Law, Custom, and Taboo
There are many different theories on how exactly the concept of a "law" came to be. Was it the arbitrary dictations of an aggressor on his victims? In many cases, yes. Was it a strengthening of the position of simply a local custom into a taboo with force to back it up? In many other cases, yes.
One thing we can be very sure about however is that the modern conception of "law" did not originally exist to stop people from infringing on each other's natural rights. In truth, the concept of natural rights was largely a product of the peasantry or subjugated class of a State, which Franz Oppenheimer illustrates very clearly in his classic, "Der Staat" or "The State". Law, Oppenheimer claims, was preceded by the moment that the "bear became the beekeeper" or when conquerors realized that a man alive is worth more than a man dead and a tree tended too is worth more than a neglected stump. He is not claiming that they had an epiphany but instead that, by evolutionary model and natural selection, those hegemons who did treat their subjects with some semblence of decency were more likely to survive.
Not all laws, however, protect one individual from another. For that matter, not all cultural taboos, in any culture, exclusively protect the individual. I had a conversation recently with someone convinced that things like polygamy or sexual activities amongst children are tabooed because they must be unhealthy or directly hurt someone. I tried to explain that polygamous cultures in the past have provided more rights to women in many cases but they continued to insist that because the Mormons in America did not that no polygamous culture ever could. I don't try to make claims to absolute objectivity but if we can't open our frame of vision beyond only those things recorded in our own culture we are lost from an anthropological standpoint.
Beyond the issue of polygamy is the issue of sexual activity amongst children (only child to child--Adult to child is a completely different and often head 'splodeing issue). In our culture it is severely frowned upon although it seems to directly harm absolutely no one. Forgetting religious concerns for the moment, why would such things be prohibited? Some claim because it would be unhealthy for the child. Perhaps in our culture this is true but the only unhealthy aspects of it would be the psychological problems that accompany the violation of a taboo, which must be blamed more on the taboo itself than the act if the act has no other discernable consequence. Among the !Kung people in the Kalahari, it is common practice for children to do this and is perceived as normal and healthy. You can look at the causes of such practices among different societies but, while that is a fascinating subject, I am, at this time, more concerned with the question of morality. The !Kung children grow up fine and perfectly adapted to their culture.
On the other hand, the !Kung have a strict taboo against speaking the name of the dead, who they fear will cause them physical harm if they do. They also have a taboo on telling dirty jokes in the company of your sister. While this may be good advice, most would not consider it to be immoral and it causes direct harm to know individual.
The !Kung may wonder at how we speak the names of our dead or make sexual references in the immediate vicinity of female relatives and we may wonder why they allow children to fondle each other. In each instance no one is being hurt but we still perceive wrong being done.
I'm not trying to denounce all taboo, many of which have utilitarian purposes and are a important part of group identity and solidarity, I am only insisting that to exist in a multicultural world we must make no claim to being a "Christian" or "Muslim" nation and must allow people to do what they will. All people are free to harbor their own feelings about certain acts, harmful or otherwise, but I would recommend that we analyze to roots and effects of our own traditions before condemning others and, above all, that we try to keep open minds and big hearts.
No comments:
Post a Comment