Incest as Master Morality: The Politics of Taboo

Incest as Master Morality The Politics of Taboo - Tanzeem Ahmed _____________________________________________________________________ Abstract: What is the right thing to do? This subject of normative inquiry seems to have pervaded into all echelons of theoretical academic circles. While debating a life time about what moral stands we ought to pursue and what beliefs to proscribe, we seem to have forgotten to question the genesis of the concept of morality itself. What is “the good”? And, thus, subsequently, what is “the bad”? This paper attempts to understand the notion of morality by analysing incest, as a practice of master morality. By applying a Nietzschean lens, this paper seeks to understand how morality has changed in the course of time and what it has meant in different epochs that have passed by. More importantly, incest is simply an entry point here to a larger discussion on the metaethics of it all. While engaging in a genealogy of morality, we must stop and raise questions about how are we to govern ourselves: by standards of morality prescribed by the times or by a larger understanding of morality as a concept. In the last analysis, through the subject of incest, the paper seeks to bring out the dilemma involved in the politics of choice that reigns this world supreme. We must decide what encompasses taboo and what does not. Keywords: morality, incest, Nietzsche, ethics, meta-ethics, master morality, slave morality, family, genealogy, taboo, truth. _____________________________________________________________________ Introduction What is the role of intellectuals today? Or for that matter, what ought to be the role of intellectuals in generic terms anyway? Noam Chomsky seems to argue that it is of speaking the truth and to expose lies (Chomsky, 2008: 40). It seems apt indeed. Along with this, there is also a simple requirement of boldness here. And to be bold in today’s restrictive world indeed comprises of taking the risks of facing persecution. However, a bold intellectual is a much required renegade in our times. But it is a very real reality that the intellectual is forced into conformism, putting a pall over his speech rights by the societal structures, making him or her think hard of the consequences of the boldness that he or she might be about to display. Might I add that I am not claiming that this bold intellectual presumably holds in his or her possession the ultimate truth among the multifarious perspectives that are replete in existence. It is only that a dissident intellect stands in a unique position to provide a fresh perspective on an issue. Drawing from Nietzsche, it is only beneficial for our objectivity if we can collect as many perspectives as possible on a subject of matter – much like viewing a sculpture from all angles by moving around it, in contrast to obtaining a two-dimensional view of a painting from the front (Nietzsche, 1989). Therefore, bold intellectuals must not be stopped from putting forward a perspective, for in doing so, as pointed out by John Stuart Mill, we risk losing the truth. For if the intellectual is correct, curbing his or her speech would surely lead to a loss of a significant perspective and even if he or she is incorrect, it provides the community the opportunity to reinforce what is correct or right, at least what is believed to be, barring the imposition of a majoritarian rule (Mill, 1869). Therefore, in having introduced to you to the belief of what ought to be the role of a bold intellectual, this paper is an attempt to be bold, although not necessarily to be intellectual. It is very evident that today’s morality – which is of conformist nature of the highest degree – has restricted man’s behaviour to very much of a good old tamed and regimented pet. An individual bearing an act which is outside the prescribed moral compass is whipped back into conformation with regards to the existing standards of morality. Any debate on morality today very simply and clearly points out to epicentre of the discussion being an attempt to distinguish the good from the bad. The good act is always the right and moral thing to do, the bad is always the repugnant one. To be selfless is good; to be desirous is definitely bad, or even evil. This dichotomous perception of morality has clearly sunk its claws so deep into today’s reality that mankind is unable to look for a conception “beyond good and evil” (Nietzsche, 1966). The shackled nature of morality today is such that it has driven us further away from our baser temperament. More importantly, today’s morality has driven this world to a more restrictive nature. More and more things (deeds) are incomprehensible or unacceptable to a world of slave morality, understanding from a Nietzschean vantage point. Very conspicuously, the Christian doctrine of the abstinence from the seven sins shapes the nature of morality today. Pride, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath and lastly lust are all desires and values that one is to imprison himself or herself from; and clearly anyone who possesses any of these traits, let alone embraces it, has the devil in him or her. Are we to clearly neglect what makes us human? ‘To desire pleasure is sin’ - is that all that we are to guide ourselves with in our dealings with life? Pursuit of happiness is achieved via fulfilment of desires and not from the Buddhist philosophy of emptying your mind, of relinquishing your desires or pursuing salvation. And, to be accurate, these