You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
“Thus we find again that taboo has grown out of the soil of an ambivalent emotional attitude. The taboo of the dead also originates from the opposition between the conscious grief and the unconscious satisfaction at death. If this is the origin of the resentment of spirits it is self-evident that just the nearest and formerly most beloved survivors have to fear it most.”—, p. 103 of “Totem and Taboo.”
“It is a necessary defect of studies which seek to apply the point of view of psychoanalysis to the mental sciences that they cannot do justice to either subject. They therefore confine themselves to the role of incentives and make suggestions to the expert which he should take into account in his work.”—Ibid., p. 124.
In accordance with Dr. Freud's recommendation that the ethnologist seek to give more specialized applications to the general point of view expressed in “Totem and Taboo,” I wish to discuss two hypotheses, on the basis of ethnographical material.
That granting the presence of an ambivalent attitude towards the dead, especially towards those individuals with whom we have been in intimate contact, which aspect of this ambivalent attitude will be the dominant and conscious one, and which aspect will be forced to keep out of sight and only express itself indirectly, is a function of the civilization in which an individual lives.
That it is possible to find a cultural solution of these conflicting attitudes which may obviate the need of suppressing either one.
In our civilization, joy, relief, even indifference toward the death of a relative or friend, are socially unacceptable attitudes. The