ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY TENDENCIES--THE REPRESSION OF LOVE
[Sidenote: Causes of Incest Repression]
Supposing the tendency to incest to have been called into being and
maintained by some such causes, or combination of causes, as we have
considered in the last chapter, what are the influences that have brought
about the inhibition and repression of this tendency--influences which, as
we have already remarked, must be strong in proportion to the strength of
the tendency itself? We find here, as was not the case with our discussion
of the positive aspects of the tendency, that certain explanations have
already been advanced, though these are for the most part obviously
unsatisfactory, or at best incomplete.
[Sidenote: Explanations of primitive peoples]
(1) The reasons which are given by primitive peoples for their obedience
to the rule of exogamy are various; sometimes it is considered that harm
would come to the pair who are guilty of the forbidden union, this perhaps
being usually of the nature of some disease, or else very frequently,
impotence or barrenness; sometimes it is the offspring of the guilty pair
who will incur the penalty; quite often, however, the evil results of such
a union are supposed to affect the whole community to which they belong
and consist not uncommonly in general infertility of women, animals and
plants. These reasons, though they no doubt exercise a powerful influence
among those who hold them, are for the most part too obviously of the
nature of superstitions, inventions or rationalisations to be taken at
their face value; though the study of them on psycho-analytic principles
would no doubt bring interesting and suggestive results.
Hardly much more satisfactory, if regarded as attempts at affording
complete and ultimate explanations, are some of hypotheses that have been
put forward by modern students of exogamy.
[Sidenote: Durkheim's Theory of the sanctity of blood]
(2) Thus, Durkheim[246] suggests that exogamy arose as a result of
the religious respect for blood, particularly menstruous blood; the
divine totemic being is supposed to be resident in blood, hence blood
is sacred, especially to those of the totem clan, and no man of this
clan may trespass on the very spot where the sacred blood periodically
manifests itself. Even if this theory should afford a satisfactory
proximate explanation of exogamy, it is obviously very far from revealing
the true ultimate biological and psychological factors that have led to
the practice. Even apart from this, however, it gives rise to certain
difficulties and objections (more especially connected with the lack of
the close correspondence between exogamous classes and totemic clans which
we should expect upon this theory) and has almost certainly at best but a
very limited field of application[247].
[Sidenote: Westermarck's theory of an innate aversion to incest]
(3) Westermarck[248] would explain exogamy and the avoidance of incest
generally as due to the fact that there is an innate aversion to sexual
intercourse between persons living together from early youth, and that,
as such persons are in most cases related by blood, this feeling would
naturally display itself in custom and law as a horror of intercourse
between near kin[249].
[Sidenote: resulting from the injurious effects of inbreeding]
As to the general existence of this horror there can be no doubt, and to
assign to it an important part in framing human opinions and institutions
with regard to incest is perfectly justifiable so long as we do not lose
sight of the fact that this horror is only one side of the total human
attitude towards the matter and that alongside of the horror there exists
an attraction towards incest which corresponds in intensity to that of
the horror itself[250]. An explanation in terms of this incest horror is
not, however, that which we are seeking; it is, on the contrary, the very
existence of this horror for which we are trying to account. We have to
ask, what are the conditions in human life and mind that have brought
about the widespread aversion to incest that is so generally manifested.
According to Westermarck, these conditions are to be found in the process
of natural selection; marriages between near kin are, he maintains, on
the whole injurious to the species and, therefore, through survival of
the fittest, the existing races of men show a marked aversion to such
marriages.
