Forbidding What We Want
Why do the strictest rules of so many peoples fall on what seems least likely to need forbidding? The first two essays read taboo as a ban on a wish that never went away.
Freud begins with Australian clans whose members may not marry inside the totem, and with avoidances like the ban on speaking to a mother-in-law. He compares taboo with the private prohibitions of obsessional patients: in both, the rule gives no reason, spreads by contagion and guards against a desire that persists underneath. Taboos on enemies, rulers and the dead all show ambivalence, love and hostility towards the same person. Here, he suggests, lies the oldest form of conscience.
- taboo
- incest taboo
- exogamy
- kinship
- marriage
- ambivalence
- social norms
- neurosis
- fear
- desire
Enter a dialogue
- Members of an Australian kangaroo clan may not marry one another, though no blood ties them. Why such dread of incest among people so unlike us?
- Many peoples forbid a man even to speak to his mother-in-law. Why do you think the strictest avoidance falls precisely there?
- A taboo, you argue, forbids just what people most want to do, like a patient's private prohibitions. Why would anyone ban something nobody desired?
- Mourners in many cultures fear their dead as demons, even a husband they loved. Where does such fear come from, if the love was real?
- Why should a handful of obsessional patients be a guide to the customs of whole peoples, rather than a strange exception to them?