230 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



(c) The father figure's accident involved a necessary and economically pro- 

 ductive activity, while John's accidents occurred in the course of a gratuitous 

 and economically unproductive activity. 



(&) The father figure's activity was a nontraditional but nowadays common- 

 place type of performance among the Mohave. By contrast, the activity where- 

 by John repeatedly endangered his own life is without parallel among the Mo- 

 have. It is almost as unusual as though he had decided to become a professional 

 big game hunter or bullfighter. 



(o) The element of I'isk in the father figure's activity was inherent and un- 

 avoidable ; in John's activity it was gratuitous and superimposed on the basic 

 activity. 



The costliness, unproductiveness, riskiness, and social uniqueness of John's 

 activity thus contrasts with the economic productiveness and routine nature of 

 the activity in which the father figure lost his life. It is this set of "comple- 

 mentary differences" that suggests that whereas the father figure's activity was 

 a normally motivated one, John's activity reflected a neurotic and uncontrollable 

 need to reenact the father figure's death. This finding is completely com- 

 patible with, and almost predictable on the basis of, the manifest tendency of 

 Mohave suicides to "cluster," i.e., for one dramatic death or suicide to serve 

 as a model for a second death or suicide (part 7, passim). 



(3) Johti's accidents seen in relation to his mother. — John's self-destructive 

 activities were quite expensive, so that he could not have engaged in them had 

 his mother been unwilling to subsidize these activities on several occasions. 

 Since the mother knew that these activities were extremely dangerous, the most 

 obvious, and superficial, "off-the-cuff" psychoanalytic interpretation of her be- 

 havior would be that her seeming generosity was actually hostile giving 

 (Devereux, 1956 a), which masked a great deal of imeonscious hostility toward 

 her son. It is proposed to show that this off-the-cuff interpretation is not valid, 

 because it disregards basic Mohave ethics, as well as certain traumatic events 

 in the mother's own life. 



(a) Mohave culture strongly emphasizes the value of generosity, especially 

 toward one's children and toward members of the kin group. This ethical value 

 does not seem to admit any exception to the rule : 



Several kindly Mohave, including John's mother, allowed themselves to be 

 exploited by shiftless and selfish relatives because they did not wish to be 

 ungenerous. 



Although, due to their lack of mature judgment, children sometimes ask 

 for things they should not have, Mohave parents seldom if ever refuse to give 

 their children whatever they de.sire. Thus, Ilivsu : Tupo :nia clearly implied 

 that even though candy is bad for children suffering from tavaknyi :k if the 

 ailing child asks for candy, it will be given what it asks for (pt. 7, pp. 340-348). 



(&) Mohave Indians often react to rejection on the part of their relatives, 

 and especially of their parents, by developing suicidal impulses (pt. 7, pp. 459- 

 484). Moreover, the Mohave believe that three pediatric illnesses, which they 

 define as suicides (pt. 7, pp. 331-356), are caused by the frustration of the child. 

 In brief, had John's mother refused to subsidize her son's self-destructive activi- 

 ties, her refusal would probably have caused John to commit suicide by even 

 more effective and direct means. 



(c) Subjective psychological reasons made it impossible for John's mother 

 to refuse to subsidize the particular activity her son chose to engage in. In 

 fact, it would have been impossible for her to do so even if Mohave culture did 

 not insist on absolute generosity and even if young Mohave men were not 

 notoriously prone to react to rejection by suicide. Indeed, the refusal of certain 

 members of the mother's kin to help two members of her own Immediate family 



