WOMAN BEFORE CIVILISATION
FEMINIST writers in the second half of the nineteenth century were
often seduced by an interesting theory that all, or nearly all,
nations in the simplest stage of political structure were ruled by
their women. A learned Swiss jurist, Dr. Bachofen, thought he had
discovered very generally among the tribes that linger at the
threshold of civilisation a practice of tracing descent through the
mother only, and concluded that this pointed to an earlier phase in
which the mothers ruled the community. This theory of the
matriarchate was, somewhat unfortunately, enlisted in the campaign
for a revision of woman's position. I say unfortunately because,
if it were true that the rule of the women belonged almost wholly to
a simpler and barbaric age, and was abandoned when tribes rose to
civilisation, a demand for a return to the older order would not be
free from ambiguity. A Nordau or a Carpenter may gird as he pleases
at civilisation. Essentially it is a correction of the errors of
infancy.
It is, therefore, not to be deplored that modern ethnographers
emphatically reject the theory of the matriarchate. "No
sociologist nowadays believes Bachofen's theory," says Professor
Westermarck. An occasional feminist writer still builds on the
theory, but I find Westermarck's statement in regard to the
authorities justified.[2] It is quite true that in "a very
considerable number of tribes" we find the habit of giving the
mother's name to the child, and tracing through her whatever
inheritance there be of rank or property. But there are serious
objections to seeing in these practices a lingering trace of a
former matriarchal rule. In at least an equal number of cases more
complete research has found the opposite practice of tracing kinship
through the father. In many of the tribes, where the female line is
observed, the man rules even the home. In all cases where the female
line is followed it is just as natural, at least, to trace the
practice to a primitive promiscuity and uncertainty of paternity as
to feminine domination. That, indeed, is the inference of the great
majority of modern ethnographers. Westermarck dissents from them on
this point of promiscuity (and, within limits that I will indicate,
I agree with him); but he just as firmly rejects the matriarchate.
It is surely possible that in the childhood of the race the man's
share in the creation of children was unknown, and the child was the
child of its mother.
The evolution of woman has run on different lines than those
suggested by Bachofen, and it is by no means easy to retrace them.
The earliest phase, indeed, we have no hope of restoring with
confidence. No authority now doubts that there have been human or
semi-human beings on this planet for some hundreds of thousands of
years, and that for the greater part of the time--that is to say,
until near the end of the Old Stone Age--they were below the level
of the existing savage. For my present purpose it matters little
that we can only dimly perceive the outline of these early men and
women in the thick mist of a remote past. With what evidence there
is I happen to be well acquainted, but I will not enlarge on it.
Those primitive humans certainly had no social or political
structure, and so do not concern us. How the first social groups
arose it is not agreed; but from the scattering of the early traces
of men and from the habits of the larger apes I conclude (as
Westermarck does) that the primitive humans wandered along the broad
river-banks in family groups, and that larger communities arose
later by the fusion or expansion of families. Probably enough there
was a great deal of promiscuity when these communities were formed,
and monandry would need to be developed afresh. Where there was this
community of wives the practice of tracing descent through the
mother would be inevitable. In any case, the origin of children
would be a profound mystery to such lowly beings, and for ages the
man's fatherhood would be unknown.
In the course of time (the New Stone Age) a higher race appears. It
has more skilfully-made implements, rudimentary agriculture,
weaving, and pottery, and tamed cattle. In these more advanced
groups there was certainly some measure of social organisation, and
it would be interesting to know if the control of it was to any
extent divided between the sexes.
To learn something of this phase of human development we turn to
study the life of the lower races. Far away from the centres of
civilisation, in the dense forests of Africa, in the remote islands
of the Pacific, in the grim wastes of the Arctic, or in the extreme
tips of the continents, we find survivors of the earlier phases of
human development. The Australian was cut off from the stimulating
contact of higher races a hundred thousand years ago or more. The
Fuegians and the Veddahs, the Bushmans and some of the Central
Africans, linger at about the same level. The Esquimaux have, in
their deserts of ice, stereotyped the next chapter (the New Stone
Age) in the story of humanity. Round the frontiers of old
civilisations, like India and China, and in remote islands, we find
other remnants of the infancy of the race. What can we learn from
these fragments of prehistoric humanity about the lot of woman
before civilisation began? Is there any general and consistent
practice from which we may gather the story of woman's evolution?
It seems to me, after a careful survey of the voluminous details,
that we may make this general statement: Wherever there is an
approach to a social or political system, the control of it is in
the hands of the men. They may in cases, where we may suspect
special circumstances, consult their women on social issues (of
trade, or migration, or war), but they are the rulers, and in most
cases they take no account whatever of the women's views. The
woman quite commonly rules in the hut, but she is rarely represented
in the council, and very rarely attains tribal power. The man
generally hunts and fights (sometimes tills the fields and makes the
clothes): the woman generally does all the work in or about the
home, which is the greater part of the family's work. In very many
cases she is treated respectfully, and is quite equal to her husband
in the home--it is not at all true that the lower races always, or
nearly always, treat their women as cattle--but the fact remains
that she is very rarely equal to him outside the home, in dealing
with tribal issues.
