Taboos and the Social Benefits of Irrationality
The other day someone was expressing to me that they didn’t like how certain creative works were censored and vilified when they came out. But when questioned further he indicated that he agreed that the content in the fiction would be objectionable to act out. I challenged him, saying he didn’t understand the purpose and process of taboo.
The reason that a book, like Lolita, is objected to, is because we have a taboo against pedophilia. Even if later the book is released for consumption it is very important to the process of taboo maintenance that the book be objected to and attacked. The purpose of this behaviour is not to stop the book, at least not in the long run. The behaviour of objecting to and attacking the book communicates that the behaviour IN the book is unacceptable.
Taboos are a very successful way of dealing with social norms, historically speaking. They allow society to communicate that an activity is unacceptable without even having to wait for the activity to happen. Taboo maintenance is a kind of preventive care for society.Even if I think Lolita is a great book, I understand and respect the social process that requires it be loudly condemned first.
In some ways the taboo process is a very clever system of social maintenance. A thought that is permissible to think and talk about is easier to put into action than one which is not. By attacking the thought of the act, the act itself is that much less likely to occur than if merely the act was condemned.
Now, I’m not saying that this is necessarily the best form of social maintenance just that it should be recognized for what it is. The purpose of objecting to and attempting to censor cultural products about taboo subjects is to make damn sure everyone knows that the subjects are taboo. It’s not about the art at all, ultimately.
And yes, this behaviour is irrational, in the sense that it wasn’t consciously formulated according to rationalist principles. The taboo process is a naturally evolved social process. It evolved because it works. I don’t think that positioning ourselves against this is a smart move. Rather than fighting against this process, which is deeply embedded in the human operating system, we should make sure that WHAT is taboo fits the norms that make sense for our modern and rational leaning society.
PS
If you enjoy my writing, you may want to hire me to write for you. Direct any and all inquiries to coaching [at] edwardewilson [dot] com.
~ by Edward on December 18, 2009.
Posted in Social Dynamics
Nietzsch E. Coyote 
I agree fully. I think we need to look into this more. It is amazing that irrationality works in our collective favor so often, but then gets out of hand when mixed with actual political power. We need to respond to the artist’s “harmless” expression of thought without censoring it. I think taboos are a decent answer in most cases.
Thanks for writing!
The problem that I have with this is that all too often the author or creator of an artwork (or those who enjoy or defend the work) detailing a taboo subject is attacked *as if* he were physically guilty hirself of the taboo (like the gentlemen arrested for owning a small number of Japanese anime comics portraying pedophilia).
Personally, I’d much rather see a flowering of art depicting taboo subjects that allow expression of taboo desires as an outlet so that such desires do not need to be acted upon. Pretending those desires do not exist does not make them go away – *that* is an irrational expectation.
There is definitely a large amount of room for the crafting of new mechanisms of social maintenance. However, the wise way to proceed would be to accept and shape the irrational mechanisms we already have. Identifying something as irrational does nothing to correct issues with it.
For example, the social reaction to the man with pedophilia comics, can’t necessarily be stopped but PERHAPS we can not legally enshrine those sanctions? Or legally enshrine things that speed up the acceptance of the cultural products. Things like legal protections for speech?