Ritual Incest -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:45:54 02/08/08 Fri
Author: Kiernan
Subject: Ritual Incest

Girard's explanation of ritual incest in Chapter 4 still didn't convince me of his claim that "cultures that practice ritual incest sometimes offer an interpretation of it that cannot be taken seriously" (105). Girard dismisses the cultural interpretation of ritual incest as keeping pure the family line as a "tardy afterthought" (106). Yet, that explanation seems to fit with his theories as well. A king would break down boundaries between himself and his female family members as a way of rescuing his own family line from becoming indistinct from everyone else. Such an act would be a kind of "violence to undo violence" in miniature, just involving the sexual divisions between families. By breaking down a prohibition, they prevented their family from becoming indistinct from any other.

Or something like that. It just seems that Girard too easily dismisses the particular, in general. About incest within cultura ritual, he says, "Incest presides over the birth of society; it is the bearer of peace and abundance to mankind. But incest is neither a first cause nor an essential condition" (107). Such a quick dismissal of the nature of the particular act as having influence on its power in the society seems to put his theories in danger of over-generalizing to bring elements of cultural ritual and myth to fit his theory, not drawing the theory from them.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]