PRIMITIVE SOCIAL LIFE
_The Character of Primitive Social Life_.--Judging from the cultures of
prehistoric man in Europe and from analogies of living races that
appear to have the same state of culture, strong inferences may be
drawn as to the nature of the beginnings of human association. The
hypothesis that man started as an individual and developed social life
through mutual aid as he came in contact with his fellows does not
cover the whole subject. It is not easy to conceive man in a state of
isolation at any period of his life, but it appears true that his early
associations were simple and limited to a few functions. The evidence
of assemblage in caves, the kind of implements used, and the drawings
on the walls of caves would appear to indicate that an early group life
existed from the time of the first human cultures. The search for food
caused men to locate at the same place. The number that could be
supplied with food from natural subsistence in a given territory must
have been small. Hence, it would appear that the early groups
consisted of small bands. They moved on if the population encroached
upon the food supply.
Also, the blood-related individuals formed the nucleus of the group.
The dependency of the child on the mother led to the first permanent
location as the seat of the home and the foundation of the family. As
the family continued to develop and became the most permanent of all
social institutions, it is easy to believe as a necessity that it had a
very early existence. It came out of savagery into barbarism and
became one of the principal bulwarks of civilization.
It may be accepted as a hypothesis that there was a time in the history
of every branch of the human race when social order was indefinite and
that out of this incoherence came by {109} degrees a complex organized
society. It was in such a rude state that the relations of individuals
to each other were not clearly defined by custom, but were temporary
and incidental. Family ties were loose and irregular, custom had not
become fixed, law was unheard of, government was unknown unless it was
a case of temporary leadership, and unity of purpose and reciprocal
social life were wanting. Indeed, it is a picture of a human horde but
little above the animal herd in its nature and composition. Living
tribes such as the Fuegians and Australians, and the extinct
Tasmanians, represent very nearly the status of the horde--a sort of
social protoplasm. They wander in groups, incidentally through the
influence of temporary advantage or on account of a fitful social
instinct. Co-operation, mutual aid, and reciprocal mental action were
so faint that in many cases life was practically non-social.
Nevertheless, even these groups had aggregated, communicated, and had
language and other evidences of social heredity.
_The Family Is the Most Persistent of Social Origins_.--The relation of
parent and child was the most potent influence in establishing
coherency of the group, and next to it, though of later development,
was the relation of man and woman--that is, the sex relation. While
the family is a universal social unit, it appears in many different
forms in different tribes and, indeed, exhibits many changes in its
development in the same tribe. There is no probability that mankind
existed in a complete state of promiscuity in sex relations, yet these
relations varied in different tribes. Mating was always a habit of the
race and early became regulated by custom. The variety of forms of
mating leads us to think the early sex life of man was not of a
degraded nature. Granted that matrimony had not reached the high state
of spiritual life contemplated in modern ideals, there are instances of
monogamic marriage and pure, dignified rites in primitive peoples.
Polygamy and polyandry were of later development.
A study of family life within the historic period, especially of
Greeks, Romans, and Teutons, and possibly the Hebrews, {110} compared
with the family life of the Australian and some of the North American
Indian tribes, reveals great contrasts in the prevailing customs of
matrimony. All forms of marriage conceivable may be observed from rank
animalism to high spiritual union; of numerous ideals, customs, and
usages and ceremonies, as well as great confusion of purpose. It may
be assumed, therefore, that there was a time in the history of every
branch of the human race when family customs were indefinite and family
coherence was lacking. Also that society was in a rude state in which
the relations of individuals to each other and to the general social
group were not clearly defined. There are found to-day among the lower
races, in the Pacific islands, Africa, and South America, evidences of
lack of cohesive life. They represent groups of people without
permanent organization, held together by temporary advantage, with
crude, purposeless customs, with the exercise of fitful social instinct.
However, it is out of such conditions that the tribes, races, and
nations of the early historic period have evolved into barbaric
organization. Reasoning backward by the comparative method, one may
trace the survivals of ancient customs. Following the social heredity
of the oldest civilized tribes, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians,
Greeks, Romans, and Teutonic peoples, there is evidence of the rise
from a rude state of savagery to a higher social life. Historical
records indicate the passage from the middle state of barbarism to
advanced civil life, even though the earlier phases of social life of
primitive man remain obscure. The study of tradition and a comparison
of customs and language of races yield a definite knowledge of the
evolution of society.
