenon
f
ndian
aste
ndogamy,
as
analysed
y
Levi-Strauss
I966:
ch.
4) presents n
interesting
nversion f this
relationship,
n
which
thecultural
efinitionf man
differentiates,hereas
he
moral
ollectivity
s
asserted
hroughhe
xchange f
services.n this ystem
here
aredifferent
inds f
men,
ll
ofwhom
re like
n
their
eeds.)An ndividual
ho
marries ithin is
own
exogamous
nit
ompromisescultural
mageof
man
by
default; eparticularisesisownhumanity yassertingimselfs one kind fman.
As an
infractionf
cultural
orm,
uch
an
actmay or
may not
be
considered
serious;
requently
t
is
dismisseds a
trivialmatter.
he
ideologicalmportance
of the ocial
unit-and
thereforef
there-affirmation
f one's
humanity
hrough
its
particular
ymbols-is
likewise
highlyvariable over the
range of
human
societies. he
wide
variety
f
attitudes
nd
punishmentsnvolvinghebreach f
exogamy-ranging
rom
strongly rofessed
oncern o almost
complete
n-
difference-wouldeem
to
reflect
hisvariation.
Although hey
re
generally ifferent
n
intent
nd effect,ncest
prohibition
and
exogamy
re
nevertheless
oth
aspects r
consequences f
a
more general
phenomenon:he nterdependencefsocialmeaning ndindividualpersonal r
unit)
dentity.ociety xists,
nd
achieves
meaning,
hrough
he
anthropomor-
phism
f
personal
nd
group
ndividuality;he
ignificancef
personal r
group
identity
s
attained
hrough
hevariousways
of beinghuman'.
ncestuous
cts
and
breaches
f
exogamy iolate his
nterdependencey
nverting
t,causing
he
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
11/14
6Io
MAN, DECEMBER I972,
VOL. 7, NO.
4
actor o
dehumanise' imself
hroughheforms
y whichhumanity
s character-
istically
sserted.
The variationsn theprohibitionf marriage r sexualrelationsncompassed
by thevarious ultures
nownto ethnography
o indeed onstitute
fascinating
subject
or nthropologicalpeculation
nd nvestigation,ut
have tried oshow
that his ubject
s virtually
denticalwiththat
f the respectiveinship
ystems.
The universality'
f the ncest aboo
ultimatelyeduces o
theuniversalendency
among
social anthropologists
o
separate
incategory
romkin relationship
s
part
of their nalysis,
nd to assume hatgenealogy,
ecause t s useful
n under-
standing hem, onstitutes
'common
denominator'
f all kinship
ystems. he
'remarkable' act
hatkinshipystems
ll over theworld
prohibitmating
mong
close
relatives ecomes
ess remarkable
hen
we
realise hat hoseverykinship
systemsandhencethe incest aboo' itself) etermine ho is a 'close' relative,
and that he determination
nd theprohibition
re one
and the amething. he
illusion f an incest
aboocan onlybe
sustained
y a belief
n
'real'
or objective'
kinship,
or
f
siblings'
re differenthings
n differentultures,
owcan sibling
incest'be the ame
thing
n all
of
them? he regularities
f
human
eproduction
provide nly
hebarest
utline f
kindifferentiation,nd
are
often isregarded
r
blurred
ver
n
the
ct of
nterpretation,
ut t s this
ct,
nd
only
econdarily
he
fact
f
procreation
tself,
hat urnishes
he
meaning
f
kinship.
* *
* *
*
I shallnowattempto summarisehepoints educed rpostulated ere s a set
of
conclusions,
nd
add to these ome observations
elating
he
discussiono other
areas
ofanthropology.
i.
