Beating Swordsman to the Punch

[Gealachtine]

Here we go:

1. why I don't believe in settling for one answer as universal law...there is so much in his introduction to the essays mentioned in this quote - I would be typing for hours.

"The concept of culture I espouse, and whose utility the essays below attempt to demonstrate, is essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of signifigance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning..." Chapter I

"In finished anthropological writings, including those collected here, this fact - that what we call our data are really our own constructions of other people's constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to - is obscured because most of what we need to comprehend a particular event, ritual, custom, idea or whatever is insinuated as background information before the thing is directly examined...There is nothing wrong with this and it is in any case inevitable. But it does lead to a view of anthropological research as rather more of an observational and rather less of an interpretive activity than it really is. Right down to the factual base, the hard rock, insofar as there is any, of the whole enterprise, we are already explicating: and worse, explicating explications..." Chapter II

"...Cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete. And worse than that, the more deep it goes the less complete it is."
~The Intrepretation of Cultures Clifford Geertz 1973

2. The ideas of incest and religion, with cultural conditioning.

The entire chapter "Garaba: The Blood of Relationship" from Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society by Lila Abu-Lughod 1986.
This talks about the idea that marriage of paternal blood relations is part of the basis of their entire way of life - political, religious, tribal - even who lives or dies. The closer and better your ties to your husband/wife via paternal lines the better your life is - period. If I am the daughter of your father's brother and it is in the best interests of all to marry me - then you would and even if I am your third wife, if my ties are closer in blood than the first two - I am the top wife.
(This is the way of things in much of the Arab world.)
"One man said, "Arabs say that mother, father and brother are the most dear. Even if an Arab loves his wife more than anything, he cannot let anyone know this. He never tried to let this show." The way to resolve this problem of marriage is to fuse it with identity and closeness of shared blood. Patrilateral parallel-cousin marriage may be preferred because it is the only type consistant with Bedouin ideas about the importance of agnation." pg 56

It will take me a while to track down my other text books (it's been 12 years and I'm home only 2 - 3 days a week right now.)

I realize that Westermarck was a claimed agnostic according to his later writings. I covered this in the sentence:

There are plenty of philosophers, anthropologists and scientists who did studies and found a new way to look at religion within their own culture.

Was he agnostic while doing his study? I haven't had the time to look this up. Living in a kibbutz for an extended length of time can do all kinds of things to one's belief in the divine. I'm not saying this is a truth for Westermarck, simply something to consider. I am a Druidic-Dianic Shaman - I wasn't always this ecclectic or pagan and I expect my beliefs to change as I grow older and continue my search for the mysteries of the universe. To assume that Westermarck was always an agnostic is quite arrogant, if you put much thought into your beliefs at all as most philosophers, anthropologists and scientists do - they will change and evolve as you do.

I did not say that citations and quotes are bad, simply that using them without thought, cross-referencing, open-minded discussion with others and a personal opinion is just vomiting out that which has been poured in and worthless. This is my opinion and I am allowed at least that.

Many think I'm crazy because I do not pay attention to the media in any way - I don't watch tv, listen to the radio or read the papers and zines. I talk to people, I listen to what's really happening around me, I get reports from politically active friends in DC and Iraq - I detest anyone who spouts the bullshit fed to the masses. I feel the same way about academics - our educational system is in all actuality 2nd-world rated. Anyone who has traveled outside the US and actually compared history notes with an educated non-American will tell you this. (I cannot give you a citation for this belief as I have come to it by talking to my many friends who are world travelers and/or citizens from other countries who stay here.)

If this part of this thread is too long-winded and either boring or bothering anyone on the forum - I'm more than willing to take this into private msgs.
I don't know if anyone else is following this discussion or not.

I'm tired and sore. I was learning how to box this weekend and have had some emotionally trying events recently. If I don't respond promptly, it is simply due to my need for sleep and to take care of my pressing responsibilities.

[Toawa]

Here we go:

1. why I don't believe in settling for one answer as universal law...there is so much in his introduction to the essays mentioned in this quote - I would be typing for hours.

True enough, though I don't think I asserted that Westermarck's observations constituted universal law. I just think that they point to a biological basis for incest taboos, as opposed to a religious basis. (And, more specifically, a religious basis designed with the express intent of controlling people. I think the religious dogma developed from the pre-existing incest taboo, not vice versa.)