[Sidenote: These effects by no means certain]
In estimating the correctness of this theory, it is well to remember
that the supposed ill effects of inbreeding in men and animals are by no
means as yet universally admitted by those who have studied the subject,
and that, even so far as their existence is admitted, they are not yet
fully understood or accurately measured. It is indeed often a matter of
considerable difficulty to discover any ill effects that may be due to
this cause, especially in the case of slow breeding animals, such as Man,
and the conclusions that have been arrived at with regard to the human
race have to a great extent been derived by analogy from observations
made upon lower animals. It would seem to be fairly generally agreed
that such ill effects as may exist arise for the most part from the
reinforcement or accentuation of hereditary weaknesses and defects that
is liable to occur in inbreeding and that members of a perfectly healthy
family might continue to mate with one another for several (perhaps for
many) generations without evil consequences, though possibly a loss of
vigour, strength or fertility might ultimately occur. In the case of the
Ptolemies of Egypt and the Incas of Peru inbreeding of this kind has (as
we have already observed in another connection) actually been practised
and does not seem to have produced any conspicuously bad results. There
is some evidence, too, that seems to point to the fact that the supposed
ill effects of inbreeding are due to the results of continuously similar
environment and conditions of life rather than to the physiological
resemblance of the parents, or at any rate that any evil effects of the
latter cause may be counterbalanced by a change of abode or of the mode of
living[251].
East and Jones in their recent valuable survey of our present knowledge
on the subject[252] conclude quite definitely that inbreeding is not
in itself productive of ill effects, the results of inbreeding in
any particular case depending entirely upon the hereditary qualities
transmitted; so that, although in bad stock the intensification of
undesirable qualities through inbreeding might soon bring about
deterioration, in good stock inbreeding is the surest method of making
the desirable qualities a stable and permanent characteristic of the
race. Nevertheless there are, in the opinion of these writers, certain
advantages of a general nature to be derived from outbreeding connected
principally: (1) with the occurrence of heterosis or hybrid vigour as a
result of outbreeding, (2) with the fact that outbreeding leads to greater
variability between individuals than does inbreeding, thus giving greater
scope for the action of selective agencies and therefore endowing the race
with greater power of adaptation to a changing environment--a factor which
is probably of very considerable importance and which indeed seems to
have been overlooked in a number of previous discussions of the subject,
especially by nonbiological writers.
[Sidenote: and can scarcely account for the intensity of the incest
prohibition]
It thus appears that stress should be laid upon the advantages of
outbreeding rather than upon the supposed ill effects of inbreeding.
Nevertheless we must admit that there exist biological factors of such a
kind as to be capable of influencing the psychological attitude towards
incest in the way that Westermarck's theory requires. But although the
theory that incest prohibition is due to natural selection working on
the _relative_ disadvantages of inbreeding may be correct so far as it
goes, this does not absolve us from the duty of looking elsewhere for
other factors which may have worked in the same direction. For it appears
very doubtful whether the factors we have just been considering can be
regarded as an adequate explanation of incest prohibition as we know it.
If it is the advantages of outbreeding rather than the disadvantages of
inbreeding that are potent; if the evil effects of inbreeding are so
relatively slight as to leave room for doubt as to their nature and even
the fact of their existence; if they are of such kind as to leave healthy
stocks but little if at all affected and to become serious only after long
continuance without admixture of fresh blood from outside (a state of
affairs that can but rarely have occurred); and if they are liable to be
counteracted by a change of locality or of life's conditions (which must
sometimes have occurred, especially among nomadic peoples): then it is not
easy to understand how such a widespread and powerful human characteristic
as the aversion to incest can have arisen _solely_ as the result of
natural selection, working through the bad effects of incest or the
superior advantages of outbreeding. The largeness of the result would be
manifestly out of proportion to the cause, and it would seem that although
we may allow some considerable influence to this factor, we have to admit
that it must be supplemented by some other cause or causes of appreciable
magnitude[253].
[Sidenote: Influence of non-sexual factors]
(4) According to one type of explanation (_e. g._ that held by Wundt[254])
the horror of incest is not the cause of exogamy, but the consequence of
it--the origin of exogamy itself being due to some other influences only
indirectly connected with the sex life. Of such theories of the origin of
exogamy a number have been put forward by eminent authorities.
