Taboo

The word “taboo” comes from Polynesian word tapu and generally is understood as a ritual prohibition. It is important to note that all societies, cultures and religions are full of different taboos, and contemporary time is not an exception in this case. There are a lot of different views and perceptions concerning taboos, and one of them is functionalist approach. Let us regard some theories and explanations of taboos and rituals that relate to functionalist studies. Robertson Smith suggested that taboos were the surviving remains of primitive superstition. Radcliffe-Brown states that taboo is a rule of behavior that will cause the undesired change of status for the person who dared to breech it. He also suggested that taboos establish fundamental social values and are used to help keep order in the society.

The theory of Radcliffe-Brown states that taboos have a certain social effect that the society needs – but here comes one of the weaknesses of functionalist approach: how do certain individuals know that this effect is needed? In my opinion, this approach only explain the functions of existing taboos but doesn’t explain why people observe the taboos and rituals and in what way they appear in the society.

The same weakness can be found in the next two theories: Mary Douglas and Max Gluckman. Douglas states that taboos appear from the classification system of the society and that unknown (i.e. unclassified) things are treated as taboos. Gluckman continues the idea of social involvedness of taboos and expresses the thought that taboos can be used to handle conflicts and to intensify identification of people and groups. However, both approaches fail to explain how taboos appear in a society, and most often disregard the personality of the individual performing a particular ritual or observing a taboo.

Freud drew analogies of taboo behavior with the behavior of obsessional neurotics, as the one having no real motives (in our case – for prohibiting something). Also, Freud pointed out the ambivalence concerning the tabooed object or action, it is like the famous “forbidden fruit” – the subject both has the wish to come in contact with the object and is afraid to breech the taboo. This is a more substantial explanation, but this point of view still can’t explain the taboos, which are not ambivalent, and there is no wish to come in contact with the tabooed object. The strength of functionalist approach is that they can explain the global meaning and impact of taboos and rituals, their interaction with the society and importance in social life. But within the limits of this approach it is almost impossible to explain the reasons why a certain person considers it important to observe the taboo.

According to Mary Douglas’s and some other functionalists’ opinion, taboos are used when people have to cope with unknown, uncertain things or have to solve conflicts, ambivalent situations. Taboos also are referred to, when the situation of transition of social state appear, i.e. when the action takes place on the edge of customary perception and/or understanding, or the situation does not fit into this understanding. I can set a historical example when taboo appeared and was actually used to solve a conflict between state and society. In the former Soviet Union the ruling party did not accept cybernetics and genetics as sciences and those who were developing their studies in these directions have been oppressed. There also was a propaganda telling people that these subjects were pseudo-sciences, and after a certain period of time these sciences actually became a taboo for people in the former Soviet Union. In general people did not know about the oppressed scientists, but the misinformation and negative attitude of the state towards the unknown subject determined the attitude to these sciences as a taboo: it was not prohibited, but still considered not proper to mention these subjects as sciences and develop likely topics. In such a way the conflict between the interests of the state and the society was transformed into a taboo.

A simpler example of modern taboo can be the following: it is prohibited (tabooed) to speak loudly and listen to loud music in the library. The explanation to this taboo is simple: if someone was acting like that, he would disturb the other visitors that may need silence and quiet atmosphere for their work – so in this case taboo also comes for prevention of conflict and establishing social order. And I would like to set an example of modern taboo that appears when people have to deal with unknown things. In modern society it is considered a “mauvais tone” (and actually a taboo) to believe in and to speak about magic and related things. The explanation to this is the process of meeting with the unknown in the society: there have been witnesses of still unexplained phenomena, which are referred to as magic etc. As these things are unexplained, they are uncontemplated and might be dangerous. Therefore speaking about such things becomes a taboo.

Ritualized taboos, rituals and their equivalents can be met in any religion. Let us regard Mormonism as an example of a religion with ritualized taboos. On one hand, this religion is similar to other Christian religions, first of all, because the book of Mormon is in many ways like the Bible, and the Golden plates resemble the Ten tables of Bible in their key ideas and guidelines. There are a lot of common things that are prohibited by these two key documents of the religions, and therefore the taboos in these religions are also similar. For example, both Christians and Mormons are prohibited to overeat, smoke and drink.

In my opinion, the approach to ritualized taboos in Mormonism is the same as in other religions: they have the rules, which they have to obey, and the prohibitions and taboos that they have to observe, and these rules have been given to them by their prophet. Similar approaches to taboos and rituals can be met in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism … virtually in any religion in the world. There can be significant differences in the rules and taboos itself, but in the main the process of accepting these rules is common for all religions.

There are a lot of likely statements and beliefs between Christianity and Mormons, but there are also a lot of differences, and the main difference is that Mormons themselves state: “Mormonism is not a part of traditional Christianity; it is a whole new version”. Indeed, there are a lot of rituals and taboos that make the difference between Christianity and Mormonism. One of the widely known differences is that Mormons practice polygamy, and at the same time they declare such thing as celestial marriage that links a man and a woman not just on the earth, but in eternity. These rituals were themselves a breech of the traditional Christian taboos, but nevertheless included own taboos. For example, it was considered not good to display jealousy and rudeness to members of the family, it was considered the continuation of monogamous bad habits… Also, though women have received more freedom and it is true that women could participate in most spheres of Mormon society, it was considered that “a woman’s place is at home”, and though having lost strictness, the taboos concerning women’s behavior have remained.

In my opinion, there is another key difference between Christianity and Mormonism: Christianity usually addresses an individual or family in most activities and rituals; Mormonism pays more attention to the group activity. This difference is closely related to the answer to the next question.

The key Golden plates of Mormonism can be per se referred to as a ritualized taboo. They include guidelines as to what people have to do and what people should not do, and thus creating taboos for the society. Let us regard these taboos from the points of view of different scientists. Using the approach of Max Gluckman, we can state that the Golden plates and the subsequent taboos are necessary to establish a certain social order and to intensify group identification. Indeed, to some extent observing these taboos united the Mormons, and this made them stand out as a group above other people (“Mormons place great stress on cultural and recreational activities, but in both instances the emphasis is on group, rather than individual participation”) Within the limits of Roy Rappaport’s approach, we can make a conclusion that the rules and taboos have been necessary for mobilizing the strength of the social unit and for its survival, which is also partly true for the history of Mormons. One of their traditions illustrates the statement (“… two other customs that should be mentioned. One is tithing, the other is missionary work”).

The approach of Mary Douglas concerning taboos can hardly be applied in this case because the Mormons were obeying the rules listed in the Golden plates not because of ambivalence of the situation, and not because they were meeting with the unknown. The theories are partly explaining the rituals and taboos of Mormon religion, and besides functionalist and other explanations, we have the question of people’s faith, which is, in my opinion, the matter of individual choice of a person and is made basing on personal motives; therefore it is difficult to explain it within the limits of a particular theory.