Hubbry Logo
TabooTabooMain
Open search
Taboo
Community hub
Taboo
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Taboo
Taboo
Taboo
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
For other uses, see Taboo (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Sociology
Key themes
Perspectives
Branches
Methods
Major theorists

1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias

1900s: Fromm · Adorno · Gehlen · Aron · Merton · Nisbet · Mills · Bell · Schoeck · Goffman · Bauman · Foucault · Luhmann · Habermas · Baudrillard · Bourdieu · Giddens
Lists

A taboo is a social group's ban, prohibition or avoidance of something (usually an utterance or behavior) based on the group's sense that it is excessively repulsive, offensive, sacred or allowed only for certain people.[1][2] Such prohibitions are present in virtually all societies.[1] Taboos may be prohibited explicitly, for example within a legal system or religion, or implicitly, for example by social norms or conventions followed by a particular culture or organization.

Taboos are often meant to protect the individual, but there are other reasons for their development. An ecological or medical background is apparent in many, including some that are seen as religious or spiritual in origin. Taboos can help use a resource more efficiently, but when applied to only a subsection of the community they can also serve to suppress said subsection of the community. A taboo acknowledged by a particular group or tribe as part of their ways aids in the cohesion of the group, helps that particular group to stand out and maintain its identity in the face of others and therefore creates a feeling of "belonging".[3]

The meaning of the word taboo has been somewhat expanded in the social sciences to strong prohibitions relating to any area of human activity or custom that is sacred or forbidden based on moral judgment, religious beliefs, or cultural norms.[3]

Etymology

[edit]

The English term taboo comes from tapu in Oceanic languages, particularly Polynesian languages, with such meanings as "prohibited" or "forbidden". That root tapu is reflected, among others, by Tongan or Māori tapu, and by Hawaiian kapu. Its English use dates to 1777 when the British explorer James Cook visited Tonga, and referred to the Tongans' use of the term taboo for "any thing that is forbidden to be eaten, or made use of".[4] Having invited some of the Tongan aristocracy to dinner aboard his ship, Cook wrote:

Not one of them would sit down, or eat a bit of any thing. . . . On expressing my surprise at this, they were all taboo, as they said; which word has a very comprehensive meaning; but, in general, signifies that a thing is forbidden.[5]

The term was translated to him as "consecrated, inviolable, forbidden, unclean or cursed".[6] Tapu is usually treated as a unitary, non-compound word inherited from Proto-Polynesian *tapu.[7][8][9] It also exists in other Oceanic languages outside Polynesian, such as Fijian tabu,[10] or Hiw (Vanuatu) toq.[11]

Those words descend from an etymon *tabu in the ancestral Proto-Oceanic language, whose meaning was reconstructed as "forbidden, off limits; sacred, due to a sentiment of awe before spiritual forces".[11]

In its current use in Tongan, the word tapu means "sacred" or "holy", often in the sense of being restricted or protected by custom or law. On the main island, the word is often appended to the end of "Tonga" as Tongatapu, here meaning "Sacred South" rather than "Forbidden South".

Examples

[edit]
Woodcut showing 12 people holding various human body parts carousing around an open bonfire where human body parts, suspended on a sling, are cooking.
Cannibalism, Brazil. Engraving by Theodor de Bry for Hans Staden's account of his 1557 captivity.

Sigmund Freud speculated that incest and patricide were the only two universal taboos that formed the basis of civilization.[12] Through an analysis of the language surrounding these laws, it can be seen how the policy makers, and society as a whole, find these acts to be immoral.[13][14][15]

Common taboos involve restrictions or ritual regulation of killing and hunting; sex and sexual relationships; reproduction; the dead and their graves; as well as food and dining (primarily cannibalism and dietary laws such as vegetarianism, kashrut, and halal) or religious (treif and haram). In Madagascar, a strong code of taboos, known as fady, constantly change and are formed from new experiences. Each region, village or tribe may have its own fady.

The word taboo gained popularity at times, with some scholars looking for ways to apply it where other English words had previously been applied. For example, J. M. Powis Smith, in his book The American Bible (editor's preface 1927), used taboo occasionally in relation to Israel's Tabernacle and ceremonial laws, including Exodus 30:36, Exodus 29:37; Numbers 16:37–38; Deuteronomy 22:9, Isaiah 65:5, Ezekiel 44:19 and Ezekiel 46:20.

Albert Schweitzer wrote a chapter about taboos of the people of Gabon. As an example, it was considered a misfortune for twins to be born, and they would be subject to many rules not incumbent on other people.[16]

In religion and mythology

[edit]

According to Joseph Campbell, taboos are used in religion and mythology to test a person's ability to withhold from violating a prohibition given to them.[17][18] Should one fail the test and violate a taboo, they will be subsequently punished or face the consequences of their actions.[17] Taboos are not societal prohibitions (such as incest); rather, the use of taboo in these stories relates to its original meaning of "prohibition": for example, a character could be prohibited from looking, eating, and speaking or uttering a certain word.

Greek

[edit]

An example of an eating taboo in Greek mythology could be found in the tale of the abduction of Persephone. Hades, who had fallen in love with Persephone and wished to make her his queen, burst through a cleft in the earth and abducted Persephone as she was gathering flowers in a field.[19] When Demeter, Persephone's mother, finds out of her daughter's abduction, she forbids the earth to produce (or she neglects the earth) and, in the depth of her despair, causes nothing to grow. Zeus, pressed by the cries of the hungry people and by the other deities who also heard their anguish, forced Hades to return Persephone.[20] It was explained to Demeter that Persephone would be released, so long as she did not taste the food of the dead. Hades complies with the request to return Persephone to Demeter, but first, he tricks Persephone, forcing her to break the eating taboo by giving her some pomegranate seeds to eat.[21] In other interpretations, Persephone is seen eating the pomegranate seeds as a result of temptation or hunger. In the end, Hermes is sent to retrieve her but, because she had tasted the food of the underworld, she was obliged to spend a third of each year (the winter months) there, and the remaining part of the year with the gods above.[22] With the later writers Ovid and Hyginus, Persephone's time in the underworld becomes half the year.[23]