Thus McLennan[255], the discoverer of both Totemism and Exogamy, held the
view that exogamy was a consequence of the wide prevalence of marriage
by capture; this latter being itself a result of the preponderance of
the male sex over the female in primitive communities and of the general
condition of hostility existing between neighbouring tribes. Herbert
Spencer[256] similarly thought that exogamy arose from marriage by
capture, men belonging to successful tribes nearly always acquiring their
brides in this way, so that it eventually became a disgrace to marry
within the tribe. Lord Avebury[257], believing that group marriage or
promiscuity was the rule in primitive society, suggests that women taken
in war belonged to their individual captor, marriage in a narrow sense
being thus exogamous from the start. Kohler[258] believes on the contrary,
that exogamy arose as a means of bringing about inter-tribal friendships
or alliances. Andrew Lang[259] has suggested that exogamy is due to the
fact that the younger brothers of a family were frequently driven out by
the stronger and older ones in order to ward off any want that might arise
from the living together of a large number of brothers and sisters--the
younger brothers being then obliged to marry outside the family group.
[Sidenote: Such factors cannot fully explain exogamy]
Now all these factors--and others too perhaps--may very well have had
their influence in bringing about the practice of exogamy: in particular,
it would seem that the difficulty of supporting a large family living
together under really primitive conditions would be very likely to
have had the effect of driving the younger members of the family away
from the immediate circle of their parents. Nevertheless there appears
to be a pretty general agreement that none of these theories affords a
complete and sufficient account of the origin of exogamy. The conditions
postulated by McLennan's theory (shortage of women and frequent wars
between neighbouring groups) are by no means universally found among
primitive peoples, and even if there exists the required preponderance
of men over women, it is by no means obvious why the men should refuse
to avail themselves of such fellow-tribeswomen as they could find.
On Spencer's view, it is difficult or impossible to account for the
existence of exogamy among all the tribes of a given area, since in
constant warfare there must be some which are vanquished, and among
these endogamy rather than exogamy should be the rule. Lord Avebury's
theory rests on the assumption that communal marriage was the original
condition of mankind--an assumption that is now abandoned by many of the
best authorities. Kohler's view can scarcely explain how the objection
to sexual unions within the tribe should have come to apply not only
to marriage but (equally strongly) to less regular or purely temporary
connections. Andrew Lang's theory similarly fails to explain why the rule
of exogamy is made to apply to the elder members of the family with the
same force as to the younger[260].
[Sidenote: The psychological nature of the incest prohibition shows the
insufficiency of these influences]
Moreover, even supposing that the existence of such an institution as
exogamy could be in itself satisfactorily accounted for on some such
grounds as those advanced by theories of this kind, it is at once evident
that we have here no adequate explanation of the strictness with which the
system is enforced, the severe penalties that are exacted for infringement
of its rules (which is very often punishable by death), the intense
nature of the incest horror generally, and the fact that this horror
persists even where, as in civilised countries, there is no organised
system of exogamy in the technical sense. The psychological researches
of Freud and his followers would seem to have shown conclusively that
this intense aversion to incest (like all repugnances and taboos of a
similar kind) is the negative expression of a correspondingly intense
desire for the forbidden thing, and therefore no explanation which
neglects to take into consideration this desire can be regarded as even
approximately satisfactory. If the aversion to incest had arisen merely
as a consequence of the age-long practice of exogamy--which itself is due
to other causes--there would be no reason why this aversion should be
intimately connected with the positive tendency to incest or of sufficient
strength to overcome this tendency, with the powerfulness of which we are
now well acquainted. In view of the existence of this strong tendency to
incest (which was not appreciated before the work of Freud), it seems
no longer possible to maintain, either that exogamy can have arisen
independently of the counter-impulse to repress this tendency, or that
this counter-impulse, which finds its psychic expression in that incest
horror so generally observable both in primitive and cultured man, can be
satisfactorily explained as the result of any institution or custom itself
unconnected with the tendency to incest.