If, then, we are to see survivals of primitive customs in the ways
of our lowest savages, it seems that this was the very general
course of development in early times. Travellers differ so much in
competence or in prejudice that one still finds important
divergences in different ethnographic writers--the reader who would
go more closely into it should compare Letourneau's _Condition de
la femme_ (1903) and Westermarck's more optimistic _Position of
Woman in Early Civilisation_ (1904)--but the above is a fair
summary of the accredited facts. It is, however, necessary to remark
that we must not too readily regard the ways of savages as unchanged
survivals from the infancy of humanity. Even where their material
life remains at the level of the Old Stone Age, their customs may
have been greatly modified, under the influence, for instance, of
superstitious feelings. With that caution we may glance at the
position of woman in existing tribes of savages, especially at the
lowest grade, such as the Australian natives, the Fuegians, certain
tribes of Central Africa, the Bushmans, and the wild Veddahs of
Ceylon.
The conflicting statements that are made in regard to the position
of woman among the native Australians (of whom only some 20,000 now
survive, with greatly altered habits) point to the fact that it
differed very considerably in different tribes. It is, however,
clear that she was everywhere the great worker of the clan, and
nowhere admitted to the tribal councils. Her task it was to make the
rude screen of bark that stood for the primitive house, to weave the
baskets and the cords, and cook the food. Whether she was the common
property of the clan, whether there were group-marriages and
promiscuity, even the latest authorities differ. But in the vast
majority of cases her lot was pitiable. Initiated to married life
with brutal usage, evading child-bearing by such crude means as she
had, working far more than the men, and never consulted in tribal
affairs, she seems fairly entitled to the name of slave, which
Westermarck would refuse her. If there were tribes in which the
husband could not kill or cast her off without the sanction of the
tribe, it was only a transfer of power from one man to a group of
men. If there were tribes in which she had gentler treatment, and
might rise to the height of bullying her husband, the general rule
was that she bore most of the burden, and waited humbly like a dog
for the remains of her husband's meal.
In Papua, New Guinea, and New Caledonia we seem to have a somewhat
more advanced branch of the same primitive stock; but the position
of woman does not improve. Here and there we find regions where the
brutality has been modified; but, on the whole, the advance towards
civilisation has imposed more work on her, and, by removing the
comparative protection of the clan, made the husband more despotic
than ever. Among the Fuegians and Veddahs, lingering in southern
islands at the very lowest level of culture, her lot is less
intolerable. They are monogamous, and have no tribal organisation
whatever, so that the sexes come nearer equality. The Veddah girl
puts her band round the waist of her lover, and the two then rear
their family in isolation. The Yahgan girl (the most primitive of
the Fuegians) chooses her mate and shares with him the scant and
savage existence. There are no social issues for him to appropriate,
and the comparative physical equality is her safeguard.
Africa contains an enormous diversity of tribes, and the position of
woman varies considerably in them. On the whole, it is true that the
simpler the life, the nearer the sexes are to equality; but all
generalisation is precarious. Letourneau says that for most of the
blacks she is "a lower animal," and the phrase cannot be greatly
qualified. It is quite true that a Hottentot husband dare not take a
drink of sour milk in his own house without his wife's permission,
under penalty of a fine, and he is often scolded by her; but it is
the Hottentots who buy girls of ten or twelve to add to their harem,
and expose them to death when they are prematurely worn. The less
advanced Bushman treats his wife with more respect. The Monbuttu
woman rules the home and practically owns its furniture. The Kaffir
dare not touch his wife's property, and in some tribes he even
admits a woman (the chief's mother) to the council. Among other
tribes of East Central Africa, and among the Berbers and Bedouins of
the north, she has fair respect and often influence. There is one
happy region in which she may divorce him if he fails to sew her
clothes. In Ashantee the king's sisters could marry (and virtually
enslave) whom they willed. In Dahomey the regiment of female
warriors was the nerve of the army, and not far behind the males in
consumption of alcohol; but they were not allowed to marry.
Africa is a medley of tribes at different points on the upward
march, but we may trace a consistency in the various customs. We
must not say that women are treated as cattle because they bear all
the burdens on the march. The men have to be free to hunt and to
fight. Nor must we see a gleam of justice in tribes where the male
tills the field and tends the cattle. He has a superstition that
they would wither and die at the touch of women. Broadly speaking,
the division of labour remains the same; and, what is more to our
purpose, the moment tribal organisation arises, and social issues
are to be treated, the man appropriates the power. If in one or two
cases he admits a woman to his councils, it is a distinct and rare
concession.
