WHY TABOOS?=

Lyle Steadman

Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Human Behavior and Evolution Society Meeting

University College London=

London, England

June, 2001

Probably in every traditional society, ancestors, through taboos, prohibit their descendants from doing things they have been naturally selected to do. In this paper I argue that the most important effect of taboos, the effect that can explain their persistence through time, the effect that has been select= ed for, is the creation and strengthening of cooperative social behavior.=

Among the Hewa of Papua New Guinea, w= here I’ve spent some time, the range of taboos is great. For example, men must never eat a certain large water lizard, large white eggs, and a variety of banana. Females, and usually young boys, m= ust never eat a broad range of things, including the ostrich-like cassowary and their very large eggs, possum, various bird eggs, the monitor lizard, certa= in parts of wild pigs, and several varieties of pandanus and bananas. They say that if females do eat th= ese prohibited foods, their skin will become loose and they will die, but they = all know of females who have eaten them without dying. After eating wild pig: both = men and women are forbidden several foods for four days. Both are forbidden sexual intercou= rse for six days. Women must not = work on net bags for five days. Af= ter killing someone, a person cannot: eat two types of bananas for four days, e= at pandanus (an important protein-rich food) for three days, enter a garden for one month, feed himself, and must wash himself every day for five days. Virtually all people follow these prohibitions, and many more, with great care. All these taboos are imposed by an= cestors, and passed on by parents to their children.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF TABOOS

While people in primitive or tribal societies often have a great number of taboos, people in modern societies have them as well. Roman Catholics have for long proh= ibited the eating of meat on Fridays, and fast near Easter. Muslims eat or drink nothing from sunrise to sunset each year during the entire month of Ramadan, and Mormons fast one entire Sunday each month. Two of the five books of Moses, the basis of Judaism, focus on the prohibition of an array of foods and activities – not just the pig. The foods listed as taboo include various mammals, insects, birds, and sea life. And the hierarchical caste s= ystem of Hinduism is almost defined by prohibitions. The position of one and one’= s kin in the hierarchy is virtually identified by the kinds of meat you and your relatives don’t eat. Eating beef is considered so bad t= hat doing so makes one and one’s kin outcastes, pariahs, untouchables.

&nbs= p; Radcliffe‑Brown (1964) reported that i= n the Andaman Islands, boys and girls are required to observe a number of food taboos as part of an extended puberty rite. After a ceremony (which for the girl occurs at onset of menarche, and for the boy whenever his parents decide he is ready), the young person gives up, one at= a time, each of the important foods of the Andamanese. After a period in which the youth = cannot eat turtle, for example, a ceremony is held during which he eats this food again, after which he gives up a different food. This series of taboos goes on for a number of years for a boy, lasting often until after he is married (p.96). =

= &= nbsp; Although all the young people are expected to participate in this ritual, evidence suggests that compliance is not automatic.= Radcliffe-Brown reports, "they believe that anyone who did not = pass through the ceremonies would be certain to die at early age," which suggests a recognition that boys might not want to do it, and "they re= call the instance of one young man who refused to submit to the ceremonies who d= ied before reaching maturity" (p.283).

&nbs= p; A taboo that is very widespread is using the= name of a recently dead person, especially in front of his relatives. This taboo is found among all Australian tribes (Elkin 1964:318). Opler (1972:470) describes this prohibition among the Apache Indians: the taboo on mentioning the name of a dead person was expected to be observed by everyone for a short time after his death. After even a long time it was expected to be observed by the dead person's relatives as well as by anyone within hearing distance of the relatives. There is no automatic time period for the application of this ta= boo, nor a specified relationship which requires its use. But "nothing is m= ore insulting, provocative, and certain to precipitate conflict than to call out the name of a dead man in the presence of his relative" (p.470). Indeed,