[Sidenote: The biological absurdity of parent-child incest]
(5) Turning to factors that have in general received less explicit
recognition at the hands of the authorities who have written on the
subject, we may note first that as regards the most fundamental type
of incest as revealed by psycho-analytic study--that of parent and
child--there is involved a sort of biological absurdity, which may well
have been to some extent instrumental, through the agency of natural
selection, of bringing about that inhibition of the incestuous tendencies
for which we have to account. Parents and children necessarily differ
considerably in age, though less so in most primitive communities than in
the civilised societies of to-day, where marriage is so often postponed
till relatively late in life. Even among primitive peoples however the
difference is very appreciable, especially in view of the fact (which must
be borne in mind in this connection) that with such peoples, owing to the
harder conditions of existence, life is often shorter than in civilised
communities, while the enfeeblement that accompanies advancing age comes
on proportionately sooner. If men were to follow blindly the impulses
manifested in the primitive and fundamental forms of incest tendency, sons
would cohabit with their mothers, daughters with their fathers. In such
unions one of the partners would be relatively aged, and the offspring
would in consequence very probably be lacking in that degree of vitality
or health normally possessed by the children of parents of more equal age;
they would moreover fail, in the majority of cases, to enjoy that degree
of provision and protection which could be afforded where _both_ parents
are still youthful. Even if such unions were to occur, they could not (in
the case of one sex at any rate) be continued in the following generation;
for if a son were to cohabit with his mother and if a male child resulted
from their union, this child could not in turn fruitfully unite with his
mother (who would also be his grandmother), as she would be now definitely
past the reproductive age. Further, such unions would come into opposition
with the almost universal tendency to find sexual attractiveness in
youthful rather than in aged persons--a tendency which, like the
appreciation of beauty in the opposite sex in general, we may suppose has
been shaped largely, if not wholly, by the operation of natural selection,
which has ensured that men and women should in the main be attracted to
those who are most likely to produce strong and healthy children.
Thus it can easily be understood that any races which tended to indulge to
any large extent the impulses which prompt to incestuous unions between
parents and children would be at a disadvantage as compared with those
races in which these unions did not occur or occurred less frequently;
the latter races tending therefore to supplant the former. Given then the
existence of a strong impulse towards parent-children unions, we can see
how biological factors may very well have favoured the growth of strong
counteracting factors, such as manifest themselves in the repression of
the tendencies towards this form of incest.
These considerations would of course apply not only to relations between
parents and children but to all other unions in which the age difference
between the partners is considerable. They would not however apply
to unions between brother and sister or between cousins who are of
approximately equal age. The influences which lead to the aversions to
these latter unions must be sought elsewhere[261].
[Sidenote: Fear of the consequences of parental jealousy]
(6) A potent set of influences calculated to inhibit tendencies to incest
are those connected with sexual jealousy. A boy's love towards his
mother, as we have seen, almost necessarily brings him to some extent
into conflict with his father, while a girl's affection to her father
is similarly calculated to bring about the jealousy of her mother. This
arousal of jealousy on the part of the parents may produce repression of
the incest tendency in the child in a variety of ways; of which perhaps
the most frequent and important are:--
_a._ fear of punishment at the hands of the jealous parent, and
_b._ unwillingness to cause injury or sorrow to this parent because
of genuine affection being felt towards him (or her)--affection which
of course may quite well co-exist with very considerable jealousy and
rivalry. Both these motives appear prominently in psycho-analytic
investigations of the conditions underlying the repression of the Œdipus
complex in normal and neurotic persons of the present day, and both
have been operative for long ages in the past wherever the family has
existed in a monogamous form in which the parents lived together for
a considerable period after the birth of their children. Very similar
motives may also co-operate in the repression of incest tendencies as
between brothers and sisters, the jealousies in this case being for the
most part those between brothers or between sisters respectively.
[Sidenote: Strong family ties conflict with social development]
(7) There can be little doubt that there exists a certain degree of
antagonism between the development of strong and permanent ties within
the family and the development of those sentiments and feelings which
bind the individual to the larger social groups, such as the tribe or
nation, or those which make him a prominent, useful and agreeable member
of society--in that family affections conflict in some degree with
gregariousness. This antagonism can be observed in society to-day in such
cases as those in which dependence on, and attachment to, the family
will prevent an individual from easily adapting himself to the wider
environment of school, college or club life, or from becoming "at home"
in the circle of his business, sporting or professional acquaintances.