When we turn to the lower races of Asia we find a result that
surprises us in view of Hindoo and Chinese practice. In Polynesia
women have a remarkable degree of independence. They may (in Hawaii
and the Sandwich Islands) inherit feudal dignity and rule large
districts with the same authority and respect as men. Not many years
ago a Polynesian princess advertised in a Parisian journal for a
cultivated European husband. In the Malay Archipelago the woman is
practically equal to the man, and has influence on communal
decisions. On the continent of Asia, too, her position is generally
good. Among the Indo-Chinese races generally she has a power and
respect that the later civilisations seem to have taken from her.
The Shans of Burmah allow her to turn her husband away for
drunkenness or other misconduct, and retain his property. Among the
hill-tribes about India we find her in a good position. The Kondhs
expect fidelity from the husband, but not from the wife. She is
treated with great respect, has a good deal of influence on tribal
affairs, and may leave her husband almost when she pleases. Among
the Savaras she has the same liberty, and the simple Todas and the
Bheels have a respect for their wives. Even among the isolated and
backward tribes of the north (the Chukchis, Kamchadales, etc.) the
women are well treated.
It is curious to reflect that, precisely in the continent where
civilisation is most stringent in its demand for the subjection of
women, the lower races, which are presumed to indicate the earlier
phase, are more liberal than in any other part of the world. But I
will glance at the last group of lower races before entering upon
explanations. The American group is pretty certainly an offshoot
from the early Asiatics, and we may be surprised that the position
of woman among the Indians is usually described as very low. In
point of fact, there seems to be some exaggeration, and the
situation is by no means uniform. Among the Seneca Indians the woman
ruled the home to such a degree that she would order a lazy husband
to roll up his blanket and depart. The Iroquois and Cherokees and
others left the decision on an issue of peace or war to the women;
but it should be added that the Indian woman was as fierce and
vindictive as her husband, and would submit a captive to the most
fiendish tortures. The Nootkas consulted their wives on trade
matters, the Omahas gave them an equal social standing with men, and
the Flatheads and other tribes treated them with some respect. Among
the South American Indians the woman's position was generally bad,
and in many cases atrocious; indeed, Letourneau affirms that her
tribal influence even in the north was more nominal than real, as
the men concealed the more important issues.
Among the Esquimaux, finally, her position is generally fair.
Polygamy and polyandry are practised, and there is no marriage
ceremony. But the men generally consult their wives in regard to
bargains, and in many tribes allow her to rule the home. Among the
eastern Esquimaux the women often disdain marriage and support
themselves.
From this general survey we may draw a few inferences in regard to
the evolution of woman's position. We must not look for a uniform
development in all parts of the human race. Different circumstances
would put a different economic and personal value on women, and this
would necessarily affect the behaviour of the men. We seem, however,
quite safe in tracing the general development. Where tribes approach
nearest to the primitive family, and there is no communal
organisation, the man and woman are nearest equality. Her maternal
office naturally defines her sphere. The care of children keeps her
in or near the home, and the industries that arise in or about it
(agriculture, weaving, etc.) fall to her. The man, like the male
animal, must wander afield to forage, hunt, and fight.
In the course of time the family expands into the clan and tribe.
The division of labour continues in regard to the home, but there
are now interests of the community as such to be considered, and on
these the welfare of all may depend. It is generally true that this
elementary political life fell naturally to the men. The issues were
predominantly questions of war or migration, and they came within
the men's sphere of work. And when the republican council gives
way to the rule of chief or prince, the government remains
essentially masculine. The ruler must be, above all, a warrior. Here
and there the women may force or cajole their way into the council,
or receive the flattery of consultation; but the work to be
discussed is predominantly men's work. Where a woman develops the
ferocity of the man, as among the Red Indians and (to some extent)
the Ethiopians, or where war is all but unknown (as among the
Esquimaux), it is natural for her to be consulted. Where she is
entrusted with the agriculture, as an occupation about the home, she
may have influence as co-producer; though this is not a general
rule. But the cases in which she shares the primitive political
power as a right are insignificant in number, and in the vast
majority of tribes she has no influence on it. Her exclusion implies
no conscious despotism or injustice. It is merely that the
enterprises to come before the tribal council are almost entirely
enterprises that the _men_ must carry out; and the formal councils
have grown insensibly out of informal consultations about their work
among the men, in which she would naturally have no part.
Hence it is that when nations come into the light of history we
generally find the political power in the hands of the men, and the
women subject to laws they have not made and authority they have not
chosen. Religion--a male priesthood--lends its sanction to the
ancient usage, and the very remoteness and obscurity of its origin
invest it with authority. Men learn to enjoy the monopoly of power,
and use their strength to maintain it. The primitive equality of the
sexes disappears. If for ages men select the more submissive mates
and discard the more self-assertive, the character of woman will be
slowly modified, and the sexes will diverge more and more. And thus,
as Chinese, Hindoos, Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Teutons advance into
the light of history, we find the familiar types of the gentle,
industrious, submissive wife and the aggressive, adventurous,
masterful husband. The woman may be respected, may even be
consulted, but the home is her realm and the state her husband's.