The
notion f
an incest
aboo
s a
consequence
f the
way
in
which nthro-
pologists
ave
traditionally
pproached
inship,
ubdividing
setof
genealogically
specified inship
erms
rom
he
corresponding
in
relationships.
his division
corresponds
o the
classical
ichotomy
f 'structure'
nd
'function',
n which
the
atter,
s the
dynamic,
ntegrativespect, rovides
hecreative
and
hence
he
explanatory)mpetus
or
the constitution
f
society.
The
static,
erminological
aspect
s
codified
n
genealogical
erms s
a set of
categories,
hich
may
then
be
assigned o a typologicalniche i.e. 'Eskimo', 'Iroquois', 'Crow', etc.). Kin
relationships
re
likewise yped
nd
reified s those
of
joking',
avoidance',
or
'respect',
s
well
as being
abstracted
nd
simplified
nto what
s
known as the
incest aboo.
It is
suggested
ere
that
kinship
annotbe
simply quated
with
genealogy,
nd
that
kin
relationships
annot
e
meaningfully
eparated
rom
kin
categories.
2.
Explanations
f the
ncest
aboo must
perforce
e conceived
n
functional
terms,
f
only
because
'taboo'
operates
o
regulate
uman
ction,
nd
is thus
functional
n effect.Culturally'
based
explanations
ave stressed
he a
priori
necessityfthe egulation
f
mating
or
he xistence
fhuman
ociety:
naturally'
based ttempts
ave
substituted
enetic
r behaviouristic
ecessity
or
ocial
need,
but otherwise he
two
arguments
re
very
much alike.
3.
In
either
ase,
the
eparation
f cultural
meaning in
the
form f structure'
or
kin
category')
rom
ultural
ction
'function')
orceshe
explanation
fthe
incest
aboo
as
an
arbitrarilymposed
rule',
with
no
necessary
onnexion
o the
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
12/14
MAN,
DECEMBER
1972,
VOL.
7,
NO.
4
6ii
meanings f
the societiesn which t
occurs.
Thisconception
oincideswith
the
Rousseauian
deal of a social
contract, ased
on the alleged priori
ecessity f
discipline s such for theexistence f society, ndwith theconventionalocio-
logicalanalysis
f society hrough
conformity'
nd
deviance'.
Our
reluctance
to
separatemeaning rom
ction, r kin
category rom
in
relationship,owever,
suggests
differentpproach, nd a
differenterspective n the
ssue of
incest
prohibition.
4. The
severity ithwhich
breaches
f
ncest ormshave
been
nterpreted
y
social
cientists
as beenaccentuated
y the
enlightenment
iew
of norm
s
law,
and
by thenotionof
natural'kinship. f
kinship
s
seen
as a
'real
thing',
based
on
thebiologicalfacts f
reproduction
s manifested
n
genealogy,
hen
ncest
('inbreeding')
ecomes realthing
lso. n the ct of
reification,
ultural
orm
s
apprehendeds if t werea cultural ecognitionndadaptation fnaturallaw'
(as
our
own
laws' of
science epresentnd
formulatenatural aw'),
and thus
t
attains he
inevitability
f natural aw. 'Incest'
becomes
an
absolute
tandard
against
which
personal onduct kin
relationship)s
measured
nd
udged.
I
have
argued,
owever, hat
ersonal ction nd
nclination,ndthe ultural
ategorisa-
tion
upon
which ocial deology s
based, re nterdependentnd relative
o
one
another.Members f
society re like n their
ifferentiation,
nd
different
n
their
alikeness.
When anindividual ails,
nder he ppropriate
ircumstances,
o create
the
metaphor f common
humanity
hat
orresponds
o social
norm,
hismust
invariably
eflect pon hisown
motivation,ndultimately
is dentity.
5.
The usages thatanthropologistsave heretoforebjectifieds the incest
taboo', 'kinship' see
Schneider972), and
exogamy' are
related and
in some
cases
dentical)
manifestationsf the
way inwhichmoral
meaning
s
constituted
in
humancultures.
lthough heir eification
s often
xcused on heuristic r
didactic
rounds
'breaking own' a
culture
n
order ostudyt more
ffectively),
this
nevitably
eads to their
dentifications traits', ndto
theposing
fartificial
'problems' s to how the
raits rerelated, ow
they ame ntobeing,
tc.Hence
a
general
perhaps he eneral)
haracteristicfhuman ulture
omes o be
explained
and
accounted or n
varying nd over-specific
ays, ccording o its
particular
manifestations.he
practice f
exogamy s traced o the
need
to
forge
ocial
bonds, he incest aboo' is seen s a mechanismo prevent enetic amage, tc.
The
acts
dentifiables 'incestuous'
n various ultures
ary s
widely as the
respective
inship ystems,ust as
exogamy arieswith he
constellation
f social
ideology.A 'universal'
tatementf an 'incest
taboo' is possible
only to the
degreethat
genealogical losses,
uch as 'father', mother',
sibling',
etc., are
considered
cceptable s
substitutesor hekin
relationships
f all societies.Many
anthropologists,
specially hose
committed o
traditionalsages,will
perhaps
protest
hat his s a
necessaryimplification,
nd that he
universal enealogical
model
s
essential
or
purposes f
comparison.ollowing
Hocart I937),
I
would
argue
that
howeveruseful
hegenealogical
riterionmaybe, it
projects false
uniformityndconcretenesspon thedata, ndconceals hefact hat heessence
of
kinships
interpretation
fgenealogy, ather
hangenealogy tself
The genea-
logical
model s an
assumptionade
forcomparative
urposes; henotionof an
incest
aboo is
an artefactf that
ssumptionnd
ts mplications,nd
its deriva-
tion' from
he
data
amounts o aninferenceuilt
upon aninference.
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
13/14
6I2
MAN,
DECEMBER I972, VOL. 7,
NO. 4
6.
Because
of
thepriorityssignedo it n
thefunctionalist
iew ofsociety, he
incest
aboohas
ome
o
be a
symbol
f
man's
mergencerom
'savage' tate,
amediatingermnthe rogressionrombeast' oman,ike he iscoveryffire
or thefabulous
missing
ink'.
Perhaps
his s
why thefolklorend
popular
literature
f
nthropology
as
lways
maintainedhat ribal
eoples
'primitives')
are
obsessed ith ncest
rohibition,
nd
why
olonial
dministratorsave ften
elected
o
punishases
f
ncest ith xtreme
everity
n
an
attempt
o
gain
he
respect
f
thenatives'
seeWagner967:
I30).
Nevertheless,t seems s
if
few
social
ystems
re s
deeply
ommitted
o
the
ymbol
f
exual
ntercourse
nd
he
proprieties
f exual onducts ourown s
Schneider968;
Hsu
97I:
Introduc-
tion),
nd
hat ur dea
f
he
ncest-obsessedative
may
e
implynothernstance
of dealisationf he
primitive'.
7.
Thestudyfnon-humannimalocietiesanprovide nique nsightsnto
the
nature
f
ocietys
a
pan-biotic
henomenon
Count958),
if
only ecauset
affords
reater
ariational
erspectives
han
he
tudy
f
human
ocietieslone
could
urnish.he
points
fresemblance
r
analogy
etweenhese ocieties
nd
their
uman
ounterparts
fferome
antalisingpportunities
or
generalisation
on this
evel. hediscussionf his rticle ould
rgue
or
considerableestraint
in
the
pplicationf termsike incest'
nd
exogamy'
as
well
as
human
in
terms)onon-human
ocieties.
evertheless,indings
uch s
Sade's
emonstration
of
mating
voidance
ith
emale
iological
arentsmong
hesus
onkeys
I968)
suggest
he
ossibility
hat
nalogues
four
ocietal
onstitution
ay
e found
n
some on-humanituations.he ikelihoods that hesere piphenomenafthe
broaderocial
mplications
f exual
estures
nd
postures
such
s
mounting)
n
those
ituations.