acts bring us contentment and not happiness. The former is uniquely different from the latter. It is clear that Christian and Buddhist philosophy are itself nihilistic in their form; their ideals drive a man further away from life itself, negating every aspect that makes one human. Indeed, there appears to be an umbilical link between happiness and desires. The Conceptualization of Master Morality and Slave Morality Before moving forward, it is imperative to point out that this piece is an application of Nietzsche’s classification of morality into master and slave kinds, from his work “On Genealogy of Morals” where he uncompromisingly exposes the power structures involved in the underlying formative structures of today’s morality. To understand the framework of analysis of this paper, it is thus important to have knowledge of Nietzsche’s take on morality. To enunciate briefly, Nietzsche believed that the usage of terms like good, bad and evil had different meanings in different times and did not always carry the implications as these words carry today. He gives primal importance to the ubiquitous nature of power and to the belief that everyone has a will to power, stronger than the will to self-preservation as well. In the earliest of civilisations, pointing out the Greek particularly, Nietzsche claims that morality was then defined by the powerful Greek aristocrats. Looking down upon the slaves in the society, the Greek aristocrats conceptualized themselves and their acts as ‘good’, and in contrast ascribed the slaves (the powerless classes; and class not in terms of Marx) with the label of the ‘bad’. It is a clear exercise of power here whereby the Greek aristocrats openly and shamelessly exercise their superiority and the powerless classes in an ingenuine way accept their inferior place in the society. The masters here, that are the Greek aristocrats, are the good, the strong and the healthy, with the slaves being bad, weak and undernourished. They openly punish the powerless in a festive way, openly engage is fulfilling their lusts and effortlessly use the law to keep themselves afloat in the society. These features comprise of what Nietzsche calls “Master morality”. With the slaves being left with no choice but to accept this will of power as their own physical will to power is not strong enough (or not as strong as of the ones in power) , the powerless classes are thus left frustrated with the bleak future of eternal servitude. To overturn this, the powerless classes respond with what Nietzsche calls “Slave morality” which emerged with the advent of Christianity. Christianity, and later together with Buddhism, provided a way out of servitude for the powerless classes. Calling the Greek masters as evil and exploitative in a twirl, the powerless classes turned the tables on the masters, now defining themselves as the ‘good’ ones – the ones who treat all individuals equally and with dignity as it is the right thing to do. In a dialogical relation, the masters are clearly the evil ones who only saw benefit for themselves. This is the brand of morality which reigns supreme in today’s world as well. In critical vocabulary, Nietzsche argues that slave morality is actually an insidious play by the powerless classes to put themselves back on an equal platform with the masters, an exercise of will to power. The weaker classes are aware that they are weak and are not going to be relieved of their inferior status by the goodness in the hearts of the masters or the lack of it thereof. Thus, to overcome this subordination, slave morality concocted the ascetic ideals of abstinence, equality, liberty or dignity, among many others, to have a dialogue with the masters in supposedly equal terms (Nietzsche, 1989). This slave morality has insulated itself so well in this world that it leaves no scope for questioning it. Any fingers raised against it, or any attempt to question its ideals, easily amounts to an individual being portrayed as an enemy of the society. As mentioned earlier, indeed less and less things are acceptable in world of slave morality. The postEnlightenment institution of religion seems have empowered the slave classes to avenge themselves for the years of servitude impressed upon them. Their will to power is of a more clandestine nature – insidious and quite frankly more lethal than that of the master morality, at least according to Nietzsche. Introspection into Incest and the Idea of Family Coming back to the matter of desires, in varying degrees, all of them are pejorative by religious doctrines. Lust of all kinds seems to bring only disturbances in the last analysis, according the many religious doctrines. In truth, and one of the central themes in this paper, lust seems to be the most innate feature in being human – lust for power, for monetary assets, for sexual gratification and even for mere well-being. In closer inspection, all the progress mankind has supposedly made so far must have been the product of relentless lust for wellbeing. Instead of acknowledging this innate character of being humanly, religious trends have warped the true nature of man. For instance, pre-marital sexual desires seem to be looked down upon when looked through the lens of public gaze. Sexual desires come naturally, yet we are taught to resist it, as though we risk losing our humanly nature if we embrace it. As such, many individuals condemn pre-marital sexual acts in the public forum even while knowing that it is very much a natural occurrence. In delving deeper into the matter