Exemplifying this, following the OTT release of Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal (Three Sons of Narayani), directed by Sharan Venugopal, a section of the audience has focused on the portrayal of an incestuous relationship between cousins, sparking a debate on whether such representations should be allowed, particularly within the Kerala context.
Published Mar 15, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 15, 2025 | 9:00 AM
Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal.
Synopsis: The Malayalam film “Narayaneente Moonnanmakakal” portrays the familial relationships of three brothers. It also shows how two different romantic relationships, which challenge societal norms, are viewed by people. In the movie, one type of relationship becomes acceptable since the other is considered more transgressive.
Kerala perceives itself as a society with solutions to its problems, a post-Renaissance community that has resolved its ideological confusions and is capable of managing any marginal deviation.
Its social psyche becomes unsettled when such consensus is challenged or questioned. The post-feminist family in Kerala has carved a path toward more progressive male-female relationships within the framework provided by capitalist consumerism. Other themes are perhaps either not entertained at all or dismissed as maliciously disruptive.
Exemplifying this, following the OTT release of Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal (Three Sons of Narayani), directed by Sharan Venugopal, a section of the audience has focused on the portrayal of an incestuous relationship between cousins, sparking a debate on whether such representations should be allowed, particularly within the Kerala context.
Critics have raised concerns that the physical relationship between the cousins encourages the transgression of social taboos, with some social media posts even suggesting that, just as representations of extreme violence in films are unacceptable, such depictions of incest should also be strongly condemned.
This controversy has opened a space for discussion on what constitutes a family within a postfeminist framework, while also prompting a broader examination of familial restrictions from historical and sociological perspectives. The criticism largely stems from viewing kinship as a static entity, a perspective that underpins many objections to the film’s portrayal of taboo-breaking relationships.
However, this viewpoint fails to account for the dynamic and culturally negotiated nature of kinship, which can vary significantly across time and contexts. While it is true that challenging ethical imperatives can be deeply unsettling, its subversiveness extends beyond ethical questions alone. Art has a unique way of engaging with ethicality that may not align with or be appreciated by the state or religion.
The film Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal intricately explores familial relations, transgressions, and the deep-seated cultural taboos that govern social and sexual conduct. The film features two significant familial dynamics that offer insights into how society regulates relationships, especially when it comes to boundaries and the notion of taboo.
On one hand, the film portrays the strained bond between the eldest and the youngest brothers, with the latter transgressing traditional customs by marrying a Muslim woman. This breach of cultural norms is met with resistance, but it is ultimately accepted within the family.
The youngest brother’s marriage, which challenges religious and cultural boundaries, is framed as a more socially flexible transgression, one that does not violate the core familial structure. This can be interpreted as an example of how social and cultural taboos related to religion and community are sometimes more negotiable in family settings.
The family, although initially resistant, is ultimately able to absorb this transgression, signalling the malleability of certain societal prohibitions within the private realm of kinship.
The second significant relationship is between the son of the youngest brother and the daughter of the eldest. Their relationship begins as one of friendship, but it gradually evolves into a physical, romantic relationship. Early in their interactions, the boy introduces himself as her brother, only for the girl to correct him by stating that he is her cousin. This simple correction subtly reveals an unconscious transgression in their dynamic.
The film invites the viewer to question the nature of their bond, drawing attention to how the concept of incest — the most universally tabooed familial transgression — is treated within the context of their relationship.
While the film provides a surface-level explanation that the two characters grew up apart and thus were unaware of the cousin bond, this explanation is too simplistic and somewhat dismissive of the deeper ideological and cultural forces at play.
Sigmund Freud’s (1913) idea that taboos — such as the prohibition of incest and the killing of the totem animal — were once seen as equally sinful in early human societies reflects the way such taboos shaped familial and societal structures. The title of Freud’s book Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics is undeniably problematic, with its flawed and racially charged comparison.
However, if we critically separate these politically regressive elements and focus on Freud’s exploration of taboo as a universal civilisational phenomenon, the central themes of the work become significant.
In the context of the film Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal, the relationship between the two cousins — one the son of the youngest brother, the other the daughter of the eldest — becomes a focal point for exploring the taboo surrounding incest. At the outset, their bond begins as an innocent friendship, but as it evolves into a physical relationship, it raises questions about the nature of familial bonds.
