Freud - Complete Works (448 page)

Totem And Taboo

2682

   We have translated the contagious
power inherent in taboo into the possession of some attribute
likely to produce temptation or encourage imitation. This does not
appear to tally with the fact that the contagious character of
taboo is shown chiefly by its transmissibility on to material
objects, which then themselves become carriers of taboo.

   This transmissibility of taboo is
a reflection of the tendency, on which we have already remarked,
for the unconscious instinct in the neurosis to shift constantly
along associative paths on to new objects. Our attention is thus
directed to the fact that the dangerous magical force of
mana
corresponds to two powers of a more realistic sort: the
power of reminding a man of his own prohibited wishes and the
apparently more important one of inducing him to transgress the
prohibition in obedience to those wishes. These two functions can
be reduced to one, however, if we suppose that in a primitive mind
the awakening of the memory of a forbidden action is naturally
linked with the awakening of an impulse to put that action into
effect. Thus recollection and temptation come together again. It
must be admitted, too, that, in so far as the example of a man
transgressing a prohibition tempts another man to do the same,
disobedience to prohibitions spreads like a contagion, in just the
same way as a taboo is transferred from a person to a material
object and from one material object to another.

   If the violation of a taboo can
be made good by atonement or expiation, which involve the
renunciation of some possession or some freedom, this proves that
obedience to the taboo injunction meant in itself the renunciation
of something desirable. Emancipation from one renunciation is made
up for by the imposition of another one elsewhere. This leads us to
conclude that atonement is a more fundamental factor than
purification in the ceremonials of taboo.

   I will now sum up the respects in
which light has been thrown on the nature of taboo by comparing it
with the obsessional prohibitions of neurotics. Taboo is a
primaeval prohibition forcibly imposed (by some authority) from
outside, and directed against the most powerful longings to which
human beings are subject. The desire to violate it persists in
their unconscious; those who obey the taboo have an ambivalent
attitude to what the taboo prohibits. The magical power that is
attributed to taboo is based on the capacity for arousing
temptation; and it acts like a contagion because examples are
contagious and because the prohibited desire in the unconscious
shifts from one thing to another. The fact that the violation of a
taboo can be atoned for by a renunciation shows that renunciation
lies at the basis of obedience to taboo.

Totem And Taboo

2683

(3)

   What we now want to discover is
how much value is to be attributed to the parallel we have drawn
between taboo and obsessional neurosis and to the view of taboo
which we have based on that parallel. Their value must clearly
depend on whether the view we have put forward has any advantages
over others, and whether it gives us a clearer understanding of
taboo than we could otherwise reach. We may be inclined to feel
that we have given sufficient evidence of the applicability of our
view in what has already been said; yet we must attempt to
strengthen the evidence by entering into our explanation of taboo
prohibitions and usages in greater detail.

   There is also another path open
to us. We can start an inquiry as to whether some of the hypotheses
which we have carried over from neuroses to taboo or some of the
results to which that procedure has led us may not be directly
verifiable in the phenomena of taboo. But we must decide what we
are to look for. Our assertion that taboo originated in a primaeval
prohibition imposed at one time or other by some external authority
is obviously incapable of demonstration. What we shall rather
endeavour to confirm, therefore, are the psychological determinants
of taboo, which we have learnt to know from obsessional neurosis.
How did we arrive at our knowledge of these psychological factors
in the case of the neurosis? Through the analytical study of its
symptoms, and particularly of obsessional acts, defensive measures
and obsessional commands. We found that they showed every sign of
being derived from
ambivalent
impulses, either corresponding
simultaneously to
both
a wish and a counter-wish or
operating predominantly on behalf of
one
of the two opposing
trends. If, now, we could succeed in demonstrating that
ambivalence, that is, the dominance of opposing trends, is also to
be found in the observances of taboo, or if we could point to some
of them which, like obsessional acts, give simultaneous expression
to both currents, we should have established the psychological
agreement between taboo and obsessional neurosis in what is perhaps
their most important feature.

Totem And Taboo

2684

   The two fundamental prohibitions
of taboo are, as I have already remarked, inaccessible to our
analysis owing to their connection with totemism; while certain
others of its injunctions are of a secondary nature and
consequently useless for our purpose. For taboo has become the
ordinary method of legislation in the communities affected by it
and it has come to serve social purposes which are certainly more
recent than taboo itself: such, for instance, are the taboos
imposed by chiefs and priests for the protection of their own
property and privileges. There nevertheless remain a large group of
observances on which our investigation can be made. From these I
shall select the taboos attaching (
a
) to enemies, (
b
)
to chiefs and (
c
) to the dead; and I shall take the material
for our examination from the excellent collection included by
Frazer in
Taboo and the Perils of the Soul
(1911
b
),
the second part of his great work
The Golden Bough
.

(
a
)
The Treatment of Enemies

   We may be inclined to suppose
that savage and half-savage races are guilty of uninhibited and
ruthless cruelty towards their enemies. We shall be greatly
interested to learn, then, that even in their case the killing of a
man is governed by a number of observances which are included among
the usages of taboo. These observances fall easily into four
groups. They demand (1) the appeasement of the slain enemy, (2)
restrictions upon the slayer, (3) acts of expiation and
purification by him and (4) certain ceremonial observances. Our
incomplete information on the subject does not enable us to
determine with certainty how general or the reverse these usages
may be among the peoples concerned; but for our purposes this is a
matter of indifference. It may safely be assumed, in any case, that
what we have before us are not isolated peculiarities but
widespread usages.