and what is the focus of this paper, what is absolutely taboo is the occurrence of incest, which is sexual relations within familial connections. It could refer to sexual relations between siblings, between mother and son or father and daughter or even between mother and daughter or father and son in case of homosexuality. Familial sexual relation could also extend to intercourse between cousins. To make it clear, incest in the entirety of this paper refers to that of the consensual sort, and not that of forced incest. Now, before you as a reader assume that I have set myself on a path of defending incest, I urge you to not be assumptious in that manner as that is not the intent of this piece. This paper merely aims to trace the development of aversion to the idea of incest as it was something which was acceptable at a time of eons ago and now its occurrence has come to be repugnant. Today, in a milieu of slave morals, the idea of siblings engaging in sexual intercourse is of utmost immoral nature. But looking back into history from a neutral vantage point, incest appears to be something sordid and depraved only because the existing slave morality has made it appear so. The morality which prevails today has seems to have either abandoned or become averse to the innate nature of man - man as he was. The development of conscience has been designed in such a way that people are unaware of the role of historical power here. Let me make it abundantly clear that I do not preach that mankind ought to desert all the signs of being civilised and of being so called ‘modern’. That would be an extremely constricted view. What I argue is that mankind ought to retain some connection to its baser instincts, to its innate nature. Of course there are sufferings involved in acknowledging desires and in the attempt of fulfilling them but, in essence, it is a part and parcel of life itself. And if someone is not strong enough to endure them (suffering), he or she is not strong enough to be human (Nietzsche, 1989). These ascetic ideals stemming from religion have attempted to, and have been quite successful might I add, in driving mankind away from its base nature – negating life itself and taking on a nihilistic form itself. In the matter of incest, which is abhorred by the society today, it was once a very much accepted practice. The royal families of Greek civilisation openly engaged in incestuous relations. The Greek aristocrats, by their status and power, clearly defined what was acceptable and good in the society. To add to this briefly, even homosexuality was an accepted sexual act then. It is surprising to think of what was legitimate then and what is acceptable now. Therefore, by their tastes, incest was not a bad occurrence, rather something which was practiced in the royal families, within the powerful classes. Siblings were encouraged to get married and then their off-springs were also made to marry one another. And there was no shame in it either. Contrastingly, these families engaged in familial inbreeding with the belief that there was no one else worthy of being their equivalent partners outside their family. Their own kind, with the most familiarly genetically designed ought to be best suited for engaging in a partnership. It is not surprising that such practices were a common occurrence then given that the gods themselves in Greek mythology engaged in incest. Zeus himself, the all powerful God of gods in Greek mythology, married Hera, his sibling sister. Their parents, Cronos and Rhea, were also siblings. In addition, we all know of Oedipus the king and his relations with his mother and the subsequent application of it in psychological studies named as the ‘Oedipus Complex’ of Sigmund Freud. Freud considered the sexual impulses of the son for this mother as natural and biological, hence lending weight to occurrence of incest. In moving on, the other Titan siblings of Cronos and Rhea also engaged in incestuous marriages. If one takes the trouble of sifting through a substantial reading of Greek mythology, examples of incest would be replete. And the gods engaged in incest for the same reason just stated: they believed others outside the family to be unworthy of being partners. It is easy to derive from this of how the Greek population were so accepting of incest: it is the gods themselves who had sanctioned such a practice. In essence, there seems to be nothing wrong in familial inbreeding as it only raises the possibility of a continuing gene pool, an off-spring with similar genetics to their parents, a surer way to guarantee the continuation of the bloodline in its purest form. Such was the view towards incest in the ancient Greek times. It could not have been something bad anyway, because it was a practice of the masters, of the Greek aristocrats, of the powerful classes. And their acts and they themselves, going by master morality, cannot be ‘bad’. Thus, the masters’ acts and they themselves are ‘good’, and will always be ‘good’. The societal power structures here seem approving of incest. Therefore, as the central argument of this paper is, incest is an element of and comprises of master morality. Only with the change of kind of morality, that is from master morality to slave morality, the idea of incest became more and more distasteful. Over time, with the emergence of slave morality, the post-Enlightenment understanding of family strengthened. It was a weak notion indeed in earlier times and there would have been a time, eons of eons ago, when the notion of family