-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Jon Johanning
>I'm not an archeologist, anthropologist, or historian, just a skeptical
lay person. But as a skeptic, I think that this "fertility" explanation
for ancient cultural phenomena may be just a wee bit overworked. (See
Wittgenstein's "Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough" in his _Philosophical
Occasions 1912-1951_ for some philosophical arguments.)
** For the record, I've read parts of Frazer's Golden Bough and I've read (quite recently actually) Wittgenstein's Remarks. To begin with, neither Frazer nor Wittgenstein know anything about religion. You might figure that as obvious with Wittgenstein but not so obvious with the illustrious author of the Golden Bough. Nevertheless, according to J.Z. Smith Frazer's GB is 90% literary imagination (have a flip through the text and look for original sources... they're thin). Frazer would find a poem and then write an essay about the poem in a cross cultural context. The comparison would be largely invented and arbitrary as would his interpretation. Smith concludes that the GB, given Frazer's obvious intelligence, must be some sort of hoax... (although Frazer never let on that this was the case)... so perhaps, at least, a text playing for the reader who wants to live on the edge of the volcano... the fact that he became an international celebrity probably doesn't weaken Smith's case (BTW - J.Z. Smith is one of the most respected historians of religion around). With that being said, I'm kind of surprised that a reader of Frazer could come anywhere near saying that the fertility explanation is overworked, even if Wittgenstein is a rather clever fellow.
>You say "probably for fertility," but what is this inference of probability
based on? The archeologists dig up pictures of various groupings of people engaged in all manner of sexual activities (*all* manner -- not just straight intercourse) on the floors and walls of bathhouses and private residences, and promptly proclaim them "for fertility." "Pornographic -- heavens to Betsy, no! Those noble Romans had very clean minds! It was all just pagan religion." They may be right, but pardon me, I'm from Missouri. (Actually from Indiana, but that's close enough.)
** I said "probably for fertility" because I didn't want to have to provide a portfolio of evidence. Nevertheless, here goes some evidence...
e.g. Structure of Maori Symbolic Values Female male Noa (profane) tapu (sacred) Junior senior Low high Earth sky Cooked raw Left right Inauspicious auspicious Night day Darkness light Death life Younger elder Peace war Moon sun Inferior superior Cultivated food uncultivated food Sweet potato fern root
For the Maori, personal status with the group is determined by two criteria: sex and genealogically defined rank and is conceptualised in terms of the opposed categories: tapu and noa. Men are intrinsically tapu and women intrinsically noa. Men descended from Rangi, the Sky Father (through Rangi the sacred upper world was created) while women descended from Papa, the earth mother, and through her the profane underworld was created. From a genealogical view, an elder woman might be more tapu than a low ranking man but even the highest ranking women belongs unambiguously to the noa (profane side of the moral universe). All contact (actual or symbolic) between tapu and noa persons results in pollution or social degradation, a supernatural danger. e.g. if a woman or girl stepped over a young boy’s legs, Maori believed the results would be serious: his legs would lose their strength and in manhood he would be unable to run after (or away from) enemies in battle. This concept, which has to do with height (noa should never by physically higher than tapu) also applies to the body: the upper body is more tapu than the lower part of the body.
Also to note: male = raw (tapu), woman = cooked (noa). These relations of tapu and noa apply to persons and to things. In the category of noa are entities associated with a woman’s domestic role as a cook and preparer of food. Apart from herself, the most noa thing in the Maori environment is cooked food. This is reflected in the architecture of their communal living, kitchen in the back. This application of noa to cooked food often interferes with eating. e.g. a priest, under heavy tapu, could not possibly go near a cooking shed or any other place where food was cooked, nor yet partake of a meal in his house. Nor could he touch his food with his hands. In some cases he would use a fork or someone would have to feed him. Given that all men's activities are tapu, sex with a woman (noa) is defiling --> and there are purification rituals for such contact. Or, men can undertake a ritual purification to up their tapu, a kind of super-tapu. This creates a kind of excess of tapu and men will then ritually engage in activity that they know will defile them (otherwise this excess energy could become dangerous). Or, not tonight honey, here's some cooked food. It should be too difficult to surmise why cannibalism was practiced... In Maori myth there is lots of racy imagery, perhaps even pornographic. But the contact between women and men is polluting... and there are no exceptions here.
How about the Enga of New Guinea, who want to fight their enemy clans yet have to marry with their clanswomen. Sexual relations are based on hostility and violent antagonism. Rules regarding sexual pollution are such that any contact between men and women results in pollution, and the fear of sexual pollution is characteristic of this society. Femininity is viewed as polluting masculinity and masculinity is viewed as polluting femininity
the Enga do not look for symmetry between the sexes, since there is always sexual danger – thus the best way to deal with the danger is to dislike the person you are married to
keeping one another close, but also at a distance: “We marry the people we fight.”
In the myths of both of these communities you'll find pornographic imagery. However, sexual contact is closely regulated - with grave penalties in both cases.
We're talking about VERY different worldviews from that of the modern. The notion that sex is good, sex is fun is pretty much a novel invention of the last few decades, an idea shared by some 1/10 of 1% of the entire global population (surely I jest).
> One could also state flatly that the medieval inquisitors were just
engaged in a "religious" activity. Their witch-hunting manuals, with
their tales of sex with Satan, were not pornographic. Oh no! And what
they did in their dungeons when they caught their witches wasn't
sadistic behavior. Couldn't have been -- sadism, as we all know, was
invented by Sade in the 18th century!
** It wasn't torture, if that's what you're getting at. The medieval inquisitors did have the fear of God in them... which is why the entire Inquisition is so well documented - they were terrified of getting it wrong. There were very strict rules about questions and answers. In general, it was not the priests that engaged in any inflictions, it was local representative of the magistrate or some other municipal authority. The priest would usually say something, "I plead to you, confess... because I don't know what Gorgo the Impaler is going to do to you otherwise!" Even with idiotic theatre... the priests were terrified ---> terrified of God, by the devil, by witches, and by Jews and Muslims. Pain wasn't secularised until later... that's when we see torture in a proper sense - as a science of infliction. I don't mind calling it sadistic.. surely it was. But if we're looking to identify forms: the Inquisition is not a close model for Sadeian perversion / transgression, even if the actions appear to be the same.
> Look, there is a pretty large remaining corpus of Latin and Greek
pornography, obviously having nothing to do with religious beliefs
about "fertility," even after the Christians went through all the
libraries and destroyed probably the greater part of it. If there were
any ancient beliefs that drawing salacious pictures would promote
fertility in crops, animals, or humans, I doubt that they were really
taken very seriously by the time of the Empire.
** I'll take your word for it. But I'm not disputing the existence of images of nudity and oral sex prior to the 19th century, I'm claiming that the genre didn't exist... or, at the very least, I'm saying that the modern porn industry is unique in history --> both in terms of its form and much of its content.
> Well, I don't think that inference is valid. The key term, of course,
in this definition is "intended." But intentions are pretty tricky.
Were the inquisitors' manuals "intended" to cause sexual excitement? On
one level, I suppose not. Those guys sincerely believed that they were
engaged in the holy work of saving souls from Satan. But I don't think
we have to be that naive today. I happen to believe that religion --
whatever religion you are taking about -- is not a "holy, pure"
activity completely divorced from sex. But you may have a different
belief.
** You've made my case here. "Those guys sincerely believed that they were engaged in the holy work of saving souls" - i.e. even if they created pornographic images / writings - they weren't pornographers.
ken