The Purpose of Taboos

Which taboos are sacrosanct?

My point was not to suggest a list of taboos specifying which should be maintained and which should be jettisoned. And my real aim was not to complain about the removal of traffic signs per se. But it makes for a good example of this broader thought to do away with societal norms without thinking through the wisdom of doing so. Traffic laws and regulations have been developed by society with over a century of experience in driving cars. They were written and adopted for specific reasons, one of which was to make sure drivers are courteous to one another by not plowing into one another.

If specific signs are more distracting than helpful, then remove the offending signs. But to throw out the whole lot of them is tomfoolery and, as I said, potentially dangerous. The spirit of the old rules might govern traffic flow for a while. But ten years from now, will new drivers who do not have the benefit of learning under the old socially-enforced traffic rules be able to adapt to the new rule-less road?

Which corners stop or yield at a particular intersection? I might feel convicted to stop out of courtesy, but some days I might not. I might be in a hurry. If the guy going through the same intersection adjacent to me is also feeling discourteous, we will crash into each other because we will both be trying to occupy the same space - the middle of the intersection - at the same time. And this is liberating how?

Traffic rules are not societal taboos in the same manner that, say, prohibitions against incest or polygamy are. But the anarchist's goal is the same in each - complete freedom of the individual, no matter the damage done to those around him in the process.

It is these consequences that are so poorly understood. These norms that have been built up over centuries for reasons we no longer understand are being torn down with irresponsible and reckless haste. The separation of church and state took centuries to accomplish, over which time much thinking and theorizing had been attained regarding the benefits and consequences of the separation. What society was doing was well understood.

But the West has largely lost its capacity to engage in ordered, reflective thought. We are five-year olds demanding what we want right now with no regard as to how it will effect others or society at large. In our quest to ensure that minority rights are protected, we must remember the role that societal norms play in making our civilization function. While it might be cute and fun to glibly throw around labels like 'taboo,' doing so does not automatically make them bad or irrelevant.

Re: Taboos

I think Craig has a good point about taboos. The general question is how to distinguish between the taboos that are for our own safety, like incest, versus those that appear to be based on superstition, which I can't quite think of a good example. As for the traffic sign removing Europe, I think they are onto something. It does not take very much signage to overwhelm a driver. The irony is here in Texas they actually have signs that say, "Obey warning signs". I hope they aren't afraid of people missing the warning signs because they were too busy reading the "Please read our signs" sign. I do not agree with the premise that removing traffic signs is like removing taboos, if that was the question. I wasn't sure about the connection Craig was making. If the sign-removal is done where traffic is already somewhat slow speed because of congestion, making less destractions and encouraging driver interaction should not only improve traffic-flow but reduce accidents.

Craig, what are some of the taboos that have been toppled of late and which ones are sacrosanct, or should have been?

Re: 'Why?' and the Efficacy of Taboos

Kelly asks good questions in this post, the most important of which is "how do we protect the minority from a majority that would use the power of government to enforce belief (however wrong) onto an unwilling minority?"

As a Baptist, I am part of a tradition that came into existence in order to fight for the freedom of the conscience of every human being. We believe that faith can be imposed on no man, woman or child, and each person must be free to worship - or not worship - according to the dictates of his or her own conscience. Faith and belief are deeply personal matters, and the State or church heirarchy cannot force belief through the force of arms - or laws.

Having said that, is there an unhealthy extreme to which this principle can be taken? Are there certain taboos that are insisted upon in order to allow society to function? I read story this morning. Apparently at least a few European towns are ready to do away with the most basic of norms - traffic signs.

An excerpt from the article is illustrative:

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

Having prescriptions does not diminish the sense of personal responsibility in those who have personal responsibility in the first place. They simply bring order to a potentially chaotic situation where chaos will prove deadly. Guesswork is removed as people know what the rules are - in this case, rules of the road. To say that removing traffic signs will result in more courtesy is the silly argument of a five-year old that becomes unconscienably dangerous in the hands of a grown man or woman. There are times, like driving on the road, when rules enable freedom.

It has been a LONG time (centuries) since we in the West have had to build a society from the ground up. In our rush to enable personal freedom, we are tampering with "taboos" that our ancestors from those many ages ago put in place in order to build a society that functioned. While some of these probably are unnecessary, we are removing many of them with frightening speed and glee, before we understand the ramifications of doing so.

'WHY' - The world's shortest 4-letter word.

To those who might be wondering what all the fuss is about: are we just wasting out time? Shouldn't we get back to work like good little citizens; quit questioning our betters and let them get back to the dirty work of making the world more like us, er, I mean a better place...

Is all this discussion about the proper way to setup a government just a bunch a mental bubble-gum? All sweetness and light; keep you busy for a short while but lacking substance? Consider the following from the linked article by Paul Graham:

I suspect the biggest source of moral taboos will turn out to be power struggles in which one side only barely has the upper hand. That's where you'll find a group powerful enough to enforce taboos, but weak enough to need them.

When we talk about the tyranny of the majority, this might qualify. If the majority were actually right about the taboo in question, it wouldn't need to do anything to enforce the 'taboo'.

So, how do we protect the minority from a majority that would use the power of government to enforce belief (however wrong) onto an unwilling minority?

On Jeffersonian Revolutions (or On the Politics of Being 'Thumped')

Jefferson once said that a little revolution every now and then would be good for the country. What happened in the 2006 U.S. elections could be considered a 'little revolution'. I'm sure the incumbents might disagree as to the necessity but I digress. Let's examine what happened that day. What did the party in power do to trigger the revolt, what message or messages were the voters sending and what should the newly empowered party learn from the election?

First off, was the GOP asleep at the wheel? How else do you explain such a sweep where they lose the majority in both the U.S. House and Senate? Was it inevitable?

The Bush Administration leadership stance was that they thought that their current policies were taking the country in the desired direction. Stay the course - stick with the status quo. No one can force the Bush Administration to stray from their course. If they feel it is that imperative to continue their policies then it should be easy for them to convince the incoming majority of the wisdom of their decisions. I daresay that Bush's idea of 'Leadership' is to not waffle. While it can be said that you are being consistent with your principles, it also makes you susceptible to the sweet siren song of hubris. The question I would ask is, wouldn't it be prudent to at least entertain the notion that you could be wrong. In that situation, a little humility will go a long way. Think FDR during the Depression. He didn't defend a program that didn't work, he wanted results even if they came from a program that wasn't his own. Now that is real leadership. If you dismiss polls or the voices of your critics, when those voices get so loud as to sweep you out of power, they are essentially saying, "You are not listening to us!"

Secondly, the voters showed with their ballots that they have misgivings about the current policy direction. You can dismiss the pollsters and pundits, close the door on your critics, but you can not ignore the voices of the voters. It would be one thing if it was only the opposition party clamoring for attention. The danger is when you lump all who disagree with you into a single category. The political cartoon Doonesbury does this succinctly by having U.S. Soldiers refer to the Iraqi insurgents they are battling as 'Benchmark haters', subtly implying that those who disagree with the Bush Administration are in league with terrorists. The message the voters are sending is, "listen to us." We can disagree and still be loyal.

Thirdly, the biggest mistake the Democrats can make is to ignore the golden rule. Take the high road and treat the new Republican minority as you wished they had treated you. Also, don't waste the opportunity on investigating old dirt. Instead of trying to prove that the dirt is/was real, act as if all that uncovered dirt was real. Use the time you have to lead the country upwards and onwards instead of a vengeful trek into the mud. Be vigilant for new cases of ethical lapse, regardless of party. If the GOP had actually shown some gumption to address the misdeeds of their own members, the election may have had a different outcome.