_Kinship Is a Strong Factor in Social Organization_.--Of all causes
that held people in coherent union, perhaps kinship, natural and
artificial, was the most potent. All of the direct and indirect
offspring of a single pair settled in the same family group. This
enlarged family took its place as the only organ of social order. Not
only did all the relatives settle and {111} become members of one body,
but also strangers who needed protection were admitted to the family by
subscribing to their customs and religion. Thus the father of the
family had a numerous following, composed of relatives by birth and by
adoption. He was the ruler of this enlarged household, declaring the
customs of his fathers, leading the armed men in war, directing the
control of property, for he alone was the owner of all their
possessions, acting as priest in the administration of religious
ceremonies--a service performed only by him--and acting as judge in
matters of dispute or discipline. Thus the family was a compact
organization with a central authority, in which both chief and people
were bound by custom.
Individuals were born under status and must submit to whatever was
customary in the rule of the family or tribe. There was no law other
than custom to determine the relation of individuals to one another.
Each must abide in the sphere of activity into which he was born. He
could not rise above it, but must submit to the arbitrary rule of
traditional usage. The only position an individual had was in the
family, and he must observe what custom had taught. This made family
life arbitrary and conventional.
_The Earliest Form of Social Order_.--The family is sometimes called
the unit of society. The best historical records of the family are
found in the Aryan people, such as the Greeks, the Romans, and the
Teutons. Outside of this there are many historical references to the
Aryans in their primitive home in Asia, and the story of the Hebrew
people, a branch of the Semitic race, shows many phases of tribal and
family life. The ancient family differed from the modern in
organization and composition. The first historical family was the
patriarchal, by which we mean a family group in which descent was
traced in the male line, and in which authority was vested in the
eldest living male inhabitant. It is held by some that this is the
original family type, and that the forms which we find among savage
races are degenerate forms of the above. Some have {112} advocated
that the patriarchal family was the developed form of the family, and
only occurred after a long evolution through states of promiscuity,
polygamy, and polyandry. There is much evidence that the latter
assumption is true. But there is evidence that the patriarchal family
was the first political unit of all the Aryan races, and also of the
Semitic as well, and that monogamic marriage was developed in these
ancient societies so far as historical evidence can determine. The
ancient Aryans in their old home, those who came into India, Greece,
Rome, and the northern countries of Europe, whether Celt or Teuton, all
give evidence of the permanency of early family organization.
_The Reign of Custom_.--For a long period custom reigned supreme, and
arbitrary social life became conventionalized, and the change from
precedent became more and more difficult. The family was despotic,
exacting, unyielding in its nature, and individual activity was
absorbed in it. So powerful was this early sway of customary law that
many tribes never freed themselves from its bondage. Others by degrees
slowly evolved from its crystallizing influences. Changes in custom
came about largely through the migration of tribes, which brought new
scenes and new conditions, the intercourse of one tribe with another in
trade and war, and the gradual shifting of the internal life of the
social unit. Those tribes that were isolated were left behind in the
progress of the race, and to many of them still clung the customs
practised thousands of years before. Those that went forward from this
first status grew by practice rather than by change of ideals. It is
the law of all progress that ideals are conservative, and that they can
be broken away from only by the procedure of actual practice.
Gradually the reign of customary law gave way to the laws framed by the
people. The family government gave way to the political; the
individual eventually became the political unit, and freedom of action
prevailed in the entire social body.
_The Greek and Roman Family Was Strongly Organized_.--In Greece and
Rome the family enlarged and formed the gens, {113} the gentes united
into a tribe, and the tribe passed into the nation. In all of this
formulated government the individual was represented by his family and
received no recognition except as a member of such. The tribal chief
became the king, or, as he is sometimes called, the patriarchal
president, because he presided over a band of equals in power, namely,
the assembled elders of the tribe. The heads of noble families were
called together to consider the affairs of government, and at a common
meal the affairs of the nation were discussed over viands and wine.