Similarly, undue concentration of interest or affection on the family will
very frequently prevent the formation of those wider sublimations, some of
which we studied in Chapter XIII, sublimations upon which the successful
working of a large community may often depend. The individual who finds
the satisfaction of all his emotions and desires within the circle of his
family is unlikely to develop to the full those wider interests in his
fellow men and in the social conditions of his age and place, without
which all higher political progress and development become impossible.
At an earlier stage of human society the conflict was very possibly much
more acute. Man, as we have seen, was probably in origin a family, rather
than a social, animal; nevertheless it is the gregariousness of man which
is responsible for the most characteristic features of the progress in
culture which has led to civilisation. Gregariousness has therefore proved
itself a very precious biological possession and natural selection would
be likely to ensure its retention and development in the human mind, thus
affording a strong influence in favour of the repression of those family
affections which might threaten it. It is to some extent in this way
perhaps that there came about that great revulsion against the monogamic
family which is manifested in the totemic age--an age in which the ties
connecting the individual with other members of a larger social group were
developed at the expense of those which attached him to his family, and an
age which elaborated the most complex, far-reaching and intense barriers
against the incest tendencies which are shown in the various systems of
exogamy.
At a later stage of human development, when the foundations of society
were more securely settled, circumstances seem to have permitted something
in the nature of a relaxation of the restrictions on family ties and
family affections, the exogamic rules becoming less strict or less
far-reaching and the family becoming more firmly knit together; this
change being perhaps made possible by the fact that the larger and more
complex social groups of a more developed society no longer came into
such direct conflict with the family as an alternative social unit--the
larger group being now of sufficient size and strength to tolerate the
co-existence of the smaller (or, more strictly speaking, to include the
smaller within itself) without fear of competition or disruption.
Thus, though the urgency of the pressure may very well have varied in
different times and places, it would seem probable that the claims of
social life have constantly exercised some influence in restricting the
interests and affections which centre round the family and have therefore
probably constituted one of the forces which have helped to bring about
that inhibition of the incest tendencies for which we are here trying to
account.
[Sidenote: They conflict also with individual development]
(8) There exists a very similar antagonism between a high degree of family
attachment and the claims of individual development. We have seen in the
earlier chapters the way in which the full unfolding of the individual's
capacities--his ability to maintain himself by his own efforts, his
power of self reliance, of initiative and of independent thought and
action--demand a relaxation of the ties that bind him to his family. It
is true that the relations of an individual to his family which are here
in question are not primarily the erotic ones; still they are everywhere
in contact with these erotic aspects of the family relationship and would
seem to be highly correlated with them--so much so that it is often a
matter of great difficulty to decide where the erotic elements end and the
purely dependence relationships begin[262]. In virtue of this correlation
it would seem that the incest tendencies, when developed or retained in a
high degree, must be inimical to the free growth of individual capacity;
in other words, that those communities in which the incest tendencies
have flourished would, other things equal, consist of less energetic,
self-reliant, and efficient individuals than those in which these
tendencies had been kept within more moderate bounds. Natural selection
would therefore, we might expect, ensure the continuation of those
communities in which the incest tendencies were more repressed. Similarly,
as regards the individuals themselves, it would seem likely that, in
virtue of their greater efficiency, those would survive and prosper who
were able to control and to sublimate their incest tendencies rather than
those in whom these tendencies had free and unrestricted play.
[Sidenote: Both greater integration and greater differentiation of society
is thus secured]
Under the last heading (7) we saw that the repression of incest would on
the whole lead to the greater integration of human society through a more
developed gregariousness and the establishment of firmer ties of interest
and affection between the individual and the community. Under the present
heading we have seen that the repression of the incest tendencies would
also lead to greater differentiation through a more thorough development
of individual characters, abilities and differences. If, with Herbert
Spencer, we agree that the progress of society (like evolution generally)
involves both integration and differentiation, it is easy to see how the
inhibition of the tendencies to incest may have thus contributed in two
distinct but complementary ways to the advance of human civilisation.
