Skip to main content

Cripping Incest Discourse(s)

Sexuality & Culture volume 25, pages 1910–1926 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

In this article, I chart the ableist presuppositions associated with the incest taboo. Specifically, I interrogate two ways in which incest is deployed as a particular form of knowledge (and consequently prohibited because of such knowledges): first, the knowledge that incest creates inbreeding and attendant ‘abnormalities’; and second, that incest is a threat to the sanctity of the family. I challenge both these assertions on the basis that they are grounded in ableist (and heteronormative) ways of thinking. While I dwell on the theoretical aspects of this analysis, in the second half of the article I move to explore the ethico-political dimensions that arise from such theorisations. Drawing on the intersections of crip/queer theory, I wonder whether we should ‘fuck the future’, or whether we should imagine a queer/crip future that is not yet here. Such choices, I hope, will help us inform our understandings and approaches towards incestuous practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. While incest can be violent, I do not think this is always the case (for example, think of two adult relations who willingly and consensually enter into a sexual relationship). I am also reminded of Butler’s (2004: 157) comment that: ‘I keep adding this qualification: “when incest is a violation,” suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not’. If violence does transpire, it is ‘by virtue of the consciousness of social shame’ (Butler 2004: 157). Also see Wolf (2014) for similar comments.

  2. I think the same can be said of incest. Seery (2013: 6) also notes that while incest is subjected to theoretical discussion, it ‘usually [sits] more at the margins than in the mainstream’.

  3. Also see Campbell (2018), Goodley (2014), Thorneycroft (2020a), and Thorneycroft and Asquith (2021) to consider the ways in which ableist (norms) imprison and violate abled people.

  4. The term consanguineous originates from two Latin words ‘con’ (meaning ‘shared’) and ‘sanguis’ (meaning ‘blood’), thus describing relations between two people who share blood (that is, a common ancestor) (Kanaan, Mahfouz, and Tamim 2008).

  5. Muñoz (2019: 182) notes the connection too.

References

  • Alcoff, L. M. (2009). Discourses of sexual violence in a global framework. Philosophical Topics, 37(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansermet, F., Lespinasse, J., Gimelli, S., Béna, F., & Paoloni-Giacobino, A. (2010). Mild intellectual disability associated with a progeny of father-daughter incest: Genetic and environmental considerations. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(3), 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, P. (2005). Inbreeding avoidance and incest taboos. In A. P. Wolf & W. H. Durham (Eds.), Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. (pp. 24–37). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynton, D. C. (2001). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. In P. K. Longmore & L. Umansky (Eds.), The new disability history: American perspectives. (pp. 33–57). New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, V. (1993). Interrogating incest: Feminism, foucault and the law. Routledge, London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergelson, V. (2013). Vice is nice but incest is best: the problem of a moral taboo. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 7(1), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlant, L. (2007). Slow death (sovereignty, obesity, lateral agency). Critical Inquiry, 33(4), 754–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittles, A. H. (2005). Genetic aspects of inbreeding and incest. In A. P. Wolf & W. H. Durham (Eds.), Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. (pp. 38–60). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex.’ Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2000). Antigone’s claim: Kinship between life and death. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2015). Senses of the subject. Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, C. M. (2005). Same-sex marriage, slippery slope rhetoric, and the politics of disgust: A Critical perspective on contemporary family discourse and the incest taboo. Northwestern University Law Review, 99(4), 1543–1612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. A. K. (2001). Inciting legal fictions: “Disability’s” date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1), 42–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. K. (2018). Refocusing the paradigm shift: From disability to studies in ableism. In A. Ghai (Ed.), Disability in south asia: Knowledge and experience. (pp. 38–57). SAGE Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clare, E. (2015). Exile and pride: Disability, queerness, and liberation. (16th ed.). Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clare, E. (2017). Brilliant imperfection: Grappling with cure. Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability. Deafness and the Body.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. J. (2006). Constructing normalcy: The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability studies reader. (2nd ed., pp. 3–16). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Derrida, J. (1997). Of Grammatology (Gayatri C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

  • Desjardins, M. (2012). The sexualized body of the child: Parents and the politics of “voluntary” sterilization of people labelled intellectually disabled. In R. McRuer & A. Mollow (Eds.), Sex and disability. (pp. 69–85). Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, É. (1897) 1963, Incest: The nature and origin of the taboo. Lyle Stuart, New York.

  • Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon Books, New York.

  • Freud, S. (1913) 2001. Totem and taboo: Some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics. Routledge. London.