did not exist at all. Surely, Neanderthals and the likes of Australopithecus did not have an understanding of family and even the early Homo sapiens did not hold any early familial values in high regard either. Very arguably, they must have indulged in unchartered mating and the subsequent mating after a decade later would not entail differentiating a daughter from a mother. Incest and adultery must have been rampant. This could have been very much the prevalent picture then considering that no notion of (familial) morality existed either. It was a time when man was most human probably. On returning to the understanding of family in a post-Enlightenment era, one can see the gradual ascending hold of the concept of family over humanity. In an earlier epoch, family members mattered little in daily dealings. Family members fought with one another, even went to wars against each other for their personal gains. They killed one another, either openly in front of the eyes of all or in covertness, employing deception or spy tactics. But with slave morality sinking its claws into the conscience of man, the notion of family has also insulated itself very well in today’s world. Today, by virtue of being a family member, one is compelled to consider others in the family as their own, is compelled to show them respect, to accept them and even to sacrifice his or her personal well-being for the well-being of the family members. Family impresses upon people to develop a feeling of likeness towards other members of family, whether a genuine feeling of likeness is present or not. This is so because it appears to be the right thing to do, at least supposedly. Slave morality has taught us these values only to mollify ourselves in the face of the truth. It is very much plausible that an individual may not develop a feeling of affection towards a family member. We may consider the question that is it, then, such a necessity that one has affectionate sentiments towards someone of kin? This argument be would preferably applicable to people outside the immediate family (consisting of parents and siblings) of one person. It is slave morality today that has defined what is right and what is not. Distaste for family members is, then, not a right feeling to develop as it would mean that you are immoral, or amoral for that matter. It is indeed the notion of family itself that seems to be the bedrock of today’s prevailing slave morality. Subsequently then, inbreeding among family members is also repugnant as it is an extremely depraved act in the eyes of slave morality. The ‘good’ thing to do in a world of slave morality is to abstain from sexual desires, let alone sexual desires towards your own siblings or your own mothers and fathers. For such an act, if engaged in, stigmatizes the involved along with humiliation till their last breaths. Slave morality does not just induce guilt in the masters but in everyone, forcing them to abide by morals and implying that failing to do so earns you a one way ticket to hell, exiled to damnation. Incest, in such a view, is an unforgivable sin. One ought to raise a question: are we to condemn someone to eternal humiliation and suffering for something which was once widely accepted and considered a practice among the royals? Is it such a sin, when it is two consenting adults engaging in a sexual act behind the four walls of privacy? Such an issue ought not to be made to face judgement in the public eyes or be politicised. In a time when master morality prevailed, such issues were of little significance. Incest in Religion, Mythology and Culture There are many other examples of the prevailing culture of incest in times not far back. It was very much a part of a standard lifestyle in the Middle Ages of Europe all the way up to the early Twentieth Century. We indeed are familiar about royal families engaging in marriages with people within the family. Mostly it comprised of marrying cousins but nevertheless, an incestuous relationship indeed. This practice of familial inbreeding was not a taboo at all in these times. Such occurrences have been well documented in popular media and literary cultures as well. For instance, the most recently critically acclaimed television series of “Downton Abbey” shows the daily affairs of a mid-royal English family in the early 20th century. The protagonists in the series are shown engaging in a romantic affair and are set to marry and are very much cousins to one another. They even court one another until their relationship comes to the point of marriage. To cite another example, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, also called “The Modern Prometheus”, which was published in 1818, has its scientist protagonist falling in love with his half-sister and was set to marry her before her untimely murder (Shelley, 1994). These examples, although fictional, goes a long way in telling the prevalent ways of life and what was acceptable in those times. Religion has been an important and a ruling aspect in today’s morality and there is hardly any room for any disagreement on said point. We are forbidden from all sorts of acts. And incest is definitely a sin of the highest order when judged in the court of religion as well. And yet, almost in a humouristic manner, one can find incestuous relations in Christianity and Buddhism themselves, amongt other religions as well. Christian history is replete with instances of incest - Abraham had married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), Lot and his daughters engaged