This reviewer has seen only one truly formidable challenge, and it does not arise from any flaw in Wolf’s own work. What makes his theory worthy of consideration is his strong attention to research evidence combined with a full recognition of cultural variability and the need to account for it without insult to its subtlety, depth and distinctive humanity.ĭoes the evidence hold up? It undoubtedly stands strong against a great many scholarly objections. Yet Wolf is what he calls a “constitutionalist” as opposed to a “conventionalist”: innate disposition underpins his thinking. As evidence for the power of culture to shape our behaviour, trumping any innate disposition towards the avoidance of sexual relations with close “blood” kin, these “artificial” rules would appear decisive-to say nothing of making our definition of incest complex and problematic. As Malinowski discovered in the 1920s, the islanders enjoyed great freedom to engage in premarital sex but had incest taboos ranging from very strict to mild, depending on their position in the matrilineal kinship system: sex with a maternal cousin was considered terrible but with a paternal one it was actually recommended for sexually inexperienced boys! Even father–daughter sexual contact was relaxed, as they were not regarded as strictly close kin: the father was seen as a sort of “in law”. The first question sees Wolf soon whisking us off to the remote Trobriand islands.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |