From
Lipot Szondi, Ich-Analyse [=
Ego
Analysis]
Translated by
Arthur C. Johnston
© 2008
By Arthur C. Johnston, PhD
Please Observe: The copyright of this article (in German or =
in
English) belongs to the Szondi Institute and to Dr. Arthur C. Johnston. Thi=
s means
you may not duplicate this article without their permissions.
Chapter
XIV:
Negation. Denial.
=
Concept and Forms of Negation
Negation is the partly unconscious and partly cons=
cious
elementary striving of the ego with avoidance, denial, inhibition, =
alienation,
and repression of definite demands, ideas, and ideals.
=
=
The
extreme goal of negation is destruc=
tion
of the imagination [Desimagination], thus the destruction of the
ideals of being and having, in short: Destruction. Denial is thus fundamentally the
antipode of incorporation. The
result of introjection is, as is well known,
=
= Introjection (k+) and negation (k-) form a functional pair of opposites. = We call the wholeness of both functions: The position taking k ego or ego systole or ego constriction. Ego systole is a between-factorial ego concept. Because the constriction is originally directed against the expansion and a= gainst the diastole of the internal world and not against the external world.<= o:p>
=
=
If the
systole overvalues the relation of the person to the external world, then t=
his
is mostly pathological. [Thus=
, for
example, with the negativism of the catatonic.] W=
ith
the denying constriction, the ego is compelled to contain, on the one hand, its readiness for=
boundless
expansion and its excessive projection capability and, on the other hand,
however, also to deny the have ideals of introjection since they appear to =
it
useless and impossible. Ego s=
ystole
is consequently constantly a deflat=
ion
or a deprojection or a countering of introjection. That means: The denying ego systole is taking a constricting
position against inflation, against projection, and against introjection. How can the ego, however, take a
position against the ego diastole?
Only by the means that it tu=
rns itself
outward and examines reality.
That is the end goal of the task of the "k" ego. Real=
ity
testing can, according to Freud, take place in two directions.
=
=
The
ego tests on the one hand if the strivings, ideas, and ideals are good or
bad. The good will be accepte=
d and
introjected (k+); the bad denie=
d and cast
out (k-).
=
=
On the
other hand the ego tests reality by determining if the contents of the proj=
ections
and inflations are or are not to be found actually
in the external world.
=
=
Only
through this reality testing directed to the external can the position taki=
ng k ego limit the inflative or proje=
ctive
ego diastole. This fact can c=
larify
the apparent paradoxical experience that namely the "constricting k ego" turns the person to the
external world -- thus he or she becomes extraverted; on the other hand, the
"expanding" p ego turns him or her to the internal world -- thus =
becoming
introverted.
=
Similarly as with projection one can also with negati=
on
differentiate a primary and a secondary process.
=
Primary negation is exclusively leveled at the i=
nner
realm and is satisfied by constriction of the ego diastole tendencies. This constriction is executed precisely =
through
reality testing and thus throug=
h extraversion. The "k" ego calls virtually for help from the external world in
order to defend itself against the danger of boundless diastole in the inte=
rior
world. This restricting form is healthy and expresses itself in adaptation.
=
Secondary negation, however, goes further. It does not content itself with the
limiting of possession [or obsession] (p+)
or projection (p-), but destroy=
s all
ideals of having. It draws the ego back from the ext=
ernal
world completely. Consequentl=
y the
ego capsulates itself from the outer world completely. It consists of an ego barrier to the inner realm (k-!!)
as also to the outer (C - -).
=
Introjection and negation are consequentl=
y both
reality testing k ego functions.
With the introjection this reality tester says yes; with negation, n=
o.
=
=
In our
culture negation is the most frequently used elementary function of the ego=
; on
the other hand, it is projection in the case of primitives. This fact was experimentally estab=
lished
by us1 first and then confirmed by others i=
n the
first place by F. Soto Yarritu 2 a=
nd E.