(9) Westermarck, as we saw above (3), in endeavouring to account for
the origin of incest horror, drew attention to the aversion to sexual
intercourse between those who had lived together from early youth (a class
of persons which usually, of course, includes the closer blood relatives).
While we must disagree with Westermarck in his implicit denial of the
underlying attraction between these persons--an attraction which makes
the aversion in question to a large extent nothing more than a reaction
against the desire for intercourse between them--it is nevertheless
possible that the study of this wider aversion may throw a few rays of
fresh light upon the narrower incest aversion with which we are concerned.
[Sidenote: Among those who live together sexual reactions are inhibited by
non-sexual]
Westermarck would regard the objection to intercourse between those living
together from youth as due to the biological causes discussed above (3).
Without denying the truth of this view, we may venture to suggest that
there perhaps exist psychological causes, which tend to bring about the
same result. Those who live much together must necessarily react in and
to each other's presence in a great variety of ways, involving a very
considerable number of instinctive and habitual mechanisms, the majority
of which are not--or at most are only quite indirectly--sexual in nature,
being concerned for the most part with life preserving activities (_e.
g._ obtaining and preparing food, eating, washing, dressing, acquiring
or practising various branches of skill or knowledge, the carrying on of
professional activities, _etc._). During the greater part of their time
together, the sexual instincts of the persons concerned are therefore
held in check in order that the other mental trends involved in these
various necessary functions may enjoy full play; in fact the reaction
to each other's presence along the lines of these other trends becomes
much more habitual than does reaction along the lines of sexual feeling.
The very constant inhibition of this latter feeling occasioned by the
almost continual preoccupation with everyday affairs, in which those who
live together are equally concerned, is apt to make it difficult for the
inhibition to be entirely removed and for the sexual trends to have free
play, even when opportunity offers; and is therefore calculated to make a
union between those whose lives have long been intimately connected appear
unsuitable or unattractive, quite apart from the operation of any definite
taboo or prohibition; whereas with strangers inhibitions of the kind just
described are far less operative and the sexual impulses can therefore
work without impediment.
[Sidenote: and especially by hostile tendencies]
A further factor which may reinforce the foregoing is connected with
the actual hostility (conscious or repressed) that so frequently exists
between those whose lives and interests are connected. As we have already
had occasion to see, the competition that exists between members of
the same family is almost bound to engender some degree of hostility;
and this hostility (even if in later life it be quite indiscernible to
consciousness) will add its weight to any force which tends to inhibit
love of the person towards whom hostility is felt.
Here then we have two factors, which, though not peculiar to incestuous
relationships, nevertheless very probably contribute a certain share of
influence to the sum total of the forces productive of the aversion to
incest[263].
[Sidenote: The incest tendencies are also affected by the general sexual
inhibitions]
(10) The incestuous tendencies with which we are here concerned are, as we
have amply seen, among the earliest manifestations of sexuality (in the
wide sense of this term commonly employed by psycho-analysts) and, like
most other manifestations of this aspect of human nature, suffer from the
general repression to which sexuality in all its more direct expressions
is habitually subject. It is no doubt true that the incestuous direction
of the youthful sexual impulse itself contributes in very appreciable
measure to the conditions which bring about this general repression, and
that this repression is therefore to some extent an effect rather than
a cause of the incest inhibition. Nevertheless it would seem at least
equally certain that incest inhibition is far from being responsible for
the whole of sexual repression and that the latter does react powerfully
in certain respects upon the former, so that the existence of a general
tendency to the repression of all manifestations of the sexual instinct
may be regarded as constituting an additional factor in the inhibition of
incestuous affection for which we have been trying to account[264].