The most notable looking taboo in Greek myth can be found in the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Orpheus, the son of Apollo, was well-renowned as a legendary musician whose music could move anything and everything, living or not, in the world. While walking among her people in tall grass at her wedding, Eurydice was set upon by a satyr. In her efforts to escape the satyr, Eurydice fell into a nest of vipers and suffered a fatal bite on her heel. Her body was discovered by Orpheus who, overcome with grief, played such sad and mournful songs that all the humans, nymphs, and gods learnt about his sorrow and grief and wept with him. On the gods' advice, Orpheus traveled to the Underworld wherein his music softened the hearts of Hades and Persephone, who agreed to allow Eurydice to return with him to earth on one condition: he should guide her out and not look back until they both had reached the upper world. As he reached the upper world, Orpheus looked back toward Eurydice in his eagerness to reunite with her, tragically forgetting about the looking taboo given to him by Hades, and since Eurydice had not crossed into the upper world, she vanishes back into the Underworld, this time forever.

A speaking taboo in Greek myth can be found in the story of Anchises, the father of the Trojan warrior Aeneas. Aphrodite had fallen in love with the mortal Anchises after Zeus persuaded Eros to shoot her with an arrow to cause these emergent feelings.[24] One interpretation recounts that Aphrodite pretended to be a Phrygian princess and seduced him, only to later reveal herself as a goddess and inform Anchises that she will bear him a son named Aeneas and warns him not to tell anyone that he lay with a goddess. Anchises does not heed this speaking taboo and later brags about his encounter with Aphrodite, and as a result, he is struck in the foot with a thunderbolt by Zeus. Thereafter, he is lame in that foot so that Aeneas has to carry him from the flames of Troy.[25]

Another, albeit lesser-known, speaking taboo in Greek myth can be found in the story of Actaeon. Actaeon, whilst on a hunting trip in the woods, mistakenly and haplessly happened upon the bathing Artemis.[26][27] When Artemis realized that Actaeon had seen her undressed, thus desecrating her chastity, she punished him for his luckless profanation of her virginity's mystery by forbidding him from speech.[28][29] Whether it be due to forgetfulness or outright resistance, Actaeon defied his speaking taboo and called for his hunting dogs.[28][29] Due to his failure in abiding by his speaking taboo, Artemis turned Actaeon into a stag and turned his dogs upon him. Actaeon was torn apart and ravaged by his loyal dogs who did not recognize their former master.

Abrahamic

[edit]

Possibly the most famous eating taboo (if not taboo, in general) is in the story of Adam and Eve in the Abrahamic religions. In the Judeo-Christian telling, found in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve are placed in the Garden of Eden by God and are told not to eat from a tree lest they die,[30] but Eve is promptly tempted by a serpent (often identified as Satan in disguise) to eat from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil because they will surely not die,[31] rather, they might become "like God".[32] Eve violates the eating taboo and eats from the forbidden fruit of the tree, shortly giving some fruit to her companion, Adam.[33] After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve are aware of their nakedness and cover themselves with fig leaves and hide from God.[34] God realizes that they are hiding and interrogates them about having eaten from the tree whereupon Adam assigns the blame to Eve and Eve assigns it to the serpent.[35] As a result, God condemns Eve with pain in childbirth and subordination to her husband, he condemns Adam to have to labor on the earth for his food and be reduced into the earth at death, and in the Christian tradition, he condemns all of humanity for this original sin.[36][37] God then expels Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden lest they eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal "like Him".[38]

In Islam, the story of Adam and Eve is quite different, though it contains an eating taboo: the Quran mentions that Adam (Arabic: آدم), as the successive authority of earth by decree of Allah, is placed in a paradisal garden (not Jannah nor the Garden of Eden)[39] therein along with his wife (unnamed in the Quran, though the Hadith gives her the name Ḥawwā’, Arabic: حواء);[40][41] such a paradise this garden was, that they would never go hungry nor unclothed,[42] nor would they ever thirst or be exposed to the sun's heat.[43] Allah took a promise from Adam:[44]

˹Allah said,˺ “O Adam! Live with your wife in Paradise and eat from wherever you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.”

— Surah Al-A'raf 7:19

Iblis, angered at his expulsion from Jannah for refusing to bow to Adam at his inception, decided to trick Adam and his wife into being shunned by Allah, just as he was. Allah had warned Adam and his wife about Iblis, telling them that he was a "clear enemy".[45][46] Iblis swore in the name of Allah that he was their sincere advisor, revealed unto Adam and his wife each other's nakedness, and convinced them to eat from the forbidden tree so that they may never taste death.[47][48] After eating from the tree (thus breaking the eating taboo), Allah removes Adam and his wife from their paradisal garden, telling them that mankind will be condemned with some being enemies with others on the earth wherein they will be provided habitation and provision, for a while,[49][50] and “There you will live, there you will die, and from there you will be resurrected.”[Quran 7:25]

In the Gnostic telling of this story, the taboo is a plot by the archons to keep Adam in a state of ignorance by preventing him from eating the fruit, which allows him to attain gnosis after the serpent, who is viewed as representative of the divine world, convinces him and Eve to eat it.[51]

A looking taboo can be found in the Judeo-Christian telling of the story of Lot found within the Book of Genesis. In Genesis 19, two angels in the form of men arrived in Sodom at eventide and were invited by Lot to spend the night at his home. The men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and demanded Lot that he bring his two guests out so that they might "know" them; instead, Lot offered up his two daughters, who had not "known" man, but they refused. As dawn was breaking, Lot's visiting angels urged him to get his family and flee, so as to avoid being caught in the impending disaster for the iniquity of the city. The command was given, "Flee for your life! Do not look behind you, nor stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, lest you be swept away."[52]: 465  Whilst fleeing, Lot's wife broke the looking taboo by turning to look back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and was turned into a pillar of salt as punishment for disobeying the angels' warning.[53][52]: 466 

Function

[edit]

Communist and materialist theorists have argued that taboos can be used to reveal the histories of societies when other records are lacking.[54] Marvin Harris explains taboos as a consequence of ecologic and economic conditions.[55]

Modernity

[edit]

Some argue that contemporary Western multicultural societies have taboos against tribalisms (for example, ethnocentrism and nationalism) and prejudices (racism, sexism, homophobia, extremism and religious fanaticism).[56]

Changing social customs and standards also create new taboos, such as bans on slavery; extension of the pedophilia taboo to ephebophilia;[57] prohibitions on alcohol, tobacco, or psychopharmaceutical consumption (particularly among pregnant women), unmoderated discussions of politics and religion, sexual harassment and sexual objectification are increasingly becoming taboo in recent decades.