Totem And Taboo

2685

   The rites of
appeasement
performed in the island of Timor, when a warlike expedition has
returned in triumph bringing the heads of the vanquished foe, are
particularly remarkable, since in addition to them the leader of
the expedition is submitted to severe restrictions (see below,
p. 2687
). On the occasion of the
expedition’s return, sacrifices are offered to appease the
souls of the men whose heads have been taken. ‘The people
think that some misfortune would befall the victor were such
offerings omitted. Moreover, a part of the ceremony consists of a
dance accompanied by a song, in which the death of the slain man is
lamented and his forgiveness is entreated. "Be not
angry", they say, "because your head is here with us; had
we been less lucky, our heads might now have been exposed in your
village. We have offered the sacrifice to appease you. Your spirit
may now rest and leave us in peace. Why were you our enemy? Would
it not have been better that we should remain friends? Then your
blood would not have been spilt and your head would not have been
cut off."’¹ The same is true of the people of
Paloo, in Celebes. So, too, ‘the Gallas returning from war
sacrifice to the jinn or guardian spirits of their slain foes
before they will re-enter their own houses’.²

   Other peoples have found a means
for changing their former enemies after their death into guardians,
friends and benefactors. This method lies in treating their severed
heads with affection, as some of the savage races of Borneo boast
of doing. When the Sea Dyaks of Sarawak bring home a head from a
successful head-hunting expedition, for months after its arrival it
is treated with the greatest consideration and addressed with all
the names of endearment of which their language is capable. The
most dainty morsels of food are thrust into its mouth, delicacies
of all kinds and even cigars. The head is repeatedly implored to
hate its former friends and to love its new hosts since it has now
become one of them. It would be a great mistake to suppose that
these observances, which strike us as so horrible, are performed
with any intention of ridicule.³

   In several of the savage tribes
of North America observers have been struck by the mourning over
enemies who have been killed and scalped. When a Choctaw had killed
an enemy, he went into mourning for a month during which he was
subjected to severe restrictions; and the Dacotas had similar
practices. When the Osages, reports a witness, have mourned over
their own dead, ‘they will mourn for the foe just as if he
was a friend’.
⁴

  
¹
Frazer (1911
b
, 166).

  
²
Frazer (loc. cit.), quoting Paulitschke
(1893-6).

  
³
Frazer (1914,
1
, 295), quoting Low
(1848).

  
⁴
Frazer (1911
b
, 181), quoting Dorsey
(1884).

Totem And Taboo

2686

   Before considering the remaining
classes of taboo usages in connection with enemies, we must deal
with an obvious objection. It will be argued against us, with
Frazer and others, that the grounds for such rites of appeasement
are simple enough and have nothing to do with any such thing as
‘ambivalence’. These peoples are dominated by a
superstitious fear of the ghosts of the slain - a fear which was
not unknown in classical antiquity and which was put upon the stage
by the great English dramatist in the hallucinations of Macbeth and
Richard III. All the rites of appeasement follow logically from
this superstition, as well as the restrictions and acts of
expiation which will be discussed presently. This view is also
supported by the fourth group of these observances, which can only
be explained as attempts at driving away the ghosts of the victims
that are pursuing their murderers.¹ In addition to this, the
savages openly admit their fear of the ghosts of dead enemies and
themselves attribute to it the taboo usages which we are
discussing.

   This objection is indeed an
obvious one, and if it covered the whole ground we could save
ourselves the trouble of any further attempt at an explanation. I
shall put off dealing with it until later, and for the moment I
will merely state the alternative view which is derived from the
hypothesis based upon our earlier discussions of taboo. The
conclusion that we must draw from all these observances is that the
impulses which they express towards an enemy are not solely hostile
ones. They are also manifestations of remorse, of admiration for
the enemy, and of a bad conscience for having killed him. It is
difficult to resist the notion that, long before a table of laws
was handed down by any god, these savages were in possession of a
living commandment: ‘Thou shalt not kill’, a violation
of which would not go unpunished.

   Let us now return to the other
three groups of taboo observances.
Restrictions
placed upon
a victorious slayer are unusually frequent and as a rule severe. In
Timor (cf. the rites of appeasement described above, on
p. 2685
) the leader of the expedition is
forbidden ‘to return at once to his own house. A special hut
is prepared for him, in which he has to reside for two months,
undergoing bodily and spiritual purification. During this time he
may not go to his wife nor feed himself; the food must be put into
his mouth by another person.’² In some Dyak tribes men
returning from a successful expedition are obliged to keep to
themselves for several days and abstain from various kinds of food;
they may not touch iron nor have any intercourse with women. In
Logea, an island in the neighbourhood of New Guinea, ‘men who
have killed or assisted in killing enemies shut themselves up for
about a week in their houses. They must avoid all intercourse with
their wives and friends, and they may not touch food with their
hands. They may eat vegetable food only, which is brought to them
cooked in special pots. The intention of these restrictions is to
guard the men against the smell of the blood of the slain; for it
is believed that if they smelt the blood they would fall ill and
die. In the Toaripi or Motumotu tribe of south-eastern New Guinea a
man who has killed another may not go near his wife, and may not
touch food with his fingers. He is fed by others, and only with
certain kinds of food. These observances last till the new
moon.’ (Frazer, 1911
b
, 167.)