European Social and Political Research, Vol.

13 (20062007)

The incest taboo

Alkistis Elliott-Graves
1. Introduction One of the great philosophical debates which is still important today is the debate concerning nature and culture. Which of the two is more important? Which of the two ultimately shapes human nature? It seems that scientists, social scientists, teenagers magazines, cookery books, indeed almost everyone has their own idea about how far humans are influenced by their genetic makeup and how much is left to cultural conditioning. The debate itself however, is very significant philosophically, because of its far-reaching implications. Ones position on this debate greatly influences ones perception of other important philosophical questions, such as: what it means to be human, to what extent human action is free as opposed to predetermined, what, if anything makes humans stand out from the rest of the animal order. These questions then give rise to moral positions concerning for example, human and animal rights, fairness, justice, tolerance, economic policy, education, and so on. The list is endless. Many scientists and social scientists have dealt either directly or indirectly with the nature versus culture debate and its implications. One such account, though indirect in its approach, is nevertheless truly interesting. This is Claude Lvi-Strausss explanation of the phenomenon of the incest taboo as the bridge between nature and culture, which occurs in the introductory chapters of the Elementary Structures of Kinship. Here, Lvi-Strauss gives the incest taboo a unique place among all phenomena concerning humans, because it belongs at once to both the natural and cultural domains. His work is controversial in many ways and though some of his points may be viewed as overstated or extreme, the overall work is still considered a classic and essential reading for anyone studying the subject. In this essay, I will examine Lvi-Strausss conception and analysis of the incest taboo from a philosophical perspective, i.e. by focusing on
25

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

the ideas and situations which influenced Lvi-Strauss, together with their implications. The first part will be an analysis of Lvi-Strausss definition of the incest taboo and its implications for the nature versus culture debate. I will then argue that Lvi-Strausss seemingly extreme position that culture overrules nature is based on a deep rejection of anti-rationalism, fuelled by his philosophical and historical context rather than an absolute rejection of the natural sciences. This will be shown through an analysis of the evolution of Lvi-Strausss own ideas. Ultimately, I will attempt to show that if a theory of the incest taboo which focuses on its pre-social origins can be at least conceptually combined with Lvi-Strausss own theory, then the view that nature and culture are in radical opposition, must be revised or even rejected outright. 2. Lvi-Strausss theory of the incest taboo: a brief summary It is possible to define the incest taboo in many ways and on many different levels. In fact, many of the problems which arise in discussions of the phenomenon stem from its definitions and the connotations which each of these involve. Lvi-Strausss theory of the incest taboo is very complex, and at first glance can even seem contradictory. According to Lvi-Strauss, the incest taboo is a universal rule existent in all societies which prohibits marriage and sexual relations between specific kin members. Together with exogamy, the rule which prescribes possible marriage and/or sexual partners, it is the basis of the system of kinship which in turn is the structure on which society is based.1 However, this concept of a universal rule is paradoxical. This can be seen when one takes into account Lvi-Strausss conception of Nature and Culture. Both these concepts do not have clear definitions in Lvi-Strausss writings, nor are their interpretations constant. Still, there are a few characteristics of the two orders which seem to stand out. Natures main characteristics are universality, spontaneity and the absence of rules, whereas if a phenomenon is particular, non-spontaneous and

C. Lvi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, London, 1969, pp. 89, 46.
26 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

governed by rules, then it must belong to the domain of Culture.2 In fact, the surest criterion for distinguishing a natural from a cultural process is the presence or absence of rules.3 Therefore the incest taboo must be a cultural phenomenon, as it is a rule and more specifically, a particular rule, which is expressed differently in each society. On the other hand it is at the same time universal, as it exists in all societies, and thus must also belong to the domain of nature.4 There can be no objection to this, Lvi-Strauss states, as it is obvious from empirical observation (anthropological research) that the incest taboo is universally present, while its cultural aspect is asserted by its very definition.5 Lvi-Strauss dissolves this paradox by giving the incest taboo a unique place among all socio-biological phenomena, indeed among all phenomena that can be characterized as human. He states that as it is the only exception in this categorization of phenomena, it must represent the transition from a state of Nature to a state of Culture.6 Lvi-Strauss famously asks in the first chapter of the Elementary Structures: Where does nature end and culture begin?7 It is easy to see where culture begins; anywhere there is a rule. Yet with the incest taboo also comes the end of sovereignty of nature over man.8 Thus the prohibition of incest marks the passage form nature to culture.9 This passage however does not result in a complete loss of natures influence on humans, just that the universal natural spontaneity and instinct become coded, modeled and governed

F. Korn, Elementary Structures Reconsidered: Lvi-Strauss on Kinship, London, 1973, p. 10. 3 Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. 8. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 9. 6 H. Gardner, The Quest for Mind: Jean Piaget, Claude Levi-Strauss, and the Structuralist Movement, New York: Knopf, 1973, p. 125. 7 Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. 4. 8 Ibid., p. 25. 9 R. Delige, Levi-Strauss Today: an Introduction to Structural Anthropology (trans. N. Scott), London: Berg, 2004, p. 58.
European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007) 27

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

according to specific rules. Therefore although nature still is part of the equation, culture superimposes its influence on the end result.10 The above analysis is however a simplification of Lvi-Strausss theory, even though he himself expresses it thus in the first chapters of the Elementary Structures. There is another concept, another rule which precedes the incest taboo and is located in the unconscious of all humans. This is the theory of reciprocity, which is based on LviStrausss analysis and interpretation of the work of Marcel Mauss. In Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de lchange dans le socits archaques, Mauss states that the basis of society is the need for the exchange of gifts.11 The giving of a gift includes the obligation to reciprocate which is the foundation of the rousseaunian social contract and so the relation between the individual and society is formed.12 It would be impossible to do justice to Mausss work in this essay, therefore the analysis will only focus on Lvi-Strausss interpretation of Mauss. For Mauss, the relation of gift exchange is the basis for the social contract and thus for society itself. For LviStrauss however, it is not that exchange occurs in order for the gift to be given in return, but vice versa, i.e. that gifts are given in order to secure exchange.13 The focus is different between the two thinkers. Lvi-Strauss views gift giving as a means for exchange, while for Mauss it was the actual gift and its symbols which was more important than generalized exchange. This may seem like a small change yet its significance is immense. The actual gift is just an example of exchange, and is of minimal importance in itself. It is now possible for Lvi-Strauss to formulate his theory of kinship as another example of the manifestation of reciprocity. In terms of kinship, the elementary parts of the exchange are women, who are exchanged between families. Yet in order for this
10 11

Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. 25. M. Godelier, The Enigma of the Gift (trans. N. Scott), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999 p. 1. 12 S. Clarke, The Foundations of Structuralism, Sussex: Harvester, 1981, p. 44. 13 Ibid.
28 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

to occur, the incest taboo must exist so that no claim can be made from the men in one family over their own women.14 This does not mean that the incest taboo becomes less important; it is still universal. It is the first manifestation of the theory of reciprocity into an empirically observable phenomenon. Thus, even though it is the theory of reciprocity which is the actual transition from nature to culture, the incest taboo is the first universal manifestation of this transition. Its universality also proves that the theory of reciprocity from which it derives must also necessarily be universal. Thus LviStrauss can now explain how the theory of reciprocity originates in the unconscious without having to do the same for the incest taboo. It is enough to show that the incest taboo is a product of the theory of reciprocity, and this he has done by showing that the exchange of women is the fundamental social relation.15 However, there still exists the problem of the apparent opposition between nature and culture and the difficulty of understanding the relation between them. Even though the incest taboo is the bridge between them, Lvi-Strauss often states and implies that they are at odds. In the Elementary Structures he states that the phenomenon can only be examined from a cultural, i.e. anthropological/sociological perspective, while the natural sciences cannot provide insight into its workings. He does not deny the natural aspect of the taboo but also attacks those who would explain the prohibition of incest as a purely cultural or natural phenomenon by affirming that both these extremist explanations lead to contradiction. Nor is it a composite mixture of nature and culture, but a transition, a transformation of one into the other.16 Still, he denies that the study of biology, genetics or evolutionary theory could help with its explanation. He states:

14 15

Ibid. p. 68-69. Ibid. p. 68. 16 Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. 24.

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007) 29

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

even if the incest prohibition has its roots in nature it is only in the way it affects us as a social rule that it can be fully grasped.17

It can thus be deduced that on one hand Lvi-Strauss does not want to deny completely the role of nature in the prohibition of incest, yet at the same time he wants to assert the importance of culture over nature. Lvi-Strauss gives little justification of these statements. He does, however, state explicitly in the Elementary Structures that a vicious circle develops if one looks for a natural explanation for the origin of institutional rules, which by his definition are culture, as they cannot be established without language18. (He does not, however, give any further analysis of this point). It seems to be taken for granted by LviStrauss that language is what distinguishes humans from the animal order and as soon as it exists, society and culture also exist.19 Language is also a manifestation of reciprocity, given that there must necessarily exist at least two individuals exchanging symbolic information. I will return to this point in section 5. It is now time to examine why Lvi-Strauss conceived of and defined the incest taboo and its implications for nature and culture in this particular way. 3. Why does Lvi-Strauss assert cultures importance over nature in the explanation of the incest taboo? Intellectual context, theoretical aims and conception of social anthropology There are many reasons which pushed Lvi-Strauss to this controversial theory and to the remarkable statement that the incest taboo can gain nothing from explanation which focuses on its natural aspect. The motivation is a combination of factors which range from