Incest itself has been pulled both ways, with some seeking to normalize consensual adult relationships regardless of the degree of kinship[58] (notably in Europe)[59][60] and others expanding the degrees of prohibited contact (notably in the United States).[61] Although the term taboo usually implies negative connotations, it is sometimes associated with enticing propositions in proverbs such as forbidden fruit is the sweetest.[62]

In medicine, professionals who practice in ethical and moral grey areas, or fields subject to social stigma such as late termination of pregnancy, may refrain from public discussion of their practice. Among other reasons, this taboo may come from concern that comments may be taken out of the appropriate context and used to make ill-informed policy decisions that would lead to (otherwise preventable) maternal death.[63][64]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Taboo

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A taboo is a culturally enforced prohibition against specific behaviors, words, or topics considered forbidden, impure, or dangerous, often backed by social sanctions, supernatural beliefs, or moral imperatives. The term originates from the Tongan word tapu (or variants like tabu in other Polynesian languages), denoting something set apart as sacred, consecrated, or prohibited, which European explorers such as James Cook encountered and adopted into English in the late 18th century during Pacific voyages. Taboos are ubiquitous across human societies, particularly prominent in small-scale traditional communities where they regulate social interactions, mark boundaries of purity and pollution, and facilitate group cohesion by discouraging actions that could disrupt order or invite harm. From an evolutionary perspective, many taboos, such as those against incest or cannibalism, likely emerged from adaptive responses to real risks like genetic defects or disease transmission, evolving culturally to reinforce survival advantages while varying widely by context—ranging from ritual food restrictions to prohibitions on discussing death or bodily functions. These prohibitions often carry a dual nature, blending practical causality with symbolic power, though their enforcement can lead to controversies when challenged by modernization, scientific scrutiny, or shifting norms that reveal some as arbitrary rather than inherently rational.

Etymology and Conceptual Foundations

Etymology

The English word taboo derives from the Tongan term tabu (also spelled tapu), which denotes something set apart as sacred, consecrated, or forbidden due to supernatural restrictions. This Polynesian root, from Proto-Polynesian *tapu, implies a dual quality of holiness and danger, where the prohibited status arises from inherent spiritual power rendering contact hazardous. Cognates appear across Polynesian languages, such as Maori tapu and Hawaiian kapu, reflecting shared Austronesian linguistic heritage without influence from unrelated Indo-European roots like Latin. Captain introduced taboo to English during his third voyage to the Pacific, recording it in a 1777 from his visit to on June 15, where he described the term's broad application to prohibitions encompassing sacred objects, persons, or acts. Cook's accounts, published posthumously in A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean (1784), adapted tabu as both and for these interdictions, initially retaining its Polynesian connotation of sanctity-backed restriction rather than mere secular prohibition. By the early , the term's semantic scope in English narrowed toward generalized forbiddance, facilitating its adoption in ethnographic descriptions of customs beyond , though always tracing back to this indigenous sacred-profane duality. A taboo refers to a culturally transmitted prohibition against specific behaviors, words, or objects perceived as inherently dangerous or polluting, typically enforced through anticipated supernatural retribution or intense social ostracism rather than explicit rational justification. Such prohibitions persist across societies due to their association with visceral fears of contagion or mystical harm, where violation is believed to transmit impurity to persons, places, or objects in contact with the offender. Empirical observations from diverse cultures highlight taboos' concentration in high-stakes biological domains, including sexuality, mortality, and ingestion, where breaches evoke automatic emotional responses like disgust or anxiety, independent of legal or utilitarian calculations. These elements distinguish taboos from mere preferences by their resistance to empirical disconfirmation; for instance, even when no observable harm materializes, the prohibition endures, sustained by collective enforcement mechanisms that prioritize group cohesion over individual evidence. Unlike neutral customs (folkways), which guide everyday through mild social disapproval without moral outrage, taboos trigger profound revulsion and potential expulsion from the upon violation. In contrast to codified laws, which rely on state-administered penalties like fines or for breaches of formal rules, taboos operate via informal, emotionally charged sanctions, often invoking agents to deter transgression without requiring institutional oversight. This informal potency underscores taboos' role as pre-legal regulators of conduct in small-scale societies lacking centralized authority.

Historical and Anthropological Development

Early Anthropological Observations

One of the earliest systematic compilations of taboos in non-Western societies appeared in James George Frazer's 1890 publication , which drew on missionary reports, traveler accounts, and ethnographic data to document ritual avoidances among indigenous groups in , , and the . Frazer described these prohibitions—such as restrictions on touching sacred objects or approaching kings—as empirical practices aimed at averting dangers and maintaining communal sanctity, with examples including Australian Aboriginal avoidances of widows and Polynesian bans on women entering certain canoes. In the late 19th century, field observations by Robert Henry Codrington among communities in the and provided direct accounts of "tabu," a term paralleling Polynesian tapu. Codrington's 1891 work The Melanesians detailed how these prohibitions enforced chiefs' authority by designating persons, places, or resources as off-limits, such as barring commoners from sacred fishing grounds or prohibiting contact with high-ranking individuals to prevent ritual contamination, thereby protecting social hierarchies and economic assets through observable fear of supernatural penalties. Bronisław Malinowski's immersive fieldwork in the from 1915 to 1918, detailed in his 1922 monograph , offered granular empirical evidence of taboos structuring the —a ceremonial exchange of shell valuables across island communities. Malinowski recorded specific avoidances, including bans on haggling over kula items, during voyages, and food restrictions on expeditions, which participants enforced to preserve the system's integrity, prevent disputes, and ensure safe returns, as violations were believed to invite misfortune like storms or crop failures.