The king thus gathered the elders about him for the purpose of
considering measures to be laid before the people. The popular
assembly, composed of all the citizens, was called to sanction what the
king and the elders had decreed. Slowly the binding forms of
traditional usage were broken down, and the king and his people were
permitted to enact those laws which best served the immediate ends of
government. True, the old formal life of the family continued to
exist. There were the gentes, tribes, and phratries, or brotherhoods,
that still existed, and the individual entered the state in civil
capacity through his family. But by degrees the old family regime gave
way to the new political life, and sovereign power was vested in
monarchy, democracy, or aristocracy, according to the nature of the
sovereignty.
The functions or activities and powers of governments, which were
formerly vested in the patriarchal chief, or king, and later in king,
people, and council, gradually became separated and were delegated to
different authorities, though the sharp division of legislative,
judicial, and executive functions which characterizes our modern
governments did not exist. These forms of government were more or less
blended, and it required centuries to distribute the various powers of
government into special departments and develop modern forms.
_In Primitive Society Religion Occupied a Prominent Place_.--While
kinship was first in order in the foundation of units of social
organization, religion was second to it in importance. {114} Indeed,
it is considered by able writers as the foundation of the family and,
as the ethnic state is but the expanded family, the vital power in the
formation of the state. Among the Aryan tribes religion was a
prominent feature of association. In the Greek household stood the
family altar, resting upon the first soil in possession of the family.
Only members of the household could worship at this shrine, and only
the eldest male members of the family in good standing could conduct
religious service. When the family grew into the gens it also had a
separate altar and a separate worship. Likewise, the tribe had its own
worship, and when the city was formed it had its own temple and a
particular deity, whom the citizens worshipped. In the ancient family
the worship of the house spirit or a deified ancestor was the common
practice. This practice of the worship of departed heroes and
ancestors, which prevailed in all of the various departments of old
Greek society, tended to develop unity and purity of family and tribe.
As family forms passed into political, the religion changed from a
family to a national religion.
Among the lower tribes the religious life is still most powerful in
influencing their early life. Mr. Tylor, in his valuable work on
_Primitive Culture_, has devoted a good part of two large volumes to
the treatment of early religious belief. While recognizing that there
is no complete definition of religion, he holds that "belief in
spiritual beings" is a minimum definition which will apply to all
religions, and, indeed, about the only one that will. The lower races
each had simple notions of the spiritual world. They believed in a
soul and its existence after death. Nearly all believed in both good
and evil spirits, and in one or more greater gods or spirits who ruled
and managed the universe. In this early stage of religious belief
philosophy and religion were one. The belief in the after life of the
spirit is evidenced by implements which were placed in the grave for
the use of the departed, and by food which was placed at the grave for
his subsistence on the journey. Indeed, some even set aside food at
each meal for the departed; others, as {115} instanced by the Greeks,
placed tables in the burying ground for the dead. Many views were
entertained by the early people concerning the origin of the soul and
its course after death. But in all of the rude conditions of life
religion was indefinite and uncultured. From lower simple forms it
arose to more complex systems and to higher generalizations.
Religious influence on progress has been very great. There are those
who have neglected the subject of religion in the discussion of the
history of civilization. Other writers have considered it of little
importance, and still others believe it to have been a positive
hindrance to the development of the race. Religion, in general, as
practised by savage and barbarous races, based, as it is largely, on
superstition, must of a necessity be conservative and non-progressive.
Yet the service which it performs in making the tribe or family
cohesive and in giving an impetus to the development of the mind before
the introduction of science and art as special studies is, indeed,
great. The early forms of culture are found almost wholly in religious
belief and practice.
The religious ceremonies at the grave of a departed companion, around
the family altar or in the congregation, whether in the temple or in
the open air, tended to social cohesion and social activity. The
exercise of religious belief in a superior being and a recognition of
his authority, had a tendency to bring the actions of individuals into
orderly arrangement and to develop unity of life. It also had a strong
tendency to prepare the simple mind of the primitive man for later
intellectual development. It gave the mind something to contemplate,
something to reason about, before it reached a stage of scientific
investigation. Its moral influence is unquestioned. While some of the
early religions are barbarous in the extreme in their degenerate state,
as a whole they teach man to consider himself and his fellows, and
develop an ethical relationship. And while altruism as a great factor
in religious and in social progress appeared at a comparatively recent
period, it has been in existence from the earliest associations of men
to {116} the present time, and usually makes its strongest appeal
through religious belief. Religion thus becomes a great
society-builder, as well as a means of individual culture.
