Hacker News Reader

Comment by eucyclos | Hacker News Reader

This sounds like a refutation of the concept of taboos as a useful category, by the definition I use a taboo is something that may not be discussed openly. There's a theory that a culture without taboos is past it's peak in some important way- does crocker have any response to that criticism?

View on HN

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that taboos should not be examined from within the space where they hold effect, because doing so calls into question the whole concept of a taboo and robs all taboos of their usefulness, and that would summon evidence for, or even cause cultural decline?

That sounds suspiciously like something a taboo would say that has something to fear from being looked at. ;)

I think this chain of reasoning is made of links that do not self-evidently follow. From my lay perspective, taboos seem more complex, resilient and variable to require a perfectly dogmatic approach to hold up. If they were this easy to bring down, they'd all be gone.

I'm also not sure what a "culture without taboos" is, or one has ever existed. Also, what is meant by "peak"? Is there an optimal amount or set of taboos? How do cultures with taboo-ical differences (and their peaks) compare to each other across space and time?

I think it is good and healthy to approach taboos with curiosity, whether it is to interrogate them or to appreciate them more.

Not should, can't. The assertion I'm referring to is that once something can be rationally discussed it's no longer a taboo, and once a culture has no taboos it has no real vitality or potential for growth left.

Nothing there about causing cultural decline, just evidence of it, and thereby limits on the kind of culture that can host the attitude you describe.

> once something can be rationally discussed it's no longer a taboo

This appears to be an entirely impractical definition, to the point that it would not allow a taboo to ever exist in a group of people capable of any sort of rational discussion. Any two moderately curious and independently-minded people could simply destroy any taboo by talking about it. They could even do it on purpose, using this fatal weakness.

Taboos, as in: the actual attitudes and behaviors of people, do not simply disappear the moment they are named or even questioned. I think we have to allow for taboos to be more nuanced, or we will struggle to describe the actual, interesting phenomenon, let alone do anything useful with it.

> once a culture has no taboos it has no real vitality or potential for growth left

That's an extraordinary claim on multiple levels, even when allowing for different ideas of what taboos are and how they work. I already mentioned some questions this raises, which makes it surprising to find the naked claim simply restated, in an even stronger form.

It's the kind of sentence that can sound really deep and powerful in passing, but when you look at it, is really only a huge, gaping question mark in a fancy dress.

Would you also say that no Overton window could ever exist in a group of people capable of any sort of rational discussion?

I would not. But I don't see how that's relevant here.

I'm also not going to guess what point you're trying to make. I'd ask you to explain how exactly you think Overton windows relate to our argument about taboos, because, despite a superficial similarity, taboos and Overton windows deal with different things and are very much not the same; but I'm not interested in this style of discussion, sorry. Have a nice day!

I've heard of taboos forbidding discussion in religious contexts, for religious (superstitious) reasons, but what definition of taboo are you using that it doesn't just mean "forbidden"?

There's a taboo to marrying your blood sibling, but discussing such marriages is fine. If a culture generally allowed marrying such a sibling I think it'd be past its peak, maybe. But I don't see how discussing it would contribute to that.

Try to start up a conversation about the relative merits of marrying your siblings and I bet everybody else in the room will suddenly get very uncomfortable. They'll be thinking "Of all possible things we could talk about, why this??"

You're right that taboos also concern actions, not just discussion, but in this case it's probably both.

> They'll be thinking "Of all possible things we could talk about, why this??"

Sure, but the point is that they should just say that, and the person who raised the issue must then explain why it's worth their time. Maybe there's an important point they're trying to make, maybe not.

I see a problem here with your example: "everyone else". If you're going to have a sensitive discussion it should involve the minimum number of people.

That it's a sensitive topic is the point, no?

Is the critique any more substantial than "the vibes are off?"

The critique is "Taboos probably have a use." I think it's a good faith point. It's not as strong of a critique as "Taboos have purpose {x}" [Maintain ethical standards, promote public safety] or to say "Taboos probably have a use because {y}" [They are in almost every society, some rules should be rules but not laws].

The problem I see is taboos assume the act is always wrong, and preclude consideration for edge cases where it might be the lesser wrong. Consider the incest taboo--yeah, there are very good reasons for this. Should you enter a sexual relationship with a relative? I think society is better off prohibiting this. But what about "What, my wife is actually my sister????" Is forcing them to divorce actually the best answer? (And, yes, it happens. Bump into an unknown sibling, there's a substantial chance you'll fall for them.)

The only thing wrong with incest is the child. We put a lot of focus on this but not other kinds of ‘bad’ genes like hereditary diseases.

To me taboos is just society taking shortcuts. This is fine, but lets admit that we are taking shortcuts.

I'd agree- I think the analysis I was referring to believed that analyzing a taboo makes it no longer useful as a shortcut. Guess that didn't come across enough for anyone to offer a refutation.

In reality there's often issues of manipulation into "consent".

And if the relationship goes bad you lose a family member, not just a lover.

Is it always wrong? To me, unquestionably no (consider my example.) Is it risky? Yes.

It probably depends on the measure used to define peak, but the removal of arbitrary limits on honest intellectual inquiry has huge benefits, eg the enlightenment, science, etc.

Did the enlightenment not have a taboo around questioning e.g. the fundamental equality of all human beings?

My impression was that that taboo first got a firm foothold a couple of hundred years later, after the second world war showed what industrialised genocide looks like. How could the fundamental equality of all humans otherwise have been accepted as true and taboo to talk about at the same time as women being denied suffrage until the early 19-hundreds, or eugenics being openly discussed well into the 1930ies?

Precisely by being protected from this kind of rigorous practical analysis!

> There's a theory that a culture without taboos is past it's peak in some important way

That sound like yet another assertion that some people are so fond of and that I personally find totally baseless and irrelevant. You are simply proclaiming that a thing you like is good because it is good. So what? I don't like it and I want it gone. And I don't care that you think it is good unless you can come with some argument I can understand from my own set of values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com