[Transcriber’s Notes:
This e-text is a translation of August Bebel’s “Die Frau und der
Sozialismus”.
Table column headings that have been supplied by the transcriber
are enclosed in [square brackets].
Bold text is denoted by ~tilde~, italic text by _underscores_, and
gesperrt (spaced-out text) by #pound signs#.]
WOMAN AND SOCIALISM
BY
AUGUST BEBEL
Jubilee [Decor: 50th] Edition
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION BY
META L. STERN (HEBE)
SOCIALIST LITERATURE CO.
15 Spruce Street, New York
1910
Copyright, 1910
by the
SOCIALIST LITERATURE COMPANY
New York
[Printer’s Logo]
The Co-Operative Press, 15 Spruce St., New York
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 3
WOMAN IN THE PAST.
Chapter I.--_The Position of Woman in Primeval Society_ 9
1. Chief Epochs of Primeval History 9
2. Family Forms 14
3. The Matriarchate 20
Chapter II.--_Conflict between Matriarchate and
Patriarchate_ 28
1. Rise of the Patriarchate 28
2. Traces of the Matriarchate in Greek Myths and
Dramas 34
3. Legitimate Wives and Courtesans in Athens 37
4. Remnants of the Matriarchate in the Customs of
Various Nations 44
5. Rise of the State--Dissolution of the Gens in Rome 50
Chapter III.--_Christianity_ 56
Chapter IV.--_Woman in the Mediaeval Age_ 63
1. The Position of Women among the Germans 63
2. Feudalism and the Right of the First Night 66
3. The Rise of Cities--Monastic Affairs--Prostitution 69
4. Knighthood and the Veneration of Women 75
Chapter V.--_The Reformation_ 78
1. Luther 78
2. Results of the Reformation--The Thirty Years’ War 83
Chapter VI.--_The Eighteenth Century_ 88
1. Court Life in Germany 88
2. Commercialism and the New Marriage Laws 90
3. The French Revolution and the Rise of Industry 93
WOMAN AT THE PRESENT DAY.
Chapter VII.--_Woman as a Sex Being_ 96
1. The Sexual Impulse 96
2. Celibacy and the Frequency of Suicide 100
Chapter VIII.--_Modern Marriage_ 104
1. Marriage as a Profession 104
2. Decline of the Birthrate 106
3. Mercenary Marriage and the Matrimonial Market 110
Chapter IX.--_Disruption of the Family_ 116
1. Increase of Divorce 116
2. Bourgeois and Proletarian Marriage 124
Chapter X.--_Marriage as a Means of Support_ 132
1. Decline of the Marriage Rate 132
2. Infanticide and Abortion 135
3. Education for Marriage 140
4. The Misery of Present Day Marriages 147
Chapter XI.--_The Chances of Matrimony_ 153
1. The Numerical Proportion of the Sexes 153
2. Obstacles to Marriage--The Excess of Women 164
Chapter XII.--_Prostitution a Necessary Social Institution
of Bourgeois Society_ 174
1. Prostitution and Society 174
2. Prostitution and the State 178
3. The White Slave Trade 188
4. The Increase of Prostitution--Illegitimate
Motherhood 193
5. Crimes Against Morality and Sexual Diseases 204
Chapter XIII.--_Woman in Industry_ 209
1. Development and Extension of Female Labor 209
2. Factory Work of Married Women--Sweatshop Labor and
Dangerous Occupations 222
Chapter XIV.--_The Struggle of Women for Education_ 233
1. The Revolution in Domestic Life 233
2. The Intellectual Abilities of Women 239
3. Differences in Physical and Mental Qualities of Man
and Woman 245
4. Darwinism and the Condition of Society 253
5. Woman and the Learned Professions 258
Chapter XV.--_The Legal Status of Women_ 272
1. The Struggle for Equality Before the Law 272
2. The Struggle for Political Equality 280
THE STATE AND SOCIETY.
Chapter XVI.--_The Class-State and the Modern Proletariat_ 307
1. Our Public Life 307
2. Aggravation of Social Extremes 315
Chapter XVII.--_The Process of Concentration in
Capitalistic Industry_ 319
1. The Displacement of Agriculture by Industry 319
2. Increasing Pauperization--Preponderance of Large
Industrial Establishments 323
3. Concentration of Wealth 333
Chapter XVIII.--_Crisis and Competition_ 338
1. Causes and Effects of the Crises 338
2. Intermediate Trade and the Increased Cost of Living 343
Chapter XIX.--_The Revolution in Agriculture_ 347
1. Transatlantic Competition and Desertion of the
Country 347
2. Peasants and Great Landowners 349
3. The Contrast Between City and Country 358
THE SOCIALIZATION OF SOCIETY.
Chapter XX.--_The Social Revolution_ 363
1. The Transformation of Society 363
2. Expropriation of the Expropriators 366
Chapter XXI.--_Fundamental Laws of Socialistic Society_ 370
1. Duty to Work of All Able-bodied Persons 370
2. Harmony of Interests 375
3. Organization of Labor 380
4. The Growth of the Productivity of Labor 383
5. Removal of the Contrast between Mental and Manual
Work 392
6. Increase of Consumption 396
7. Equal Duty to Work for All 399
8. Abolition of Trade--Transformation of Traffic 405
Chapter XXII.--_Socialism and Agriculture_ 407
1. Abolition of the Private Ownership of Land 407
2. The Amelioration of Land 409
3. Changed Methods of Farming 414
4. Agriculture on a Large and Small Scale--Electric
Appliances 415
5. Vine-Culture of the Future 424
6. Measures to Prevent Exhaustion of the Soil 427
7. Removal of the Contrast between City and Country 431
Chapter XXIII.--_Abolition of the State_ 434
Chapter XXIV.--_The Future of Religion_ 437
Chapter XXV.--_The Socialist System of Education_ 440
Chapter XXVI.--_Literature and Art in Socialistic Society_ 451
Chapter XXVII.--_Free Development of Individuality_ 455
1. Freedom from Care 455
2. Changes in the Methods of Nutrition 457
3. The Communistic Kitchen 461
4. Transformation of Domestic Life 463
Chapter XXVIII.--_Woman in the Future_ 466
Chapter XXIX.--_Internationality_ 473
Chapter XXX.--_The Question of Population and Socialism_ 478
1. Fear of Over-Population 478
2. Production of Over-Population 481
3. Poverty and Fecundity 484
4. Lack of Human Beings and Abundance of Food 487
5. Social Conditions and Reproductive Ability 494
Conclusion 500
Introduction.
