Purity and Danger: An

Anthropological Approach to
our Everyday Order
陈欣悦 郭静含 李葭淇 殷柔埼
About the author
an anthropologist and social theorist working in the
Durkheimian （涂尔干式的） tradition.

Most anthropologists know her 1966 book Purity

and Danger. In the Mary Douglas shows that to
examine what is considered asunclean in any culture
is to take a looking-glass approach to the
orderedpatterning which that culture strives to
establish. Such an approach affords a universal
understanding of the rules of purity which applies
Mary Douglas(1921–2007) equally to secular and religious life and equally to
primitive and modern societies.
 Hygiene&Ritual
01.
 Before Mary Douglas
The Medical Materialism Approach: ( 医学唯物主义）
primitive rituals have a sound hygienic basis
ritual avoidance is in correspondence with the avoidance of contagious disease
example: “Jewish and Islamic avoidance of pork is explained as due to the
dangers of eating pig in hot climates.”
However, we could not simply view Mose as “an enlightened public health
William James
administrator rather than as a spiritual leader.”

The opposite view: the primitive ritual has nothing whatever in common with
our ideas of cleaness.
Mary Douglas treats this view as equally harmful to the understanding of ritual.
“I am going to argue that our ideas of dirt also express symbolic systems
and that the difference between pollution behaviour in one part of the
world and another is only a matter of detail.”
Two notable differences:
1. not related to religion (secular understanding of
impurity)
2.dominated by pathogenicity （致病性）
“Where there is dirt, there is
system.”
—Mary Douglas
People’s symbolic undestanding of purity and
defilement
Dirt as “matter out of place”
something that confuses or
contradicts cherished
classifications, transgresses the
established order.
Dark Cuisine ( 黑暗料理）

not pathogenically harmful, but symbolically

unacceptable
Our pattern-making tendency
“In a chaos of shifting inpressions, each of us constructs a stable world in
which shapes, are located in depth, and have permanence.”
Building Modifing Coming to terms (name)

their names affect

the way they are
perceived next
experiences pile up discordant ones, time
new objects
and a conservative once accepted
bias is built in. “we can and do reflect with profit
“disgust” on our main classifications and
“impurity” on experiences which does not
exactly fit them.”
Purity and Danger
——In view of Leviticus
CONTENTS

Chapter 1 The Abominations of Leviticus

Chapter 2 Holiness and abominations
Chapter 3 Dietary laws and Social boundaries
 The Abominations
of Leviticus
01. ---Defilement is never an isolated event. It cannot occur except in
view of a systematic ordering of ideas. (Douglas 42)
 Leviticus
● God commanded Moses to write down His
judgements.

● God purposed to choose a holy nation, a holy

people, and set her apart to serve Him.

● In order to remind Israel of the

---seriousness of their sin
---it made them an abomination in the eyes
of the God.
Genesis
There are appropriate animals that survive in
each level, and any animal that is not fit is
contrary to holiness. People who come into contact
with them are not qualified to enter the Temple.

-In the sky:

two-legged birds of prey flying on wings
-In the water:
the fish with scales swims with his fins
-On land:
an animal with four legs jumps or walks
Douglas: “ For a modern version of the view that the dietary rules are not
symbolic, but ethical, disciplinary.”(45)

The two central words:

Morality & Religions

For morality
● To keep the Jews from
ignorance, arrogance, idleness
and iniquity.
● Principle of choice:
forbidding tasty meats

● Because for the most blind

organ, sense of taste, these
animals are a snare that leads
one to the evil of gluttony.
For religions
● Some animals may be banned
because of their repulsive
appearance or unclean habits,
others for hygienic reasons; in
other cases, the motive for the
ban may well be religious.

● It was actually to stop the

spread of pagan rituals.
 Holiness and
abominations
02. ---In the Old Testament , we find that blessing is the source of
all good things, and the loss of blessing is the source of all
danger. (Douglas 50)
What is “Holiness”?

● -Characteristics of holiness:
·wholeness and completeness.

·Holiness is order, not chaos

——requires that different kinds of things
not be confused, and so also entails proper
definition, distinction and order.(Douglas 54)
● The reason for holiness:

● The Opposition of Holiness

(Object of Abomination):
● Holiness implies directness and
singleness, and its opposite is an
epithet.(Discrepancy of appearances.)
Withdrawal of Blessing= dangers
Observing them draws down
prosperity, infringing them brings
danger. ( 顺之者昌，逆之者亡 )

So this is a universe in which men

prosper by conforming to holiness
and perish when they deviate from it.

The precepts and ceremonies alike are

focused on the idea of the
holiness of God.
 Dietary laws and
Social boundaries
03. ---Defilement is never an isolated event. It cannot occur
except in view of a systematic ordering of ideas.
(Douglas 42)
 Holiness and domestic animals
● Humans believe that animals in the wild in
the animal kingdom need to be divided into
boundaries and categories by God.

● In order to maintain their holiness, they

must not come into contact with anything
unclean, including the "unclean things"
spoken of in Leviticus.

