“Do you agree that taboos play a role of obligatory transmission, making reflexive and transcendent dialogues between the older and the younger generations, a man and his societies. a man and animals, etc?”

If I’m understanding the context of your question correctly, yes, I would agree that taboos can trigger instinctually reactive and reflexive paradigms by which readers have an opportunity to share “transmission” points, intuitions or “higher consciousness,” depending upon the reader’s own set of cultural norms. If considering this through the lens of a single culture or set of similar cultures with similar mores, yes, I believe that multiple generations can certainly share connection points, too.

“Yet how much can a taboo be less personal than societal or tribal in terms of postmodernity?”

I’m not sure I completely understand your proposed topic here. Let me give it a stab. Are you considering how a taboo can be less personal than societal or tribal mores in terms of postmodernism? I assume you’re speaking of postmodern past, and not the “post-postmodernism” of today.

If I’m understanding you correctly, this is an interesting consideration, given that postmodernism basically shirked the modernist “norm” while still keeping a place for it in the overall scheme. Postmodernism adopted an “all goes” philosophy and seemingly opened the literary canvas to taboo exploration more so than ever before. In this context, perhaps consider artistic reflection of “tribe” or “society” as a progression–modernism turns to the post-modernist all-is-fair-in-love-and-art and the basic principles or “taboos” as being more than mere moralistic judgments but also structural vehicles by which the true parameters of a civilization, the beast as a whole and/or an individuated collection of beasts, might be studied.

One reason for this study might be to investigate how taboo personalizes a particular society or tribe in comparison to others, to unveil differences with a concentration on societal “underbellies.” Postmodernism allowed writers and artists to do this more in depth than ever before. Add to that the cyberpunk and fantasist settings and readers may ask these hard, underbelly questions in less personal contexts: what are my hypothetical “tribe’s” limits? What are my hypothetical self’s limits? Easier to explore the dark side in less personal venues. Throw in existentialism versus transcendentalism, and you get not only a more palatable venue for difficult exploration but also a theoretical exploration of the tangible versus higher consciousness. It is easy to debate morals in reality, both practical and artistic “realities”–i.e. realism–but taboos and nastiness are much harder to navigate in “real” terms, uncomfortable. Postmodernism by adopting magic realism, surrealism, fantasy, SF, etc. gave us the critical canvas and vehicle for taboo exploration. Fantastical settings give us a place to explore without getting too personal. It is also interesting to consider that it is sometimes easier to study the societal canvas by its negative spaces–what a society or individual will not accept as practice–more so than a study of positive, “moralistic” spaces. Sometimes the negative spaces can create a more complete picture. It’s all good critical discourse and highly applicable in a post-postmodernism sense.

“Can taboos be, without parody, traced back with their own religious, sacred/mysterious flavors?”

I believe that they can be traced back to origins in the context of the story. I would be hard-pressed to find a current taboo exploration that has not already been explored in classical Greek texts, and my personal take is that origins, in all their flavors, add depth to stories.

“Also, I am not “western” – physically and psychoanalytically, and to me, you are opening a door of cultural translation for me: the section “necessity, balance, and thematic sincerity” are wonderful, but can you share more?”

Taboos and Tropes II discusses further the “taboo trope” and some things one might consider in writing taboos so that the taboo is written with sincerity and doesn’t take over the entire work, unless of course, it is the writer’s intention artistically for the taboo to do so. Experimentalists sometimes play with this overarching theme concept. I’ll be happy to discuss this further. Do you have any particular areas or applications for consideration?

“And, what makes taboo gain and fail its power? As u mentioned, Swift in A Modest Proposal used the primal taboo, child-eating, to criticize his English people. To my students, they felt that this work could be impossibly printed out in modern Taiwan, even in the manner of satire. Because its tone was so serious and sincere. Therefore, there leaves little dialoguing room for me to “dispassionately” explain the Bibical infanticide. But it’s Ok for them to know Cronus’ eating his sons. Is child-eating something horrible and therefore a taboo?”

Ah, yes, you are not alone. I have found English/American readers and students who haven’t had the context, be it culturally or experientially, to appreciate or “get” the high comedy and satire of Swift and other great writers. I often taught “A Modest Proposal” to students without forewarning. In this venue, the work seemed to provide a litmus test for students of literature, a memorable one, and therefore one that created a fantastic teachable moment. It was one of my favorite lessons, because it needed no bells or whistles. The essay itself was all my students needed, and they were on the edge of their seats with feverish interest and disgust.