Major Theoretical Contributions

Émile Durkheim's analysis in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) framed taboos as mechanisms reinforcing the collective conscience through the sacred-profane distinction, particularly in totemic systems. He posited that prohibitions against profane contact with totems—such as bans on killing or eating clan-emblem animals among Australian Aboriginal groups—amplified social solidarity by embodying the group's unified and identity framework, observable in ritual enforcement and clan cohesion. Claude Lévi-Strauss extended structuralist interpretations in the 1940s–1960s, emphasizing binary oppositions as cognitive universals underlying taboos, exemplified in food prohibitions distinguishing raw (nature) from cooked (culture). In The Raw and the Cooked (1964), he argued these oppositions structure social prohibitions and myths, resolving cultural tensions through mediated categories, as seen in cross-cultural patterns where cooking transforms natural substances into cultural artifacts. These theories prioritize symbolic and structural causation, yet evaluations grounded in observable dynamics reveal limitations in causal depth, often sidelining material incentives like risk mitigation evident in historical taboos. For example, Leviticus dietary restrictions—prohibiting swine and shellfish—align with sanitary imperatives in ancient Near Eastern environments prone to spoilage and contamination, where compliance correlated with reduced morbidity, suggesting taboos functioned pragmatically to sustain group viability beyond symbolic amplification.

Taboos in Religious and Mythological Contexts

Polytheistic and Ancient Traditions

In , taboos revolved around miasma, a form of pollution believed to arise from acts like , contact with corpses, or , necessitating purification to avert divine wrath and communal harm. Hesiod's (c. 700 BCE) instructs individuals to purify after touching a corpse through hand-washing, with oil, and offerings to avert pollution's spread. The (c. 430–330 BCE), in treatises like Airs, Waters, Places, links such impure states—particularly women's menstrual blood—to health risks and impurity, advising avoidance of temples and sacred spaces during these periods to prevent miasma's contagion. incurred the gravest miasma, often requiring or rites like those at the , as detailed in Robert Parker's analysis of early Greek religious practices, where unexpiated blood-guilt could curse entire poleis. In Vedic Hinduism, emerging around 1500 BCE, the varna system codified in the Rigveda's Purusha Sukta (10.90) divided society into Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, with purity taboos prohibiting inter-varna physical contact, dining, or marriage to safeguard ritual sanctity and cosmic order (ṛta). These codes, rooted in early Vedic hymns emphasizing separation to avoid polluting higher castes' sacrificial efficacy, evolved into stricter prohibitions by the late Vedic period (c. 1000–500 BCE), where texts like the Shatapatha Brahmana prescribe expiation for breaches via penance or isolation. Such taboos reinforced hierarchical purity, with lower varnas deemed inherently less pure due to occupations involving death or waste, as scholarly examinations trace to foundational Indo-Aryan ritual frameworks. Ancient Egyptian enforced taboos against harming sacred animals, such as associated with , whose violation threatened the soul's passage amid beliefs in . inscriptions from the Late Period (c. 664–332 BCE), including those in the and cat necropolises at , warn of eternal punishment for desecration, linking animal sanctity to ma'at (cosmic balance) and post-mortem judgment in the . Archaeological evidence from reveals over 300,000 mummified (c. 30 BCE–400 CE, reflecting earlier practices), buried as votive offerings to ensure favor in the , underscoring avoidance of harm as a purity rite tied to rebirth. (Histories 2.59, c. 440 BCE) corroborates self-punishment for accidental cat-killing, evidencing widespread cultural enforcement.

Monotheistic and Abrahamic Frameworks

In , the outlines extensive dietary taboos, including prohibitions against and , traditionally attributed to divine to during the ' wilderness period circa 1440 BCE. These laws, detailed in Leviticus 11, categorize animals as clean or unclean based on anatomical criteria such as cud-chewing and hoof-splitting for land animals, explicitly barring swine due to their failure to meet both. Archaeological evidence from sites in ancient and Judah reveals a near-total absence of bones in settlements—comprising less than 1% of faunal remains—contrasting sharply with higher frequencies (up to 20%) in contemporaneous Philistine contexts, underscoring the taboo's role in ethnic and demarcation. Hypotheses linking these restrictions to , such as risks of from or bacterial contamination in , align with empirical observations of disease vectors in ancient Near Eastern environments, though scriptural emphasis remains on symbolic holiness and separation from impurity. Islamic frameworks codify dietary taboos in the , prohibiting pork, carrion, blood, and animals not slaughtered with invocation of Allah's name (e.g., Quran 2:173, 5:3), with enforcement through historical caliphates and ongoing application to maintain purity. Gender segregation taboos, rooted in interpretations of Quranic calls for (e.g., 24:30-31), prescribe separation in spaces, public interactions, and non-mahram relations to avert fitna (temptation), historically reinforced by Ottoman and medieval jurists to preserve familial and communal order. These practices foster cohesion by standardizing behavioral norms across diverse Muslim populations, as evidenced in ethnographic accounts of observance strengthening in-group amid external pressures. Christianity retained core moral taboos from Hebrew scriptures, such as prohibitions in , with early enforcement evident in Paul's condemnation of a man's to his in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, circa 55 CE, demanding communal expulsion to uphold purity. While dietary laws were abrogated (e.g., Acts 10:9-16, :18-19), bans persisted and expanded under patristic and , prohibiting unions up to seventh-degree by the 4th century, often stricter than Roman precedents like the Lex Julia's limits on close kin. Anthropological surveys confirm the taboo's near-universality across cultures, prohibiting parent-child and sibling relations in over 99% of societies studied, rooted in observable genetic risks of (e.g., 30-50% increased mortality in offspring) rather than mere cultural invention, countering relativist assertions of pure arbitrariness by highlighting causal mechanisms in reproductive fitness and kin .

Evolutionary and Psychological Mechanisms

Biological and Evolutionary Origins

The incest taboo exemplifies an evolved mechanism rooted in , promoting genetic fitness by averting , which increases risks of recessive genetic disorders in offspring. Empirical support derives from the , where proximity during early childhood fosters sexual aversion toward familiar individuals, functioning as a proximate cue for detection independent of cultural rules. Studies of Israeli kibbutzim, where unrelated children were raised communally from infancy, reveal near-absent or rates among peers (less than 1% of marriages between kibbutz-mates from the same age cohort), contrasting with higher rates among non-co-reared individuals and underscoring a biological basis over alone. Food and bodily substance taboos similarly trace to an innate response, an adaptive module calibrated for avoidance in ancestral environments rife with fecal-oral transmission risks. Curtis and Biran (2001) proposed as a genetically influenced regulator, eliciting aversion to contaminants like , rotting matter, and undercooked to minimize probabilities, with cross-cultural consistencies in elicitors supporting evolutionary conservation. Experimental evidence links heightened sensitivity to reduced rates; for instance, in a 14-country study of over 700 participants, those with stronger responses exhibited fewer gastrointestinal illnesses over six months, correlating with avoidance of high-risk foods and behaviors. This module likely underpins taboos against consuming certain animals or during , as overgeneralized avoidance errs toward caution in uncertain disease contexts, enhancing survival amid imperfect detection of invisible threats. Evolutionary models in further posit taboos as byproducts of cognitive adaptations for navigating high-stakes domains, where error-prone favors prohibitions to mitigate rare but catastrophic risks. In small-scale societies, retrospective attribution of misfortunes (e.g., illness or ) to prior actions generates taboos via deterministic biases, as human cognition overattributes agency or to under , a trait selected for rapid avoidance over precision. Recent analyses (2024) of ethnographic data indicate such mechanisms predate cultural elaboration, with taboos persisting as low-cost heuristics in resource-scarce environments, though they can amplify via transmission without retaining original adaptive rationale. This framework aligns with broader evidence from , where overprohibitions in domains like , diet, and ritual contact buffered against existential hazards, yielding net reproductive advantages despite occasional inefficiencies.

Cognitive and Psychoanalytic Interpretations

Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic framework in (1913) traces the origins of taboo to unconscious guilt arising from a in a hypothesized primal horde, where sons overthrew and devoured a dominant to access females, only to establish prohibitions against and as atonement. This event, Freud argued, engendered —simultaneous reverence and hostility toward the father—manifesting in totemic rituals that sacralize the killer while forbidding its imitation, with taboos serving as enduring psychic defenses against repressed impulses. Freud's model posits these dynamics as universal, linking them to the , yet it faces criticism for lacking empirical ; philosopher contended that such theories resist disconfirmation by reinterpretation, positioning outside scientific norms despite its explanatory appeal. While direct evidence for the primal horde remains absent, patterns of familial rivalry and guilt in clinical cases informed Freud's views, though contemporary assessments emphasize interpretive over verifiable mechanisms. Contemporary complements this by attributing taboo formation to intuitive processes like hypersensitive agency detection, where humans retroactively infer intentional causation between unrelated events, yielding prohibitions against actions deemed ritually hazardous. For example, perceiving agency in misfortune may link innocuous behaviors to calamity via overattribution, as explored in models of applied to prohibitions since 2023. psychological studies reveal that taboo violations reliably induce anxiety, often via moral mechanisms that signal coalitional , with physiological responses mirroring avoidance but calibrated to breaches. These findings underscore taboos as emergent from error-prone rather than deliberate invention, though empirical work cautions against conflating 's universality with taboo content's arbitrariness. Taboo sexual behaviors often elicit heightened intensity due to psychological mechanisms that paradoxically enhance their allure. The "forbidden fruit effect" increases the desirability of prohibited acts. Reactance theory posits that restrictions on behavioral freedoms motivate greater engagement with taboo options. Obstacles to pursuit can amplify excitement, as reflected in psychological formulations equating attraction plus barriers to elevated arousal. Transgression-induced anxiety or disgust may transfer to or bolster sexual arousal, with arousal overriding inhibitory disgust responses and anxiety elevating physiological excitation. These processes contribute to the persistence of certain taboos by underscoring their motivational pull despite prohibitions.

Social Functions and Empirical Examples

Role in Group Cohesion and Norm Enforcement

Taboos serve as mechanisms for enforcing norms within groups by imposing costly restrictions that signal individuals' commitment to collective rules, thereby fostering reciprocity and reducing free-riding in cooperative interactions. According to costly signaling theory, behaviors such as adherence to taboos—whether dietary prohibitions or abstinences—function as honest signals because they entail verifiable sacrifices that defectors would be unwilling to bear, thus enhancing trust and intragroup solidarity. Empirical tests, including analyses of 19th-century American communes, demonstrate that groups enforcing more taboos and requirements exhibited greater longevity, with religious communes outlasting secular ones by an average factor of four, as the costs deterred opportunistic entry and promoted sustained . Enforcement of taboos through sanctions, such as or , deters norm violations by altering the payoff matrix in repeated interactions, making riskier than compliance. In small-scale societies, including groups, coordinated punishment mechanisms like , shaming, and exclusion have been observed to maintain high levels of , with studies indicating that the threat of reduces free-riding rates by incentivizing to shared prohibitions on hoarding or interpersonal . Cross-societal data from over 100 ethnographic accounts reveal that punishments for taboo violations—ranging from fines to —correlate with norm adherence, particularly in domains like food sharing and alliance formation, where reciprocity hinges on credible deterrence. However, excessively rigid taboos can undermine group stability by constraining adaptive responses to environmental pressures, potentially leading to maladaptive outcomes that stifle or utilization. Game-theoretic models suggest that when taboos evolve into inflexible commitments without mechanisms for revision, they may lock groups into suboptimal equilibria, as seen in historical cases where prohibitions on certain technologies or practices delayed necessary adjustments amid . Anthropological reviews highlight that over-enforcement of taboos, without flexibility for context-dependent exceptions, has contributed to reduced resilience in isolated communities, where the costs of blind adherence outweighed benefits in changing conditions.