17 18

Ibid. p. 29. Ibid. p. 8. 19 Lvi-Strauss, in R. Kearny, Modern Movements in European Philosophy: Phenomenology, Critical Theory, Structuralism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994, p. 255.
30 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

the philosophical trends during the time Lvi-Strauss was writing to the fact that at this stage his theory was far from complete. All people who live in a certain historical period are to a greater or lesser extent influenced by their environment and surroundings. The philosophical, literary and scientific trends help shape the way people think, even what they choose to study. Lvi-Strauss was no exception. When the first edition of The Elementary Structures of Kinship was published in 1949 social anthropology was a relatively young science. If his work was to become influential, Lvi-Strauss knew that he had to first create a niche for his discipline and underline its importance, in order to accentuate its diversity from other disciplines such as zoology and mainstream sociology.20 The human species was said to differ from animals only in terms of degree, and that degree was culture. An example of this can be seen in LviStrausss attack on the Westermark-Ellis theory of incest aversion, which states that there is a natural, biological aversion towards incest.21 (This theory will be explained further in section 4.) This naturalistic explanation was to a large extent reductionist, and was therefore regarded as inadequate by Lvi-Strauss as he searched for a more complicated explanation which took into account all of the variables of his theory. On the other hand, Lvi-Strauss would not want to express ideas too closely related to sociology or psychology. Thus he had to be careful in underlining that the role of nature is not obliterated completely, in the way that many social scientists of his time tended to do. Therefore culture would not be part of nature, nor would it be the opposite of nature, but it would transform nature into something higher and thus worthy of specific research.22 In fact, Lvi-Strauss does not break free completely from previous sociological theories such as that proposed by Durkheim, yet makes significant changes to fit his own explanation. It has been suggested by some of his critics that Lvi20

Mepham, in D. Robey (ed.), Structuralism: an Introduction, Oxford: Clarendon, 1973, p. 111. 21 Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. 16-18. 22 Robey, 1973, p. 112.
European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007) 31

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

Strauss diverged from Durkheim but then later on in his life returned to some of Durkheims viewpoints. In the Elementary Structures, however, the divergence is apparent.23 Lvi-Strauss keeps the idea of functionalist explanation yet asserts that it cannot stand on its own. If it is to make any sense, it must be rooted in the individual psychology and not in the collective consciousness.24 This is a very important philosophical point, as by providing a functional underpinning for social structure in the individual, he could eliminate Durkheims appeal to a metaphysical logic of evolution.25 Functional explanation is not causal, i.e. a phenomenon is not explained by how it has come about, but by its function, its purpose, and thus the temporal order of cause and effect is inverted.26 One way of providing a functional explanation within the temporal framework is to combine it with evolutionary theory. Thus, as the origins of social structure cannot be explained in terms of human actions (given that, according to functionalists, society superimposes itself on the individual), a genetic, evolutionary explanation is given whereby the selective pressures of evolution dictate how both society and humans come into being and act.27 (This is very simplistic view of Durkheimian functionalism, which serves purely to show the similarities and differences with Lvi-Strausss own work.) The implication is that all societies in the world today are arranged on a type of evolutionary scale from the most primitive to the most advanced.28 Even if this claim is a somewhat extreme version of evolutionary reductionism, it is easy to see why Lvi-Strauss would reject such an explanation. This extreme biological reductionism does not leave any space for free individual action, or more importantly for Lvi-Strauss,

23

Moravia, Sergio La Ragione Nascosta. Scienza e Filosofia nel Pensiero di Claude Lvi-Strauss, Firenze: Sansoni, 1969, pp. 155-168. 24 Clarke, 1981, p. 47. 25 Ibid. p. 39. 26 The author acknowledges the lectures given by Professor Sebastian Gardner for having explained this idea to her. 27 Clarke, 1981, p. 48-49. 28 Ibid. p. 49.
32 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

the individual unconscious as the basis of society. Lvi-Strauss was attempting, through his account of the unconscious, to give a rational explanation for the basis of society, and in order to do so he had to go against this simplistic view of evolution. In fact, it is biological reductionism itself which caused the greatest gap between LviStrauss and Durkheim. (This will become more apparent from the analysis in the following sections.) The historical context is also important. In the late 1940s, the world was just picking itself up from the horrors of the Second World War. Evolutionary thinking had been used in a very negative way, the ideas of Social Darwinism attesting that human races were diverse and that some were biologically superior to others. Lvi-Strauss, as an anthropologist, was striving to show exactly the opposite; that all humans were biologically similar and that any cultural differences did not show advancement or regression, simply different ways of doing essentially the same thing. Thus, for example, the contents of the incest taboo may be different in each society yet the important thing is that the incest taboo exists everywhere. In 1959 Lvi-Strauss wrote Race and History, a paper which condemns the ethnocentric attitude that existed in the Western world at the time and did not allow for cultural differences, dismissed anything non-Western as primitive.29 Thus Lvi-Strauss used an almost relativist argument in order to show how much he feared the misinterpretation of evolutionary theory and biological reductionism. At the same time, he was an important part of the structuralist movement, which became very popular during his lifetime. Some of the basic concepts of structuralism would logically lead to his ideas concerning nature and culture, described above: for example, his belief that structures, especially in their elementary forms, are the basis of human life. These structures are not consciously conceived by humans and then put into practice, but exist as entities in their own right.30 Thus, when examining a social phenomenon, it is more
29 30

Lvi-Strauss, 1952, p.21. G. Gutting, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London: Routledge, 1998. URL: http://www.rep.routledge.com
European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007) 33