Percy.3
=
=
The position
taking k ego can deny personal,
collective, and familial contents of the p
ego, and consequently yields thus the well-known three forms with negation:=
(1)
Personal, (2) collective, and (3) familial denial.
=
1. Personal Negation
(a) Psychoanalytical Interpretatio=
n
=
Negation
is personal, when the ego denie=
s ideas,
strivings, or ideals that once belonged to the personal stock of the repres=
sed unconscious.
=
=
The
circumstance that S. Freud until 1926 had recognized repression as the only=
important
manner of defense in the teachings on neuroses makes it understandable why =
he
has given the definition of "denial" only from the standpoint of
repression. It is: "Deni=
al is
a manner of bringing up repressed knowledge, actually already a raising-up =
of
repression but certainly no acceptance of the repressed...." "A r=
epressed
representation or thinking content can penetrate thus to consciousness under
the condition that it lets itself be denied."4
=
=
From
the teachings of Freud on denial we present the following statements:
=
=
1. Denial is an intellectual and cons=
cious
judgment function.
=
=
2. With this process the intellectual
function separates however from the affect process. Then through the denial, the resul=
t of
the repression process is only made to come back, namely that the conception
contents of repression do not succeed to become conscious. Through the denial process a path =
for
the repressed idea is made open to consciousness; the idea is however denie=
d.
=
=
The
essential in repression -- namely the affective
part -- undergoes nevertheless immediate denial. Freud says, "Something in jud=
gment
denies; fundamentally it consists in something of the greatest love that the
ego must repress. The condemn=
ation
is an intellectual substitute for the repression; its no is a sign thereby =
as
an original certificate for something that was ‘made in
=
=
Denial
consequently according to psychoanalysis is a release of repressed contents to consciousness, whose contents =
subsequently
are denied nevertheless through the intellectual judgment function.
=
=
3. In addition, however, also introje=
ction
and, consequently, introjective identification, according to psychoanalysis=
, is
a judgment function. Freud fi=
nds
the difference in the following:
=
=
The
judgment function of the ego works in two directions, and indeed at one tim=
e in
the "pleasure ego" and another time in the "reality ego.&quo=
t; The "pleasure ego" asks:=
Should
the perception and idea be or not be accepted into the ego?
=
=
The
judgment function of this "pleasure ego" is evident: That all good
should be incorporated in the ego -- orally expressed "eaten up";=
all
bad on the other hand should be -- as foreign to the ego -- denied -- or mo=
re orally
"spit out." Introje=
ction is
thus, from the standpoint of the pleasure ego, out of the choice of the good and the assimilation of the good into the eg=
o.
=
=
On the
other hand denial is the fate of all that is strange and an outside being, =
and thus
is bad. One can say: Denial i=
s the
result of the xenophobia of the ego.
=
=
The
second question is placed by the reality ego. It says: Is the idea present in
reality? This is a question of
reality testing.
=
=
Freud states,
"Experience has taught that it is not only important if a thing (objec=
t of
satisfaction) possesses ‘good’ characteristics; that is, the
acceptance is deserved by the ego, but also if
it is present in the outer world so that one can seize it according to =
one’s
need."6 He se=
es the
first purpose of reality testing therein that the ego must satisfy itself i=
f an
object corresponding to the representation still further exists in the outer world and if consequently that ther=
e is
a real possibility for it to be found again.
=
=
4. The condition for setting up of ea=
ch
reality testing is according to Freud: The loss of objects, which made poss=
ible
real satisfactions in the past.=
This thesis of Freud is indicated =
experimentally
by us through the coupling of the reactions m-
and k -.
=
=
5. Freud goes still further and makes=
the
bold attempt to attribute the origin of intellectual judgment capabilities =
–
including those of reality testing and denial -- to the roots of the primary
drive excitations. He states:
"Affirmation -- as substitute for union -- belongs to Eros; denial -- =
the
result of ejecting -- belongs to the destructive drive [Thanatos].7
=
=
(b) Fate Analytical [Schicksals=
analytsche]
Interpretation
=
In
psychoanalysis the process of denial is considered as a process of second
degree.