Cross-Cultural Case Studies

Among the people of the in and , death rituals enforce strict taboos against prolonged contact with the deceased to avert spiritual contagion from the departed soul, known as utupö, which is believed to linger and cause illness or misfortune if not properly managed. Widows and close kin observe periods of isolation and during endocannibalism ceremonies, where the cremated remains are consumed in a banana mash to incorporate the spirit and prevent it from haunting the living; violation risks supernatural retaliation, such as disease outbreaks in the village. These practices, documented in ethnographic studies since the , illustrate how taboos function to contain perceived metaphysical dangers from mortality, with linking similar death-reminder scenarios to heightened norm adherence in paradigms. In , cultural taboos (veiqati) prohibit pregnant and lactating women from consuming certain reef , such as and , which are prone to bioaccumulating ciguatoxins responsible for —a neurotoxic illness causing gastrointestinal distress, neurological symptoms, and fetal harm, with incidence rates up to 100 cases per 1,000 people annually in high-risk areas. A 2010 empirical study analyzed 78 tabooed across Fijian ethnic groups, finding that 23% targeted ciguatera-prone , correlating with levels documented in assays; avoidance reduces by an estimated 50-70% for vulnerable groups, suggesting adaptive transmission over generations rather than arbitrary custom. Subsequent validations in the , incorporating updated mapping, confirm the taboos' protective efficacy against environmental hazards in ecosystems. In various African communities, such as the and groups in Ghana's , taboos invoking punishments—like ancestral curses or spirit afflictions for violations—regulate youth conduct, with 2020s surveys showing correlations to lower rates. For instance, prohibitions against theft or carry threats of , empirically linked to reduced school-based offenses and community disruptions; a 2025 analysis of Bayei practices found taboo adherence associated with 20-30% fewer reported delinquent acts among adolescents compared to non-observant peers, attributing this to internalized fear of otherworldly sanctions over formal policing. These mechanisms persist in rural settings, where ethnographic data indicate enforcement fills gaps in state oversight, fostering self-regulation through cultural narratives of cosmic .

Taboos in Modern Contexts

Evolution and Persistence of Traditional Taboos

The , a cornerstone of traditional prohibitions, persists globally despite industrialization and cultural modernization, underpinned by innate aversions shaped by risks. Genetic studies document that offspring from close-kin unions, such as first-degree relatives, exhibit elevated rates of congenital defects and mortality—up to 2-3 times higher than in non-consanguineous pairings—driving evolutionary selection for avoidance mechanisms like the , where proximity in fosters sexual disinclination. Longitudinal data from 2013-2024 confirm this aversion's robustness in urbanized populations, with psychophysiological responses (e.g., reduced arousal to imagery) holding steady across diverse socioeconomic contexts, indicating biological continuity over environmental flux. Food taboos similarly adapt amid , with core responses to pathogen-laden items enduring while specific practices wane due to enhanced hygiene infrastructure. In industrialized settings, consumption of and organ meats has declined sharply—e.g., intake in dropped over 50% from 1950 to 2000—linked to refrigerated supply chains and standards reducing contamination risks, yet surveys reveal persistent visceral aversion to these foods in urban diets, contrasting higher acceptance in rural or pre-industrial groups. This selective relaxation preserves adaptive caution against historical disease vectors, as evidenced by residual taboos against undercooked meats correlating with lower in modern cohorts. Generational transmission models elucidate this persistence, showing taboos' selective retention through familial encoding rather than institutional enforcement. Research from 2024-2025 frames taboos as culturally evolved cognitive biases, propagated via vertical learning (parent-to-child) and reinforced by emotional , with ethnographic studies in African communities demonstrating 70-80% continuity of behavioral prohibitions across generations despite exposure to global media. These models predict endurance in industrialized societies where nuclear families sustain implicit norms, adapting taboos to novel risks like chemical contaminants while discarding ecologically obsolete ones, per simulations integrating data.

Emergence of Ideological Taboos

In the latter half of the , ideological taboos began to solidify within Western intellectual and cultural spheres, particularly through the framework of , which imposed informal sanctions against questioning egalitarian assumptions on group differences. A 2024 survey of U.S. professors revealed widespread on empirically grounded but ideologically sensitive topics, such as the statement that "genetic differences explain non-trivial (10% or more) variance in race differences in intelligence test scores." Despite 59% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this conclusion's plausibility based on evidence, only 15% reported willingness to defend it publicly, citing fears of professional and reputational damage. This pattern extended to other claims, like the influence of on identification, where rates exceeded 70% among those privately endorsing the view. Such suppression reflects a departure from prior scientific norms, where debate on —evidenced by twin studies showing IQ variances of 50-80% genetic in adulthood—was more openly tolerated until ideological pressures intensified post-1960s. Shifts in gender and sexuality norms further illustrate rapid taboo formation, with pronoun usage and affirmation of self-identified gender becoming non-negotiable in institutional settings by the 2010s. Empirical data from evolutionary psychology, however, indicate persistent sex differences in mating preferences that conflict with fluid gender paradigms: meta-analyses across 37 cultures show men valuing physical cues of fertility (e.g., youth and attractiveness) at effect sizes of d=0.62, while women prioritize resource provision and status at d=0.75, patterns conserved over decades and aligning with reproductive asymmetries rather than cultural construction alone. Violations of these new taboos, such as biological sex references in policy debates, triggered swift institutional responses, including firings and deplatforming, as documented in cases from 2015 onward where academics faced investigations for citing chromosomal dimorphism. Media and social platforms amplified these taboos via dynamics from 2020 to 2025, enforcing conformity through public shaming and economic penalties. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's 2024 faculty survey found U.S. professors four times more likely to self-censor than during the McCarthy era, with 62% altering research or teaching to avoid controversy on ideological topics like race or disparities. This enforcement mechanism prioritized narrative alignment over falsification, as seen in heightened backlash cycles: data indicate 61% of adults were aware of by 2022, correlating with documented professional losses exceeding 100 high-profile cases annually in media tracking from 2020-2023, often without or evidence rebuttal. Such incidents, concentrated in left-leaning outlets and academia, underscore causal pathways where algorithmic amplification and institutional gatekeeping suppressed dissenting data, including longitudinal studies on IQ or mate selection universals.

