pointless game, or it may be a hideous trauma leaving lifelong
psychic scars. In many cases the reaction of parents and society
determines the child's interpretation of the event. What would have
been a trivial and soon-forgotten act becomes traumatic if the
mother cries, the father rages, and the police interrogate the
child."
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 2004 Edition)
In contemporary thought, incest is invariably associated with child
abuse and its horrific, long-lasting, and often irreversible
consequences. Incest is not such a clear-cut matter as it has been
made out to be over millennia of taboo. Many participants claim to
have enjoyed the act and its physical and emotional consequences. It
is often the result of seduction. In some cases, two consenting and
fully informed adults are involved.
Many types of relationships, which are defined as incestuous, are
between genetically unrelated parties (a stepfather and a daughter),
or between fictive kin or between classificatory kin (that belong to
the same matriline or patriline). In certain societies (the Native
American or the Chinese) it is sufficient to carry the same family
name (=to belong to the same clan) and marriage is forbidden.
Some incest prohibitions relate to sexual acts - others to marriage.
In some societies, incest is mandatory or prohibited, according to
the social class (Bali, Papua New Guinea, Polynesian and Melanesian
islands). In others, the Royal House started a tradition of
incestuous marriages, which was later imitated by lower classes
(Ancient Egypt, Hawaii, Pre-Columbian Mixtec). Some societies are
more tolerant of consensual incest than others (Japan, India until
the 1930's, Australia).
The list is long and it serves to demonstrate the diversity of
attitudes towards this most universal of taboos. Generally put, we
can say that a prohibition to have sex with or marry a related
person should be classified as an incest prohibition.
Perhaps the strongest feature of incest has been hitherto
downplayed: that it is, essentially, an autoerotic act.
Having sex with a first-degree blood relative is like having sex
with oneself. It is a Narcissistic act and like all acts
Narcissistic, it involves the objectification of the partner. The
incestuous Narcissist over-values and then devalues his sexual
partner. He is devoid of empathy (cannot see the other's point of
view or put himself in her shoes).
For an in depth treatment of Narcissism and its psychosexual
dimension, see: "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"
and "Frequently Asked Questions".
Paradoxically, it is the reaction of society that transforms incest
into such a disruptive phenomenon. The condemnation, the horror, the
revulsion and the attendant social sanctions interfere with the
internal processes and dynamics of the incestuous family. It is from
society that the child learns that something is horribly wrong, that
he should feel guilty, and that the offending parent is a defective
role model.
As a direct result, the formation of the child's Superego is stunted
and it remains infantile, ideal, sadistic, perfectionist, demanding
and punishing. The child's Ego, on the other hand, is likely to be
replaced by a False Ego version, whose job it is to suffer the
social consequences of the hideous act.
To sum up: society's reactions in the case of incest are pathogenic
and are most likely to produce a Narcissistic or a Borderline
patient. Dysempathic, exploitative, emotionally labile, immature,
and in eternal search for Narcissistic Supply - the child becomes a
replica of his incestuous and socially-castigated parent.
If so, why did human societies develop such pathogenic responses? In
other words, why is incest considered a taboo in all known human
collectives and cultures? Why are incestuous liaisons treated so
harshly and punitively?
Freud said that incest provokes horror because it touches upon our
forbidden, ambivalent emotions towards members of our close family.
This ambivalence covers both aggression towards other members
(forbidden and punishable) and (sexual) attraction to them (doubly
forbidden and punishable).
Edward Westermarck proffered an opposite view that the domestic
proximity of the members of the family breeds sexual repulsion (the
epigenetic rule known as the Westermarck effect) to counter
naturally occurring genetic sexual attraction. The incest taboo
simply reflects emotional and biological realities within the family
rather than aiming to restrain the inbred instincts of its members,
claimed Westermarck.
Though much-disputed by geneticists, some scholars maintain that the
incest taboo may have been originally designed to prevent the
degeneration of the genetic stock of the clan or tribe through intra- family breeding (closed endogamy). But, even if true, this no longer
applies. In today's world incest rarely results in pregnancy and the
transmission of genetic material. Sex today is about recreation as
much as procreation.
Good contraceptives should, therefore, encourage incestuous,
couples. In many other species inbreeding or straightforward incest
are the norm. Finally, in most countries, incest prohibitions apply
also to non-genetically-related people.
It seems, therefore, that the incest taboo was and is aimed at one
thing in particular: to preserve the family unit and its proper
functioning.
Incest is more than a mere manifestation of a given personality
disorder or a paraphilia (incest is considered by many to be a
subtype of pedophilia). It harks back to the very nature of the
family. It is closely entangled with its functions and with its
contribution to the development of the individual within it.
The family is an efficient venue for the transmission of accumulated
property as well as information - both horizontally (among family
members) and vertically (down the generations). The process of
socialization largely relies on these familial mechanisms, making
the family the most important agent of socialization by far.