= &= nbsp; it is considered a graceful compliment to the family of the deceased and to the memory of the dead to take elaborate precautions that the name not be calle= d. . . . Thus when a Mescalero leader named Beso (from the Spanish peso) died, everyone was obliged to say dinero instead of peso, especially when within earshot of the dead man's family (p.470).=

Several other practices which form = a part of Apache mourning ritual would not normally be considered taboos, but are clearly related. When a person dies, his close relatives cut their hair, "an act which will alone mark their bereavement for at least a year" (p.471). They wear as few clothes as possib= le, despite the cold, and for a certain period do not attend dances or other festivities. These practices = share with taboos the feature of the abnegation of personal pleasure. The same practice is found in the = Trobriand Islands, where mourners make themselves deliberately unattractive by cutting their hair, painting their faces black, wearing dirty clothes, and giving up scents and ornaments (Malinowski 1929:= 291‑292). While all these things are said to= be done for the deceased, he cannot be discernibly affected; because these practices are public, however, the living can be influenced. By foregoing a number of pleasures= after a death, the mourner communicates his willingness to undergo hardship for t= he deceased, and by implication for the deceased’s kinsmen.

DISCUSSION

Apparently in every society there are traditionally encouraged taboos. The obvious question: why do ances= tors prohibit their descendants from doing things they have, in the Darwinian se= nse, been selected to do? Why do ancestors encourage restraint and hardship that has no obvious practical be= nefit? From our perspective, the question= is, how has the encouragement (and acceptance) of such restraint helped individ= uals to leave more descendants than those not following or encouraging taboos? Why has there been a selection for taboos?

<= /p>

THE MAIN THESES

Probably the most widely accepted explanation of taboos is that proposed by Marvin Harris, who has attempted to explain them by their economic benefits. He argues that the strong prohibit= ion of eating beef in India= is explained by the importance of the cow in producing milk and butter, dung for fuel, and oxen for plowing (Harris 1974). Similarly, for the Jewish (and Mus= lim) taboo on eating pig, Harris argues that it would be economically irrational= to raise pigs in the semi-arid environment of the Middl= e East. Pigs require considerable water for cooling, cannot be easily herded, and compete with man directly for food. But because they are a “succ= ulent treat” their consumption must be prohibited (1974:44).

Now, while these two examples at least superficially fit an economic explanation, they do not explain why Jews continue the prohibition in areas where pigs a= re easy to raise, such as in Europe, for mo= re than a thousand years. Nor do= es his economic explanation touch on the vast array of taboos in both Judaism and Hinduism, which are economically irrational.

While an economic (or political, physical or practical) effect of a taboo may be sufficient to account for it, such an effect cannot account for the majorit= y of them. A prohibition against s= exual intercourse during the nursing period, or against eating a poisonous food, = may be accounted for by its physiological effects. The fundamental problem of taboo i= s not to account for the deprivations that make sense, but for those that do not. The challenge is to acco= unt for taboos that make economic nonsense.&nb= sp; Why are individuals encouraged to refrain from doing things that generally promote their survival and personal well being?=

Mary Douglas’ “pollution beliefs” hypothesis (1968) has attrac= ted a certain following among anthropologists.= She argues that taboos protect a culture’s “classificato= ry scheme” by getting people to avoid thinking about things that are ambiguous, things that threaten the conceptual system. Other than the fact that taboos re= quire people to think about the thing tabooed in order to avoid it, it is easy to create a new category of anything ambiguous, and thereby eliminate its ambiguous or “marginal” status. Furthermore, Douglas can’t even handle most of the taboos in the bible, which is the focus= of her hypothesis.

Maimonides, the 12^th century “Jewish Aristotle,” perceptively no= ted that the function of all the Jewish taboos was the encouragement of “self-discipline”. But he then contradicted this claim by arguing that all the foods prohibited we= re in fact unhealthy, unhygenic, and therefore should be avoided. It hardly requires self-discipline= when one avoids eating rotten meat.

