What Is a Taboo? The Rules Nobody Has to Explain
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
Some prohibitions are argued for and some are simply felt. A taboo belongs to the second kind: breaking it provokes disgust rather than disagreement, the reasons offered afterwards tend to be weak, and the strength of the reaction is unrelated to whether anyone is harmed. That gap between the force of the feeling and the quality of the justification is what makes the category philosophically interesting.
Where the word comes from
The term entered English from Polynesian languages, recorded by James Cook in the 1770s as tapu or tabu, describing things set apart as forbidden and charged with a power that made contact dangerous. It was paired with its opposite, noa, meaning ordinary or free of restriction, and the system governed chiefs, corpses, food, places and the conduct of women and men in ways that structured daily life. English borrowed the word and broadened it to cover any strong social prohibition, which loses the original sense that the forbidden thing is not merely disapproved of but is dangerous in itself, contagious by contact and requiring ritual to neutralise. That original sense survives in how taboos still behave: people avoid a tabooed object rather than merely declining to use it, and contact is felt to contaminate, which is why the anthropological literature treats taboo as a matter of purity rather than of ethics.
The recurring categories
The specific content differs enormously between societies and the domains do not:
- •Food, with prohibitions on particular animals or combinations that are frequently among the most visible markers of a group's identity
- •Death and corpses, which are almost universally treated as polluting and requiring ritual handling and purification of those who touch them
- •Bodily substances, especially blood, and menstruation in particular, which attracts restrictions across a very wide range of societies
- •Sexual conduct, above all incest, which is prohibited everywhere though the definition of who counts as too close varies dramatically
- •Names and speech, including prohibitions on uttering the name of the dead, of a deity or of a dangerous animal, which drives the invention of substitute words
- •Persons and places, where chiefs, priests, shrines and burial grounds are set apart and contact is restricted
The explanations
Several accounts compete and each explains part of the pattern. The functional or materialist reading, associated with Marvin Harris, holds that taboos encode practical advantages, so a prohibition on pigs suits an environment where pigs compete with humans for food and water, and dietary rules may reduce disease. This explains some cases and struggles with others, and is criticised for reconstructing a reason after the fact. The structural reading, from Mary Douglas in Purity and Danger, argues that what is tabooed is what falls between a culture's categories: dirt is matter out of place, and the animals prohibited in Leviticus are largely those that fail to fit the classificatory scheme the text itself sets out, being neither properly of the water nor of the land nor of the air. That explains the arbitrariness rather than explaining it away. A third, from moral psychology, notes that disgust evolved to handle contamination and has been recruited to social and moral judgements, which is why moral taboos feel visceral and why people maintain them while unable to produce reasons, a phenomenon documented experimentally as moral dumbfounding.
Why they matter now
Taboos are usually discussed as a feature of other societies, and they operate in every society including secular ones. Contemporary examples include eating certain animals that are eaten elsewhere without comment, handling human remains, incest between consenting adults who cannot conceive, and a range of speech prohibitions whose force is unmistakable and whose justification, when demanded, is frequently supplied after the fact. There is also the category of taboo trade-offs, identified in decision research, where putting a price on something held sacred, such as a child, a vote or a friendship, produces outrage rather than a counter-offer, and people who even consider such a trade are judged harshly for having considered it. That finding matters practically, because policy frequently requires exactly those comparisons, and framing a necessary trade-off in explicit monetary terms reliably provokes a reaction that a differently framed version of the same decision does not. The philosophical question is not whether such feelings are reliable guides, since they are plainly unreliable, but what follows when a strong intuition survives the collapse of every reason offered for it.
The takeaway
A taboo is a prohibition felt rather than argued, provoking disgust and a sense of contamination rather than disagreement, and the word came into English from Polynesian tapu in the 1770s with that sense of dangerous contact intact. The same domains recur everywhere: food, death, bodily substances, sexual conduct, names and set-apart persons and places. Explanations range from hidden practical benefit to Douglas's argument that what falls between a culture's categories becomes polluting, to disgust recruited into moral judgement.