Controversies, Debates, and Critiques

Universalism Versus Relativism

The debate between and regarding taboos examines whether such prohibitions arise from innate, biologically grounded or from arbitrary cultural inventions. Universalism posits that certain taboos reflect evolved cognitive and emotional adaptations, such as responses to pathogen risks or kinship disruptions, leading to convergent patterns across societies despite surface-level variations. Relativism, in contrast, views taboos as idiosyncratic products of cultural patterning, devoid of cross-cultural constants beyond historical . Empirical evidence favors universalism by highlighting adaptive necessities that override cultural . Cross-cultural databases like the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), encompassing ethnographic data from hundreds of societies, document near-universal taboos on between primary kin—observed in virtually all coded groups—and on corpse pollution, where contact with the dead triggers impurity avoidance to mitigate disease transmission risks. These prohibitions align with biological imperatives: taboos mitigate , as evidenced by the , where proximity in early childhood fosters sexual aversion, independent of explicit socialization. Corpse-related taboos similarly stem from pathogen-avoidance , a heritable trait promoting behaviors essential for group survival in pre-modern environments. Such convergences indicate causal realism—taboos as functional responses to universal ecological pressures—rather than relativistic caprice. Relativist arguments, advanced by anthropologist in her 1934 book Patterns of Culture, contended that taboo systems form holistic cultural "patterns" without innate universals, using examples like varying attitudes toward or to illustrate diversity. Critiques of this view, grounded in , reveal that Benedict's qualitative comparisons overlooked quantitative regularities and failed to account for selection pressures favoring similar solutions to shared problems, such as kin avoidance for genetic viability. Recent cognitive evolutionary studies reinforce universalism by tracing taboo formation to modular mechanisms, where core sensitivities to bodily violations underpin prohibitions, with cultural variations representing domain-general extensions rather than fundamental departures; for instance, a 2024 analysis models taboos' emergence from imitation-biased learning amplified by emotional aversion, yielding predictable cross-societal outcomes. This framework explains persistence amid diversity through first-principles causality: taboos endure where they confer fitness advantages, debunking pure relativism's denial of human nature's constraints.

Impacts on Inquiry and Free Expression

A 2024 survey of 1,348 U.S. professors documented significant on taboo conclusions, with 80% of respondents viewing certain hypotheses as professionally risky to endorse publicly. These taboos predominantly concerned genetic, evolutionary, or biological explanations for group differences in socially relevant outcomes, such as , criminality, or disparities in interests and abilities; professors who expressed private confidence in these conclusions reported higher rates of withholding them from colleagues, publications, or classrooms, fearing reputational harm or backlash. This pattern distorts perceived , as dissenting views remain unvoiced, impeding empirical scrutiny of causal factors like in cognitive traits, where twin studies indicate genetic influences exceeding 50% variance in . Such dynamics have manifested in 2020s campus controversies, where taboos surrounding biological sex have prioritized ideological commitments over evidence-based . For example, a 2024 debate at MIT on the resolution that " is biological and binary, and is no substitute for in " encountered resistance from faculty and administrators concerned with equity narratives, illustrating how taboo enforcement can sideline biological realities—such as chromosomal determination of in over 99.98% of humans—favoring subjective identities in policy discussions. Similarly, the faced a £585,000 fine in March 2025 from the UK's higher education regulator for restricting events critical of ideology, underscoring institutional pressures that chill open inquiry into sex-based differences in athletics or . These incidents reflect broader erosions, where academic norms increasingly defer to consensus-driven sensitivities rather than falsifiable data, as evidenced by surveys showing over 60% of faculty self-censoring on gender-related topics due to peer disapproval. Historical breakthroughs highlight the epistemic gains from defying taboos, as seen in Galileo's 1632 publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which championed against geocentric dogma rooted in scriptural interpretation. Despite condemnation by the in 1633 and , Galileo's telescopic observations—revealing Jupiter's moons and Venus's phases—provided causal evidence for a sun-centered model, catalyzing astronomical progress and underscoring how taboo challenges enable paradigm shifts toward mechanistic explanations of celestial motion. In modern parallels, such violations of orthodoxy have advanced fields like , where initial resistances to research yielded verifiable insights into risks and behavioral traits, demonstrating that taboos, while socially stabilizing, often exact costs in foregone knowledge by insulating untested assumptions from rigorous testing.

Evidence on Taboo Efficacy and Overreach

Empirical assessments of taboos reveal their capacity for short-term behavioral regulation in traditional settings, particularly in fostering among children, though such mechanisms often rely on cultural transmission rather than universal causal . In Vhavenḓa communities of , taboos serve as tools for nurturing proper conduct in by discouraging deviant behaviors and emphasizing moral principles, as documented in qualitative analyses of traditional practices. Similarly, across various African systems, taboos enforce by instilling and regulating actions through implicit sanctions, contributing to stability without formal institutions. These findings, drawn from ethnographic studies in 2025, suggest taboos' utility in resource-limited environments where they transmit safety knowledge and norm adherence effectively, though their success hinges on alignment with local ecological realities rather than inherent moral superiority. In contrast, evidence from modern societies points to overreach, where ideologically driven taboos correlate with suppressed discourse and adverse psychological outcomes. Among U.S. psychology professors, surveys indicate widespread self-censorship on taboo topics—such as those challenging prevailing narratives on group differences—driven by fears of professional repercussions, which distorts empirical inquiry and reinforces unsubstantiated assumptions. This pattern extends to broader societal effects, as youth anxiety and depression rates surged in the early 2020s, with U.S. adolescent reports of persistent sadness rising from 27% in 2011 to 42% by 2021, coinciding with heightened enforcement of speech norms on platforms and in institutions that penalize dissent on identity-related issues. While multifactorial— including social media exposure—these declines align temporally with expanded taboos against open debate on topics like gender transitions or racial narratives, potentially exacerbating isolation by limiting adaptive coping through frank discussion, though longitudinal causation requires further isolation from confounders like pandemic isolation. From an evolutionary standpoint, taboos yield net utility in acute scenarios by bolstering group cohesion through rapid norm enforcement, akin to mechanisms favoring and in small-scale societies, but rigid application risks long-term stagnation by curtailing variance in behavioral experimentation essential for . Models in highlight how overly prescriptive norms, while stabilizing short-term , impede when environmental pressures demand flexibility, as seen in historical shifts where taboo-breaking spurred technological leaps. Empirical proxies, such as self-censorship's role in slowing progress on contentious hypotheses, underscore this : taboos curb maladaptive outliers effectively but, absent empirical validation, foster dogmatic overreach that hampers collective problem-solving in dynamic contexts. Thus, their efficacy diminishes when moralistic enforcement supplants evidence-based reasoning, prioritizing symbolic purity over verifiable outcomes.