"The concept of culture I espouse, and whose utility the essays below attempt to demonstrate, is essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of signifigance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning..." Chapter I

"In finished anthropological writings, including those collected here, this fact - that what we call our data are really our own constructions of other people's constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to - is obscured because most of what we need to comprehend a particular event, ritual, custom, idea or whatever is insinuated as background information before the thing is directly examined...There is nothing wrong with this and it is in any case inevitable. But it does lead to a view of anthropological research as rather more of an observational and rather less of an interpretive activity than it really is. Right down to the factual base, the hard rock, insofar as there is any, of the whole enterprise, we are already explicating: and worse, explicating explications..." Chapter II

"...Cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete. And worse than that, the more deep it goes the less complete it is."
~The Intrepretation of Cultures Clifford Geertz 1973

Good quotes.

2. The ideas of incest and religion, with cultural conditioning.

The entire chapter "Garaba: The Blood of Relationship" from Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society by Lila Abu-Lughod 1986.
This talks about the idea that marriage of paternal blood relations is part of the basis of their entire way of life - political, religious, tribal - even who lives or dies. The closer and better your ties to your husband/wife via paternal lines the better your life is - period. If I am the daughter of your father's brother and it is in the best interests of all to marry me - then you would and even if I am your third wife, if my ties are closer in blood than the first two - I am the top wife.
(This is the way of things in much of the Arab world.)
"One man said, "Arabs say that mother, father and brother are the most dear. Even if an Arab loves his wife more than anything, he cannot let anyone know this. He never tried to let this show." The way to resolve this problem of marriage is to fuse it with identity and closeness of shared blood. Patrilateral parallel-cousin marriage may be preferred because it is the only type consistant with Bedouin ideas about the importance of agnation." pg 56

Interesting; I shall have to look into that. However, I think that this might not speak against Westermarck's hypothesis, that one person's extended contact with a person, while one or both of them are very young, and not necessarily genetic relation, is what gives rise to the incest taboo.

I realize that Westermarck was a claimed agnostic according to his later writings. I covered this in the sentence:

There are plenty of philosophers, anthropologists and scientists who did studies and found a new way to look at religion within their own culture.

Was he agnostic while doing his study? I haven't had the time to look this up. Living in a kibbutz for an extended length of time can do all kinds of things to one's belief in the divine. I'm not saying this is a truth for Westermarck, simply something to consider. I am a Druidic-Dianic Shaman - I wasn't always this ecclectic or pagan and I expect my beliefs to change as I grow older and continue my search for the mysteries of the universe. To assume that Westermarck was always an agnostic is quite arrogant, if you put much thought into your beliefs at all as most philosophers, anthropologists and scientists do - they will change and evolve as you do.

True enough; my defense of Westermarck in this instance was not particularly strong. (Although I don't think that he was personally involved in the Kibbutz research; I believe that was a later study that supported Westermarck's hypothesis. And I know he was not involved in the Shim Pua research, as I believe that was conducted in 1986.) I shall endeavor to acquire a copy of The History of Human Marriage to see if I can find a better defense.

I did not say that citations and quotes are bad, simply that using them without thought, cross-referencing, open-minded discussion with others and a personal opinion is just vomiting out that which has been poured in and worthless. This is my opinion and I am allowed at least that.

Yes, you are, as am I. I still contend that I was not "vomiting out" Westermarck; I do believe that his hypothesis has merit. Unfortunately, I do not know how to adequately convince you of this.

Many think I'm crazy because I do not pay attention to the media in any way - I don't watch tv, listen to the radio or read the papers and zines. I talk to people, I listen to what's really happening around me, I get reports from politically active friends in DC and Iraq - I detest anyone who spouts the bullshit fed to the masses. I feel the same way about academics - our educational system is in all actuality 2nd-world rated. Anyone who has traveled outside the US and actually compared history notes with an educated non-American will tell you this. (I cannot give you a citation for this belief as I have come to it by talking to my many friends who are world travelers and/or citizens from other countries who stay here.)

I hardly think that Westermarck qualifies as being "fed to the masses"; I have never seen his work mentioned in elementary or secondary school, or the media. It took research to find him. Furthermore, just because something is "fed to the masses" does not mean that it is false, solely because it was widely disseminated. I do agree that this country could use a lot more in the way of critical thinking, and a lot less in the way of panicked demagaugary, however.