Ancestors in all societies encourage sacrifice. Initiation that includes pain is widespread. “Offerings”, which are= a form of sacrifice, are probably encouraged in every religion. Sacrifice, said to be for the dece= ased, is encouraged at funerals. Mo= numental architecture, such as pyramids and temples, are monuments to sacrifice. Stories of heroism and bravery, to= ld in every society, presumably encourage the audience to be more likely to take risks for others. Pilgrimages, often involving large costs, are encouraged in many modern religions.<= /o:p>

What is the evolutionary aim of this encouraged sacrifice? How has it helped individuals leav= e more descendants?

All these activities seem aimed at encouraging a willingness to suffer for othe= rs, especially those who encourage such sacrifice, usually ancestors, and those= of importance to the ancestors, in particular their descendants -- one’s= own codescendants. Cooperation im= plies sacrifice, for each individual, by accepting the influence of the other, ma= kes himself vulnerable to, and hence can be exploitable by the other. Sacrifice for others is the basis = of cooperation, which is the basis of society. Rituals everywhere are distinguish= ed as stereotyped cooperation aimed at promoting future non-stereotyped cooperati= on among the participants. Witho= ut enduring cooperation trade is not possible. Without trade, and its subsequent specialization of labor, the human “standard of living” would be little better than that of chimpanzees and gorillas.

To show a willingness to sacrifice for others not only influences individuals = to reciprocate, it also influences them to do the same for others. Some psychological studies have sh= own that witnessing “helping” actions influence observers to help o= thers:

ex= posure to others who act in a generous or helpful manner has been found to increase subjects’ tendency to offer aid to [other] persons in need of assistance. Further, exposure= to selfish[ness] has been shown to sharply reduce helping and generosity by observers. (Baron and Byrne 1977:324-325)

Given this readiness of humans to = copy the behavior they witness (the basis of the transmission of culture and traditions), those who become aware of such sacrifice are more likely to sacrifice for others.

The acceptance of encouraged sacrifice in regard to one’s appetite, resou= rces and body, communicates not only a willingness to accept the authority of the encouragers, but to suffer for them, to endure pain, loss and restraint for them. Breaking or defying a t= aboo, of course, communicates the opposite. When the suffering is traditional, the main encouragers are ancestor= s. Prophets of religion everywhere are distinguished by their encouragement of their followers to be willing to su= ffer for their co-followers. Taboo= s are one of the ways they encourage this. The proposition of this pap= er is that the most important effect of the acceptance of encouraged suffering, t= he effect that can explain its persistence through time, is the creation or strengthening of cooperative social behavior.

&n= bsp; What we are dealing with here with respect to the universality of taboos is a gr= eat deal of behavior aimed at influencing people to sacrifice for others. This behavior cannot be explained = by benefits to individuals that enhance their personal reproduction or surviva= l, for it is actually at the expense of such benefits. Humans have been selected by tradi= tion to accept the influence of ancestors. While this is at the expense of individuals – it reduces their individual chances of surviving and reproducing – such behavior has b= een selected for because it helped the ancestors of such individuals leave descendants, = and thereby to perpetuate those traditions.&nb= sp; By accepting traditions that restrained their appetites for reproduc= ing and surviving, their descendants promoted cooperation among their co-descen= dants.

What is the benefit of such cooperation? Cooperation not only reduces competition among the co-descendants (or co-followers), it also enhances their ability to compete with outsiders. Based on the apparently ancient traditions of Australian Aborigines – Homo sapiens -- the replacement= of the Neanderthals by Homo sapiens in Europe was almost surely related to the Homo sapiens traditions that encouraged sacrif= ice and social behavior. It certa= inly was not due to a difference in brain size.= So too, was the tradition of prohibiting more than one wife – monogamy – the most likely cause of the success of the Indo-Europeans= in replacing most of the (polygynous) peoples living between Ireland and India during the past six or seven thousand years.