Having just returned from a very enjoyable week in Kauai, Hawaii's northernmost and greenest island, I have been thinking a lot about "kapu"--i.e., the complicated system of religious taboos that regulated almost all aspects of Hawaiian life prior to the arrival of Europeans.
I do not pretend to be familiar with all these taboos, nor do I have any real understanding of the world view that birthed and nurtured them. I simply learned a few, probably the most titillating and/or unsettling among them--and began to wonder what, if any, connection there might be between these specific Polynesian practices and other religious/political systems in other cultures and contexts.
What immediately strikes me is that people everywhere, regardless of the specifics of their taboos, seem to accept their legitimacy and willingly live within their bounds--provided (a big proviso) that no other alternative is available. People within a particular "closed" culture do not, in general, question the objective validity or, indeed, universality of their culture's moral code, and they submit, often zealously, to the strictures it imposes upon human conduct.
Thus in traditional Hawaii: if thou art female, thou shalt not eat bananas, pigs, coconuts or even poi; indeed thou shalt not eat
anything at all in the presence of males. If thou art male, thou shalt have thy penis subincised (i.e., slit on the underside) and shalt remove thy loincloth when in the presence of a great chief or a female ali'i of superior rank (as a sign of respect). Both male and female shall enjoy sexual relations of all sorts with people of all ages and genders, whenever and wherever the happy opportunity presents itself, except only that thou shalt not take thy pleasure with individuals whose social status is appreciably different from thine own. And thou shalt not touch--or even look at-- the chief's hair or fingernail clippings.
On penalty (sometimes) of death! (Though escape to and exile within a "city of refuge" might be possible.)
I, of course, coming from a different culture and having internalized an entirely different system of kapus, find these strictures at best irresponsible and at worst cruel and illogical. They just don't seem right, you know.
But to the ancient Hawaiians, they were just that--
right. The kapus guided them daily and provided structure and significance to their actions, joys and sufferings. These rules (and the religious assumptions underlying them) made as much sense to the Hawaiians as they seem nonsensical to today's Westerners.
Because they "fit" with the Hawaiians' view of the world and the nature of the universe.
But just imagine the horror of the purse-lipped and puritanical missionaries as they debarked intending to evangelize some poor brown savages only to find themselves obliged, on a daily basis, to compare this "perverted" world view to their own, clearly (to them) holy, and objectively true understanding of the human condition.
Of course, the missionaries’ Jesus view brought with it its own kapus, its own dietary and sexual rules, its own pariahs and punishments—all of which seemed right and moral to the missionaries, but which confused and frightened the Hawaiians. Ultimately, though, since the Jesus view also brought guns and gunships, the Hawaiians (pragmatically, albeit perhaps reluctantly) ditched the old kapus and adopted the new ones--thereby switching their allegiance to a world view with more firepower and greater global prestige-- but in so doing, losing not only their lifestyle, but their land and often their lives as well (usually from measles, a sort of collateral kapu-penalty of Christianity).
So what's my point? Really, it's just the obvious, I guess: religions and their affiliated kapus are relative—useful creations of the societies /cultures they serve to legitimize and underpin. And as such man-made constructs, they "work" only when their assumptions about ultimate reality are accepted and embraced by the bulk of the cultural entity that birthed them.
If, on the other hand, rival world views present themselves and vie for the allegiance/embrace of a people hitherto unaware of such an alternative, confusion, conflict and disorder are likely to arise. Both “old believers” and “new believers” will grow alternately defensive, agressive and, above all, angry. They will feel aggrieved and threatened by the “others” and, of course, by the world view, religion and kapus of these heretics, blasphemers, perverts, savages, criminals, etc.
As I indicated, this happened in Hawaii, until, ultimately, the Hawaiians were obliged to admit defeat, accept the new order and--in accordance with a "new" kapu, wear modesty muumuus to cover naked breasts, thus pleasing the “new” god by acquiescing to his peculiar sexual predilections.
A similar kapu conflict may be occurring now in the U.S. as a whole (not just Hawaii). The evangelical right—pretty much adherents of the stern Bible-based kapu-system the missionaries brought to Hawaii—are feeling themselves threatened on all sides by “others”—Muslims and imams, Jews and rabbis, Catholics and priests, Mexicans and quinceañeras, gays and Halloween—and even other non-white evangelicals who may share the same Bible, but don’t seem to follow the same kapus.
Also, and especially threatening, are those who reject ALL overarching world views and instead base their behavior exclusively upon science—i. e., rational thinking applied to observable and testable facts. This system allows no categorical "shalts" and "shalt nots" derived from some transcendent and omnipotent authority. Rather, says this view, humans must use reason and evidence to determine their behavior when confronted with such questions as:
--whether or not to commit adultery, whether or not to circumcise a baby, whether or not to eat meat on Good Friday, whether or not to wear a head covering, whether or not to consume shrimp, whether or not to seek a divorce, whether or not to obey one's parents, whether or not to masturbate, whether or not to cut one's hair, whether or not to use electricity, whether or not to have an abortion, whether or not to wear a muumuu.
Because there still remain a considerable number of these angry, frightened, and politically zealous evangelicals within America’s borders, I fear they may (narrowly) win the next several elections held in our Great Reactionary Republic. But I am confident that, like the kahunas and their kapus, these votaries of an "old" world view (Christianity, especially the fundamentalist kind) are, in the long term, doomed to disappear--very slowly, very painfully--kicking and screaming and perhaps killing along the way. Already, indeed, some of their most primitive and most barbarous kapus have been rejected by the America's general culture--e.g., legal strictures against non-whites, women, homosexuals. And though some setbacks are to be anticipated, the legality of abortion will, ultimately I think, be resolved in a similar way: by leaving this decision to the reason and conscience of the sole sentient being involved (the pregnant woman).
In short, I am hopeful that a scientific world view is on the way IN and that, consequently, irrational kapus are on the way OUT--no longer taboo, no longer forbidden. Rather, shouldn’t our modern kapus be viewed as primarily "fashion”—acts of no transcendent significance—rather like wearing a muumuu? Put one on if your reason tells you it's a useful, enjoyable, practice. But please, not because you fear ostracism or punishment, or because you hope to be able to eat poi (finally) with the men and boys (subincised or not) in hula heaven.