We are living in an age of great social transformations that are
steadily progressing. In all strata of society we perceive an
unsettled state of mind and an increasing restlessness, denoting a
marked tendency toward profound and radical changes. Many questions
have arisen and are being discussed with growing interest in ever
widening circles. One of the most important of these questions and
one that is constantly coming into greater prominence, is the _woman
question_.
The woman question deals with the position that woman should hold in
our social organism, and seeks to determine how she can best develop
her powers and her abilities, in order to become a useful member
of human society, endowed with equal rights and serving society
according to her best capacity. From our point of view this question
coincides with that other question: In what manner should society
be organized to abolish oppression, exploitation, misery and need,
and to bring about the physical and mental welfare of individuals
and of society as a whole? To us then, the woman question is only
one phase of the general social question that at present occupies
all intelligent minds; its final solution can only be attained by
removing social extremes and the evils which are a result of such
extremes.
Nevertheless, the woman question demands our special consideration.
What the position of woman has been in ancient society, what her
position is to-day and what it will be in the coming social order,
are questions that deeply concern at least one half of humanity.
Indeed, in Europe they concern a majority of organized society,
because women constitute a majority of the population. Moreover,
the prevailing conceptions concerning the development of woman’s
social position during successive stages of history are so faulty,
that enlightenment on this subject has become a necessity. Ignorance
concerning the position of woman, chiefly accounts for the prejudice
that the woman’s movement has to contend with among all classes of
people, by no means least among the women themselves. Many even
venture to assert that there is no woman question at all, since
woman’s position has always been the same and will remain the same
in the future, because nature has destined her to be a wife and a
mother and to confine her activities to the home. Everything that is
beyond the four narrow walls of her home and is not closely connected
with her domestic duties, is not supposed to concern her.
In the woman question then we find two contending parties, just as in
the labor question, which relates to the position of the workingman
in human society. Those who wish to maintain everything as it is,
are quick to relegate woman to her so-called “natural profession,”
believing that they have thereby settled the whole matter. They do
not recognize that millions of women are not placed in a position
enabling them to fulfill their natural function of wifehood and
motherhood, owing to reasons that we shall discuss at length later
on. They furthermore do not recognize that to millions of other women
their “natural profession” is a failure, because to them marriage has
become a yoke and a condition of slavery, and they are obliged to
drag on their lives in misery and despair. But these wiseacres are no
more concerned by these facts than by the fact that in various trades
and professions millions of women are exploited far beyond their
strength, and must slave away their lives for a meagre subsistence.
They remain deaf and blind to these disagreeable truths, as they remain
deaf and blind to the misery of the proletariat, consoling themselves
and others by the false assertion that it has always been thus and
will always continue to be so. That woman is entitled, as well as
man, to enjoy all the achievements of civilization, to lighten her
burdens, to improve her condition, and to develop all her physical
and mental qualities, they refuse to admit. When, furthermore, told
that woman--to enjoy full physical and mental freedom--should also
be economically independent, should no longer depend for subsistence
upon the good will and favor of the other sex, the limit of their
patience will be reached. Indignantly they will pour forth a bitter
endictment of the “madness of the age” and its “crazy attempts at
emancipation.” These are the old ladies of both sexes who cannot
overcome the narrow circle of their prejudices. They are the human
owls that dwell wherever darkness prevails, and cry out in terror
whenever a ray of light is cast into their agreeable gloom.
Others do not remain quite as blind to the eloquent facts. They
confess that at no time woman’s position has been so unsatisfactory
in comparison to general social progress, as it is at present. They
recognize that it is necessary to investigate how the condition of
the self-supporting woman can be improved; but in the case of married
women they believe the social problem to be solved. They favor the
admission of unmarried women only into a limited number of trades
and professions. Others again are more advanced and insist that
competition between the sexes should not be limited to the inferior
trades and professions, but should be extended to all higher branches
of learning and the arts and sciences as well. They demand equal
educational opportunities and that women should be admitted to all
institutions of learning, including the universities. They also
favor the appointment of women to government positions, pointing out
the results already achieved by women in such positions, especially
in the United States. A few are even coming forward to demand equal
political rights for women. Woman, they argue, is a human being and
a member of organized society as well as man, and the very fact that
men have until now framed and administered the laws to suit their
own purposes and to hold woman in subjugation, proves the necessity
of woman’s participation in public affairs.
It is noteworthy that all these various endeavors do not go beyond
the scope of the present social order. The question is not propounded
whether any of these proposed reforms will accomplish a decisive and
essential improvement in the condition of women. According to the
conceptions of bourgeois, or capitalistic society, the civic equality
of men and women is deemed an ultimate solution of the woman question.
People are either unconscious of the fact, or deceive themselves in
regard to it, that the admission of women to trades and industries
is already practically accomplished and is being strongly favored
by the ruling classes in their own interest. But under prevailing
conditions woman’s invasion of industry has the detrimental effect
of increasing competition on the labor market, and the result is a
reduction in wages for both male and female workers. It is clear
then, that this cannot be a satisfactory solution.
Men who favor these endeavors of women within the scope of present
society, as well as the bourgeois women who are active in the
movement, consider complete civic equality of women the ultimate
goal. These men and women then differ radically from those who, in
their narrow-mindedness, oppose the movement. They differ radically
from those men who are actuated by petty motives of selfishness
and fear of competition, and therefore try to prevent women from
obtaining higher education and from gaining admission to the better
paid professions. But there is no difference of class between them,
such as exists between the worker and the capitalist.
