![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, by Mary Douglas
Disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist and know nothing about anthropology aside from a 100-level course taken in 2010.
Somebody mentioned this book on Tumblr, and anthropology books can be great reads, so I bootlegged a pdf. Spoilers, it was a decent read. It is less an in-depth examination of a single culture and more the presentation of a theory, a framework for thinking about the intersections between spirituality and society in the context of pollution. As such, it's less in-depth, with the author discussing most religions only briefly, and only to punctuate talking points. Sometimes it has the feel of an English essay - which is most likely a deliberate choice, as she explicitly discusses analyzing the Bible as any other literary text. It meanders from topic to topic in ways that relate to the main theme but occasionally seem a bit self-indulgent on the author's part (such as an extensive airing of grievances with anthropologists past).
(Please note the language used is academic and British. Be prepared to Google a few words if you're not familiar with the field.)
Apparently this book is considered a classic in the field of anthropology, and I can see why. It was first published in 1966, and it could very well be that the author's comments about religion vs magic (among other things) were some of the first to shake up the old imperialist/colonialist definitions. However, there are some signs of the time that could unsettle the unprepared. The author's insistence that those who refuse to refer to cultures of study as "primitive" are the real racists is one of them. The unflattering portrayal of women surviving in misogynistic cultures is another. In one particular instance, the author describes a society in which men brutally/violently dominate women, then describes unmarried men as "seducing" the wives of others - an interesting choice of word. If that is troubling, there are probably more recent books that have further developed the theory here without the..."dated" implications.
The main thesis is that pollution, and its counterpart purity, are concepts that protect the weak points of social structure. It creates a framework for culturally-approved modes of thought. Disorder must be tamed to preserve the order of civilization, and rituals are one way of channeling or denying the power in pollution. Hence, corruption and sanctity are not necessarily opposed. This framework is valuable to anyone interested in the human condition.
One particular void is that the author claims that the theory is only applicable to "primitive cultures" - that "modern cultures", with their social differentiation and disassociation from mythology, don't process their own structures in such a mystical way. Not overtly, maybe, and maybe not in a uniform manner, but there are definitely situations that can be viewed through the lens of spiritual pollution (especially in the time of the first edition's publishing). Homophobia and rape comes to mind. In fact, there's one small section in which the author discusses the impulse to ask "why did this happen" about tragic but natural-seeming events; she frames it as a question about possible witchcraft, but it could just as easily have been written about those rape avoidance checklists. "Modern cultures" have much fertile ground to be plowed with this theory.
(Another side note: the author seems to be an atheist raised in a Christian culture. In one breath she'll discuss Christianity as any other religious system, then talk about how Protestants are more "advanced" than Catholics are more "advanced" than Hindus the next. The fact that this is a thing in general is really weird.)
There's a tendency to view theories and schools of thought as objective statements of reality and not...useful frameworks to approach it, if that makes sense. I'm guilty of this, sometimes. The author holds no such illusions, and near the end of the book frankly discusses some limitations. Live religions are constantly changing, shaping the greater society and being shaped by it. They have a wide range of idiosyncrasies and vestigial traits. Public and private behavior are not always aligned. Therefore, the author says that it's most likely impossible for an outsider to quantify if a particular society is officially "dirt-affirming" (acknowledging pollution as an essential part of the system) or "dirt-rejecting" (focusing on purity and maintenance of "legitimate" structures). The solution naturally seems to be encouraging people to study their own cultures.
...I admit that's an impractical and Utopian statement.
In any case, the book, despite some problematic qualities, has food for thought. If you're at all interested in anthropology, even if it's just for worldbuilding your Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting, I recommend taking a look.
Somebody mentioned this book on Tumblr, and anthropology books can be great reads, so I bootlegged a pdf. Spoilers, it was a decent read. It is less an in-depth examination of a single culture and more the presentation of a theory, a framework for thinking about the intersections between spirituality and society in the context of pollution. As such, it's less in-depth, with the author discussing most religions only briefly, and only to punctuate talking points. Sometimes it has the feel of an English essay - which is most likely a deliberate choice, as she explicitly discusses analyzing the Bible as any other literary text. It meanders from topic to topic in ways that relate to the main theme but occasionally seem a bit self-indulgent on the author's part (such as an extensive airing of grievances with anthropologists past).
(Please note the language used is academic and British. Be prepared to Google a few words if you're not familiar with the field.)
Apparently this book is considered a classic in the field of anthropology, and I can see why. It was first published in 1966, and it could very well be that the author's comments about religion vs magic (among other things) were some of the first to shake up the old imperialist/colonialist definitions. However, there are some signs of the time that could unsettle the unprepared. The author's insistence that those who refuse to refer to cultures of study as "primitive" are the real racists is one of them. The unflattering portrayal of women surviving in misogynistic cultures is another. In one particular instance, the author describes a society in which men brutally/violently dominate women, then describes unmarried men as "seducing" the wives of others - an interesting choice of word. If that is troubling, there are probably more recent books that have further developed the theory here without the..."dated" implications.
The main thesis is that pollution, and its counterpart purity, are concepts that protect the weak points of social structure. It creates a framework for culturally-approved modes of thought. Disorder must be tamed to preserve the order of civilization, and rituals are one way of channeling or denying the power in pollution. Hence, corruption and sanctity are not necessarily opposed. This framework is valuable to anyone interested in the human condition.
One particular void is that the author claims that the theory is only applicable to "primitive cultures" - that "modern cultures", with their social differentiation and disassociation from mythology, don't process their own structures in such a mystical way. Not overtly, maybe, and maybe not in a uniform manner, but there are definitely situations that can be viewed through the lens of spiritual pollution (especially in the time of the first edition's publishing). Homophobia and rape comes to mind. In fact, there's one small section in which the author discusses the impulse to ask "why did this happen" about tragic but natural-seeming events; she frames it as a question about possible witchcraft, but it could just as easily have been written about those rape avoidance checklists. "Modern cultures" have much fertile ground to be plowed with this theory.
(Another side note: the author seems to be an atheist raised in a Christian culture. In one breath she'll discuss Christianity as any other religious system, then talk about how Protestants are more "advanced" than Catholics are more "advanced" than Hindus the next. The fact that this is a thing in general is really weird.)
There's a tendency to view theories and schools of thought as objective statements of reality and not...useful frameworks to approach it, if that makes sense. I'm guilty of this, sometimes. The author holds no such illusions, and near the end of the book frankly discusses some limitations. Live religions are constantly changing, shaping the greater society and being shaped by it. They have a wide range of idiosyncrasies and vestigial traits. Public and private behavior are not always aligned. Therefore, the author says that it's most likely impossible for an outsider to quantify if a particular society is officially "dirt-affirming" (acknowledging pollution as an essential part of the system) or "dirt-rejecting" (focusing on purity and maintenance of "legitimate" structures). The solution naturally seems to be encouraging people to study their own cultures.
...I admit that's an impractical and Utopian statement.
In any case, the book, despite some problematic qualities, has food for thought. If you're at all interested in anthropology, even if it's just for worldbuilding your Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting, I recommend taking a look.