[Sidenote: Thus the circumstances of human life are responsible for the
mental conflicts that centre round the incest tendencies]
We have now studied some of the principal factors which, it seems, may
have had some influence in producing the tremendous conflicts in the
human mind which centre round the family. In so far as we have been
correct in our analysis of these factors, it would appear that there are
strong influences, both in the individual and in the race, which work
both positively and negatively in regard to those aspects of love and
hate which constitute the Œdipus complex. The existence of the mental
struggles which this complex inevitably brings in its train may therefore,
on a wider view, appear less startling than on a first approach. Both
the human individual and the human race are subject to conditions, some
of which favour one mode of response, some of which are best reacted
to by a contrary or at least an antagonistic type of behaviour. Owing
to the inherent limitations of the human mind at the unconscious and
primitive levels--its difficulty in overcoming habits that have once been
formed, its tendency to give expression simultaneously to incompatible
impulses, its relatively small power of creating distinctions and
differentiations--it is inevitable that the different tendencies which
are thus created and aroused should frequently come into conflict. It
would seem to be more especially the function of consciousness however
to produce a clear distinction between different situations and thus to
facilitate nicer adaptations of conduct than would otherwise be possible.
By understanding his own impulses and the true nature of the situations
which have called them forth and to which they are adapted, man becomes
to some extent master of his own fate and can rise above the blind level
of instinctive behaviour, inasmuch as his own motives become co-ordinated
and integrated and subject to the best that is in him; while his conduct
becomes more delicately adapted to his environment and more nearly
productive of the ends that he desires. It is as contributions, be they
ever so slight, towards this wider understanding and control of man's
nature, that, from the practical and ethical point of view, studies like
the present acquire such value as they may possess.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 246: "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines," _L'Année
Sociologique_, I, 1890, 55 ff.]
[Footnote 247: _Cp_. Frazer, "Totemism and Exogamy", IV, 100 ff.]
[Footnote 248: "History of Human Marriage," 320 ff.]
[Footnote 249: A difficulty in connection with Westermarck's theory is
concerned with the question as to how an aversion to sexual intercourse
between those who have lived from infancy together changed to a similar
aversion between blood relatives. How is it, if the original aversion was
of the former kind, that it has left but little trace of its existence,
while the aversion to marriage between blood relatives, which is supposed
to have been derived from it, is grown so strong? It would seem as if the
theory would perhaps have to be modified so as to postulate the existence
of an original aversion to the marriage of blood relatives, as such;
though of course this only opens up the fresh difficulty of accounting
for the manner in which such an aversion could arise. We are here faced
with the same problem that we have already encountered in the case of the
positive aspects of the love impulse between relatives (p. 198 footnote).]
[Footnote 250: If this were not the case, we might well ask with other
critics why a natural instinct to avoid incestuous relations should need
the reinforcement of legal penalties and prohibitions.]
[Footnote 251: For a discussion of the question of inbreeding in the
present connection, see Frazer, "Totemism and Exogamy", IV. 160 ff.]
[Footnote 252: "Inbreeding and Outbreeding", Monographs on Experimental
Biology, 1919.]
[Footnote 253: Supposing that natural selection does exercise some
influence of the kind indicated, such influence does not of course,
here any more than elsewhere, necessarily imply any appreciation of the
nature of the causes at work. On the contrary, as some authorities have
pointed out, it is scarcely possible to ascribe to primitive man any
conscious realisation of the ill effects of inbreeding (if these exist).
These ill effects manifest themselves much too slowly to be observed by
the savage with his relatively short memory and his lack of interest in
remote events, especially when, as has often been the case, there has been
uncertainty as to the nature of paternity. Even if the savage were able
to realise the nature of this hereditary influence, it is pretty clear
that his actions and feelings would be but little affected thereby, for it
is one of the most general characteristics of the primitive mind that it
takes but small account of distant consequences, whereas Eugenics involves
the appreciation of such consequences in a high degree.]
[Footnote 254: "Elements of Folk Psychology", 151.]
[Footnote 255: "Studies in Ancient History" (2nd. ed.) 160.]
[Footnote 256: "Principles of Sociology", I, 619.]
[Footnote 257: "The Origin of Civilisation", 135 ff.]
[Footnote 258: "Indisches Ehe- und Familienrecht", _Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, III, 1882, 361.]