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

important to analyze these structures (an expression of culture) and their relationships with the individuals in whose unconscious they exist, rather than the natural or biological characteristics of these individuals. As a structuralist, Lvi-Strauss also advocates a type of determinism which again results in the importance of culture over natural instinct. Lesprit humain loosely translated as the human mind is determined by the laws that govern the structures of society.31 The unconscious, which is the same for primitive peoples and those who live in more complex societies provides the point of contact between the social and the individual mind, yet it is never reduced to a matter of individual psychologism.32 Thus again, the natural individual impulse must be contained within the greater structure. However, in many ways Lvi-Strausss writings diverge from structuralism. Many of his commentators write that identifying his work and structuralism as identical is a great error, which leads to a misinterpretation of his ideas.33 Others agree that Lvi-Strausss ideas do contain some basic structuralist ideas, but say that the bulk of his work goes beyond the frame imposed by structuralism.34 In fact, in the Elementary Structures he places a lot more weight on individualism than is generally apparent in mainstream structuralism. Another motive that drove Lvi-Strauss to this conclusion concerning nature and culture is the following. As noted in the introduction, the nature versus culture debate in terms of the incest prohibition appears mostly in the preface and introductory chapters of The Elementary Structures. This is because it is used only as an introduction and framework for his elaborate theory of how kinship systems work. Thus he stresses the importance of incest prohibition as the basis of society itself in order to justify the focus of his book. Then, through his brief discussion he argues (whether successfully or not) that any
31

P. Pettit, The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1975, p. 77. 32 Clarke, 1981, p. 212. 33 Dyson-Hudson, in Robey, 1973, p. 218. 34 D. Sperber, p. 25.
34 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

explanation of this phenomenon must focus on its cultural aspect. He can then proceed with the in-depth analysis of his theory, which explains kinship systems solely in terms of their cultural and social characteristics. Lvi-Strauss does not differentiate between the origins of the incest taboo and the taboo itself. Still, his analysis of how the incest taboo transforms nature into culture and the eminence of culture after that implies a historical progress from one time period or era into another. This strikes the reader as a distinction which needs to be made if the analysis is to make sense. It comes to a point where, he states,
there only, but there finally culture can and must, under pain of not existing, firmly declare Me first, and tell Nature, You go no further.35

It is almost as if he is imagining an Age of Nature ending and an Age of Culture beginning. Therefore one could interpret the natural aspect as important in the origins of the incest taboo, while the cultural aspect as essential to its evolution ever since. If this is the case, and Lvi-Strauss is deliberately leaving the origins of the incest taboo out of his analysis, then one could understand why he goes to so much effort to explain why the incest taboo has these two conflicting aspects, but then rejects the first. If it is only in the origins that nature is important, then Lvi-Strausss has provided a justification for his insistence that culture is the only aspect important to his own study. Whatever his reasons may have been, the result of this was a deep rejection, one could say even fear, of evolutionary thinking and explanation, which stayed with Lvi-Strauss even though he revised his own theory later on in his life. As will be shown more extensively in the following sections, this rejection stemmed mostly from the residual contempt for biological reductionism rather than a rejection of evolutionary theory itself.

35

Lvi-Strauss in Korn, 1973, p. 10.

35

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

4. The later development of Lvi-Strausss theory and its implications As the discussion in the previous section has highlighted, when trying to get to grips with Lvi-Strausss work, it is often quite difficult to understand what exactly he means. Indeed sometimes he comes across as ambiguous, even contradictory. And it is not only details which seem to change but central definitions which oscillate between various meanings. Some of Lvi-Strausss commentators interpret this simply as resulting from his style of writing. For some it is this artistic way in which he expresses himself which is part of the genius of his work.36 For his critics however, this ambiguity undermines his argument. His use of poetics, i.e. a reliance on metaphors, has been criticized as drawing away the reader from the argument in question. A parallel criticism is that this inconsistency throughout his works (especially the inconsistency of definitions) and his use of technical terms renders his analysis incomprehensible to the reader and thus detracts from its intellectual value.37 Even though there may be some truth, however exaggerated, in these criticisms, the underlying reason for the inconsistencies is simply that Lvi-Strausss theory evolved throughout his lifetime. The Elementary Structures of Kinship was originally Lvi-Strausss doctoral thesis and when writing it his ideas were not yet fully formed. Indeed, in the preface to the second edition of the Elementary Structures, written in 1967, he reassesses his position dramatically. He states explicitly:
As to the basic problems raised in the introduction, many new facts and the development of my own thought mean that nowadays I would no longer express myself in the same way.38

The preface to the second edition is probably the key text which shows the evolution of his theory and is central to its understanding.

36 37

Sperber in Sturrock, 1971, p. 21. Korn, 1973, pp. 142, 144. 38 Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. xxviii.
36 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

The most important change is demonstrated by the new definitions of nature and culture. Culture is
the synthetic duplication of mechanisms already in existence [in nature] but which the animal kingdom shows only in disjointed form and dispersed variously among its members a duplication, moreover, permitted by the emergence of certain cerebral structures which themselves belong to nature.39

This means that culture is what makes humans human, and even though animals do have behavioural patterns that can in some sense be interpreted as examples of culture tool-making, communication, social structure etc. humans are the only species which systematically combine all their characteristics given by nature and transform them into culture. Humans thus still differ from other animals, yet to a much smaller extent than was previously suggested. It is the natural characteristics which exist in all animals to different degrees, which can be used to form culture or aspects of it. However, there is no teleological reason, on Lvi-Strausss account, which shows that it must necessarily be so. The implications of the statement quoted above are far-reaching and the answer to the famous question Where does nature and Culture begin raised in the second section takes on a whole new meaning. Nature and culture are no longer to be viewed as diametrically opposed. Before, the idea was that the incest taboo, as a manifestation of the theory of reciprocity, was the mediator between those two orders. Now, however, the contrast between nature and culture would be neither a primeval fact, nor a concrete aspect of universal order.40 In other words, nature and culture are not a thesis and antithesis, but just two not-easily distinguishable aspects in the essence of humanity. In fact, Lvi-Strauss explicitly states that in order to understand culture, one must trace it back to its source and seek out its loose ends in other animal and even vegetable

39 40

Ibid p. xxx. Ibid p. xxix.

