亲属关系的基本结构.Levi-Strauss

TheElementaryStructuresofKinshp(LesStructzlresklkmetztairesdelaBarente')RevisedEditionTranslatedfromtheFrenclzbyJAMESHARLEBELLJOHNRICHARDVOnSTURMERandRODNEYNEEDHAMEditorBEACONPRESSBOSTONPublishedfirstinFranceunderthetitleLesStructurese'le'rnentairesdelaParerzte'in1949.ArevisededitionunderthesametitlewaspublishedinFrancein1967.Translationcopyright@1969byBeaconPressLibraryofCongresscatalogcardnumber:68-12840FirstpublishedbyBeaconPressin1969Secortdprinting,J~lly1969FirstpublishedasaBeaconPaperbackin1969PublishedsimultaneouslyinCanadabySaundersofToronto,Ltd.BeaconPressbooksarepublishedundertheauspicesoftheUnitarianUniversalistAssociationAilrightsreservedPrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaCHAPTERI1TheProblemofIncestTheproblemoftheprohibitionofincestdisplaysalltheambiguitywhich,onadifferentplane,undoubtedlyaccountsforthesacrednessoftheprohibitionitself.Thisruleisatoncesocial,inthatitisarule,andpre-social,initsuniversalityandthetypeofrelationshipsuponwhichitimposesitsnorm.Man'ssexuallifeisitselfexternaltothegroup,firstly,inbeingthehighestexpressionofhisanimalnature,andthemostsignificantsurvivalofinstinct,andsecondly,inthatitsendsaretosatisfyindividualdesires,which,asisknown,holdiittlerespectforsocialconventions,andspecifictendencies,which,althoughinanothersense,alsogobeyondsociety'sownends.How-ever,iftheregulationofrelationshipsbetweenthesexesrepresentsanover-flowofcultureintonature,inanotherwaysexuallifeisonebeginningofsociallifeinnature,forthesexualisman'sonlyinstinctrequiringthestimula-tionofanotherperson.Thispointmustbetakenuplater.Thatitshouldprovideatransition,initselfnatural,betweennatureandculture,wouldbeinconceivable,butitdoesgiveonereasonwhythechangecanandmustnecessarilytakeplaceinthefieldofsexuallifeaboveanyother.Itisarulewhichembracesthatwhichinsocietyismostforeigntgit,butalsoasocialrulewhichretainswhatinnatureismostlikelytogobeyondit.Theincestprohibi-tionisatonceonthethresholdofculture,inculture,andinonesense,asweshalltrytoshow,cultureitself.Letitsufficeforthemomenttonotetheinherentdualitytowhichitowesitsambiguousandequivocalcharacter.Ratherthanaccountingforthisambiguousness,sociologistshavebeenalmostexclusivelyconcernedwithreducingit.Theirattemptsfallintothreeprincipaltypes,whichweshalldistinguishanddiscusshereonlyintheiressentialfeatures.Followingthepopularbeliefofmanysocieties,includingourown,thefirsttypeofexplanationattemptstomaintainthedualcharacteroftheprohibi-tionbydividingitintotwodistinctphases.ForLewisH.MorganandSirHenryMaine,'forexample,theoriginoftheincestprohibitionisreally'Maine,1886,p.228.12bothnaturalandsocial,butinthesensethatitresultsfromasocialreflectionuponanaturalphenomenon.Theincestprohibitionistakentobeaprotectivemeasure,shieldingthespeciesfromthedisastrousresultsofconsanguineousmarriages.Thistheoryisremarkableinthatitisrequiredbyitsverystatementtoextendtoallhumansocieties,eventothemostprimitive,whichinothermattersgivenoindicationofanysucheugenicsecond-sight,thesensationalprivilegeofknowingtheallegedconsequencesofendogamousunions.Thisjustificationfortheprohibitionofincestisofrecentorigin,appearingno-whereinoursocietybeforethesixteenthcentury,FollowingthegeneralpatternofhisMoraliaandimpartiallylistingallpossibilitieswithoutshowingapreferenceforanyoneofthem,Plutarchproposesthreehypotheses,allsociologicalinnature,nonereferringtoeventualdefectsinthedescendants.OnlyGregorytheGreat'canbequotedtothecontrary,buthisworkdoesnotseemtohavehadanyinfluenceonthethoilghtofcontemporariesoronlatercommentator^.^Itistruethatvariousmonstrositiesarethreatenedtothedescendantsofincestuousparentsinthefolkloreofvariousprimitivepeoples,notablytheAustralianaborigines.ButapartfromthefactthatthisAustralianaboriginaltabooisprobablytheleastconcernedwithbiologicalproximity(itpermitsunions,suchasgrand-unclewithgrand-niece,theeffectsofwhichcannotbe.particularlyfavourable),itissufficienttonotethatsuchpunishmentsare,inprimitivetradition,commonlyexpectedforallthosewhobreakrules,andareinnowayespeciallyconfinedtoreproduction.TheextenttowhichhastyobservationsshouldbedistrustediswellbroughtoutinJochelson'sremarks:'TheseYakuttoldmethattheyhadobservedthatchildrenbornfromconsanguineousmarriagesaregenerallyunhealthy.Thus,myinterpreter,Dolganoff,toldmethatithadbeenobservedamongtheYukaghirthatincaseofmarriagesbetweencousins-whicharecontractedregardlessofthecustomofn'exi'yini...-thechildrendie,ortheparentsthemselvesaresubjecttodiseasewhichfrequentlyresultindeath.'3Somuchfornaturalsanctions.Asforsocialsanctions,theyarebasedsolittleuponphysiologicalconsiderationsthatamongtheKenyahandKayanofBorneo,whocondemnmarriagewithmother,sister,daughter,father'ssisterormother'ssister.andwithbrother'sdaughterorsister'sdaughter,'inthecaseofthosewomenwhostandtohiminanyoftheserelationsinvirtueofadoption,theprohibitionsandseverepenaltiesareifpossibleevenmorestrictlyenf~rced'.~Furthermore,itmustberememberedthatsincetheendofthepaleolithicMulIer,1913,pp.294-5.Cooper,1932.Jochelson,191CL26,p.80.TheNuercallincest'syphilis'becausetheyseeinonethepunishmentoftheother(Evans-Pritchard,1935,p.11).HoseandMcDougall,1912,vol.I,p.73.Theseauthorsremarkthatthisobservationdemonstratestheartificialityoftherulesconcerningincest,ibid.vol.11,p.197.