WEIRD means no kin-groups. The Church was stripping kin-groups of control over marriage and assets. It insisted on testamentary rights—which both increased the chance of donations to the Church and broke up kin-group control over assets. Female consent for marriage and very restrictive incest rules broke up kin-group control over marriage.
This worked in manorial Europe, as all manor holders—which was almost everyone who mattered—did not want kin-groups as alternative sources of authority and loyalty. Which is why nobles and royalty bought into it. It didn’t work in the (pastoralist) Celtic fringe or the Balkan uplands, as local power-holders had their positions via kin-groups.
These rules were developed very early in the medieval period. Indeed, the Fourth Lateran Council (1213-14) weakened the bans on incest (though they still remained highly restrictive).
The Church was building on the suppression of kin groups in the Greek polis and Roman Republic. Same issue—destroying an alternative, and divisive, source of authority and loyalty. Kin groups colonise institutions and organisations—rulers come and go, the kin-group is forever.
Even today, much of the appeal of Christianity in Africa—especially Pentecostalism—is that their congregations provide an alternative support mechanism to, and a refuge from the demands of, kin-groups.
I wrote extensively about this, fairly recently. The Church not only was not responsible for the cousin marriage taboo, but spent much of its early history weakening it, because Christianity has a Semitic origin and the Semitic tradition is very much in favor of cousin marriage. Henrich was very shifty when he focused his MFP theory (which is sound) on its weakest, but most easily defended link, that of the cousin marriage ban
Steve Sailer has made the point that options for cousin marriage in the last 70 years have exploded as more children make it to adulthood via improved healthcare.
Before the demographic explosion lots of children died in infancy and childbirth so the modal adult had one adult sibling and one adult first cousin of the opposite sex.
So a cultural preference is much easier to exercise.
Moog was attempting to explain why the colonization of Brazil was so slow compared with that of the United States. An extreme example would be the colonization of the Brazilian state of Espirito Santo. Its first settlement was on the coast at Vila Velha in 1535, near the modern capital of Vitoria. Incredibly, however, the mountains only 50 kilometers inland were not settled until the 1870's by Italians from Lombardy and Germans from Pomerania. Indigenous bands lived in those mountains largely unmolested for more than 300 years after the founding of Vila Velha. Of course, where the motivation of mineral riches was present, as in Minas Gerais, colonization was not as slow as in the mountains of Espirito Santo.
Moog's explanation was that pristine Brazil was initially explored by parties of men, the Bandeirantes, for wealth in the form of indigenous slaves and precious metals. These men tended to return to the settlements near the coast to utilize their wealth rather than creating new settlements farther inland. The English colonies on the other hand were always founded by parties largely of married couples committed to establishing new localities of English population. Neolocalism on the North American frontier was an unquestioned assumption that led to a much more rapid European settlement than the one in Latin America. Obviously, the North American settlement was by NW Europeans and the South American by SW Europeans.
I understand, of course, that my use of the term "neolocalism" is different than that of scholars who are detailing the choice of a homeplace by a newly married couple. Nevertheless, the two behavioral patterns are probably connected psychologically.
WEIRD means no kin-groups. The Church was stripping kin-groups of control over marriage and assets. It insisted on testamentary rights—which both increased the chance of donations to the Church and broke up kin-group control over assets. Female consent for marriage and very restrictive incest rules broke up kin-group control over marriage.
This worked in manorial Europe, as all manor holders—which was almost everyone who mattered—did not want kin-groups as alternative sources of authority and loyalty. Which is why nobles and royalty bought into it. It didn’t work in the (pastoralist) Celtic fringe or the Balkan uplands, as local power-holders had their positions via kin-groups.
These rules were developed very early in the medieval period. Indeed, the Fourth Lateran Council (1213-14) weakened the bans on incest (though they still remained highly restrictive).
The Church was building on the suppression of kin groups in the Greek polis and Roman Republic. Same issue—destroying an alternative, and divisive, source of authority and loyalty. Kin groups colonise institutions and organisations—rulers come and go, the kin-group is forever.
Even today, much of the appeal of Christianity in Africa—especially Pentecostalism—is that their congregations provide an alternative support mechanism to, and a refuge from the demands of, kin-groups.
“If your 2nd cousin is the only woman of correct age around, you will choose her even if you prefer not to).”
There are very, very few 21st century humans who face this constraint though.
Kin marriage is a cultural practice, not an economic necessity.
I wrote extensively about this, fairly recently. The Church not only was not responsible for the cousin marriage taboo, but spent much of its early history weakening it, because Christianity has a Semitic origin and the Semitic tradition is very much in favor of cousin marriage. Henrich was very shifty when he focused his MFP theory (which is sound) on its weakest, but most easily defended link, that of the cousin marriage ban
https://mankind.substack.com/p/quick-take-the-christian-church-didnt?utm_source=publication-search
David, what means exactly "NW Europeans"?
North West Europeans?
Found this after writing this post. https://policytensor.substack.com/p/the-churchs-crusade-against-cousin
Steve Sailer has made the point that options for cousin marriage in the last 70 years have exploded as more children make it to adulthood via improved healthcare.
Before the demographic explosion lots of children died in infancy and childbirth so the modal adult had one adult sibling and one adult first cousin of the opposite sex.
So a cultural preference is much easier to exercise.
Good insight 😌 Can i translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?
Sure.
Good article, but what means exactly "NW Europeans"? I did not find a definition or something similar...
Neolocalism might explain the differences between colonization and early development of North America versus South America. These are detailed by the book, Bandeirantes and Pioneers by Vianna Moog. https://www.amazon.com/Bandeirantes-pioneers-Clodomir-Vianna-Moog/dp/B0007DNC3M
Moog was attempting to explain why the colonization of Brazil was so slow compared with that of the United States. An extreme example would be the colonization of the Brazilian state of Espirito Santo. Its first settlement was on the coast at Vila Velha in 1535, near the modern capital of Vitoria. Incredibly, however, the mountains only 50 kilometers inland were not settled until the 1870's by Italians from Lombardy and Germans from Pomerania. Indigenous bands lived in those mountains largely unmolested for more than 300 years after the founding of Vila Velha. Of course, where the motivation of mineral riches was present, as in Minas Gerais, colonization was not as slow as in the mountains of Espirito Santo.
Moog's explanation was that pristine Brazil was initially explored by parties of men, the Bandeirantes, for wealth in the form of indigenous slaves and precious metals. These men tended to return to the settlements near the coast to utilize their wealth rather than creating new settlements farther inland. The English colonies on the other hand were always founded by parties largely of married couples committed to establishing new localities of English population. Neolocalism on the North American frontier was an unquestioned assumption that led to a much more rapid European settlement than the one in Latin America. Obviously, the North American settlement was by NW Europeans and the South American by SW Europeans.
I understand, of course, that my use of the term "neolocalism" is different than that of scholars who are detailing the choice of a homeplace by a newly married couple. Nevertheless, the two behavioral patterns are probably connected psychologically.
Cousin marriage was once common among northeastern Wasps (e.g., Eleanor Roosevelt and FDR) and remains not unknown today. Just an outlier?
What would be the mechanism by which neolocalism would cause WEIRDness?
I suspect cousin marriage is a consequence of clannishness, as opposed to the other way around.