_Spirit Worship_.--The recognition of the continued journey of the
spirit after death was in itself an altruistic practice. Much of the
worship of the controlling spirit was conducted to secure especial
favor to the departed soul. The burial service in early religious
practice became a central idea in permanent religious rites. Perhaps
the earliest phase of religious belief arises out of the idea that the
spirit or soul of man has control over the body. It gives rise to the
notion of spirit and the idea of continued existence. Considering the
universe as material existence, according to primitive belief, it is
the working of the superior spirit over the physical elements that
gives rise to natural phenomena.
One of the early stages of religious progress is to attempt to form a
meeting-place with the spirit. This desire is seen in the lowest
tribes and in the highest civilization of to-day. When Cabrillo came
to the coast of southern California he found natives that had never
before come in contact with civilized people. He describes a rude
temple made by driving stakes in the ground in a circular form, and
partitioning the enclosure by similar rows of stakes. At the centre
was a rude platform, on which were placed the feathers of certain birds
pleasing to the spirit. The natives came to this temple occasionally,
and, circling around it, went through many antics of worship. This
represents the primitive idea of location in worship. Not different in
its fundamental conception from the rude altar of stones built by
Abraham at Bethel, the Greek altar, or the mighty columns of St.
Peter's, it was the simple meeting-place of man and the spirit. For
all of these represent location in worship, and just as the modern
worshipper enters the church or cathedral to meet God, so did the
primitive savage fix locations for the meeting of the spirit.
Man finally attempted to control the spirit for his own advantage. A
rude form of religion was reached, found in {117} certain stages of the
development of all religions, in which man sought to manipulate or
exorcise the spirits who existed in the air or were located in trees,
stones, and other material forms. Out of this came a genuine worship
of the powerful, and supplication for help and support. Seeking aid
and favor became the fundamental ideas in religious worship. Simple in
the beginning, it sought to appease the wrath of the evil spirit and
gain the favor of the good. But finally it sought to worship on
account of the sublimity and power possessed by the object of worship.
With the advancement of religious practice, religious beliefs and
religious ceremonies became more complex. Great systems of mythology
sprang up among nations about to enter the precincts of civilization,
and polytheism predominated. Purely ethical religions were of a later
development, for the notion of the will of the gods concerning the
treatment of man by his fellows belongs to an advanced stage of
religious belief. The ethical importance of religion reaches its
culmination in the religion of Jesus Christ.
_Moral Conditions_.--The slow development of altruistic notions
presages a deficiency of moral action in the early stages of human
progress. True it is that moral conditions seem never to be entirely
wanting in this early period. There are many conflicting accounts of
the moral practice of different savage and barbarous tribes when first
discovered by civilized man. Tribes differ much in this respect, and
travellers have seen them from different standpoints. Wherever a
definite moral practice cannot be observed, it may be assumed that the
standard is very low. Moral progress seems to consist in the
constantly shifting standards of right and wrong, of justice and
injustice. Perhaps the moral action of the savage should be viewed
from two standpoints--namely, the position of the average savage of the
tribe, and from the vantage of modern ethical standards. It is only by
considering it from these two views that we have the true estimation of
his moral status. There must be a difference between conventionality
and morality, and many who have judged the moral status of {118} the
savage have done so more from a conventional than from a moral
standard. True that morality must be judged from the individual motive
and from social effects of individual action. Hence it is that the
observance of conventional rules must be a phase of morality; yet it is
not all of morality. Where conventionality does not exist, the motive
of action must be the true moral test.