[Footnote 259: Atkinson and Andrew Lang, "The Primal Law."]
[Footnote 260: A full discussion of these theories will be found in
Westermarck's "History of Human Marriage" and Frazer's "Totemism and
Exogamy".]
[Footnote 261: Whatever real truth there may be in this argument, we
must not fail to bear in mind that it is admirably adapted for use as
a "rationalisation", _i. e._ the fear of evil consequences (dysgenic
or other) from marriages between young and old may well be a conscious
(and, in a sense, artificial) substitute for the unconscious aversion to
such marriages on the ground of their being an indirect expression of
incestuous desires. We must therefore be on our guard against the tendency
to overemphasise this argument in the absence of adequate objective
evidence.]
[Footnote 262: It is round this point of course, as we have above shown,
that the differences of opinion between Freud and Jung have largely
centred.]
[Footnote 263: That some such factors as these are probably really
operative in addition to the more specific sexual inhibitions that compose
the incest barrier proper, is shown by a consideration of cases in which
no such specific inhibition exists, _e. g._ that of husband and wife.
In spite of the fact that sexual relations between husband and wife are
not only permitted but enjoined and that mutual sexual attractiveness
has usually played some considerable part in bringing about the union,
there can be little doubt that in very many cases a husband and wife,
after a certain period of married life, tend to find--superficially at
any rate--greater sexual attractiveness in strangers than in one another.
The reasons for this (in the absence of any other adequate cause) are
often fairly clearly of the kind described--first, the fact that their
associations with one another are largely connected with the "humdrum"
activities of everyday life in which non-sexual instincts are principally
concerned (whereas with strangers the sexual feelings may constitute the
predominant, or perhaps the only, bond); secondly the fact that through
the very intimacy of their connection there are (as in the case of blood
relatives) a number of matters as regards which the husband and wife are
competitors or have conflicting interests, thus leading to a certain
degree of (usually more or less repressed) hostility on either side.]
[Footnote 264: The reasons for the existence of a general sexual
repression, over and above the incest inhibition, and the psychological
mechanisms by which this repression is brought about, form a vast and
highly important theme on which there exists at present but little
general agreement and which, being only indirectly connected with our
subject, need fortunately not be entered into here. It is perhaps worth
while to point out however in passing, that some of the factors which
are responsible for the more general sexual repression are, in all
probability, similar to those which we have considered in connection with
the production of incest inhibition. Thus there would seem to exist an
antagonism between a highly developed and intensive sexuality and those
wider social bonds in virtue of which alone the larger human communities
are possible. It is on the basis of the manifestations of this antagonism
that some writers--as already mentioned--hold that the chief motive forces
which are active in sexual repression are to be found in the instincts
of the herd. Still more marked perhaps is the antagonism between sex and
individuation. It has long been recognised, and modern psychological
researches have pretty definitely proved, that many of the more complex
desires and activities of the individual--desires and activities upon
which human culture ultimately depends--are built up upon sublimations
of the sexual tendencies. All these sublimations involve a deflection of
sexual energy from its original and primitive direction--a deflection
which occurs for the most part or entirely as the result of conflict with
the sexual tendencies when thus primitively directed.
As regards the motive forces engaged in this conflict, there is again
at present much uncertainty, but they probably to some extent differ
from one case to another. The conflict would seem to be waged, sometimes
between two aspects of the sexual impulse, _e. g._ between Narcissism and
object-love or between physical desire and tender affection (when these
elements have been dissociated in the ways we have already studied). In
other cases the gregarious instincts are probably engaged in the manner
suggested by Trotter and others; while, in still other instances, there
may be an antagonism between the sexual impulses and the tendencies
of self-assertion, self-respect or self-preservation, as emphasised
especially by Freud. For a more general discussion of the factors
concerned in sexual inhibition, see E. Bleuler, "Der Sexualwiderstand",
_Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen_,
1913, V, 442, and J. C. Flügel, "On the Biological Basis of Sexual
Repression and its Sociological Significance", _British Journal of
Psychology_ (_Medical Section_), 1921, I, 225.]