Mary Douglas (p 154, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Pollution and Taboo, 2002, Routledge) argues that in the Hindu caste system the revulsion to touching corpses is not mainly from the individual's psychological fear of being defiled (by contact with a lower caste) but a sociological fear of being responsible for pollution of their caste ... that "this anxiety about bodily margins expresses danger to group survival." As an example to support this argument she points-out that Hindus have an equal revulsion to touching feces, but that the Indian will squat and defecate anywhere, even in the most public of places, without even seeking cover. If the pollution rule expressed individual anxieties, then one would expect Hindus to be more controlled and secretive about the act of defecation. In other words, the taboos (touching corpses or feces) are predicated on sociological underpinnings, not individual psychological anxieties.
One possible source for the fear/taboo of touching corpses (among American Protestant communities) is likely the too literal reading and application of Biblical passages by ignorant preachers. It's related to the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." For example, in Numbers 31:19, even the Israelite soldiers, favored by God Almighty to slaughter the Midianites in a holy/sanctified war, are defiled by touching the corpses, and must make atonement. There is exhaustive discussion of Biblical and rabbinical defilement via the touching of corpses (developed around the issue of allowing rabbis to study medicine and become medical doctors even though they knowingly will be defiled by touching corpses) in Fred Rosner's Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law (2001, KTAV Publishing House, Inc.).
On the other hand (pun intended), touching corpses was believed by some (e.g., early American medical practitioners) to have efficacy in curing certaain ailments. The directions of a popular colonia era prescription being:
"If you have a goitre in your neck, rub a dead person's hand over it three times. As the body decays, the goitre will disappear."
Bob Skiles
~~~~~~~~~~
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. -Will Rogers
>>>Edward Griffin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:49:33 -0500
>>>From: Edward Griffin <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Subject: Taboo about touching corpses
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>One of my graduate students, Liz Hutter, brought this question to
>>>me,
>>>and I blush to confess that I have no answer. So I thought I'd
>>>send it
>>>to all of you and hope that somebody will point us in the proper
>>>direction. I can forward replies to her. Here's Liz's query:
>>>
>>>In my research (late eighteenth century) on preventing and saving
>>>individuals from accidents that could cause sudden death, I have
>>>come
>>>upon a couple of brief references to social taboos that prevented
>>>people
>>>from touching or assisting an apparently dead body because
>>>corpses were
>>>not supposed to be touched. I have been trying to locate other
>>>primary
>>>and/or secondary discussions of such a taboo about corpses. Where
>>>did it
>>>come from? Why was a corpse not to be touched, especially one
>>>without
>>>visible indications of illness? I surmised at first that the
>>>literature
>>>on premature burial might provide some clues, but I haven't had
>>>any
>>>luck. I would consider anything from the 18th and 19th centuries;
>>>the
>>>17th century, too, if that is relevant. Do you have any ideas of
>>>sources
>>>that might illuminate reasons for this taboo? Or suggestions
>>>about where
>>>such information might be found?
>>>
>>>
>>>Edward M. Griffin
>>>Department of English
>>>University of Minnesota
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Amy C. Kowal, RPA
>>>Department of Anthropology
>>>Florida State University
>>>Tallahassee, FL 32306-7772
>>>(850) 644-4281
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>---------------------------------
>>>Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
>>>in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