  • Fritsch, K., & McGuire, A. (2018). Introduction: the biosocial politics of queer/crip contagions. Feminist Formations, 30(1), vii–xiv.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaafara, H. M., El Hamid, A. A. A., Ismail, G. M., & Eswi, A. S. (2014). Pattern of fetal congenital anomalies among consanguineous marriages in cairo university hospitals. Evidence Based Women’s Health Journal, 4(3), 141–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallop, J. (2019). Sexuality, disability, and aging: Queer temporalities of the phallus. Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, S. L. (1998). Sibling incest, madness, and the “Jews.” Social Research, 65(2), 401–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, E. C. (2016). Vulnerability and victimization: Rethinking key concepts in feminist discourses on sexual violence. Sign: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 42(1), 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2019). Provocations for critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 34(6), 972–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, H. (1986). Public support for rehabilitation programmes: The analysis of US disability policy. Disability, Handicap & Society, 1(2), 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (1985). The Sex Which Is Not One (C. Porter (with C Burke), Trans.). New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queen, crip. Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanaan, Z. M., Mahfouz, R., & Tamim, H. (2008). The prevalence of consanguineous marriages in an underserved area in lebanon and its association with congenital anomalies. Genetic Testing, 12(3), 367–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaviany, N., Sedehi, M., Golalipour, E., Aryaie, M., & Golalipour, M. J. (2016). Birth defects and parental consanguinity in the north of iran. British Journal of Medicine & Medical Research, 16(8), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E. (2011). Asexuality in disability narratives. Sexualities, 14(4), 479–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R. (2012). Golem girl gets lucky. In R. McRuer & A. Mollow (Eds.), Sex and disability. (pp. 231–255). Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. [1949] 1967. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon, Boston.

  • Liddiard, K. (2018). The intimate lives of disabled people. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRuer, R. (2002). Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled existence. In S. L. Snyder, B. J. Brueggemann, & R. Garland (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities. (pp. 88–99). Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRuer, R. (2017). No future for crips: Disorderly conduct in the new world order; or, disability studies on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In A. Waldschmidt, H. Berressem, & M. Ingwersen (Eds.), Culture—theory—disability: Encounters between disability studies and cultural studies. (pp. 63–77). Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mollow, A. (2012). Is sex disability? queer theory and the disability drive. In R. McRuer & A. Mollow (Eds.), Sex and disability. (pp. 285–312). Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollow, A., & McRuer, R. (2012). Introduction. In R. McRuer & A. Mollow (Eds.), Sex and disability. (pp. 1–34). Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, J. E. (2019). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. (10th ed.). New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1954). The incest taboo in relation to social structure and the socialization of the child. British Journal of Sociology, 5(2), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J., & Shildrick, M. (1998). Uncertain thoughts on the dis/abled body. In M. Shildrick & J. Price (Eds.), Vital signs: Feminist reconfigurations of the bio/logical body. (pp. 224–249). Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlow, T. R. (2016). Queering, cripping. In N. Giffney & M. O’Rourke (Eds.), The ashgate research companion to queer theory. (pp. 129–146). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5(4), 631–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. (pp. 157–210). Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. S. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality. (pp. 267–319). Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, M. (2016). The privatisation of incest: The neglect of familial sexual abuse in Australian public inquiries. In Y. Smaal, A. Kaladelfos, & M. Finnane (Eds.), The sexual abuse of children: Recognition and redress. (pp. 108–120). Monash University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, E. (2002). Critical divides: Judith Butler’s body theory and the question of disability. NWSA Journal, 14(3), 58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandahl, C. (2003). Queering the crip or cripping the queer? intersections of queer and crip identities in solo autobiographical performance. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 9(1–2), 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarfaraz, S., Ramzan, S., Riaz, W., Habib, R., & Bano, T. (2017). Awareness regarding risks of genetic disorders due to consanguineous marriages. International Journal of Medical Research and Applications, 1(2), 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seemanová, E. (1971). A study of children of incestuous matings. Human Heredity, 21(2), 108–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seery, J. (2013). Stumbling toward a democratic theory of incest. Political Theory, 41(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sesardic, N. (2005). From genes to incest taboos: The crucial step. In A. P. Wolf & W. H. Durham (Eds.), Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. (pp. 109–120). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shawky, R. M., & Sadik, D. I. (2011). Congenital malformations prevalent among egyptian children and associated risk factors. The Egyptian Journal of Medical Human Genetics, 12(1), 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, M. (2007). Contested pleasures: The sociopolitical economy of disability and sexuality. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 4(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shor, E., & Simchai, D. (2009). Incest avoidance, the incest taboo, and social cohesion: Revisiting Westermarck and the case of the Israeli Kibbutzim. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1803–1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability & Society, 15(4), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorneycroft, R. (2020a). Walking to the train station with Amal: Dis/ability and in/visibility. Disability & Society, 35(6), 861–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorneycroft, R. (2020b). Reimagining disablist and ableist violence as abjection. Routledge, London, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thorneycroft, R., Asquith, N. L. (2021). Cripping criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 25(2), 187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titchkosky, T. (2007). Reading and writing disability differently: The textured life of embodiment. University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. H., & Maryanski, A. (2016). Incest: Origins of the taboo. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermarck, E. (1894). The History of human marriage. (2nd ed.). Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermarck, E. (1926). A short history of human marriage. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. P. (2005). Introduction. In A. P. Wolf & W. H. Durham (Eds.), Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. (pp. 1–23). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. P. (2014). Incest avoidance and the incest taboos: Two aspects of human nature. Stanford Briefs.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was provided for the research or writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

    Ryan Thorneycroft

Authors
  1. Ryan Thorneycroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Thorneycroft.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thorneycroft, R. Cripping Incest Discourse(s). Sexuality & Culture 25, 1910–1926 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09856-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09856-3

Keywords

  • Crip theory
  • Ableism
  • Incest
  • Incest taboo