Role of Incest Taboo in Rise of Western Individualism

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

There's a bit to digest in that. At first it seems counter intuitive but after a couple of reads it makes some sense.

People grouped in a "clan" would be pretty much all related to each other, you'd have a clan leader, usually a patriarch, and independent thought would be very much discouraged. It would be "this is how we do stuff here"

Once you can't marry a cousin anymore, you have to venture outside the clan to find a wife which breaks the power of the clan, leads to exposure to other ways of thinking, which in turn leads to more individualism.

The article refers to Australia (and the USA) as nations as an outlier with high levels of independent thought and trust of strangers. I'd say that's more to do with how we were settled and grew.

England sent a bunch of convicts and political prisoners to Australia along with guards and administrators and tradesmen. Any clan bonds were busted utterly and in a foreign environment with no family or clan to call on, independent thought was an essential survival requirement as was learning to trust strangers.

[David]

It’s definitely an interesting hypothesis, but seems perhaps a little too neat to me. What about all of the other historical factors that centralised global wealth in Europe and led to more advanced industrialisation, explosion of urban populations, etc.? The basic premise certainly sounds plausible enough (i.e. that a shift away from small-group proximity fosters greater individualism), but I’d be wary of presuming that a relative lack of cousin intermarriage substantially explains it on the evidence provided.

[thesoretoothsayer]

So does this mean that non-western cultures are a bunch of inbred, banjo-twangers?

[Pies4shaw]

Is Appalachian Kentucky non-western in the sense you intend?

[stui magpie]

So does this mean that non-western cultures are a bunch of inbred, banjo-twangers?

Not necessarily, many had strong rules in place. Indigenous tribes had strict rules about who could "marry" who, although most had a different definition of "marriage" than western society and they never got round to inventing the Banjo.

[thesoretoothsayer]

The impact of this change was clear: the longer a society’s exposure to the church, the greater the effect.

Interesting and unique hypothesis.
However, I would think there are large tracts of eastern and southern europe where the church has supreme influence but which have retained strong clan/kinship ties.

[Pi]

Interesting stuff , but the church didn't always get its way, or more likely
the rules didn't apply to certain families who considered their bloodlines divine.


https://www.livescience.com/3504-inbree ... nasty.html

interesting series on it here

https://www.medicalbag.com/home/feature ... g-part-ii/

[stui magpie]

So Game of Thrones had a factual basis for all the "keep it in the family" horizontal folk dancing that was going on

[pietillidie]

The impact of this change was clear: the longer a society’s exposure to the church, the greater the effect.

Interesting and unique hypothesis.
However, I would think there are large tracts of eastern and southern europe where the church has supreme influence but which have retained strong clan/kinship ties.

Korean history is similarly problematic as it has a strong incest taboo encoded with great rigour, yet it is a very group-oriented society.

However, presumably the authors are aware of this, so they're probably isolating the rise of the incest taboo as a decisive factor in context. I haven't had time to read their work, but they might be arguing that the incest taboo was enforced very abruptly and vigorously by the church at an opportune moment, such as during imperial expansion, urbanisation and population growth (i.e., major disequilibrium). This would necessitate cultural adaptation at scale, forcing society to quickly cobble together new forms of coordination beyond kinship.

In the Korean case, there might not be the accompanying disequilibrium. E.g., the practice may have evolved more slowly such that it did not necessitate rapid social adaptation. Or, it might have been gradually absorbed from China and repurposed over time, etc.

Similarly, Eastern Europe might have gradually absorbed the idea or simply have been shielded from its application and effects by sheer distance. One of the secrets of the Catholic Church's success has akways been its ability to turn a blind eye to syncretism at the margins.

In contrast, in the chaotic urban centres of the empire the incest taboo becomes a kind of moral panic.

That still wouldn't account for southern Europe, but an effect doesn't have to be uniform to be considered decisive. Different situations minimise and exacerbate, such as the vast frontier effects of the US and Australia that Stui mentioned.

Sadly, I don't have time to read Heinrich's original work at the mo; anyone got a few spare hours?