=
=
Denial
is for the psychoanalysts constantly a secondary and intellectual substitute=
for
repression, which always represents the primary
process in the soul’s depths.
=
=
The
interpretation of fate psychology [Schicksalspsychology] deviates fr=
om
the Freudian principles. Two =
events
have contributed to this deviation in the definition of denial.
=
=
First,
the circumstance that after 1926 in psychoanalytical theories of defense, r=
epression
had generally lost also its exclusive and ubiquitous position.8<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> One begins to recognize besides re=
pression
also other independent kinds of defenses.
=
=
Second,
in particular the results of experimental ego analysis since 1935 has force=
d us
to interpret denial as a primordial elementary function of the ego. From the standpoint of experimenta=
l ego analysis
we must represent the processes in the case of negation as follows:
=
=
I. Negation
is an elementary function of the ego, which actually is of such an
elementary nature that it represents an ego radical just like projection,
inflation, and introjection.
=
=
II.
Negation is not to be understood as an intellectual replacement of repressi=
on, but
repression is itself only a subordi=
nate
form of the elementary ego function of negation. Precisely in that consists the rev=
ision
of the negation concept. In t=
he ego
teachings of fate analysis negation is a principal concept, a genus prox=
imum;
repression, on the other hand, is only a first among parts [primus inter pares], thus only one of the important subordinate parts, which -- as al=
so with
the other denial defense forms -- are subordinate
under the chief category of negation.
=
III. Negation is not always a conscious intellectual
judgment function =
of the
ego as psychoanalysis assumes. The ego can deny
demands and ideas that are not conscious. We enumerate
the following variations of unconscious negation:
=
=
1. Unconscious
negation of unconscious projections: Unconscious adaptation. This process is the chief form of =
denial
and makes up the essence of each
adaptation to reality. Pl=
easure
demands and power expansions are transferred out of the personal and freque=
ntly
also out of the familial and collective unconscious,
and the position taking ego denies them, without
the person himself being made conscious either of the process of projection=
or
of negation.
=
=
2. Unconscious
negation of unconscious obsessions [possessions], of inflations, and of
doublings. They appear
clinically in the form of inhibitio=
ns. The person, however, becomes consc=
ious
neither of inflation nor of negation.
Frequently however the obsession or the doubling tendency (ambitende=
ncy)
becomes conscious; on the other hand, the process of denial in the form of
inhibition is discharged unconsciously.&nb=
sp;
This is particularly the case with conversion hysteria.
=
= 3. Unconscious negation of latent femininity, respectively abandonment: Estrangement.<= o:p>
=
=
This
process leads to clinical phenomena that is registered as estrangement and depers=
onalization
or, perhaps, as jealousy delusions<=
/i>. In these cases the person is missi=
ng the
slightest suspicion that he denies his abandonment or his femininity. Its clinical symptomatology expres=
ses
itself only in the uncomfortable feeling that all is strange, dead-like or =
gray,
that the objects of the world have become flat or small, that sounds come a=
s if
from a distance, etc. In addi=
tion
one observes increased self-observations (hypochondria). That the person denies something a=
nd, in
particular, what he denies remain completely unconscious to him.
=
4. Of c=
ourse
the prohibited need as also its denial with the repression =
is constantly unconscious.
=
=
5. Negativisms, in particular with cat=
atonic
schizophrenia, are unconscious denial processes, which -- as we proved
experimentally -- lay hidden as unconscious destruction of false ideal form=
ations
(destruction of imagination and iconoclastic destructions).9 The denial of ideal formations up =
to
destruction is unconscious for the sick person.
=
=
6. The
unconscious negation of the backgrounds [the background ego]. The drive dialectic research with t=
he
complementary method has convinced us that the ego of the foreground (the
so-called foreground ego) must =
often
either deny the whole background or
negate particular functions of the background, in particular the background ego. Naturally this negation of the
backgrounds likewise is an unconsci=
ous
process.10 Thus wi=
th the
adaptation (Sch =3D - -) of the
foreground ego constantly is denied the narcissistic ego of the background,
which must be everything and have everything (Sch =3D + +).
=
=
The
foreground ego of the inhibited man (Sch
=3D - +) denies energetically his antipode in the background, namely the au=
tistic
undisciplined background ego (Sch =3D +
-). In the case where repression is established, the repressing and denying
power of the foreground-ego (Sch =3D -
0) in particular is against the background ego, which actually affirms the
femininity and consequently supports the same sexuality (Sch =3D + ±).
=
=
The
ego analyst in the case of negativist-destructive catatonia and the cataton=
oid
(Sch =3D -!! – or Sch -!! 0) has convinced us that t=
he
sick person with the destructive denial is trying to destroy mostly the
background needs, which precisely lead to exaggerated ideal formation and
hyper-identification (Sch =3D +=
!!
+). The greater the negativis=
m in
the case of a sick person, the greater is the demand to have everything (k+!) and to be everythi=
ng
(p+!).
=
=
Naturally
this process in the case of catatonia is likewise unconscious.
=
=
These
only briefly cited results of ego analysis have moved us to revise the deni=
al concept. We maintain:
=
=
Denial
is no intellectual and conscious process, where the person tries to make the
repressed return. Negation is=
a
primary, mostly unconscious elementary function of the ego, which exhibits =
the following
five manifestations:
=
1. Adaptation: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Sch =3D - -
2. Inhibition: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Sch =3D - +
3. Estrangement: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Sch =3D - ±
4. Repression: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Sch =3D - 0
5. Negativism: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; } Sch =3D -!! -
De=
struction
of imagination: } =
Sch
=3D -!! 0
Destruction: =
&nb=
sp; } Sch =3D -!!! – or -!!! 0.
=
=
The common
factor in these five ego processes is denial:
Which manifests itself in the test in the reaction: k-.
=
=
The separating
of the differences among the five negation forms consists, on the one hand,=
in
the phase differences of the ego diastole, thus in factor p (p =3D - or + or =
±
or 0) or, on the other hand, in the quantity of denial.
=
*
=
In the
theories of defense we will treat in detail the five subordinate forms of t=
he main
defense category "negation" in all their relationships.
=
=
Adaptation,
inhibition, estrangement, repression, negativism, and destruction are all o=
nly
different forms of the same saying =
no. Saying
no is the most human and nevertheless the most fateful [verhängnisvollste] statement of humans. The
differences in this saying no g=
o in
two directions.
=
=
First
of all, whether that which the person denies represents an object of projec=
tion
or inflation or both ego diastolic processes or introjection.
=
=
Secondly,
whether the strength of the denying is an adapting, inhibiting, estranging,
repressing, or substantial destructing force. Briefly, the quantity of the denying strength determines the expression =
form
of the denial.
=
=
If the ego in adaptive form says no=
and if
the denied object is a wish that it has transferred into the world, then one
consider this adaptation.
=
=
Says
the ego no to all that which can be promising for being great and being eve=
rything,
and this demand to being like God becomes denied through constriction of on=
e’s
ego function, thus one speaks about inhibition.
=
The ego says no to the abandonment and to all demands=
of
femaleness, which move in one, and these demands are energetically ejected<=
/span> and denied continuously, then estrangement pr=
esents
itself.
=
=
Says the
ego no in pathologically repressing=
something
about which it itself knows no more but which it has known before, thus one
speaks of repression.
=
=
Says
the ego inflexibly and rigidly no to everything that it w=
ishes deeply
to have and to be, then we speak of negativism.
=
=
If the
ego destroys with violence all
ideals, which it had once itself practiced with devotion, thus one speaks o=
f destruction of imagination and of =
destruction both in the case of
criminals and unrestrained maniacs.
=
=
The
what and the how much of denial is consequently different. Saying no is constantly the same i=
n all
these forms of denying taking of a position.
=
=
And
consequently the form and the degree of saying
no of this elementary function of the ego becomes one of the most impor=
tant
factors of existence [Daseins], which determines the fate of the
individual and the history of mankind.
=
2. Collective Negation
=
One
can consider the phenomenon of collective negation under two aspects. First a denial is then of a collec=
tive
nature, when the individual avoids, denies, inhibits, estranges, or repress=
es not
personal but definite universal=
human
impulses and ideas from the collect=
ive
unconscious. The denied
contents in this case belong to the collective
and not to the personal stock of the soul.=
The designation "collective" will signify in this case
consequently the collective origin of ideas or impulses negated by the
individual. Thus, in the same=
sense
as we have emphasized the collectiv=
e
nature with projection, inflation and introjection.
=
=
One
can call collective negation,
however, also all rules and prohibitions of religion, the state, the group,=
the
clans, by which any collective grou=
p
denies certain behaviors of individuals.&n=
bsp;
If the denying court is the person himself, then the prohibition com=
es
from within, and the denied need is other than that of a collective
nature. If, on the other hand=
, the
denying court is a collective group (group, clan, state, church, etc.), the=
n the
prohibition comes from outside,=
and
the person is compelled by moral, religious or state limitations to renounc=
e a
personal or collective need.
=
=
In the
first volume of Triebpathologie =
[Drive Pathology=
] we have specified as
follows the differences between ethics and morals:
=
Ethics is the inner prohibition and the i=
nner
law against killing and against incest love.
It is based on the root factor e. This prohibition bears constantly a
"holy" (sacred) character.
=
Morals is the outer prohibition against c=
ertain
behaviors that are prohibited by society.
Morals are based on the root factor hy.
It develops the shame barriers. Fate psychology sees t=
he commonality
of these two kinds of "shrinking or narrowing" in that ethical as well as moral defense mecha=
nisms
represent affective derivations.
Both are phenomenon of the p=
aroxysmal
circle. We have grounds, howe=
ver, to
assume that the ego as also wit=
h the
so-called affective kinds of de=
fense
remains the leading court. Wi=
thout
the ego there is neither ethics nor morals.
=
=
Under
this criterion collective negation can originate at one time with the help =
of the
internal law, the ethics. In this case the ego denies a coll=
ective
need -- like killing or incest -- out of an inner
prohibition. At other times, =
however,
the collective negation appears as a moral
denial, whereby thus a personal felt demand is denied because the outside power of the group (clan),=
class,
society, country, municipality, or church prohibits and punishes the behavi=
or.
=
=
There
are however collective needs, which from the ego as well as from within, th=
us
by the ethical censor as also from the outside -- that is through shame bar=
riers
of the group morality -- since primeval times have been denied in a double =
way. Such a collective need, in our opinion, is incest love.
=
Incest Taboo as Collective Negatio=
n
=
The
word incest stems from incestare =3D to pollute and to stain.=
Some languages consider incest &qu=
ot;blood
shame" [Blutschande].
=
Legally
by incest is understood sexual intercourse between relatives in the sense o=
f parents
and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters, and in =
some
countries even among those related by marriage.
=
=
The
problem of incest is divided psychologically into two subordinate questions.
First of all: Is the incest love a =
collective
need or a rare aberration of certain ill persons? Secondly: Is the incest
inhibition ‑- as taboo and as incest barrier -- purely social, stemmi=
ng from
the outside and that is taught and thus an acquired characteristic of the h=
uman
child or, however, a collective and hereditary safety mechanism against the=
incest
love?
=
=
Point 1.
Historically one must accept ‑- as the sexual physician Hermann Rohle=
der11 from
=
=
According
to Rohleder, incest was found as somewhat completely natural and occurred w=
ith
permission not only with the old Egyptians, Persians and Peruvians but stil=
l today
the custom with the Weddas in
=
=
In a
correctional institute for neglected girls in
=
=
Incest
love bears thus the indication of a collective
need.