● So only things that God allows to be touched

can be touched, and all creatures that are
not categorised are disturbing.
● Holiness gives physical expression to holiness in occasions
when people encounter various animals and foods.

● The concept of holiness was a constant reminder of the deep

understanding of God's uniqueness, purity, and perfection,
and attributed natural and man-made disasters to the
defilement of God's holiness.

● Thus, the observance of dietary rules became an important

sacrament of acknowledgement and worship of God, often
culminating in the dedication of the temple.
· Four types of social pollution
①Danger pressing on external boundaries

②Danger transgressing the internal lines of the system

③Danger in the margins of the lines

④Danger from internal contradiction

The symbolism of the body’s boundaries is used to express

danger to community boundaries.
①Danger pressing on external boundaries
Things from outside that try to enter the body system:
virus, germ, bacteria, certain food, dirty blood

enemy & invaders;

natural disasters;
adultery
②Danger transgressing the internal
lines of the system
Things that cross the boundries of body system:
shit, pee, sliva, blood, nail, scurf, hair……

The lowest class are impure, because they wash clothes,

cut hair and nail, dress corpses and so on, and their humble
services enable the higher castes to be free of impurities.
③Danger in the margins of the lines
Things that cannot be clearly classified into any categories of a
system: anything which has once emerged gaining re-entry is
dangerous. Anything issuing from the body is never to be re-
admitted, but strictly avoided.

Half-blood;
transgenders;
LGBT
③Danger from internal contradiction
Conflict that arise when different parts of a system are
in tension with each other: delivery is impure.

e.g.
economic growth vs environmental protection
freedom of speech vs protection from
disorder
individual freedom vs public safety
 ·Four ways in which social pollution
can uphold the moral code
①When a situation is morally ill-defined, a pollution belief can provide a rule
for determining post hoc whether infraction has taken place, or not.
② When moral principles come into conflict, a pollution rule can reduce
confusion by giving a simple focus for concern.

Pollution as the supplement of moral code——pollution do not depend

on intention or a nice balancing of rights and duties. The only material
question is whether a forbidden contact has taken place or not.

e.g. inappropriate love Lolita

 ·Four ways in which social pollution
can uphold the moral code
③ When action that is held to be morally wrong does not provoke moral
indignation, belief in the harmful consequences of a pollution can have the
effect of aggravating the seriousness of the offence, and so of marshalling
public opinion on the side of the right.
④When moral indignation is not reinforced by practical sanctions, pollution
beliefs can provide a deterrent to wrongdoers.

Pollution as the reinforcement of moral code——when the sense of

outrage is adequately equipped with practical sanctions in the social order,
pollution is not likely to arise.
Extended Thoughts Based on the Book
· The classification of animals as “clean” or “unclean”
based on the ways in which a civilization categorizes
and understands the world could reflect complex
human nature.

· Mary Douglas proves from an anthropological point

of view that there is a basis and possibility for dialogue
between civilizations.
 The classification interacts with cultural
systems and categories. They reflect the
civilization’s values and priorities.

pig as “unclean” in Leviticus:

· May have been related to concerns about
health and hygiene.
· The cultural associations of pigs in the
ancient Near East, where they were often
seen as scavengers and sometimes eat
human corpses.

The ban on eating pork (Leviticus 11:7),

in this 1559 sketch "Fair at Hoboken" by Breugel the Elder. The obedience to the Law expressed a strong
pig's scavenging habits — which included the occasional human internal faith in God and healthy fear of
corpse — was one factor in a decline in the reputation of pigs Him.
and pork in the late Middle Ages.
 The forbidding of eating certain foods such as pork distinguished between what would later
be termed “Jew” and “Gentile.” The dietary restrictions further indicated that Israel was a
separate nation and the chosen people.

Jew vs Gentile

Douglas attempts to justify the existence of uncleanness and its role in different
cultural contexts with specific content and manifestations.
Human nature encompasses the innate and
evolved traits, behaviors, and abilities that make
us uniquely human. Our ability to construct
meaning and understanding in the world is
one of those traits, and it reflects our capacity
for complex thought and symbolic
communication.
 Religious beliefs are simply a reflection of a society’s underlying social
structure.

Ignored the fact that a civilization’s religious beliefs and practices

are born out of a unique cultural and historical context.

Fails to account for the dynamic and diverse nature of human

practices, and does not prove a frame work for understanding the
complexities and nuances of religion in different civilizations.

A simplified view of religion and a misinterpretation of

civilization.
Émile
Durkheim
Religious beliefs are not static or universal, but rather are shaped by the
cultural systems and classifications of different civilizations.

All cultures share a common concern with maintain order and unity in
the face of potential chaos and danger. The rules and practices
surrounding purity and pollution are a way for societies to make sense
of the world around them and to create a sense of unity and cohesion.

A universality that facilitates communication

and mutual understanding between cultures.
Mary Douglas
THANKS!

CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and includes

icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik