Taboo


 

Zobacz też:

A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) against words, objects, actions, or discussions that are considered undesirable or offensive by a group, culture, society, or community. Breaking a taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent. Some taboo activities or customs are prohibited by law and transgressions may lead to severe penalties. Other taboos result in embarrassment, shame and rudeness.

Contents

Etymology

Common etymology traces the word back to the Tongan tapu[1][2] or the Fijian tabu[3] meaning "under prohibition", "not allowed", or "forbidden".[3] In its modern use in Tonga, the word tapu also means "sacred" or "holy", although often in the sense of being restricted or protected by custom or by law. For example, the main island in the Kingdom of Tonga, where the capital Nuku'alofa is situated and most of the population resides, is called "Tongatapu". In this context, it means "Sacred South", rather than "forbidden south".

The use of the word taboo drawn from tapu (meaning "not allowed") dates back to 1777 and an English explorer, Captain James Cook, visiting a place he named "the Friendly Islands" (now Tonga). Describing the Tongans, he wrote:

"Not one of them would sit down, or eat a bit of any thing.... On expressing my surprise at this, they were all taboo, as they said; which word has a very comprehensive meaning; but, in general, signifies that a thing is forbidden.... When any thing is forbidden to be eat, or made use of, they say, that it is taboo."

Some Solomon Islanders say that their languages have a word tabu (pronounced "tam-boo") that means holy. It refers to places in the bush where holy spirits reside (usually marked with an object, such as a giant clam shell or stone carving). Those areas should not be disturbed unless a ceremony is taking place, therefore they are places that should not be touched.

Examples

Taboos can include:

Some taboos originated by acts of authority, be it legal, social or religious, over a period of time. When not in "polite society", discussions on taboos are allowed in humorous expression, such as comedy and satire like South Park, The Simpsons or Beavis and Butthead.

Origin

There are varying explanations for the origin of taboos. While some explanations are anthropological and explain taboos using history and cultural experiences, other explanations are psychoanalytical and explain taboos as an unconscious phenomenon passing through generations.

Steven Pinker (anthropological/biological)

Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works suggests that taboos have developed culturally from more basic instincts. With regard to taboos regarding the dead, he proposes that the human brain has evolved a hard-wired repulsion to many carriers of disease – an "intuitive microbiology". Only with the modern development of scientific microbiology have humans been able to rationalize these taboos. Pinker suggests similar explanations for the incest taboo and other things that cause the reflex emotion of disgust.

Sigmund Freud (psychoanalytical)

Sigmund Freud provided an analysis of taboo behaviours, highlighting strong subconscious motivations driving such prohibitions. In this system, described in his collection of essays Totem and Taboo, Freud postulates a link between forbidden behaviours and the sanctification of objects to certain kinship groups. Freud also states here that the only two "universal" taboos are that of incest and patricide, which formed the eventual basis of modern society.

German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt explains that taboos were originally nothing other than an objectified fear of a "demonic" power which was believed to lie hidden in a tabooed object.[4] Sigmund Freud believes this to be a superficial explanation having nothing to do with the true origins of taboos. He claims that many similarities between taboo-holders and obsessive neurotics point to "a psychological condition that prevails in the unconscious".[5] Freud believes this "unconsciousness" is central to understanding the history of taboos. He then reconstructs the history of taboo based on the model of obsessional prohibitions as follows:

"Taboos, we must suppose, are prohibitions of primæval antiquity which were at some time externally imposed upon a generation of primitive men; they must, that is to say, no doubt have been impressed on them violently by the previous generation. These prohibitions must have concerned activities towards which there was a strong inclination. They must then have persisted from generation to generation, perhaps merely as a result of tradition transmitted through parental and social authority."[6]

And so, "Anyone who has violated a taboo becomes taboo himself because he possesses the dangerous quality of tempting others to follow his example."[7]

Taboo on the dead

Main article: Taboo on the dead

The 'taboo' on the dead includes the taboo against touching of a corpse and those who are caring for it; the taboo against mourners of the dead; and the taboo against anything associated with the dead (e.g., the dead person's name).