If the bourgeois suffragists would achieve their aim and would bring
about equal rights for men and women, they would still fail to
abolish that sex slavery which marriage, in its present form, is to
countless numbers of women; they would fail to abolish prostitution;
they would fail to abolish the economic dependence of wives. To the
great majority of women it also remains a matter of indifference
whether a few thousand members of their sex, belonging to the more
favored classes of society, obtain higher learning and enter some
learned profession, or hold a public office. The general condition
of the sex as a whole is not altered thereby.
The female sex as such has a double yoke to bear. Firstly, women
suffer as a result of their social dependence upon men, and the
inferior position alloted to them in society; formal equality before
the law alleviates this condition, but does not remedy it. Secondly,
women suffer as a result of their economic dependence, which is the
lot of women in general, and especially of the proletarian women,
as it is of the proletarian men.
We see, then, that all women, regardless of their social position,
represent that sex which during the evolution of society has been
oppressed and wronged by the other sex, and therefore it is to the
common interest of all women to remove their disabilities by changing
the laws and institutions of the present state and social order.
But a great majority of women is furthermore deeply and personally
concerned in a complete reorganization of the present state and social
order which has for its purpose the abolition of wage-slavery, which
at present weighs most heavily upon the women of the proletariat, as
also the abolition of sex-slavery, which is closely connected with
our industrial conditions and our system of private ownership.
The women who are active in the bourgeois suffrage movement, do not
recognize the necessity of so complete a transformation. Influenced
by their privileged social position, they consider the more radical
aims of the proletarian woman’s movement dangerous doctrines that
must be opposed. The class antagonism that exists between the
capitalist and working class and that is increasing with the growth
of industrial problems, also clearly manifests itself then within the
woman’s movement. Still these sister-women, though antagonistic to
each other on class lines, have a great many more points in common
than the men engaged in the class struggle, and though they march
in separate armies they may strike a united blow. This is true in
regard to all endeavors pertaining to equal rights of woman under
the present social order; that is, her right to enter any trade
or profession adapted to her strength and ability, and her right
to civic and political equality. These are, as we shall see, very
important and very far-reaching aims. Besides striving for these
aims, it is in the particular interest of proletarian women to work
hand in hand with proletarian men for such measures and institutions
that tend to protect the working woman from physical and mental
degeneration, and to preserve her health and strength for a normal
fulfillment of her maternal functions. Furthermore, it is the duty of
the proletarian woman to join the men of her class in the struggle
for a thorough-going transformation of society, to bring about an
order that by its social institutions will enable both sexes to
enjoy complete economic and intellectual independence.
Our goal then is, not only to achieve equality of men and women under
the present social order, which constitutes the sole aim of the
bourgeois woman’s movement, but to go far beyond this, and to remove
all barriers that make one human being dependent upon another, which
includes the dependence of one sex upon the other. _This_ solution
of the woman question is identical with the solution of the social
question. They who seek a complete solution of the woman question
must, therefore, join hands with those who have inscribed upon their
banner the solution of the social question in the interest of all
mankind--the Socialists.
The Socialist Party is the only one that has made the full equality of
women, their liberation from every form of dependence and oppression,
an integral part of its program; not for reasons of propaganda, but
from necessity. _For there can be no liberation of mankind without
social independence and equality of the sexes._
All Socialists will probably agree with the fundamental principles
herein expressed. But the same cannot be said in regard to the
manner in which we picture the realization of our ultimate aims,
that is, in regard to the particular form that institutions should
take to bring about that desired independence and equality for all.
As soon as we forsake the firm foundation of reality, and begin
to depict the future, there is a wide field for speculation. A
difference of opinion immediately arises as to what is probable or
improbable. Whatever, therefore, is stated in this book concerning
future probabilities, must be regarded as the personal opinion
of the author, and eventual attacks must be directed against his
person, because he assumes full responsibility for his statements.
Attacks, that are honestly meant and are objective in character,
will be welcome; those that distort the contents of this book or are
founded upon an untruthful interpretation of their meaning, will be
ignored. It remains to be said, that in the following chapters all
conclusions should be drawn which become necessary for us to draw,
as a result of our investigation of facts. To be unprejudiced is
the first requirement for a recognition of the truth, and only by
expressing without reserve that which is and that which is to be,
can we attain our ends.
Woman in the Past.
CHAPTER I.
The Position of Woman in Primeval Society.
1.--Chief Epochs of Primeval History.
It is the common lot of woman and worker to be oppressed. The forms
of oppression have differed in successive ages and in various
countries, but the oppression itself remained. During the course of
historic development the oppressed ones have frequently recognized
their oppression, and this recognition has led to an amelioration
of their condition; but it remained for our day to recognize the
fundamental causes of this oppression, both in regard to the woman
and in regard to the worker. It was necessary to understand the true
nature of society and the laws governing social evolution, before
an effective movement could develop for the purpose of abolishing
conditions that had come to be regarded as unjust. But the extent
and profoundness of such a movement depend upon the amount of
insight prevailing among those strata of society affected by the
unjust conditions, as also upon the freedom of action possessed by
them. In both respects woman, owing to custom, education and lack of
freedom, is less advanced than the worker. Moreover, conditions that
have prevailed for generations finally become a habit, and heredity
as well as education make them appear “natural” to both parties
concerned. That explains why women accept their inferior position
as a matter of course, and do not recognize that it is an unworthy
one, and that they should strive to obtain equal rights with men,
and to become equally qualified members of society.
But whatever similarities exist between the position of woman and
that of the workingman, woman has one precedence over the workingman.
~She is the first human being which came into servitude.~ Women
were slaves before men.
All social dependence and oppression is rooted in the economic
dependence of the oppressed upon the oppressor. Woman--so we are
taught by the history of human development--has been in this position
since an early stage.
Our understanding of this development is comparatively recent. Just
as the myth of the creation of the world, as taught by the Bible,
could not be maintained in face of innumerable and indisputable
facts founded upon modern, scientific investigation, it also became
impossible to maintain the myth of the creation and development of
man. Not all phases of the history of evolution have as yet been
elucidated. Difference of opinion still exists among scientists in
regard to one or another of the natural phenomena and their relation to
each other; but, on the whole, clearness and a general consension of
opinion prevails. It is certain that man has not made his appearance
upon the earth as a civilized being--as the Bible asserts of the
first human pair--but that in the long course of ages he gradually
evolved from a mere animal condition, and that he passed through
various stages during which his social relations as well as the
relations between man and woman experienced many transformations.