in sexual relations (Genesis 19:30-38), Noah and his family as well and there are many others whose mentioning can be spared for the moment as these have served their purpose. It is surprising that the Old Testament was actually much more tolerant on incest. In fact, God gave the Moabites and the Ammonites special protection because they were descended from incestuous couplings — that of Lot and his daughters (Deuteronomy 2:9 and 2:19). Moreover, according to many Christians, Mary is the bride of Christ as well as his mother. It is only after the emergence of the New Testament and its usage of Mosaic laws, which is marked by the incoming of Jesus, that Christianity forbade incest. As Nietzsche opines, it is this point of emergence of Jesuit Christianity that marks the beginning of slave morality (Nietzsche, 1989). We ought not to overlook this coincidence of change in morality. The powerless classes have indeed used these ascetic ideals to keep practices of master morality buried in the past. The prevalence of practices and beliefs of master morality, if allowed to continue, will never allow master morality to cease or even to wane. As long as traces of master morality remain, the powerless classes will always face the risk of losing their acquired frivolity and for this fear alone, all activities and acceptable norms in master morality have been made to disappear. Even if they do exist in pockets of society in the world of slave morality, it is suppressed. Further, Buddhist history is not completely devoid of incestuous practices either. As found in Buddhist literature, the Sakya people, the Buddha's kinsmen, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans, the Koliyans taunted them by sayings that they “cohabited with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals” (Jataka.V,413). In another instance, in the book “Riven by Lust: Incest and Schism in Indian Buddhist Legend and Historiography”, Jonathan A. Silk introduces us to the story of Mahadeva who indulges with an incestuous relationship with his mother while the father is away in foreign lands: “When his father returns, Mahādeva and his mother conspire to kill him, which Mahādeva does. Having fled to Paṭaliputra, mother and son seclude themselves. When a saintly monk recognizes him, Mahādeva, fearing their crime would be discovered, murders him. Later, finding his mother has been ‘unfaithful’ to him, he kills her, too. Coming to regret these misdeeds, Mahādeva overhears a Buddhist monk reciting a hymn about how the karmic effects of crimes may be eradicated by cultivating goodness. He then visits the monk and convinces him to ordain him without the usual background investigation” (Osto, 2009). Chapter 4 of this book discusses Indian Buddhist views of Mahādeva’s crimes, among which incest seems not to have been considered as serious as his murders (Silk, 2008). In essence, Buddhist literature has indeed had incestuous tales and they have been more accepting of it in the past. In addition, to cite another instance from Buddhist scriptures, apart from the message of union and peace, the rhetoric of sex with family members also appears in many later tantras of Esoteric Buddhism such as the Guhyasamaja and Cakrasamvara Tantras. In its fifth chapter, the Guhyasamaja Tantra states that the adept who has sex with his mother, sister, or daughter can attain great success. This is in fact not all. There are also other controversial elements in the tantra such as commands to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery and even eat excreta. In its thirty-third chapter, the Cakrasamvara Tantra describes sexual yogic practices to be undertaken with a consort and promises that if readers undertake these, even with female relatives, they will be liberated ("Incest in Buddhism", 2020). Francesca Fremantle seems to opine that there was surely a deeper intent behind such revolutionary teaching than mere symbolism (Fremantle, 1971). Even so, that these elements exist in religious texts, drawing from which today’s morality forbids incest, exposes the hypocrisy of slave morality. Looking into the case of Islam, incest of immediate family is out rightly forbidden indeed but cousin marriages are allowed. Chapter 4, Verse 23 of the Quran sets out the rules: “Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;” (Qur'an 4:23). Therefore, marriage to anyone outside these relations is acceptable in Islam. Such marriages in Muslim majority countries are often preferred and even encouraged in some regions. Although some nations such as China, India or USA among others prohibit this as the law finds it incestuously criminal. Therefore, in Islam, we do find a certain level of preference towards familial incest, although the remainder of the world communities clearly look down upon Islam with regards to this fact, among the many other ragging issues with Islam. But, in a matter exposed after keener look at Islamic laws on incest, scholars have found out that the Quran seems to be silent on sexual relations between a man and a daughter born out of wedlock, which is through adultery, even though incest with immediate family members are prohibited. A product of sexual relations out of adultery allows a Muslim man to disregard him or her. In essence, a daughter born out of wedlock is not considered as the daughter of the man. “The resulting child is not considered a part of a person’s true lineage.” Consequently, it becomes permissible for him to marry her. The daughter is regarded the same as any other unrelated