The family is a mechanism for the allocation of genetic and material
wealth. Worldly goods are passed on from one generation to the next
through succession, inheritance and residence. Genetic material is
handed down through the sexual act. It is the mandate of the family
to increase both by accumulating property and by marrying outside
the family (exogamy).
Clearly, incest prevents both. It preserves a limited genetic pool
and makes an increase of material possessions through intermarriage
all but impossible.
The family's roles are not merely materialistic, though.
One of the main businesses of the family is to teach to its members
self control, self regulation and healthy adaptation. Family members
share space and resources and siblings share the mother's emotions
and attention. Similarly, the family educates its young members to
master their drives and to postpone the self-gratification which
attaches to acting upon them.
The incest taboo conditions children to control their erotic drive
by abstaining from ingratiating themselves with members of the
opposite sex within the same family. There could be little question
that incest constitutes a lack of control and impedes the proper
separation of impulse (or stimulus) from action.
Additionally, incest probably interferes with the defensive aspects
of the family's existence. It is through the family that aggression
is legitimately channeled, expressed and externalized. By imposing
discipline and hierarchy on its members, the family is transformed
into a cohesive and efficient war machine. It absorbs economic
resources, social status and members of other families. It forms
alliances and fights other clans over scarce goods, tangible and
intangible.
This efficacy is undermined by incest. It is virtually impossible to
maintain discipline and hierarchy in an incestuous family where some
members assume sexual roles not normally theirs. Sex is an
expression of power - emotional and physical. The members of the
family involved in incest surrender power and assume it out of the
regular flow patterns that have made the family the formidable
apparatus that it is.
These new power politics weaken the family, both internally and
externally. Internally, emotive reactions (such as the jealousy of
other family members) and clashing authorities and responsibilities
are likely to undo the delicate unit. Externally, the family is
vulnerable to ostracism and more official forms of intervention and
dismantling.
Finally, the family is an identity endowment mechanism. It bestows
identity upon its members. Internally, the members of the family
derive meaning from their position in the family tree and
its "organization chart" (which conform to societal expectations and
norms). Externally, through exogamy, by incorporating "strangers",
the family absorbs other identities and thus enhances social
solidarity (Claude Levy-Strauss) at the expense of the solidarity of
the nuclear, original family.
Exogamy, as often noted, allows for the creation of extended
alliances. The "identity creep" of the family is in total opposition
to incest. The latter increases the solidarity and cohesiveness of
the incestuous family - but at the expense of its ability to digest
and absorb other identities of other family units. Incest, in other
words, adversely affects social cohesion and solidarity.
Lastly, as aforementioned, incest interferes with well-established
and rigid patterns of inheritance and property allocation. Such
disruption is likely to have led in primitive societies to disputes
and conflicts - including armed clashes and deaths. To prevent such
recurrent and costly bloodshed was one of the intentions of the
incest taboo.
The more primitive the society, the more strict and elaborate the
set of incest prohibitions and the fiercer the reactions of society
to violations. It appears that the less violent the dispute
settlement methods and mechanisms in a given culture - the more
lenient the attitude to incest.
The incest taboo is, therefore, a cultural trait. Protective of the
efficient mechanism of the family, society sought to minimize
disruption to its activities and to the clear flows of authority,
responsibilities, material wealth and information horizontally and
vertically.
Incest threatened to unravel this magnificent creation - the family.
Alarmed by the possible consequences (internal and external feuds, a
rise in the level of aggression and violence) - society introduced
the taboo. It came replete with physical and emotional sanctions:
stigmatization, revulsion and horror, imprisonment, the demolition
of the errant and socially mutant family cell.
As long as societies revolve around the relegation of power, its
sharing, its acquisition and dispensation - there will always exist
an incest taboo. But in a different societal and cultural setting,
it is conceivable not to have such a taboo. We can easily imagine a
society where incest is extolled, taught, and practiced - and out- breeding is regarded with horror and revulsion.
The incestuous marriages among members of the royal households of
Europe were intended to preserve the familial property and expand
the clan's territory. They were normative, not aberrant. Marrying an
outsider was considered abhorrent.
An incestuous society - where incest is the norm - is conceivable
even today.
Two out of many possible scenarios:
1. "The Lot Scenario"
A plague or some other natural disaster decimate the population of
planet Earth. People remain alive only in isolated clusters, co- habiting only with their closest kin. Surely incestuous procreation
is preferable to virtuous extermination. Incest becomes normative.
Incest is as entrenched a taboo as cannibalism. Yet, it is better to
eat the flesh of your dead football team mates than perish high up
on the Andes (a harrowing tale of survival recounted in the book and
eponymous film, "Alive").
2. The Egyptian Scenario
Resources become so scarce that family units scramble to keep them
exclusively within the clan.
Exogamy - marrying outside the clan - amounts to a unilateral
transfer of scarce resources to outsiders and strangers. Incest
becomes an economic imperative.
An incestuous society would be either utopian or dystopian,
depending on the reader's point of view - but that it is possible is
doubtless.