The convenient assertion that is resorted to daily by ignorant or
dishonest people, both in regard to the relation between man and
woman as also in regard to the relation between the rich and the
poor--the assertion that it has always been thus and will always
continue to be so--is utterly false, superficial and contrary to
the truth in every respect.
A cursory description of the relations of the sexes since primeval
days is of special importance for the purpose of this book. For it
seeks to prove that, if in the past progress of human development,
these relations have been transformed as a result of the changing
methods of production and distribution, it is obvious that a further
change in the methods of production and distribution must again
lead to a new transformation in the relation of the sexes. Nothing
is eternal, either in nature or in human life; change is the only
eternal factor.
As far as we can look backward along the line of human evolution,
we see the horde[1] representing the first human community. Only
when the horde increased in numbers to such an extent that it became
difficult to obtain the necessary means of subsistence, which
originally consisted of roots, seeds and fruit, a disbanding of the
members resulted, and new dwelling places were sought for.
We have no written records of this almost animal-like stage, but
studies of the various stages of civilization among extinct and
living savages prove that such a stage has at one time existed. Man
has not stepped into life as a highly civilized being, upon a command
from the Creator, but has passed through a long, infinitely slow
process of evolution, and in the ups and downs of wavering periods
of development, and in a constant process of differentiation, in all
climes and in all quarters of the globe, has passed through many
stages until finally climbing the height of his present civilization.
And while in some parts of the globe great nations represent the most
advanced stage of civilization, we find other peoples in various
places representing varied stages of development. These present to us
a vivid picture of our own past, and point out to us along which roads
humanity has traveled in its long course of evolution. If we shall
at some time succeed in establishing general and definite aspects
according to which sociological investigations shall be conducted,
an abundance of facts will result, destined to cast a new light upon
the relations of men in the past and the present. Events will then
seem comprehensible and natural, that at present are quite beyond
our comprehension, and that superficial critics frequently condemn
as irrational, sometimes even as immoral. Scientific researches,
commenced by Backofen, and since continued by a considerable number
of learned men as Taylor, MacLennon, Lubbock and others, have
gradually lifted the veil from the earliest history of our race.
These investigations were elaborated by Morgan’s able book, and to
this again Frederick Engels has added a number of historic facts,
economic and political in character. Recently these researches have
been partly confirmed and partly corrected by Cunow.[2]
The clear and vivid descriptions given by Frederick Engels in his
splendid work, that is founded upon Morgan’s investigations, have
cast a flood of light upon many factors in the histories of peoples
representing various stages of development; factors that until that
time had seemed irrational and incomprehensible. They have enabled
us to obtain an insight into the gradual upbuilding of the social
structure. As a result of such insight we perceive that our former
conceptions in regard to marriage, family and state, have been
founded upon utterly false premises. But whatever has been proven
concerning marriage, family and state, is equally true in regard
to the position of woman, which, in the various stages of social
development, has differed radically from what is supposed to be
woman’s “eternal” position.
Morgan divides the history of mankind--and this division is also
adopted by Engels--into three chief epochs: savagery, barbarism and
civilization. Each of the two earlier periods he subdivides into a
lower, a medium and a higher stage, because these stages differ in
regard to fundamental improvements in the method of obtaining the
means of subsistence. Those changes which occur from time to time
in the social systems of nations as a result of improved methods of
production, Morgan considers one of the chief characteristics in
the progress of civilization, which is quite in keeping with the
materialistic conception of history as laid down by Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels. Thus the lowest stage in the period of savagery
represents the childhood of mankind. During this stage men still
were tree-dwellers, and fruit and roots constituted their chief
nourishment; but even then articulated language began to take form.
The medium stage of savagery begins with the consumption of small
animals such as fish, crabs, etc., for food, and with the discovery
of fire. Men begin to manufacture weapons, clubs and spears made of
wood and stone, and this means the inception of the hunt and probably
also of war among neighboring hordes, who contended with one another
for the sources of nourishment and the most desirable dwelling places
and hunting grounds. At this stage also cannibalism appears, which is
still met with among some tribes in Africa, Australia and Polynesia.
The higher stage of savagery is characterized by the invention of
the bow and arrow; the invention of the art of weaving; the making
of mats and baskets from bast and reeds, and the manufacture of
stone implements.
As the beginning of the lowest stage of barbarism, Morgan denotes the
invention of pottery. Man learns the domestication of wild animals
with the resultant production of meat and milk, and thereby obtains
the use of hides, horns and furs for the most varied purposes. Hand
in hand with the domestication of animals, agriculture begins to
develop. In the western part of the world corn is cultivated; in the
eastern part, almost all kinds of grain, with the exception of corn,
is grown. During the medium stage of barbarism we find an increasing
domestication of useful animals in the East, and in the West we
find an improved cultivation of nourishing plants with the aid of
artificial irrigation. The use of stones and sun-dried bricks for
building purposes is also originated at this time. Domestication
and breeding favor the formation of herds and flocks and lead to a
pastoral life, and the necessity of producing larger quantities of
nourishment for both men and animals leads to increased agriculture.
The result is a more sedentary mode of life with an accompanying
increase in provisions and greater diversity of same, and gradually
cannibalism disappears.
The higher stage of barbarism has been reached with the smelting of
iron ore and the invention of alphabetical writing. The invention of
the iron plough gives a new impetus to agriculture; the iron axe and
spade and hoe make it easier to clear the forest and to cultivate the
soil. With the forging of iron a number of new activities set in,
giving life a different shape. Iron tools simplify the building of
houses, ships and wagons. The malleation of metals furthermore leads
to mechanical art, to an improvement in the manufacture of arms,
and to the building of walled cities. Architecture is developed,
and mythology, poetry and history are conserved and disseminated by
means of alphabetical writing.