37

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves
41

The incest taboo

families. This is effectively an admission that evolution has played an important role in the origins of culture. Moreover, he even acknowledges the fact that culture neither necessarily superimposes itself over nature, nor irreducible to it.42 The Lvi-Strauss of 1967 has thus virtually obliterated the contrast between nature and culture. However, he continues to believe that there is no room for biological causation in the explanation of the prohibition of incest within the framework of social anthropology. The question one therefore needs to consider is, why does Lvi-Strauss still deny the importance of biology in the explanation of a phenomenon which he himself has admitted originates in nature? The answer can be found again through the examination of the social and intellectual context in which Lvi-Strauss was writing. It seems that Lvi-Strauss was not against biological explanations in general, but was adamantly against a certain type of biological explanation, evolutionary reductionism. I now want to introduce the hypothesis that Lvi-Strauss was not at odds with biology as such but with the notion of reductive explanation. Application of this notion could lead to extreme biological reductionism, as shown in the previous section. Lvi-Strauss rejected all sorts of reductionism, not just the reductionism found in evolutionary and genetic analysis. In the same way he believed that humans are more than the sum of their genes and societies more than the sum of their subjects, he did not reduce the unconscious to individual psychology.43 He rejected psychological reductionism as much as he rejected any other type of reductionism and the irrationalism that he believed usually went with it. It may seem that there is a contradiction here. On the one hand LviStrauss rejects reductionism, yet, on the other hand, he himself reduces reciprocity to the unconscious and culture to nature. There is a subtle difference, however. Lvi-Strausss reductionism has a certain limit and does not seek irrational explanations, whereas it
41 42

Ibid p. xxx. Ibid. 43 Clarke, 1981, p. 212.

38 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

seems that he thinks that social, psychological and biological reductionism are extreme forms of reductionism, which verge on the irrational and are thus counter-intuitive. Though this point cannot be irrefutably proven, it is probably safe to say without further analysis that this rejection of extreme reductionism would have, among other factors, led to his dismissal of genetic and evolutionary explanations. It is now widely accepted, however, that biological explanations evolutionary explanations included do not have to be reductionist. Even though it has often been the case in the past that evolution is the classic example of reductionism, it is now widely believed that this is a very simplistic interpretation of evolution, indeed a misinterpretation. Natural scientists affirm that evolution is not a linear process, as interpreted in the past, but much more complex. It is driven simultaneously by many factors, many of which are now known, some of which can be rationally inferred, which have resulted in the immense biodiversity which we see today. Although genes are important as the smallest units of evolution, one cannot explain every single process of evolution, natural and cultural, solely in terms of genes. This means that although more complex than previously thought, evolution is also a lot more sophisticated and evolutionary analyses are not irrational. Evolution does not explain individuals by reducing them to the interactions of their genes, but allows for other factors, including cultural ones, to influence their behaviour. 5. Theorising the pre-cultural incest taboo 5.1. Some theories which explain the absence of incest with little or no reference to culture As shown in the third section, Lvi-Strauss states in the preface to the second edition of the Elementary Structures that due to many new facts especially from the field of genetics, he would not express himself in the same way if he were to rewrite the book.44 However the phrase many new facts is an understatement for the huge boom of research in the natural sciences since 1947. The focus of some of this
44

Lvi-Strauss, 1969, pp. xxviii-xxix.

39

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

new research has been the incest taboo and its position as a landmark for the origin of culture. In this section I will examine some of the most important theories and their findings, focusing especially on an evolutionary explanation of the origin of society, and the presocial explanation of incest aversion. By the time Lvi-Strauss was writing the first edition of the Elementary Structures, Edvard Westermark had long since published his theory of biological incest aversion. This stated that children growing up together will either develop an instinctive revulsion of sexual relations for one another or will simply become indifferent to each other as potential sexual partners.45 This theory also has newer evidence which supports it. Studies of kibbutz systems in Israel and minor marriages in China also seem to show an inherent incest aversion for children who grow up together as brother and sister.46 These studies demonstrate that it is not necessarily only the existence of a taboo which makes people feel aversion towards their siblings, but conversely that the taboo could have evolved from this natural aversion. Furthermore, there is additional evidence in the animal world which supports Westermarks theory. A surprisingly large number of animal species do not commit incest, ranging from insects, prairie deer mice and geese to chimpanzees.47 Although the existence of these occurrences does not prove beyond all doubt that there is some sort of conscious or unconscious natural mechanism which inhibits desire for incestuous reproduction, it does support the theory that the incest taboo is something more than a purely cultural phenomenon and that studying its natural aspect could provide answers to the riddle it poses.