Examples

Corpses

Mourners

Naming the dead

The taboo on naming the dead prohibits any utterance of a dead man's name or any other words similar to it in sound. Some examples follow:

Origins and causes

Sigmund Freud traces back the origin of the dangerous character of widowers and widows to the danger of temptation. A man who has lost his wife must resist a desire to find a substitute for her; a widow must fight against the same wish and is moreover liable to arouse the desires of other men. Substitutive satisfactions of such a kind run counter to the sense of mourning and they would inevitably kindle the ghost's wrath.[13]

Freud explains that the fundamental reason for the existence of such taboos is the fear of the presence or of the return of the dead person's ghost. It is exactly this fear that leads to a great number of ceremonies aimed at keeping the ghost at a distance or driving him off.[14]

The Tuaregs of Sahara, for example, dread the return of the dead man's spirit so much that "[they] do all they can to avoid it by shifting their camp after a death, ceasing for ever to pronounce the name of the departed, and eschewing everything that might be regarded as an evocation or recall of his soul. Hence they do not, like the Arabs, designate individuals by adding to their personal names the names of their fathers. [...] they give to every man a name which will live and die with him."[15] In many cases the taboo remains intact until the body of the dead has completely decayed,[16] but until then the community must disguise itself so that the ghost shall not recognize them. For example, the Nicobar Islanders try to disguise themselves by shaving their heads.[17]

Artists

Artists that have worked with the theme of death include Bill Viola, Damien Hirst, Lennie Lee and Joel-Peter Witkin.

Psychologist Wilhelm Wundt associates the taboo to a fear that the dead man's soul has become a demon.[18] Moreover, many cases show a hostility toward the dead and their representation as malevolent figures.[19] Edward Westermarck notes that "Death is commonly regarded as the gravest of all misfortunes; hence the dead are believed to be exceedingly dissatisfied with their fate [...] such a death naturally tends to make the soul revengeful and ill-tempered. It is envious of the living and is longing for the company of its old friend."[20]

Taboo on rulers

Main article: Taboo on rulers

Examples

Taboo on warriors

Examples

Restrictions placed on a victorious slayer are unusually frequent and as a rule severe.[24]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Online Etymology dictionary. etymonline.com. Retrieved on 2007-06-05.
  2. ^ Online dictionary. Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. Retrieved on 2007-06-05.
  3. ^ a b A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian, By Robert M. W. Dixon page 368
  4. ^ Freud 1950, p. 24
  5. ^ Freud 1950, pp. 26–30
  6. ^ Freud 1950, p. 31
  7. ^ Freud 1950, p. 32.
  8. ^ Freud 1950, p. 52, quoting Frazer 1911, 138f
  9. ^ Frazer 1990, p. 142, quoting Boas 1890, 643f.
  10. ^ Frazer 1990, p. 144, quoting Blumentritt 1891, p. 182.
  11. ^ Frazer 1990, p. 357.
  12. ^ Dixon 2002, p. 27.
  13. ^ Freud 1950, p. 54.
  14. ^ Freud 1950, p. 57.
  15. ^ Frazer 1922, p. 3.
  16. ^ Freud (1990, 372).verification needed
  17. ^ Frazer 1922, p. 5.
  18. ^ Freud 1950, p. 58, quoting Wundt 1906, p. 49.
  19. ^ Freud 1950, p. 58.
  20. ^ Freud 1950, p. 59, quoting Westermarck 1906–8, 2, 534f.
  21. ^ Freud 1950, pp. 41–42, quoting Frazer 1911, p. 132.
  22. ^ Frazer 1911, 3f., quoting Bastian 1874–5, 1, 287 & 355].
  23. ^ Frazer 1911, 11f.
  24. ^ Freud 1950, p. 39.
  25. ^ Freud 1950, p. 39, quoting Müller 1857, 2, 252.
  26. ^ a b Freud 1950, p. 39, quoting Frazer 1911, p. 167.

References

External links