The Oriental countries and those situated about the Mediterranean
Sea--Egypt, Greece and Italy--are the ones in which this mode of
life was especially developed, and here the foundation was laid to
later social transformations that have had a decisive influence upon
the development of civilization in Europe and, in fact, in all the
countries of the globe.
[1] “The theory of natural rights and the doctrine of the social
contract, which places an isolated human being at the beginnings of
human development, is an invention utterly foreign to reality, and is
therefore worthless for the theoretical analysis of human institutions
as it is for a knowledge of history. Man should, on the contrary,
be classed with gregarious animals; that is, with those species
whose individuals are combined into permanent groups.”--(Edw. Meyer:
“The Origin of the State, in Its Relation to Tribal and National
Association.” 1907.)
[2] Backofen’s book was published in 1861. It was entitled, “The
Matriarchate; Studies of the Gynocratic Customs of the Old World in
Their Religious and Legal Aspects.” Publishers, Krais & Hoffmann,
Stuttgart. Morgan’s fundamental work, “Ancient Society, or Researches
in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism
to Civilization,” was published in 1877 by Henry Holt & Co. “The
Origin of the Family,” by Frederick Engels, founded upon Morgan’s
investigations, was published by J. H. W. Dietz, Stuttgart, as
was also “Relationship Organizations of the Australian Negro; a
Contribution to the History of the Family,” by Henry Cunow, which
appeared in 1894.
2.--Family Forms.
The periods of savagery and barbarism were characterized by singular
social and sex relations, that differ considerably from those of
later times.
Backofen and Morgan have thoroughly investigated these relations.
Backofen carried on his investigations by a profound study of ancient
writings, with the purpose of gaining an understanding of various
phenomena presented in mythology and ancient history, that impress
us strangely and yet show similarity with facts and occurrences of
later days, even down to the present time. Morgan carried on his
investigations by spending decades of his life among the Iroquois
Indians in the State of New York, whereby he made new and unexpected
observations of the modes of family life and system of relationship
prevailing among them, and these observations served as a basis to
place similar observations, made elsewhere, in the proper light.
Backofen and Morgan discovered, independently from one another, that
in primeval society the relations of the sexes differed vastly from
those prevalent during historic times and among modern, civilized
nations. Morgan discovered, furthermore, as a result of his long
sojourn among the Iroquois of North America, and his comparative
studies to which these observations led him, that all existing
primitive peoples have family relations and systems of relationship
that differ markedly from our own, but which must have prevailed
generally among all peoples at a remote period of civilization.
At the time when Morgan lived among the Iroquois, he found that among
them existed a monogamous marriage, easily dissolved by either side,
termed by him the “pairing family.” But he also found that the terms
of relationship as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister,
although there could be no doubt in our minds as to whom such terms
should apply, were not used in their ordinary sense. The Iroquois
addresses as sons and daughters not only his own children, but also
those of all his brothers, and these--his brothers’ children--call
him father. On the other hand, the Iroquois woman does not only
call her own children sons and daughters, but also those of all
her sisters, and again all her sisters’ children call her mother.
But the children of her brothers she calls nephews and nieces, and
these call her aunt. Children of brothers call one another brothers
and sisters, and so do children of sisters. But the children of a
woman and her brother call each other cousins. The curious fact then
presents itself that the terms of relationship are not determined
by the actual degrees of relationship, but the sex of the relative.
This system of kinship is not only fully accepted by all American
Indians as well as by the aborigines of India, the Dravidian tribes
of Deckan and the Gaura tribes of Hindostan, but similar systems must
have existed everywhere primarily, as has been proven by investigations
that were undertaken since those of Backofen. When these established
facts shall be taken as a basis for further investigations among
living savage or barbaric tribes, similar to the investigations made
by Backofen among various peoples of the ancient world, by Morgan
among the Iroquois and by Cunow among the Australian Negroes, it will
be shown that social and sex relations constituted the foundation
for the development of all nations of the world.
Morgan’s investigations have revealed still other interesting facts.
While the “pairing family” of the Iroquois is in contradiction to
the terms of relationship employed by them, it was shown that in the
Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) there existed up to the first half of the
nineteenth century a family form which actually corresponded to that
system of kinship that among the Iroquois existed only in name. But
the Hawaiian system of kinship again did not agree with the family
form prevailing there at the time, but pointed to another form of the
family, still more remote, and no longer in existence. There all the
children of brothers and sisters, without exception, were regarded
as brothers and sisters, and were considered the common children,
not only of their mother’s and her sisters’ or their father’s and
his brothers’, but of all the brothers and sisters of both their
parents.
The Hawaiian system of kinship then corresponded to a degree of
development that was still lower than the prevailing family form. We
are thus confronted by the peculiar fact, that in Hawaii as among
the North American Indians, two different systems of kinship were
employed that no longer corresponded to existing conditions, but
had been superseded by a higher form. Morgan expresses himself on
this phenomenon in the following manner: “The family is the active
element; it is never stationary, but progresses from a lower to a
higher form in the same measure in which society develops from a
lower to a higher stage. But the systems of kinship are passive. Only
in long intervals they register the progress made by the family in
course of time, and only then are they radically changed when the
family has done so.”
The prevalent conception that the present family form has existed
since times immemorial and must continue to exist lest our entire
civilization be endangered--a conception that is vehemently defended
by the upholders of things as they are--has been proven faulty and
untenable by the researches of these scientists. The study of primeval
history leaves no doubt as to the entirely different relation of the
sexes at an early period of human development from their present
relation, and when viewed in the light of our present-day conceptions,
they seem a monstrosity, a mire of immorality. But as each stage
in social development has its own methods of production, thus each
stage also has its own code of morals, ~which is only a reflection
of its social conditions~. Morals are determined by custom, and
customs correspond to the innermost nature, that is, to the social
necessities of any given period.
Morgan arrives at the conclusion that in the lowest stage of savagery
unrestricted sexual intercourse existed within the tribe, so that
all the women belonged to all the men and all the men belonged to
all the women; that is, a condition of promiscuity. All men practice
polygamy, and all women practice polyandry; there is a common ownership
of wives and husbands as also a common ownership of the children.