References

  1. https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9655.14098
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/taboo
  3. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20201026-the-origin-of-the-word-taboo
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371600053_The_Cognitive_Origin_and_Cultural_Evolution_of_Taboos_in_Human_Societies
  5. https://psyche.co/ideas/cultural-taboos-arise-from-a-basic-feature-of-the-human-mind
  6. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7312/columbia/9780231165006.001.0001/upso-9780231165006-chapter-3
  7. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=taboo
  8. https://altalang.com/beyond-words/etymology-of-taboo/
  9. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/anthropology/chpt/taboos.pdf
  10. https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/douglas.powersdangers.pdf
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11319820/
  12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05734-7
  13. https://www.thoughtco.com/folkways-mores-taboos-and-laws-3026267
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/665843
  15. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42067/42067-h/42067-h.html
  16. https://www.templeofearth.com/books/goldenbough.pdf
  17. https://anglicanhistory.org/oceania/codrington/melanesians1915.html
  18. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Melanesians.html?id=GKWLXhHNsewC
  19. https://monoskop.org/images/4/41/Malinowski_Bronislaw_Argonauts_of_the_Western_Pacific_2002.pdf
  20. https://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html
  21. https://revisesociology.com/2018/06/18/functionalist-perspective-religion-durkheim/
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/nov/03/claude-levi-strauss
  23. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=nebanthro
  24. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=theses
  25. https://books.openedition.org/pulg/17971?lang=en
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378042599_Hinduism_and_Caste_system
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309534346_Taboos_in_Ancient_Egypt
  28. https://www.gotquestions.org/when-was-Leviticus-written.html
  29. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/israelite-diet-archaeology/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331600375_Food_Pork_Consumption_and_Identity_in_Ancient_Israel
  31. https://prateekdg.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-the-pork-taboo
  32. https://www.lcg.org/articles/biblical-dietary-laws-explained
  33. https://ijrah.com/index.php/ijrah/article/download/262/407/580
  34. https://www.youngmuslimdigest.com/society/12/2015/gender-segregation-the-islamic-perspective/
  35. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004693135/BP000012.xml?language=en
  36. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00938157.2014.903151
  37. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5kf6j344
  38. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.150.3.411
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10358401/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26014825/
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11253302/
  42. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2018552118
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3013466/
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377978740_The_cognitive_origin_and_cultural_evolution_of_taboos_in_human_societies
  45. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-024-09470-w
  46. https://nosubject.com/Parricide
  47. https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw236/
  48. http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/cst-311/popper_conjectures_refutations.pdf
  49. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16777/1/Four%2520Examples%2520of%2520Pseudoscience.pdf
  50. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2024.2422173
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260117300357
  52. https://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/articles/haidt.rozin.1997.body-psyche-culture.pub009.pdf
  53. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-matters/201501/3-reasons-why-disgust-can-become-sexual-turn
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044180/
  55. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1069397103037002003
  56. https://www.cognitionandculture.net/wp-content/uploads/Sosis_2003_CommuneLongevity.pdf
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10426015/
  58. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coevol_lab/files/annurev-psych-081920-042106.pdf
  59. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2023.0034
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227363146_Taboos_and_Identity_Considering_the_Unthinkable
  61. https://blog.sevenponds.com/cultural-perspectives/yanomami-death-ritual-of-endocannibalism
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275408012_Securing_a_Life_for_the_Dead_among_the_Yukpa_The_exhumation_ritual_as_a_temporary_synchronisation_of_worlds
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2992713/
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45406257_The_evolution_of_cultural_adaptations_Fijian_food_taboos_protect_against_dangerous_marine_toxins
  65. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/the-role-of-taboo-in-behavior-regulation-in-selected-african-communities/
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386258069_The_Enduring_Influence_of_Taboos_in_Social_Regulation_Insights_from_the_Peki_Community_Volta_Region_Ghana
  67. http://mojaafryka.weebly.com/taboos.html
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332379920_An_examination_of_the_Westermarck_hypothesis_and_the_role_of_disgust_in_incest_avoidance_among_fathers_accepted
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259143356_The_Westermarck_effect_revisited_A_psychophysiological_study_of_sibling_incest_aversion_in_young_female_adults
  70. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-020-09764-0
  71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-023-01391-3
  72. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2010.0149
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9104313/
  74. https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9655.14098
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394884090_Nurturing_the_Next_Generation_through_Tshivenda_Taboos_The_Power_of_Tradition_in_Child_Development
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062025000209
  77. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916241252085
  78. https://www.psypost.org/psychology-professors-often-self-censor-on-controversial-topics-study-finds/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12408927/
  80. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2019/03/mate-preferences-and-their-behavioral-manifestations-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2019.pdf
  81. https://news.utexas.edu/2015/08/06/genders-differ-dramatically-in-evolved-mate-preferences/
  82. https://www.thefire.org/facultyreport
  83. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/09/a-growing-share-of-americans-are-familiar-with-cancel-culture/
  84. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2025/01/09/watching-their-words-us-faculty-say-theyre-self
  85. https://hraf.yale.edu/resources/reference/outline-of-cultural-materials/
  86. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/597178
  87. https://www.livinganthropologically.com/ruth-benedict-culture/
  88. https://www.mitfreespeech.org/spring_2024_debate_is_sex_bin.php
  89. https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/07/06/how-universities-went-to-war-with-biological-facts/
  90. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo
  91. https://www.history.com/articles/galileo-copernicus-earth-sun-heresy-church
  92. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/nurturing-the-next-generation-through-tshiven%25E1%25B8%2593a-taboos-the-power-of-tradition-in-child-development/
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331659323_The_Role_of_Taboos_in_African_Governance_Systems
  94. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/us-youths-mental-health-slide-began-covid-pandemic-data-suggest
  95. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/child-and-adolescent-mental-health-outcomes-are-declining-despite-continued-improvements-in-well-being-indicators
  96. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10107318/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.