woman. As such, Islam does not prohibit the marriage between the father and his own biological daughter who is born through or adultery: “If there is no legal lineage then there is no legal relationship; for adultery does not prohibit from marriage the daughter of the mother you committed adultery with” (Defense Mission Jericho, 2014). In others words, while Islam prohibits marriages between a man and his daughter if she is conceived in marriage, it does not prohibit marriages between a father and his daughter if she is conceived out of wedlock. Indeed, there have been disputes here with some Muslim scholars arguing that even if it is not mentioned in the Quran, by extension, a man is prohibited from having relations with both the woman and the daughter in the case of adultery. But many prominent scholars have indeed agreed to the fact that the Quran is silent on the issue and by that fact, as Abdul Malik Ibn Al-Maj-shun says, “such a marriage (between a man and the daughter he conceived through adultery) is permissible; which is the correct understanding of Allah’s saying in Surah 25:54” (Defense Mission Jericho, 2014). Let us not leave out tales from Indian mythology either. For mythology is not mere fiction. It has critical role to play in the functioning of cultural community, as many of ways of living adopted by mankind has been from the mythologies as sources. The protagonists are praised, idolized, worshipped and revered. Their acts are divinely. And many subscribe to the acts of these protagonists to deal with issues of their daily life. Thus, heading straight into the matter at hand here, Indian mythology has also had many tales embedded with incestuous relations. For instance, in the Mahabharata, Arjuna was married to Subhadra, the daughter of his aunt Rohini. Further, according to a Puranic creation narrative, Manu, the son of Brahma, who was himself produced incestuously, marries his sister, the goddess Shatarupa to propagate humanity. Another possible site of reference for the practice of incest in premodern Hindu India lies within the larger phenomenon or practice of ‘Niyoga’, or levirate unions. Here, sexual relations between the wife and the brother of her husband —the younger brother generally—qualifies by some standards as an incestuous union. The practice of Niyoga was usually invoked and justified to continue the family line in cases where procreation within a normative husband-wife relationship faced an insurmountable obstacle, though it appears to have been extended beyond legitimate bounds today. There has been an understanding that incest was also a practice among several tribes in pre-Aryan times. “The Indian Encyclopaedia: Hinayana-India (Central India)”, an edition by Subodh Kapoor, also claims the same (Kapoor, 2002). A Dr. Sarkar points out to the vedic rite called ‘Gosava’ which involved union with one’s own mother, sister or female relative through which one secured entry into heaven. Another certain author, Upadhya, after citing several instances of incestuous practices among the ancient Indian people justly concludes: `In face of these numerous data, it futile to hold that incest is un-Vedic'. There are even more instances of incest in mythology such as that of Manu, son of Vivasvat, and his sister Sraddha; Prajapati and his daughter, Ushas; Pushan and his sister, Surya; Sukra and his three sisters; Satrajita and his 10 sisters; Nahusha and his sister, Viraja. Purukutsa's queen Narmada after her husband's death obtained a son through her own brother. Sadly I cannot allege the sources of these claims to be authentic as the research of this paper is limited. The purpose of citing these instances from divine stories and scriptures was to point out the hypocrisy embedded in slave morality. The proliferating institution of religion today guides our morals, forbidding us from many acts considered immoral such as incest whereas such acts were very a regular and acceptable act in the eyes of their divinely. It is clear that incest was an act of non-issue for the gods that we worship today. It is clear that slave morality has picked only selective aspects from religious history to be imparted as lessons to the populace. Acts of master morality entrenched in aspects of slave morality have been made to look immoral as it would tip the balance in favour of master morality. Thus, very insidiously, slave morality has doctored the nature of today’s morality in a manner that acts of incest would involuntarily invoke repugnance. People are made to feel that a feeling of revulsion to incest ought to be the natural response and in the case of one not feeling repulsed, he or she are complicit in a criminal act. There is an attempt, and quite successful at it again, to induce a deep sense of guilt in the individual for even considering incest. And this guilt will inevitably consume the individual in a dilemma but will ultimately submit to slave morality. With such an analysis, I once again claim that incest, thus, comprises of master morality for it is the act of the godly, the powerful, the strong and the healthy. The insidious will to power of slave morality has covertly and successfully dethroned the will to power of master morality today. For this reason, and this reason alone, incest has come to be an act of disgust today. Many have argued that incest is inherently unnatural, as is homosexuality. Nature itself has shown us that it has its ‘good’ aspects and there is an ugly side to it as well, the ‘bad’ side. What we ought to understand is that everything natural need not be good. As it has been said: earthquake and cancer are also natural but are we to do away with them? Or can we do away with them? It is very much part of nature and so is desires for lust among many others. Such is the force of nature. Desires and the dichotomy of happiness and misery that is supplemented with it is a force of nature itself, of life itself. It is probably the best way to celebrate life. We ought to accept and embrace it, not resist it. To quote Hans Morganthau: “To improve the world, one must work with these forces, not against them" (Morganthau, 1958: 285). Although the quote has a different context, I feel its meaning can be well applicable here. Thus, it seems evident enough to see how power structures shape and engineer the boundaries of morality of an epoch. Stepping outside the boundaries indicates one has a broken moral compass. But surely we can see now that these are subjective to time and space. A new form of morality could come into existence in the ensuing times, which could be designed in such a way that it retains a sense of neutrality in its outlook – a somewhat better sense of judgement, for the lack of a better word, of what ought to be right and what not. Some Scientific Explorations on Incest There have been, of course, scientific explanations of why incest is a ‘bad’ idea. Scientific examinations claim that incestuous off-springs tend to have higher chances of physical deformities and lower health prospects. Apparently this explains the poor health security conditions in Pakistan, where familial inbreeding is practiced through marriages amongst cousins. There are few examples of incestuous royal families of Europe as well, during the Middle Ages, where the last of the family rulers were frail and weak. It is indeed agreeable that there might be pejorative sides to continued familial inbreeding, but such facts are exaggerated like hyperboles, claimed by many counter-scientific examinations as well. More importantly, this is not the matter of subject in this paper. The question of is of morality. If the subject of reproduction is isolated in the discussion of incest, where an incestuous couple decide not to reproduce but just to have a wholesome relationship (sexual acts included), the only grounds on which it is objected to is of humanity’s repugnance. It is only the repulsive thought of family members cohabiting with one another that makes them condemn it. As such, it is a matter of perception, a perception shaped by the morality of our times. There was a time when incest was well within the boundaries of man’s moral compass. Moreover, even scientific explanations do not amount to absolute truth. Many have questioned that science does not hold the monopoly to truth (McDemott, 2008). It is arguable that science itself has its own belief structures and is very much a religion in itself (Nietzsche, 1989). Science itself could very much be used as a tool by slave morality to sanction the illegitimacy of incest among many others. But these are debates that warrant another paper on its own. There have been other scientific attempts to explain the human mind’s aversion to incest, drawing on psychological and social grounds, such as ‘the Westermarck effect’ of the Finnish anthropologist Edward Westermarck to counter Freud’s Oedipus conflict. “The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction” (Garg, 2015). The explanation espouses that humans naturally and biologically avoid mating siblings when they see themselves under the care of the same parent. Such close proximity and domestic environment allows them to forego their feelings of sexual desire towards their siblings. But this theory has been debunked when one considers a situation where the siblings are not kept at the same home during the earlier formative ages. To cite another attempt, “the anthropologist Claude LéviStrauss also developed a general argument for the universality of the incest taboo in human societies. His argument begins with the claim that the incest taboo is in effect a prohibition against endogamy, and the effect is to encourage exogamy. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. That is, Lévi-Strauss views marriage as an exchange of women between two social groups” (Garg, 2015). The base of such a theory seems lax as it explains only the societal compulsion of marrying outside the family but not the repugnance in marrying someone from one’s own family. It simply provides an argument for enhancing the diversity of gene pool in scientific terms, but not for the distastefulness of incest in the minds of people. There are definitely many other theories as to why we ought to abstain from incest but all have unexplainable loopholes in their theories. Or it is a case of deliberate negligence. These seem to be a desperate attempt of slave morality to etch us in our currently designed conscience, to imprison us in the morality of the ongoing epoch – making sure that we remain engraved and ensconced in this prevailing design. Concluding Note The purpose of this piece is not to argue that we relapse back to incestuous times or to master morality, no; although that is what might have been implied here as I have amply shown a dislike to slave morality. What I have attempted to proffer here is that we ought to acknowledge the ubiquitous and diffusive nature of power and that it seems inevitable. And concomitantly, it is power which defines the morality of the aeon, of the epoch. When one understands the entirety of slave morality, one