The girl’s correction of the boy’s introduction of him as her “brother” to her friends, where she instead labels him as her “cousin,” subtly exposes the transgressive nature of their relationship. By quickly correcting him, stating that he is her cousin and not her brother, she seems to unconsciously, or perhaps even consciously, create a space for a more intimate form of friendship — one that might not be as easily attainable if they were direct siblings.
This also reveals that she has a prior understanding of the taboo and believes there are cracks within it that can be explored. Despite their lack of familiarity, the unconscious tension of the incest taboo begins to emerge, highlighting that the taboo against incest is not merely a familial matter but something culturally embedded and reinforced by social systems.
Karl Marx also emphasises the historicity of taboos and incest, highlighting their role in the formation of the modern family. Lawrence Krader (1971) suggests that, when considered as an abstraction, the prehistory of family and society is further developed by Marx through his analysis of Lewis Henry Morgan’s book The Ancient Society in his Ethnological Notebooks.
According to this analysis, in the first ethnical period for which there is empirical evidence, the family, in its consanguine form, is not distinct from society; in other words, it represents “the first organised form of society.”
In the context of Kerala, and in other regions globally, the critique of the family often operates within feminist discourse, where the focus is on the liberation of individuals from patriarchal family structures. This liberation sometimes involves the transgression of social, religious, caste, and gender boundaries.
While this critique is radical and essential, it remains framed within a system of deep-rooted cultural taboos. These taboos are not easily dismantled, as they represent the historical evolution of familial structures and ideologies.
The transgression seen in the youngest brother’s marriage to a Muslim woman in the film highlights how some cultural boundaries can be bent or stretched within the family, but incest remains a taboo that is steadfastly beyond the reach of such acceptance.
However, certain societies maintain exceptions, reflecting the complexity of cultural norms and their evolution. In Kerala, for instance, in some Sudra communities, intermarriage between cousins is culturally sanctioned, but with specific restrictions.
The practice known as Murappennu, where a male cousin marries the daughter of his maternal uncle, is not seen as a transgression but as a culturally acceptable form of marriage. The term Murappennu — derived from pennu (girl) and mura (which has multiple meanings such as order, system, practice, etiquette, norm, or rule) — signifies that this practice is culturally legitimate and has been thoughtfully considered and followed, rather than being merely a vestige.
It is intriguing that in a matrilineal community, while a unique form of cousin marriage with the maternal uncle’s daughter is socially accepted, reverse incest taboos from the paternal side are despised and criticised. Within the matrilineal system, this structure perhaps helps extend the extended family and prevents any potential fragmentation of the family’s resources and assets.
Similarly, in Tamil Nadu, the practice of avunculate marriage (marriage between an uncle and his niece) is common in some Hindu communities. These marriages are highly regulated, with strict prohibitions on reciprocal marriages between other close relatives.
These variations on the incest taboo illustrate how, while incest is universally tabooed, cultural exceptions reflect the diverse ways in which societies negotiate familial structures while maintaining social stability.
As Lévi-Strauss argued, incest taboos are universal, serving as the foundation of kinship and social organisation through exogamy — marriage outside the family. The Murappennu and avunculate marriages, while appearing transgressive, are part of a highly structured system that ensures social harmony by regulating incestuous relationships. Lévi-Strauss (1969), points out that incest taboos are essential to the formation of social order, as they compel societies to engage in exogamy, thereby establishing the rules of kinship and social alliances.
The film’s depiction of the cousins’ relationship and their navigation of their newfound affection illustrates the way cultural taboos evolve to accommodate both the need for order and the flexibility required by specific communities.
Jacques Lacan (1977), building on Freud’s ideas, places the incest taboo within the broader framework of the symbolic order. For Lacan, the incest taboo is not just a prohibition but a key moment in the subject’s entry into language and social reality. The taboo operates as a law that governs the subject’s relation to the other, structuring the formation of identity and desire.
The relationship between the son and daughter of the two brothers in Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal can thus be understood as a violation of this foundational law. The fact that they are cousins and yet do not instinctively undermine the taboo that governs their relation points to a deeper disconnection from the symbolic law — an indication of how the boundaries of the incest taboo are encoded within the psyche and reinforced through cultural apparatuses, even if not immediately apparent.