45

Westermark in D. Aberle (ed.), The Incest Taboo and the Mating Patterns of Animals, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 65 No 2 (Apr. 1963), p. 260. 46 D. Spain, Taboo or not Taboo: Is that the Question?, in Ethos, Vol. 16, No.3 (Sept. 1988), p. 285. 47 Roscoe, 1994, pp. 49-76.
40 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

It has been proposed that aversion to incest has evolved because of its deleterious effects on offspring. We know that incestuous relations run a much higher risk of resulting in dead or mutated offspring.48 Close inbreeding is therefore dangerous for the particular population. This however does not explain the origin and persistence of the incest taboo. Deleterious effects do not always occur as a result of inbreeding; there are many other factors which are important simultaneously.49 Moreover, the danger decreases dramatically if the individuals are not within the nuclear family, i.e. between second, third cousins and so on.50 The incest prohibitions around the world, however, do not reflect this. It is very often the case that one set of cousins for example on the patrilineal side are encouraged to get married, yet marriage with the same cousin on the matrilineal side would be considered incest.51 The degree of relation is exactly the same and has the same chances of producing dead or ill offspring, but the cultural incest prohibition views them differently. This shows that we cannot take for granted the idea that primitive peoples took the possible deleterious effects of inbreeding into account when the incest taboo came into existence. In fact, if Lvi-Strauss is right in saying that the incest taboo has its roots in the unconscious, it seems improbable that the connection between inbreeding and genetic depression was made. Even if it was made, then it could only have occurred after the incest taboo already existed and at most, could have given the incest taboo greater credibility. 5.2. The pre-cultural basis of the incest taboo as an explanation of its origin: Seymour Parkers interpretation There are many theories which differentiate between the natural and cultural aspect of the incest taboo, but focus on its origin, i.e. its natural aspect. One such theory is developed by Seymour Parker in The pre-cultural basis of the incest taboo: toward a biosocial
48 49

Aberle, 1963, p. 256. R. Bixler, Ray, Incest avoidance as a function of Environment and Heredity, in Current Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 6 (Dec. 1981), p. 641. 50 Brown, 1991, p. 123. 51 Lvi-Strauss, 1969, p. xxxii.
European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007) 41

Alkistis Elliott-Graves
52

The incest taboo

theory. In it, Parker states that even though reducing the cultural phenomenon of the universal incest taboo to instinctive need is not an adequate explanation, this does not mean that there is no biological basis for the incest taboo.53 That is, he distinguishes between the origins of the incest taboo and its eventual cultural importance as a rule. Although incest may have some sort of function in society, its origins, he believes, are genetic. He does allow for the fact that cultural factors added new selective advantages but that they did so to a pre-existing propensity towards incest avoidance.54. The idea is that the incest taboo became very important as a cultural phenomenon, yet it did so by reinforcing natural, instinctive human propensities. He states that incest avoidance is not a sufficient condition for the existence of the incest taboo, and nor is it a necessary condition; yet he is adamant that it was a facilitating condition.55 In terms of evolutionary probability however, a facilitating condition is so important that no theory can afford to dismiss it altogether. Parkers theory attempts to answer the question When did the human way of life become peculiarly human?56 This question bears striking resemblance to Lvi-Strausss own question about where nature ends and culture begins if viewed from a certain viewpoint. I will return to this point in the next section. Parker gathers evidence about prehistoric life and formulates a hypothesis for the emergence of incest prohibitions based on systems of alliances.57 Very briefly, the idea is that the hunting of large game results in population dispersal where social life is based on hunting family groups. Scarcity of resources forces alliances between family groups which are cemented with marriage between members of different groups. Incest
52

S. Parker, The precultural basis of the incest taboo: toward a biosocial theory, in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78 No.2 (Jan. 1976), pp. 285-305. 53 Ibid p. 286. 54 Ibid. p.287. 55 Ibid. p. 299. 56 Ibid. p. 298. 57 Laughlin, 1974, quoted in Parker, ibid., p. 298.
42 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

prohibitions reinforce this by prohibiting marriage with the women of the family group, thus enabling individuals to seek spouses outside the family group. This, however, is quite similar to Lvi-Strausss own explanation of exogamy in terms of alliances between family groups. According to Lvi-Strauss, when something is scarce, it takes on the properties of an economic good.58 Incest prohibition alone freezes women within the family group, making them scarce, and with the rules of exogamy this action is annulled. Thus alliances between family groups work together with the rules of exogamy to make sure that potential spouses can be found when necessary. The importance of the existence of these theories does not stem from the plausibility of their content. In fact, I am in no position to be able to determine their validity. However, they have aspects which are compatible, or even in some cases strikingly similar to Lvi-Strausss own theory, even though their focus and objectives are different. Thus one can examine if these theories are at least conceptually consistent with some of Lvi-Strausss fundamental ideas. This will be the focus of the next section. 6. Is it conceptually possible to combine Lvi-Strausss theory with other evolution-oriented theories of the incest taboo? As shown in sections 3 and 4, Lvi-Strauss did not think highly of evolutionary or biological explanations of the incest taboo. Even though he revised his own theory in later life and admitted that he had treated discoveries in the field of genetics too lightly, he still stated that the importance of the incest taboo was to be found in its cultural aspect. However, in section 5 it was shown that many theories which provide an evolutionary explanation for these phenomena are not always diametrically opposed to Lvi-Strausss own theory. Moreover, many of the scientists writing these papers quote Lvi-Strauss and use his theory as a point of reference from which to proceed. The purpose of this section is to examine whether at least some of these
58

Korn, 1973, p. 13.