=
=
Point 2. From where however does the prohibiti=
on
come against incest love? From where the incest barrier?
=
=
Historically
it is certain that incest love not always, not everywhere, and not for all members of a community was
forbidden. From history it is well-known that people slated for inbreeding =
with
the old Egyptians with strict relationship inbreeding were paired – i=
ndeed
even with incest marriage. The king=
s of
the Ptolemy line constantly married their own sisters.14
=
=
At the
time of the old Persian realms (from 550 to 330), under the kings Cyrus, Da=
rius
and Xerxes, the direct incest
marriage was at the highest peak. Brother and sister, father and daughter, =
and mother
and son wed each other. Among the highest and leading castes of the rulers =
incest
marriage was even the law.15 After Cambyses had arranged that the
rulers would have to marry their sisters and even their daughters, the
degeneration of this ruler family quickly progressed. Herodotus indicates t=
hat
Cambyses was married to his sister, Artaxerxes. (According to Plutarch he
should have been married to his daughter Sysimithres and according to Curti=
us
even with his mother.16)
=
=
To a
large extent the Persian realm through the incest marriages of the ruler
families, throne changes, and murder (incest murder), the rule within a sho=
rt
time collapses. The inbreeding of the people accelerated naturally also the
degeneration.
=
=
The
old Peruvian is according to Rohleder democratic in inbreeding and in ince=
st
among the people. Because with the old Peruvians inbreeding and incest
marriage was a national custom not solely in the governing but also in the
bourgeois families. An Inca (ruler) was allowed to marry only his own
biological sister and no other. From the blood of the sun, from which they
believed to be descended and to be held pure, the other castes of the Peruv=
ian had
also to marry the sister, the daughter, and even the mother. The warrior
married likewise his sister.17
These historical facts speak against the
interpretation that incest prohibition and incest taboo would be a natural, inherited, and collective striving of humans. Incest l=
ove
is however nevertheless subjected to taboo.
=
=
The
Polynesian word taboo S. Freud has translated in the sense of “holy inhibition.” With this expression he wanted to express the
two opposite directions of action of taboo. Taboo is called, on the one han=
d,
holy and consecrated (something as sacred); on the other hand forbidden,
dangerous, terrible and impure.18
=
=
Freud
stresses that taboo with primitives is neither a religious nor a moral
prohibition.19 He s=
ays:
“The taboo prohibitions are devoid of each explanation; they are of u=
nknown
origin; for us are incomprehensible; they appear natural to those who stand=
under
its rules.”20 According to Freud’s opinion the primi=
tive
puts a taboo in place where he fears a danger. He constructs the history of=
the
taboo according to the model of the compulsory prohibitions that were imposed from the outside on &=
#8220;a
generation of primitives at one time and
that nevertheless probably were imp=
ressed
thus upon them violently by the earlier generation. These prohibitions
concerned activities toward which existed a strong predisposition. The
prohibitions were maintained then from generation to generation, perhaps on=
ly
due to tradition maintained by parental and social authority. Perhaps howev=
er
they have in the later organizations already “organized” as a piece of inherited psychologi=
cal possession.
Whether there are such “innate ideas” and whether they caused a=
lone
or in cooperation with the education the setting up of that taboo, who woul=
d be
able exactly to decide for the question under discussion (for the incest ta=
boo)?
But from maintaining the taboo would be invoked, one has the idea that the
original pleasure that each prohibition is concerned with is also still con=
tinued
by the people having the taboo. These people have thus toward their taboo
prohibitions an ambivalent attitude=
;
they would like in the unconscious nothing better than to trespass it, but =
they
are afraid before it; they directly are afraid because they would like it, =
but
the fear is stronger than the desire. The desire in addition however with e=
ach
individual is unconscious as it is with the neurotic.“21
=
=
The
interpretation of Freud on the origin of taboo prohibitions with primitives=
leans
thus rather in the direction of the exogamy
[caused by external conditions]. The primitives were imposed upon and p=
ressured
violently from the outside. Onl=
y the
desire to do what is most strictly denied by the taboo prohibition seems to=
be,
also according to Freud, a collective need. Most ethnologists see social mechanisms in the taboo
prohibition. Thus also in the incest prohibition.