Strabo relates (66 B. C.) that among the Arabs brothers have sexual
intercourse with their sisters and sons with their mothers. Incest
was originally a requirement to make it possible for human beings
to multiply. This explanation must especially be resorted to if we
accept the biblical story of the origin of man. The Bible contains
a contradiction in regard to this delicate subject. It relates that
Cain, having killed his brother Abel, fled from the presence of the
Lord and lived in the land of Nod. There Cain knew his wife and she
conceived and bore a son unto him.
But whence came his wife? Cain’s parents were the first man and woman.
According to the Hebrew tradition, two sisters were born to Cain
and Abel, with whom they begot children. The Christian translators
of the Bible appear to have suppressed this unpleasant fact. That
promiscuity prevailed in a prehistoric stage, that the primeval horde
was characterized by unrestricted sexual intercourse, is also shown
in the Indian myth that Brama wedded his own daughter Saravasti. The
same myth is met with among the Egyptians and in the Norse “Edda.”
The Egyptian god Ammon was the husband of his mother and boasted of
the fact, and Odin, according to the “Edda” was the husband of his
own daughter Frigga.[3] Dr. Adolf Bastian relates: “In Swaganwara
the daughters of the Rajah enjoyed the privilege of freely choosing
their husbands. Four brothers who settled in Kapilapur made Priya,
the eldest of their five sisters, queen mother and ~married the
others~.”[4]
Morgan assumes that from the state of general promiscuity, a higher
form of sexual relation gradually developed, the consanguine family.
Here the marriage groups are arranged by generations; all the
grandfathers and grandmothers within a certain family are mutually
husbands and wives; their children constitute another cycle of
husbands and wives, and again the children of these when they have
attained the proper age. In differentiation then from the promiscuity
prevailing at the lowest stage, we here find one generation excluded
from sexual intercourse with another generation. But brothers and
sisters and cousins of the first, second and more remote grades are
all brothers and sisters and also husbands and wives. This family
form corresponds to the system of kinship that during the first half
of the last century still existed in Hawaii in name but no longer in
fact. According to the American and Indian system of kinship, brother
and sister can never be father and mother to the same child, but
according to the Hawaiian system they may. The consanguine family
also prevailed at the time of Herodotus among the Massagetes. Of
these he wrote: “Every man marries a woman but all are permitted to
have intercourse with her.”[5] Similar conditions Backofen proves
to have existed among the Lycians, Etruscans, Cretans, Athenians,
Lesbians and Egyptians.
According to Morgan, the consanguine family is succeeded by a third,
higher form of family relations, which he calls the “Punaluan
family”--“punaluan” meaning “dear companion.”
Morgan’s conception that the consanguine family, founded upon the
formation of marriage classes according to generations, which preceded
the Punaluan family, was the original form of family life, is opposed
by Cunow in his book referred to above. Cunow does not consider the
consanguine family the most primitive form of sexual intercourse
discovered, but deems it an intermediary stage leading to the true
gentile organization, in which stage the generic classification in
strata of different ages belonging to the so-called consanguine
family, runs parallel for a while with the gentile order.[6] Cunow
says, furthermore: The class division--every man and every woman
bearing the name of their class and their totem--does not prevent
sexual intercourse among relations on collateral lines, but it does
prevent it among relations of preceding and succeeding lines, parents
and children, aunts and nephews, uncles and nieces. Terms as uncle,
aunt, etc., denote entire groups.
Cunow furnishes proof in regard to the points in which he differs
from Morgan. But though he differs from Morgan in many respects, he
clearly defends him against the attacks of Westermarck and others.
He says: “Although some of Morgan’s theories may be proven to be
incorrect, and others partly so, to him still is due the credit of
having been the first to discover the identity existing between
the totem-groups of the North American Indians and the gentile
organizations of the Romans. He, furthermore, was the first to show
that our present family form and system of relationship is the outcome
of a lengthy process of evolution. We, therefore, are indebted to
him for having made further research possible, for having laid the
foundation upon which we may continue to build.” In the introduction
to his book he also states explicitly that his work is partly a
supplement to Morgan’s book on ancient society.
Westermarck and Starcke, to whom Dr. Ziegler especially refers,
will have to accept the fact that the origin and evolution of the
family are not in keeping with their bourgeois prejudices. Cunow’s
refutations should enlighten the most fanatical opponents of Morgan
as to the value of their opposition.
[3] Dr. Ziegler, professor of zoology at the university of Freiburg,
ridicules the idea of attaching any historical importance to myths.
This conception only proves the biased judgment of the scientist. The
myths contain a profound meaning, for they have sprung from the soul
of the people and are founded upon ancient customs and traditions
that have gradually disappeared but continue to survive in the myths
glorified by the halo of religion. If facts are met with that explain
the myth, there is good ground for attaching historical importance
to the same.
[4] Dr. Adolf Bastian, “Travels in Singapore, Batavia, Manila and
Japan.”
[5] Backofen: “The Matriarchate.”
[6] In the gentile order each gens has its totem, as lizard, opossum,
emu, wolf, bear, etc., from which the gens derives its name. The
totem animal is held sacred, and members of the gens may not kill
it or eat its flesh. The significance of the totem was similar to
that of the patron saint among the medieval guilds.
3.--The Matriarchate.
According to Morgan, the Punaluan family begins with the exclusion
of brothers and sisters on the mother’s side. Wherever a woman has
several husbands, it becomes impossible to determine paternity.