NOTES
The critical rgument f this rticle wes much to the work of David M. Schneider,whose
penetrating ssay What is kinship ll about?' (I972) carries he inquiry to
its ultimateroots.
I am grateful o Professor chneider, s well as to Philip K. Bock and Stephen
Tobias fortheir
helpful ommentson the earlierversion of this article.
I
The only parallel to thisconcernwith motivation hat could find
n
the
iterature n the
incest taboo is Talcott Parsons's I954) comment on the necessityboth
to frustrate nd to
encourage a child's erotic mpulses n socialisation quoted
in
Schneidern.d.).
REFERENCES
Aberle, D., U. Bronfenbrenner,. H. Hess, D. R. Miller,
D. M. Schneider
J.
N.
Spuhler
I963. The incest aboo and the matingpatterns f animals.Am. Anthrop.
5,
253-65.
Count,
E.
W.
I958.
The
biological
basis of human
sociality.
Am.
Anthrop.
0,
049-85.
Hocart,A. M. I937. Kinship systems.Anthropos2,
545-5I.
Hsu, F. L. K.
I97I.
Kinshipnd ulture.hicago: Aldine.
Kortmulder,
K.
I968.
An
ethologicaltheory
f the ncest aboo
and
exogamy.
Curr.
Anthrop.
9,
437-49.
Kroeber,A. L. I909. Classificatoryystems frelationship.J.
.
anthrop.
nst.
39, 77-84.
Levi-Strauss,C. I962. Totemismtrans.)R.
Needham. Boston: Beacon Press.
I963. Structuralnthropology.ew York, London:
Basic Books.
I966.
The avagemind.
ondon: Weidenfeld Nicolson.
I969. The elementarytructuresfkinshiptrans.) . H. Bell,J.
R. von Sturmer R.
Needham
(ed.).
Boston: Beacon
Press.
Livingstone, . B. I969. Genetics, cologyand
the
origins
f ncest nd
exogamy.
Curr.
Anthrop.
10, 45-6I.
Lounsbury,F. G. I964. The structuralnalysis
f
kinship
emantics.
n
Proceedingsf
the
Ninth
Internationalongress fLinguistsed.) H.
G. Lunt.
The
Hague:
Mouton.
This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:32:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Incest and Identity - Wagner.pdf
14/14
MAN,
DECEMBER 1972,
VOL. 7, NO.
4
613
Parsons, T.
I954.
The incest taboo in relationto social structure nd the socialisation f the
child.Brit. . Sociol. , OI-I7.
Radcliffe-Brown,A. R. i965. Structurendfunctionn primitiveociety. ew York:
The Free
Press.
Sade, D. S. I968. Inhibitionof son-mothermating among free-ranging hesus
monkeys.
Sci. Psychoanal.2,
i8-3
8.
Schneider,D. M. i968. American inship: cultural ccount. nglewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
I972.
What
is
kinship
ll
about?
In
Kinship
tudies n theMorgan
Centennial
ear
ed.)
P. Reining. Washington D.C.: Washington Anthropological ociety.
n.d. Attempts o account forthe incesttaboo (unpublishedmanuscript).
Tylor, E. B. i889. On a method of investigating he development of institutions
pplied
to
laws of marriage nd descent.J. R. anthrop.nst. 8, 245-72.
Wagner,
R.
i967. The curse fSouw:principlesfDaribi landefinitionnd
lliance.
hicago,
London: Univ.
of
Chicago
Press.
i968.
Comment
on Kortmulder:
An
ethological theory
of the incest taboo
and
exogamy. urr. nthrop., 446.
1970.
On
measuring nd understanding. aper presented
t the
69th
Annual
Meeting
of the American
Anthropological
Association.
White,
L.
A.
I948.
The definition nd
prohibition
f incest.
Am.
Anthrop. 0,
4i6-35.