=
=
By
careful inquiries among different authorities and supported by his own
observations in Northwest Melanesia with the natives of the Trobriand islan=
ds
(British New Guinea), Bronislaw Malinowski arranged the taboo prohibitions =
to
the degree of their severity as follows:
=
=
“1.
By far the strictest is the prohibition against brother and sister incest; =
it
is the principal item of the suvaso=
va
[the breach of exogamy] taboos; violations occur extremely rarely both in
reality and in legend.
=
=
2.
Blood shame with the mother is considered as unnatural and unimaginable; ca=
ses
are not well known; it is an important form of the suvasova; it is not spoken of with the same abhorrence as of the
brother and sister incest.
=
=
3.
Sexual intercourse with one’s own daughter is not called suvasova; there are no supernatural
punishments for it; it is felt as extremely bad; several cases of it are we=
ll-known.
=
=
4.
Sexual intercourse with the daughter of the sister of the mother is a form =
of suvasova, occurs rarely, is very b=
ad,
and is constantly kept secret; with discovery it is more severely punished.=
=
=
5.
Sexual intercourse with the sister of the wife does not belong to suvasova but however is bad; marri=
age
whether now in form of polygamy or with the sister of the deceased wife mee=
ts
strong disapproval, but it occurs, while love relations are not rare.
=
=
6.
Sexual intercourse with the mother-in-law or with the wife of the brother is
improper and is however not suvasov=
a
and occurs apparently infrequently.
=
=
7.
Sexual intercourse with classified =
luguta
(my sister) is suvasova; it is
forbidden by tribal law and threatened by supernatural punishments and is
however frequently practiced and is as it were much sought after.”
=
=
Still
another important relationship remains to be mentioned by the name of tabugu (sister of the father or da=
ughter
of the sister of the father), which already has been explained as counterpa=
rt
to luguta (sister, if a man spe=
aks). The sister of the father is the mod=
el of
the lawfully permitted and even sexually recommended woman -‑ certain=
ly
only in the theory of the natives -- because in reality the daughter takes =
this
place.
=
=
Against
the sister of his father a man in sexual things has to behave himself just =
the
opposite as with his own sister. Sexual intercourse with the father’s=
own
sister is completly fitting and proper. “It is very good, if a boy co=
pulates
with the sister of his father.”
=
=
“Sexual
intercourse between a man and his aunt on the paternal side plays a role in=
the
theory and in idioms as symbol, but scarcely in real life. She is for him t=
he
symbol of all legally permitted women and simply sexual freedom. She may ad=
vise
or give him support as a couple, but only in very rare cases does he have
sexual intercourse with her. =
She
belongs to an older generation, and what remained of their sexual attractio=
ns
are mostly not too enticing for her. But if she and her nephews wish it, th=
en
they may sleep together; only a certain decorum must be practiced if she is
married. Marriage with the aunt on the father’s side, although permit=
ted
and even desired, seems never to occur; I also only succeeded in discovering one case a=
mong
living persons or an excessive quantity from the historical records.
=
On the paternal side the young man finds =
the
correct replacement for his aunt in their daughter. Both are judged as
particularly suitable for sexual intercourse and for marriage.
=
= The designation tabugu is expanded however soon since other girls who belong to the same sub-clan and clan as = the cousin; finally it becomes equivalent, via going beyond the usual limited c= lassification terminology to “all women, who do not belong to the clan of the sister.” The usual classification terminology extends within the boun= daries of the clans. The widest meaning the word mother extends to all thos= e from the clan of the mother. But the word tabugu in the sense of “l= egally permitted woman” extends over three clans and covers approximately th= ree quarters of the females as opposed to a quarter of women who are forbidden.= R