Paternity becomes a mere fiction. Even at present, with the
institution of monogamous marriage, paternity--as Goethe said in
his “Apprenticeship,” “depends upon good faith.” But if paternity
is dubious in monogamous marriage even, it is surely beyond the
possibility of determination where polyandry prevails. Only descent
from the mother can be shown clearly and undeniably; therefore,
children, during the term of the matriarchate, were termed “spurii,”
seed. As all social transformations are consummated infinitely slow
upon a low stage of development, thus also the transition from the
consanguine family to the Punaluan family must have extended through
a great length of time, and many retrogressions must undoubtedly
have occurred that could still be perceived in later days. The
immediate, external cause for the development of the Punaluan family
may have the necessity of dividing the greatly increased group for
the purpose of finding new soil for agricultural purposes and for
the grazing of herds. But it is also probable that with increasing
development, people gradually came to understand the harmfulness and
the impropriety of sexual intercourse between brother and sister
and close relatives, and that this recognition led to a different
arrangement of marriage relations. That this was the case is shown by
a pretty legend that, as Cunow tells us, was related to Gason among
the Dieyeris, a tribe of Southern Australia. This legend describes
the origin of the “Murdu,” the gentile organization, in the following
manner:
“After the creation fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and other
closely related persons married indiscriminately among themselves,
until the evil consequences of such marriages were clearly seen.
Thereupon the leaders held a council to consider what could be done,
and finally they begged Muramura, the great spirit, to bid them what
to do. Muramura bade them divide the tribe into many branches and
to name these after animals and inanimate objects to distinguish
them from one another; for instance, Mouse, Emu, Lizzard, Rain, etc.
The members of each group should not be permitted to marry among
themselves, but should choose their mates from another group. Thus
the son of an Emu should not marry the daughter of an Emu, but he
might marry the daughter of a Mouse, a Lizard, a Rain, or any other
family.” This tradition is more plausible than the biblical one, and
shows the origin of gentile organization in the simplest manner.
Paul Lafargue showed in an article published in the German periodical,
“Neue Zeit,” that names like Adam and Eva did not originally denote
individual persons, but were the names of gentes in which the Jews
were constituted in prehistoric days. By his argumentation Lafargue
elucidates a number of otherwise obscure and contradictory points
in the first book of Moses. In the same periodical M. Beer calls
attention to the fact that among the Jews a superstition still prevails
according to which a man’s mother and his fiancee must not have the
same name, lest misfortune, disease and death be brought upon the
family. This is a further proof of the correctness of Lafargue’s
conception. Gentile organization prohibited marriage between persons
belonging to the same gens. According to the gentile conception,
then, the fact that a man’s mother and his fiancee had the same name,
proved their belonging to the same gens. Of course, present-day Jews
are ignorant of the connection existing between their superstition
and the ancient gentile organization which prohibited such marriages.
These prohibitory laws had the purpose of avoiding the evils resulting
from close intermarriage, and though gentile organization among the
Jews has gone out of existence thousands of years ago, we still see
traces of the ancient tradition preserved. Early experiences in the
breeding of animals may have led to a recognition of the dangers of
inbreeding.
How far such experiences had been developed may be seen from the
first book of Moses, chapter 30, 32 stanza, where it is told how
Jacob cheated his father-in-law Laban by providing for the birth of
spotted lambs and goats that were to be his, according to Laban’s
promise. Thus ancient Israelites were applying Darwin’s theories in
practice long before Darwin’s time.
Since we are discussing conditions that existed among the ancient
Jews, it will be well to quote a few further facts which prove that
in antiquity maternal law actually prevailed among them. Although in
the first book of Moses, 3, 16, is written in regard to woman: “And
thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,”
in the first book of Moses, 2, 24, we find the lines: “Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave
unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.” The same wording is
repeated in Matthew, 19, 5; Mark, 10, 7, and in the epistle to the
Ephesians, 5, 31. This command then is rooted in maternal law, for
which interpreters of the Bible had no explanation and, therefore,
presented it incorrectly.
Maternal law is likewise shown to have existed in the fourth book
of Moses, 32, 41. There it is said that Jair had a father of the
tribe of Juda, but his mother came from the tribe of Manasseh, and
Jair is explicitly called the son of Manasseh and became heir to
that tribe. In Nehemiah, 7, 63, we find still another example of
maternal law among the ancient Jews. There the children of a priest
who married one of the daughters of Barzillai, a Jewish clan, are
called the children of Barzillai. They are, accordingly, not called
by their father’s but by their mother’s name.
In the Punaluan family, according to Morgan, one or more series of
sisters of one family group married one or more series of brothers of
another family group. A number of sisters or cousins of the first,
second and more remote degrees were the common wives of their common
husbands, who were not permitted to be their brothers. A number of
brothers or cousins of various degrees were the common husbands of
their common wives, who were not permitted to be their sisters.
As inbreeding was thereby prohibited, this new form of marriage
was favorable to higher and more rapid development, and gave those
tribes that had adopted this family form an advantage over those
who maintained the old form of sex relations.
The following system of kinship resulted from the Punaluan family:
The children of my mother’s sisters are her children, and the
children of my father’s brothers are his children, and all are my
brothers and sisters. But the children of my mother’s brothers are
her nephews and nieces and the children of my father’s sisters are
his nephews and nieces, and all are my cousins. The husbands of my
mother’s sisters are still her husbands and the wives of my father’s
brothers are still his wives, but the sisters of my father and the
brothers of my mother are excluded from the family group, and their
children are my cousins.[7]
With increasing civilization sexual intercourse among brothers and
sisters is put under the ban, and this is gradually extended to all
collateral relatives on the mother’s side. A new consanguine family,
the gens, is evolved that originally consists of natural and remote
sisters and their children, together with their natural or remote
brothers on the mother’s side. The gens has a common ancestress to
whom the groups of female generations trace their descent. The men
do not belong to the gens of their wives, but to the gens of their
sisters. But the children of these men belong to the gens of their
mothers, because descent is traced from the mother. The mother is
considered the head of the family. Thus the matriarchate was evolved
that for a long time constituted the foundation of family relations
and inheritance. While the maternal law prevailed, women had a
voice and vote in the councils of the gens, they helped to elect
the sachems and leaders and to depose them. When Hannibal formed
an alliance with the Gauls against the Romans, he decided that in
case disputes should arise among the allies, the Gallic matrons
should be intrusted with the mission of arbitrating; so great was
his confidence in their impartiality.