shall realize how malicious and crippling it could be. Man’s judgement is easily paralyzed with slave morality reigning supreme in his or her conscience. It is imperative that a new and more neutral design of morality take hold of this world, before slave morality drives us all to damnation for good. Thus, over time, mankind has lost the lens of neutrality. Incest has clearly been left behind in the times of master morality, although its occurrence still exists today. Many other practices have had to meet its extinction in the same way. Incest can also be defended in the vocabulary of slave morality itself but no one would admit it. Emphasizing on liberty, we do understand that the ideals of liberty and freedom are very much embedded with slave morality. It is very much a device of the powerless classes to put themselves on an equal footing with the powerful classes. In understanding this, if we are to draw from good old JS Mill, incest could very much be looked upon as a self-regarding action, affecting no one else but the two consenting individuals in contrast to other-regarding actions – actions that have an impact on the wellbeing of others (Mill, 1869). With such a viewpoint, one could argue that these consenting individuals ought to be left alone and their privacy behind the four wall of room ought to be respected. But slave morality will not have it so. Through politicisation, such acts have been brought into the public forum and uncompromisingly condemned. The same could be said of the issue of homosexuality in our times. Once again, these statements are not to be looked at as in defence of the issues. It only provides a picture of what is and what could have been. It is indeed interesting to note that both incest and homosexuality were accepted occurrences in master morality, whereas today it is being called highly unnatural today. Once again, in concluding notes, we must make an attempt to understand historical power and endeavour to see the underlying currents in the formation of societies, and the mindsets of people thereof. A certain will to power will indefinitely prescribe its own version of truth, just as another will to power shall prescribe its own. In this way, there are just simply multiple regimes of truth (Foucault, 1979). We are then living in the truth prescribed by slave morality. We must strive to explore more regimes of truth and not be subdued by one eternally. Or else our objectivity will remain abysmally narrow. An all round examination of a sculpture is indeed needed. References: • Al Qurtubi (2003): Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Trans. by Aisha Bewley, London: Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. • Chomsky, Noam (2008): “The Responsibility of Intellectuals”, in The Essential Chomsky, ed. Anthony Arnove, New York: The New York Press. • Defense Mission Jericho (2014): “Allah Sanctions Incest in the Qu’ran”, Defense Mission Jericho, 16th January, 2014. Available at https://davidiqbalkarim.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/allah-sanctions-incest-in-thequran/ • Foucault, Michel (1979): Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books. • Fremantle, Francesca (1971): “A Critical Study of the Guhyasamaja Tantra”, University of London, 1971, 1983. • Freud, Sigmund (2010): The Interpretation of Dreams, New York: Basic Books, originally published in 1899. • Garg, Nikita (2015): “Incest in Greek Mythology: Psychological and Sociological Aspects Today”, International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, Volume III Issue II, April 2015. • “Incest in Buddhism”, What-when-how. Retrieved on 3 June 2020, from http://whatwhen-how.com/love-in-world-religions/incest-in-buddhism/. • Ja. V, 413: Jātaka with commentary, ed. V. Fauseboll, London PTS 1877-96. Available at URL: https://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=484 • Kapoor, Subodh (ed) (2002): The Indian Encyclopaedia: Hinayana-India (Central India), Genesis Publishing Pvt. Ltd. • Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1969): The Elementary Structures of Kinship, revised edition, translated from French by James Harle Bell and John Richard von Sturmer, Boston: Beacon Press. • McDermott, David (2008): “Analytical Political Philosophy”, In David Leopold & Marc Stears (eds.), Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, Oxford University Press. • Mill, John Stuart (1869): On Liberty, London: Longman, Roberts & Green. • Morgenthau, Hans J. (1958): Dilemmas of Politics, Chicago: Chicago University Press. • Nietzsche, Friedrich (1966): Beyond Good and Evil, Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, originally published in 1886. • Nietzsche, F. W., Kaufmann, W. A., Hollingdale, R. J., & Nietzsche, F. W. (1989): On the Genealogy of Morals, New York: Vintage Books, originally published in 1887. • Osto, Douglas (2009): Review of “Riven by Lust: Incest and Schism in Indian Buddhist Legend and Historiography by Jonathan Silk”, H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews, October 2009. Available at http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24502 • Shelley, Mary W, and Marilyn Butler (1994): Frankenstein, Or, the Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Silk, Jonathan (2008): Riven by Lust: Incest and Schism in Indian Buddhist Legend and Historiography, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. • Westermarck, Edward (1891): The History of Human Marriage, Macmillan. • References of religious or holy texts: The Bible; The Quran.