Purity and Danger

In this chapter, Douglas examines cases where the social system of a given culture is self-defeating, at war with itself. She focuses on instances of a sexual nature, where instead of expressing harmony, the relations between men and women express “rigid separation and violent antagonism” (173). The goal is to keep the body—the physical body and by extension the social “body”—pure and intact. Some such societies, such as the Mae Enga of New Guinea or the Lele tribe of the Congo, develop an exaggerated avoidance of sex. It is believed that the sexes pollute or constitute a danger to each other in some way, and particularly women to men, which Douglas refers to as the “Delilah complex” (190). Some societies, such as the Bemba of Rhodesia, perceive of sexual activity as dangerous, and fear it. In the case of the Mae Enga, the antagonism may be the result of men choosing their wives from “foreign”—that is to say, neighboring—tribes.

In societies where sexual roles are strongly enforced, anyone who deviates from the rules is punished immediately with physical force. Men are usually the dominant sex and enforce their dominance over the women. Nevertheless, it is possible for women as the weaker sex to be protected from violence. In South India and Ceylon, the purity of women is closely guarded and protected. This, however, can become a source of contradiction and paradox, a case of “wanting to have your cake and eat it” (194), because where male dominance is balanced by a countervailing principle protecting women from physical control, the women often take advantage of this to play one man against one another. Thus, social stability is weakened.

Douglas believes that these examples may throw light on the teachings of early Christianity, which extolled virginity and insisted that “there is neither male nor female” in Christ. In formulating those words, St. Paul was likely reacting against the sexual strife that he saw in Middle Eastern societies around him.