Of the Lycians who recognized maternal law Herodotus tells us: “Their
customs are partly Cretan and partly Carian. But they have one custom
that distinguishes them from all other nations in the world. If you
ask a Lycian who he is, he will tell you his name, his mother’s
name, and so on in the line of female descent. Moreover, when a free
woman marries a slave, her children remain free citizens. But if a
man marries a foreign woman or takes unto himself a concubine, his
children are deprived of all civic rights, even though he be the
most eminent man in the state.”
At that time “matrimonium” was spoken of instead of “patrimonium,”
“mater familias” was said instead of “pater familias,” and one’s
native country was referred to as the motherland. Just as the earlier
family forms, the gens was founded on the common ownership of
property, that is, it was a communistic form of society. Woman was
the leader and ruler in this kinship organization and was highly
respected, her opinion counting for much in the household as well
as in the affairs of the tribe. She is peacemaker and judge, and
discharges the duties of religious worship as priestess.
The frequent appearance of queens and women rulers in antiquity,
and the power wielded by them even when their sons were the actual
rulers, which was the case in Egypt, for instance, was an outcome
of the matriarchate. During that period mythological characters
are chiefly feminine, as seen from the goddesses Astarte, Demeter,
Ceres, Latona, Isis, Frigga, Freya, Gerda, and many others. Woman is
invulnerable; matricide is deemed the most dreadful crime that calls
upon all men for vengeance. It is the common duty of all the men of
the tribe, to avenge an injury inflicted upon any member of their
kinship by a member of any other tribe. Defense of the women incites
the men to highest bravery. Thus the influence of the matriarchate
was perceived in all social relations of the ancient peoples, among
the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Greeks before
the heroic age, the Italic tribes before the founding of Rome, the
Scythians, the Gauls, the Iberians, the Cantabrians, the Germans,
and others. At that time woman held a position in society as she
has never held since. Tacitus says in his “Germania”: “The Germans
believe that within every woman dwells something holy and prophetic;
therefore they honor woman’s opinion and follow her advice.” Diodorus,
who lived at the time of Cæsar, was quite indignant over the position
of women in Egypt. He had heard that in Egypt not sons but daughters
supported their aged parents. He therefore spoke disparagingly of
the hen-pecked men at the Nile, who granted rights and privileges
to the weaker sex that seemed outrageous to a Greek or a Roman.
Under maternal law comparatively peaceful conditions prevailed.
Social relations were simple and narrow and the mode of life was a
primitive one. The various tribes kept aloof from one another and
respected each other’s domain. If one tribe was attacked by another
the men took up arms for defense and were ably supported by the
women. According to Herodotus, the women of the Scythians took part
in battles; virgins--so he claims--were not permitted to marry until
they had slain an enemy. Taken all in all, the physical and mental
differences between man and woman were not nearly as great in primeval
days as they are at present. Among almost all savage and barbarian
tribes, the differences in the size and weight of brains taken
from male and female individuals, are smaller than among civilized
nations. Also the women of these tribes are not inferior to the men in
physical strength and skill. Proof of this is furnished not only by
the writers of antiquity in regard to peoples living under maternal
law, but also by the Amazon regiments of the Ashantis and the King of
Dahome in Western Africa, that excel in ferocity and courage. What
Tacitus relates in regard to the women of the ancient Germans, and
Cæsar’s opinion of the women of the Iberians and the Scots, furnish
additional proof. Columbus was attacked near Santa Cruz by a troop
of Indians in a small sloop in which the women fought as bravely as
the men. This conception is furthermore confirmed by Havelock Ellis:
“Among the Andombies on the Congo, according to Mr. H. H. Johnstone,
the women, though working very hard as carriers and as laborers in
general, lead an entirely happy existence; they are often stronger
than the men and more finely developed, some of them, he tells us,
having really splendid figures. And Parke, speaking of the Manyuema
of the Arruwimi in the same region, says that they are fine animals
and the women very handsome; they carry loads as heavy as those of
the men and do it quite as well. In North America again an Indian
chief said to Hearne: Women were made for labor; one of them can
carry or haul as much as two men can do. Schellong, who has carefully
studied the Papuans in the German protectorate of New Guinea from
the anthropological point of view, considers that the women are more
strongly built than the men. In Central Australia again, the men
occasionally beat the women through jealousy, but on such occasions
it is by no means rare for the woman, single-handed, to beat the
man severely. At Cuba, the women fought beside the men and enjoyed
great independence. Among some races of India, the Pueblos of
North America, the Patagonians, the women are as large as the men.
So among the Afghans, with whom the women in certain tribes enjoy
a considerable amount of power. Even among the Arabs and Druses it
has been noted that the women are nearly as large as the men. And
among Russians the sexes are more alike than among the English or
French.”[8]
In the gens women sometimes ruled with severity, and woe to the man
who was too lazy or too clumsy to contribute his share to the common
sustenance. He was cast out and was obliged either to return to his
own gens, where he was not likely to be received kindly, or to gain
admission into another gens where he was judged less harshly.
That this form of matrimony has been maintained by the natives of
Central Africa to this very day was experienced by Livingstone, to his
great surprise, as related by him in his book, “Missionary Travels
and Researches in Southern Africa.” At the Zambesi he encountered the
Balonda, a strong and handsome Negro tribe, engaged in agricultural
pursuits, and was soon able to confirm the reports made to him by
Portugiese, which he had at first declined to believe, that the
women held a superior position among them. They are members of the
tribal council. When a young man marries, he must migrate from his
village into the one in which his wife resides. He must at the same
time pledge himself to provide his mother-in-law with kindling wood
for lifetime. The woman, in turn, must provide her husband’s food.
Although minor quarrels between man and wife occasionally occurred,
Livingstone found that the men did not rebel against female supremacy.
But he found, on the other hand, that when men had insulted their
wives, they were severely punished--by their stomachs. The man--so
Livingstone relates--comes home to eat, but is sent from one woman
to another and is not given anything. Tired and hungry, he finally
climbs upon a tree in the most populous part of the village and
exclaims, with a woe-begone voice: “Hark, hark! I thought I had
married women, but they are witches! I am a bachelor; I have not a
single wife! Is that just and fair to a lord like myself?!”
[7] Frederick Engels: “Origin of the Family.”
[8] Havelock Ellis: “Man and Woman.”