Ira: OK, people, settle down. There seems to be a few more people here tonight. I’m Ira Cordell, and this is the second meeting of Modern Anthropology in the Coreyville adult education program. If you signed up for Zumba you are in the wrong room. (snickers) … OK, first I want show you a picture of my son at his first communion on Sunday.
Phil: Ha ha. I don’t think so, Ira.
Ira: Why is that, Phil? (grinning)
Phil: Because last week you told us you were gay and Jewish.
Ira: Bingo. 2 points for Phil for paying attention. And now I’m saying I’m straight and Catholic. I said that last week just as a fun experiment to demonstrate the generalizations, good or bad, correct or otherwise that come with identity. So in effect I WAS gay and jewish to you. Now, without thinking much about it, you will adjust your . . .. . perceception of me- based on your preconceived notions of what those categories mean.
Jim: Will you be a bisexual Klingon next week, Ira?
Ira: Ha, I don’t think so, Jim. I will remain as I am. So let’s move on. This evening, a survey. It is universally illegal in the US to marry a sibling. If you think this law is appropriate write ‘yes’ on these little cards. If not write no.
Frank: Are you kidding, Ira?
Ira: No, Frank. And don’t get neurotic about anything. It’s just a little entertainment.
……OK, raise your hand if you wrote ‘yes’….(pause) uh, 13 out of 13. OK can anyone give me a reason for your answer.
Frank: Who would want to marry their sister? (laughter)
Ira: Well, in fact, almost nobody. So the question becomes, why DON”T people want to marry their sister.
Christy: Well, inbreeding is supposed to produce deformities, I’ve read.
Ira: That’s right. Research clearly shows that mental aberrations as well as
physical deformities occur after continued inbreeding, but not always.
Steve: There’s also the stigma. It’s disgusting and it’s not socially acceptable.
Ira: Yes, its certainly socially unacceptable. So now we have 2 reasons for the taboo. It causes developmental problems and it won’t get you on the society A list. Now, question: Which came first? The concern over abnormalities or the social unacceptance?
Christy: I think it was the social unacceptance. In ancient Rome, the emperor Caligula…married his sister and it was as much of a scandal then as it would be today.
John: Yeah, they thought he was literally crazy.
Ira: Okay so the stigma, social faux pas, taboo, distaste was evident 2 millennia ago. So where do we go from there?
Jim: Well, I think the taboo existed before there was the scientific sophistication that incest led to deformities. Especially because they didn’t happen every time.
Ira: So this means – possibly – that social behavior may be driven by biological determinants?
Tom: It seems so. Like our appetites. Things that don’t taste good together aren’t digested well together. Personal tastes differ. Some people like seafood. Others hate it. But no one likes to eat mustard and jelly together, because the digestive juices stimulated will cause putrification.
Ira: woah!! I don’t think this class needs me. That was quite relevant, Tom.
Tom: I studied this once in grad school, heh heh.
Ira: That’s very cool. OK, moving on, from incest to homosexuality.
Lara: What about it?
Ira: Well, until about 50 years ago it was considered immoral or perverted and was
illegal virtually everywhere in the world:
Steve: And it still is illegal in many places.
Mark: I suppose it was like the taboo of sibling sexual relations. It was considered
distasteful and unnatural.
Ira: And perhaps a threat?
Lara: How do you suppose it was a threat?
Ira: In the sense that historically change has often been a threat. If there is a change in cultural values, a change you do not hold to, your position or influence, real or imagined, may be diminished. Values you hold may no longer be as respected. So homosexuality can become an enemy of one’s identity group. Leaders of a community may feel their position, status, power threatened by a new norm and may be hostile to a change in the intolerance of new group, which may be gays,
immigrants, a different religion, a minority, etc. Any people you can group together.
Tom: So the leaders of a community feel their status is threatened so they marshal intolerance to the new group to preserve their own power?
Ira: Exactly, and it often isn’t hard to do. Just verbal abuse can do it. Whether it is rational or not, it may model abuse, open the door to aggressive abuse, which is gratifying in itself for many. And produce an out group which is fair game for discrimination.
Tom: And make them scapegoats. Blame everything on them like the Jews in the 1930’s and 40’s.
Ira: That’s right. But are there biological determinants feeding non-acceptance of gays like we concluded there likely were with incest?
Lara: I would think there could be. People have to procreate to survive.
Ira: Yes, and many tribes and clans of people did not survive in the last 100,000 years.
But the curious question remains.
Mark: If there were a biological determinant driving a taboo for homosexuality, why would it be wrong to discriminate against homosexuals?
Ira: Well, Mark, this would be my argument. Sex between siblings can lead to a weakening of the gene pool and extensive deformities and disabilities. But homosexuality in the 21 century will not lead to declining population. If it were ”natural”to discriminate against homosexuality, man is not always at his best when he is natural. That is why we invented civilization to make laws forbidding man’s natural proclivity to kill, steal, pillage, conspire against fellow humans. So it may be argued that sibling sexual relations cause many problems to the species – and people can find others besides siblings for relations. Homosexuals are causing no harm by not having heterosexual relationships and procreating. And, because of sexual orientation, cannot have, are not attracted to heterosexual relations. Okay, we’re running out of time so let’s try to sum up what we have all concluded together. Or if not concluded, what we have put together as a theory of human behavior and an ethical way forward.
Jim: Well, we have suggested that there may be two reasons for the taboo of incestuous relations. One, that there is a detrimental effect to the human gene pool, and causes physical and mental aberrations. So there may be a genetic predisposition for a distaste for marrying your sibling. And in different cultures there is a conscious taboo on it. It is illegal and very socially unacceptable.
Ira: Or if not a genetic predisposition, a developmental phenomena. There is a new science called evolutionary psychology which contends that some parts of our brain
have evolved to adapt to changing demands met by the species. When man invented jelly and mustard, his brain may have evolved to alter his appetite. But it is all very speculative and not really necessary for our discussion.
Christy: So for the homosexuality, it may also be for 2 reasons. Something we were born with – an aversion to homosexuality, or something we learn through culture.
Steve: And also the purely social thing. People wanting to turn people against gays as a way of maintaining or gaining power. The way people turned others against jews and blacks to gain power.
Ira: Very true. like George Wallace, governor of Alabama ceremoniously stood in the doorway blocking the entrance of the first black student to be admitted to the University of Alabama. He was elected 4 times and had millions of devotees. So there we have it.
We have solved the problem. Two reasons for the sibling taboo and 3 for the homosexual discrimination. (social unacceptance / a genetic or developmental revulsion / use as a tool for power)
Ira: Well, next week why don’t you all bring your ideas on what are the most difficult
unsolved problems of our society.
Phil: Then after this course we can all run for Congress.
Ira: Don’t see why not.