Slavoj Žižek’s (1997) reworking of Lacan’s concept of the incest taboo goes further by emphasising how transgressions of taboos are not simply about rebellion but reflect deeper ideological processes. Žižek critiques the way modern societies commodify and spectacularise taboo-breaking, particularly in capitalist culture.
He suggests that transgressions like incest, while still forbidden, have become part of the commodified spectacle of rebellion. This is evident in the film’s treatment of the relationship between the cousins. While they may not consciously transgress the taboo, their relationship reveals an unconscious negotiation of boundaries.
The boy’s initial identification of the girl as his sister, followed by her correction, symbolises a moment of ideological instability — an unconscious desire to transgress the family’s internal order that is subtly challenged by the reality of their biological relationship. The film also shows how, while the family can accommodate transgressions like the youngest brother marrying outside the religion, incest remains an untouchable boundary.
This aligns with Žižek’s critique of modern societies where some taboos are flexible and can be integrated into the social order (like interfaith marriages), while others (like incest) remain deeply entrenched in cultural and psychological structures, largely because of their foundational role in maintaining the integrity of the family and social relations.
The key point here is that, while the family in the film can eventually accept the transgression of the youngest brother’s marriage to a Muslim woman — a deviation from religious and cultural norms — the incest taboo is beyond its capacity to accommodate. This distinction is vital because it highlights the profound role that incest plays in regulating not only familial relationships but also social order.
In the case of Narayaneente Moonnanmakkal, the relationship between the cousins ultimately underscores the inherent tension between the fluidity of certain cultural norms and the rigid enforcement of others. The film suggests that, while familial love and kinship may allow for some flexibility and acceptance of transgressive behaviours (like interfaith marriage), there is an underlying, non-negotiable order that governs the most fundamental of social relations: the taboo on incest.
However, there is still a conservative undercurrent in the film that cannot be overlooked, particularly in how it handles time and space within the narrative frame. The two pivotal moments in time are depicted as disturbing the perceived harmony of both the village and the family.
The first disruption occurs when the youngest son marries a Muslim woman and moves to the UK, challenging traditional cultural and religious boundaries.
The second moment takes place when he returns, at the invitation of his second brother, accompanied by his wife and two children. The son of the youngest brother, who is central to the narrative, subsequently entering into an incestuous relationship with the daughter of the eldest brother, creates an even more egregious transgression that further disrupts the familial ethos.
This progression of transgression reflects a refusal within the film to attempt a transvaluation of values that it seemingly aims to foreground. The eldest brother continually reminds the youngest of how the shame of his actions has severely harmed the family’s reputation in the village, to the point where he felt too embarrassed to even go outside and face people. His caste and social pride were deeply tarnished by this transgression.
Similarly, the incestuous relationship, if made public, would have an equally damaging impact on the family’s standing and honour. The boy’s transgression brings to the surface issues associated with “Western values” and highlights the consequences of the earlier transgression by his father.
As a result, the initial transgression itself becomes a questionable act, one with a deeper impact than it initially appeared to have, challenging the film’s portrayal of social and cultural ruptures. Nevertheless, the film ends with an open closure, as the youngest brother and his family turn back midway from their trip to the airport upon receiving a phone call about their mother’s death although this is not made explicit.
This turn of events prompts a contextual revaluation of the previous episodes, making their return seem ambiguous. This ambiguity reflects the ambivalence of culture, disguised as ideological apparatuses that remain uncertain of their own stance.
Such open-ended closures serve as signifiers of representing the unrepresentable, particularly when themes of sexual repression and transgression become the focal point, as they leave unresolved tensions that mirror the complexities and contradictions inherent in the cultural and psychological forces at play.
(References: Freud, S. (1913). Totem and taboo: Resemblances between the mental lives of savages and neurotics. Translated by A.A. Brill. Moffat, Yard and Company. Krader, L. (Ed.). (1971). Ethnological notebooks of Karl Marx. Harper & Row. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection (B. Fink, Trans.). W.W. Norton & Company. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship. Beacon Press. Žižek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies. Verso. Views expressed here are personal.)