The actions of some savages and of barbarous people are revolting in
the extreme, and so devoid of sympathy for the sufferings of their
fellow-beings as to lead us to assume that they are entirely without
moral sentiment. The repulsive spectacle of human sacrifice is
frequently brought about by religious fervor, while the people have
more or less altruistic practice in other ways. This practice was
common to very many tribes, and indeed to some nations entering the
pale of civilization. Cannibalism, revolting as it may seem, may be
practised by a group of people which, in every other respect, shows
moral qualities. It is composed of kind husbands, mothers, brothers,
and sisters, who look after each other's welfare. The treatment of
infants, not only by savage tribes but by the Greek and Roman nations
after their entrance into civilized life, represents a low status of
morality, for it was the common custom to expose infants, even in these
proud nations. The degraded condition of woman, as slave and tool of
man in the savage state, and indeed in the ancient civilization, does
not speak well for the high standard of morality of the past. More
than this, the disregard of the rights of property and person and the
common practice of revolting brutality, are conclusive evidence of the
low moral status of early mankind.
Speaking of the Sioux Indians, a writer says: "They regard most of the
vices as virtues. Theft, arson, rape, and murder are among them
regarded with distinction, and the young Indian from childhood is
taught to regard killing as the highest of virtues." And a writer who
had spent many years among the natives of the Pacific coast said that
"whatever is {119} falsehood in the European is truth in the Indian,
and vice versa." Whether we consider the savages or barbarians of
modern times, or the ancient nations that laid claim to civilization,
we find a gradual evolution of the moral practice and a gradual change
of the standard of right. This standard has constantly advanced until
it rests to-day on the Golden Rule and other altruistic principles of
Christian teaching.
_Warfare and Social Progress_.--The constant warfare of savages and
barbarians was not without its effects in developing the individual and
social life. Cruel and objectionable as it is, the study and practice
of war was an element of strength. It developed physical courage, and
taught man to endure suffering and hardships. It developed
intellectual power in the struggle to circumvent and overcome enemies.
It led to the device and construction of arms, machines, engines, guns,
and bridges, for facilitating the carrying on of successful warfare;
all of this was instrumental in developing the inventive genius and
engineering skill of man.
In a political way warfare developed tribal or national unity, and
bound more closely together the different groups in sympathy and common
interest. It thus became useful in the preparation for successful
civil government. It prepared some to rule and others to obey, and
divided the governing from the governed, an essential characteristic of
all forms of government. Military organization frequently accompanied
or preceded the formation of the modern state. Sparta and Rome, and in
more modern times Prussia, were built upon military foundations.
The effect of war in depopulating countries has proved a detriment to
civilization by disturbing economic and social development and by
destroying thousands of lives. Looking back over the track which the
human race has made in its persistent advance, it is easy to see that
the ravages of war are terrible. While ethical considerations have
entered into warfare and made its effects less terrible, it still is
deplorable. It is not a necessity to modern civilization for the {120}
development of intellectual or physical strength, nor for the
development of either patriotism or courage. Modern warfare is a relic
of barbarism, and the sooner we can avoid it the better. Social
progress means the checking of war in every way and the development of
the arts of peace. It is high time that the ethical process between
nations should take the place of the art of war.
_Mutual Aid Developed Slowly_.--Owing to ignorance and to the instinct
for self-preservation, man starts on his journey toward progress on an
individualistic and selfish basis. Gradually he learns to associate
with his fellows on a co-operative basis. The elements which enter
into this formal association are the exercise of a general blood
relationship, religion, economic life, social and political
organization. With the development of each of these, social order
progresses. Yet, in the clashing interests of individuals and tribes,
in the clumsy methods adopted in the mastery of nature, what a waste of
human energy; what a loss of human life! How long it has taken mankind
to associate on rational principles, to develop a pure home life, to
bring about toleration in religion, to develop economic co-operation,
to establish liberality in government, and to promote equality and
justice! By the rude master, experience, has man been taught all this
at an immense cost. Yet there was no other way possible.
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. Study your community to determine that society is formed by the
interactions of individuals.
2. Discuss the earliest forms of mutual aid.
3. Why is the family called the unit of social organization?
4. Why did religion occupy such an important place in primitive
society?
5. To what extent and in what manner did the patriarchal family take
the place of the state?
6. What is the relation of morals to religion?
7. What are the primary social groups? What the secondary?
{121}