43

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

evolutionary explanations are theoretically compatible with LviStrausss own discussion of the incest taboo. In order for this to occur, it is necessary for Lvi-Strausss warnings about the evolutionary explanation of the incest taboo to be ignored. After all, it was shown in section 3 that his warnings stemmed from his rejection of extreme reductionism, not evolution itself. The first important premise for the argument is that Lvi-Strauss did not reject evolution as the explanation of biological features. Indeed, it would be rather absurd if he did, because of the accumulated evidence which supports Darwins theory for the evolution of species. In terms of anatomical and biological characteristics, Lvi-Strauss agreed that humans, like all other animals, have the genes and forms they do today because of environmental and natural selection pressures. However, many scientists today believe that behavioural patterns can also evolve, and more importantly, that aspects of this evolution are brought about by similar selection pressures as those which control the evolution of genes and forms. In fact, it has also been suggested that some genes can even influence behavioural patterns. For example, very complex behavioural patterns of courtship have evolved in many animal species which take place before reproduction can occur. It is also a frequent occurrence that young animals observe and copy their parents behaviour for finding and catching food. Changes in behavioural patterns also occur in humans, and it is often easy to see how they evolve. Some of these changes occur within a lifetime; for example, infants behaviour changes as they grow into adults. In addition, the study of history shows that within a few generations, behavioural patterns can change dramatically; for example, people can espouse a new religion which changes their whole outlook towards life. Alternatively, sudden changes in the environment, such as a plague, can upset normal modes of behaviour and result in new patterns. After all, one cannot deny that cultures differ from each other and from those cultures existent in the past. The natural, easy explanation for this is that each culture has evolved

44

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

into a pattern that suits it best, and enhances its chances of survival. This, however is bad evolutionary thinking.59 Cultures do not know what is good or bad for them, nor is their evolution predetermined. There is no perfect final state which a culture must reach and which all cultures aspire. There exist also countless examples of behavioural patterns in various societies that actually undermine the survival of the individual and the society. It is not clear for example, how civil wars or smoking can help the survival of the individual or the group to which he/she belongs, nor how these phenomena can be explained in terms of natural selection. In fact, to do so would be to provide the reductionist type of explanation against which LviStrauss warned. Still, as stated in section 5, evolutionary explanations do not have to be reductionist, yet they are equipped with the ability to take into account many other factors beside natural selection pressures. Seymour Parkers theory is just one example of the many theories which provide a bridge between incest aversion and the manifestation of the incest taboo. It is of particular importance here because of its close connection to Lvi-Strausss ideas, but it is by no means the only important work. If it is proven that these two theories are not incompatible, but that one can follow on from the other, then an important connection will have been established. Even if later on Parkers theory is proven wrong, then there will still be the possibility that another compatible theory can be formed to take its place. As stated in the previous section, Parker like Lvi-Strauss explains the cultural manifestation of the incest taboo in terms of alliances between families, where the biological tendency of incest aversion becomes a cultural way of life, which is then perpetuated and reinforced by various cultural rules.60 This, according to Parker, is the origin of the cultural aspect of the incest taboo. This theory also gives extra support to the idea that incest prohibition is universal (because of the way it originates) but the rules governing it differ from
59

R. Dawkins,The Selfish Gene (30th anniversary edn.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 3-4. 60 Parker, 1976, p. 299.
European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007) 45

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

culture to culture, because they evolve in different ways depending on differences in each natural and cultural environment. However, there still remains a problem if these theories are to be compatible with each other. This is the problem of the so-called big bang theory for the emergence of culture. The problem is that on the one hand Lvi-Strauss states that language and therefore culture could only have come about all at once, but on the other hand evolutionary explanations of behavioural patterns show that even cultural phenomena evolve over a period of time. This problem is dissolved, however, if one looks closely at the evolutionists concept of a period of time. The evolutionary timescale is very different to that used for practical purposes in everyday life. This is because the evolutionary timescale starts billions of years ago, in order to take into account the formation of the planet and everything from then until now. Therefore if the timescale is billions of years, 30,000 years (the time in which it is believed that culture came into existence) is truly a blink. Any evolution within this timeframe is really an explosion, a big bang. In terms of human a human timescale, it still is thousands of generations. With this in mind, it is at least conceivable that LviStrausss theory can be reinterpreted and extended to fit this evolutionary timescale. The main point here is that what Lvi-Strauss explains as the workings of incest prohibition, its manifestation of reciprocity, and the role of the unconscious do not have to change. The only factor which needs to be revised is the timeframe in which all this occurs. In addition, the existence of a timeless unconscious does not undermine this analysis. If humans are not conscious of the cultural changes that are occurring around them, but merely externalising and vocalising concerns which pre-exist in their unconscious, then it does not matter if it takes a second or 30,000 years for a cultural phenomenon to be fully formed. In fact, one cannot say that the incest taboo, or any other cultural phenomenon for that matter, is fully formed, as it is constantly evolving even in our time. This is apparent in Western societies, where the prohibition of incest concerns only closely related individuals, while moral sanctions for incest are
46 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

applied less strictly or not at all if the incest relationship occurs between consenting adults. Subsequently, it seems that at least on a conceptual level, LviStrausss theory can be combined with others in order to produce a fuller explanation of the incest taboo, and through it the origin of culture itself. The practical examination of this combination is a complex, empirical matter. What should be retained is the idea that interdisciplinary analysis can result in an explanation more fruitful than one confined to a single field of study. Socio-biologists have started down this path and although not every single paper published is necessarily valid or useful, the idea of combining materials and methods is, I think, a way of expanding mental horizons and could result in great explanatory success. 7. Conclusion: Is the Nature Culture debate necessary? The opposition between nature and culture has been a central theme in this essay. Importance and power has oscillated between the two orders for a very long time resulting in the ingraining of this idea of opposition in many peoples minds. Nowadays however, the legitimacy of the debate itself is being questioned. There has been an increasing tendency to view nature and culture as interrelated and working together in terms of their effects on the human environment. Many natural and social scientists now think that everything that occurs in humans is a result of a combination of heredity and the effects of the environment, and thus any explanation must take into account both natural and cultural factors.61 There is however a problem with this idea. Not everything in human nature is the result of combination of environment and heredity. There is a distinction between natural and cultural phenomena which cannot be simply eliminated. For example, one would be hard-pressed to find genetic reasons for one persons preference for one particular ballet production over another. Conversely, it would be absurd to seek a

61

S. Pinker, Why nature & nurture wont go away, in Dedalus, Nov. 2004.
47

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

cure for genetic disorders such as Downs syndrome or haemophilia in the cultural sphere. There seems to be no simple way out of this debate. Not even combining the two extreme theories always provides good answers. In addition, every time a particular theory is proven unsatisfactory, the debate seems to spring up again anew. Still, a very important point has been made with the combination of the extreme nature and extreme culture theories. Even though it is not always the case that both nature and culture influence human phenomena, very often both do and moreover, it is not usually easy to say whose influence is more obvious and important. Lvi-Strausss account of the incest taboo greatly reflects this. He himself, who was so adamant in the beginning that natures importance as an explanatory mechanism was obliterated by the advent of culture, later acknowledged that things are not so simple, and that culture is a lot more easily reducible to nature than was previously thought. This is a very important shift in ideology, which was to have far reaching effects. The important difference is that nature and culture are no longer viewed as diametrically opposed. As shown in section 4, with a few sentences, Lvi-Strauss effectively eliminated the nature-culture debate; he was not alone. His shift in ideology was mirrored by many natural and social scientists to great success. This is, I think, one of the most important changes of ideology of our time, because the destruction of the idea that natural and cultural factors are independent and necessarily work against each other, has allowed both the natural and social sciences to make huge leaps forward. It has also allowed for the emergence of new disciplines which would have been unthought-of if nature and culture were at odds, for example socio-biology, evolutionary anthropology, etc. It seems as though both the natural and social sciences do not feel the need to seek answers in extremist theories any more. It seems to be understood now that even if something cannot be explained by a combination of natural and cultural theories, this is not because they are at odds; it is usually because on one hand there is no time for the cultural aspects to have any influence, as with the case of hereditary
48 European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

Alkistis Elliott-Graves

The incest taboo

diseases, or on the other hand, there is no space for the natural factors to influence, as in the case with the artistic preference. It now seems rather counter-intuitive to say that overall, nature is more important than culture or vice versa. After all, human nature, and maybe even some animal natures, are the way they are because of both natural and cultural phenomena: they have both natural and cultural aspects to them. The ultimate aim of this essay has been to show the limitations which a theory can encounter if nature and culture are defined in particular ways, especially if they are viewed as opposites; at the same time, the aim has also been to show that as soon as nature and culture are not viewed as opposites, many of the original limitations of the theory disappear, and more importantly it can now, at least in theory, be combined with other theories and thus provide more satisfying explanations of the phenomenon being examined. Lvi-Strausss theory was particularly interesting for many reasons. Firstly the very topic of the incest taboo and its universality is simply fascinating. Secondly, the connections Lvi-Strauss makes are not always expected, yet sometimes provide insight into the workings of human nature. They are intellectually stimulating, pushing the readers own mind to examine the issues at hand. Examination of his theory of incest sparked my interest in the extremely complex nature of humanity and alerted me to the importance of the nature versus culture debate. Interestingly, with the analysis of the theory, it seemed obvious that Lvi-Strauss was writing at a time very different to our own (at least in terms of scientific research), and that my own education (and interest in evolution) greatly affected my interpretation of it. It seems that we are all products of our time to some extent, and it is possible that being a product of this time may require this dissolution of the debate between nature and culture.

European Social and Political Research, Vol. 13 (20062007)

49