Yes, the satire can be difficult for readers who are not familiar to the device, regardless of language, and I’m sure translation of it would cause the same difficulty. Even English/American reactions can vary from “getting it” and disgusted to being “clueless” and disgusted, unable to make the bridge to Swift’s intention. Disgust is certainly his intention, so it is a good question as to how one might translate the full satirical iintention.

I wonder how it would work if translated accompanied historical footnotes as well as notes on Deconstruction theory and the text’s absurdism.

In terms of Cronus eating his children, perhaps it is more easily grasped because it follows a universally expectation and pattern. Cronus is a titan who can be seen as a giant, godlike, a negative entity, so for him to eat Hera, Poseidon, etc. is acceptable because he is a “monster.” We expect monsters to eat humans, children, etc.; however, for a human to suggest that other humans, noble humans at that, eat children, goes against what we expect from humans. Herein lies the irony of it and the difficult concept, not to mention, as you say the seriousness of the piece. Not only is the outcome different from our expectation, but the voice is as well. The narrator of “A Modest Proposal” speaks with a voice of logic, political necessity, social concern. The context is horrid, the voice is measured, even eloquent. The narrator appears civilized, and so the suggestion of Irish infants as being tasty even to the point of suggesting ways to prepare and cook the infants is shocking, heinous. Would we be so shocked if a giant Cyclops suggested the same thing? No, this suggestion has no irony, because our mores expect a mythological giant to eat humans. Swift’s work is so brilliant because he presents the heinous through human logic, a reflection of what the English were doing to the Irish, allowing the Irish to starve on the principle of economic “logic.” Wouldn’t it be interesting to have students rewrite “A Modest Proposal,” making the English into titans or some sort of mythical monster?

I believe that the best way to make the satirical bridge for readers is through this historical context. When the translation is immediately juxtaposed to the atrocities of the time period, the connect comes more easily, so a translation, in the context of your student’s suggestion, may require this connect to be made up front.

Thanks so much for your thoughts and interest. Rae

Also, I am not “western” – physically and psychoanalytically, and to me, you are opening a door of cultural translation for me: the section “necessity, balance, and thematic sincerity” are wonderful, but can you share more?

And, what makes taboo gain and fail its power? As u mentioned, Swift in A Modest Proposal used the primal taboo, child-eating, to criticize his English people. To my students, they felt that this work could be impossibly printed out in modern Taiwan, even in the manner of satire. Because its tone was so serious and sincere. Therefore, there leaves little dialoguing room for me to “dispassionately” explain the Bibical infanticide. But it’s Ok for them to know Cronus’ eating his sons. Is child-eating something horrible and therefore a taboo?

In “Taboos and Tropes: Part II” there is an excerpt from Benedict’s Virgin or Vamp that really brings home the full scope of victim and perpetrator. I thought it was particularly helpful in my dealing with the topic.

Yes, I have crossed paths with the “portal trope” discussion prompted by Mendelsohn. In fact, that may be an excellent focus for future discussion.

It would seem that as we progress societally, our sensitivity to social taboos has numbed over time. “Yesterday’s” hypersensitivity to difference in sexuality, etc. seems to be less now, at least on a general scale. Certainly, we’re not where we’d like to be, and additional complications have appeared along the way.

In the case of what I like to call “primal taboos,” the seemingly hardwired no-nos, a case could be made that all the taboos have been explored in some medium or another. So with primal taboos, perhaps, it’s not so much a matter of discovering new taboos, but rather giving them a new twist. That’s a big order.

I personally like to delve into social taboos, the no-nos ordained by some arbitrary authority as being “bad.” The don’t mix classes and cultures kind of stuff. Often these are the taboos that really “speak” thematically for me.

Then again, Swift, used a primal taboo (eating children) as a vehicle to discuss social taboos based on classicism and prejudice. Doesn’t get much better than that.

Yes, Jaym, Pullman uses many of the same elements, even basic structure. Difficult to escape regurgitation when dealing with epics of any kind. Many would say Pullman was writing to a YA audience, and the rules are slightly different there, because the targeted audience is, in general, not as diversely read as an adult audience is.

Perhaps this is what gives the YA author more room to explore old ideas. From a parental and teaching standpoint, I don’t mind YA works exploring old ideas (even when they border on trope) because these are ideas that my younger children/students have yet to fully engage. So where it is trope to me, it is something new to them.

Heh, yes, with children’s and YA, talking animals seem to be compulsory material.

Good discussion, Jaym, troping does have a lot to do with audience.