The Position of Woman in Primitive Society Part 9

An example may be found in the interesting Touaregs of the Sahara, a race very far advanced in civilisation, who, even at the present day, have preserved their independence and many of their ancient customs.

Among them all relations.h.i.+p is still maternal and confers both rank and inheritance. "The child follows the blood of the mother," and the son of a slave or serf father and a n.o.ble woman is n.o.ble. "It is the womb which dyes the child," the Touaregs say in their primitive language.[96] All property descends only through the mother, and by means of acc.u.mulation the greatest part of the fortune of the community is in the hands of women. This is the real basis of the women's power. "Absolute mistress of her fortune, her actions, and her children, who belong to her and bear her name, the Targui woman goes where she will and exercises a real authority." The unusual position of the wife is significantly indicated by the fact that, although polygamy is permitted by the law, she practically enforces monogamy, for the conditions of divorce are so favourable for a woman that she can at once separate from a husband who attempts to give her a rival.

Again the initiative in courts.h.i.+p is taken by the woman, who chooses from her suitors the one whom she herself prefers.[97]

[96] Duveyrier, _Touareg du Nord_, p. 337 _et seq._

[97] Chavanne, _Die Sahara_, pp. 181, 209, 234.

It is interesting to note that the Targui women know how to read and write in greater numbers than the men. Duveyrier states that to them is due the preservation of the ancient Libyan and Berber writings.[98]

"Leaving domestic work to their slaves, the Targui ladies occupy themselves with reading, writing, music and embroidery; they live as intelligent aristocrats."[99] "The ladies of the tribe of Ifoghas, in particular, are renowned for their _savoirvivre_ and their musical talent; they know how to ride _mehari_ better than all their rivals.

Secure in their cages, they can ride races with the most intrepid cavaliers, if one may give this name to riders on dromedaries; in order, also, to keep themselves in practice in this kind of riding, they meet to take short trips together, going wherever they like without the escort of any man."[100] In the tribe of Imanan, who are descended from the ancient sultans, the women are given the t.i.tle _Timanokalin_, "royal women," on account of their beauty and their talent in the art of music. They often give concerts, to which the men come "from long distances--decked out like male ostriches." In these concerts the women improvise the songs, accompanying themselves on the tambourine and a sort of violin or _rebaza_. They are much sought after in marriage, because of the t.i.tle of _cherif_ which they confer on their children.[101]

[98] _Ibid._, p. 387.

[99] Duveyrier, _op. cit._, p. 430.

[100] _Ibid._, p. 362.

[101] _Ibid._, p. 347.

There is a touch of chivalrous sentiment in the relations between men and women.[102] "If a woman is married," Duveyrier tells us, "she is honoured all the more in proportion to the number of her masculine friends, but she must not show preference to any one of them. The lady may embroider on the cloak, or write on the s.h.i.+eld of her chevalier, verses in his praise and wishes for his good fortune. Her friend may, without being censured, cut the name of the lady on the rocks or chant her virtues. 'Friends of different s.e.xes,' say the Touaregs, 'are for the eyes and heart, and not for the bed only, as among the Arabs.'"[103] Letourneau, in quoting these pa.s.sages from Duveyrier, makes the following comment: "Such customs as these indicate delicate instincts, which are absolutely foreign to the Arabs. They strongly remind us of the times of our southern troubadours and of the _cours d'amour_, which were the quintessence of chivalry."[104]

[102] Chavanne, _op. cit._, p. 208 _et seq._

[103] Duveyrier, _op. cit._, p. 429.

[104] Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 180-181.

The foregoing example is exceedingly interesting; it shows women holding the position that as a rule belongs to men, and is thus worthy of most careful study, but at the same time we must guard against according it a general value which it does not possess. Such a case is exceptional, though it by no means stands alone, and the social position of Targui women is a.n.a.logous to that of the women of ancient Egypt. It is important to note that their great independence arose through the persistence of maternal descent, and could not have been maintained apart from that system, which placed in their hands the strong power of wealth. Here, then, is certain proof of the favourable influence mother-descent may exercise on the status of women. It is because of this I have brought forward this example of the Targui women.

Enough has now been said. I have examined the inst.i.tution of the maternal family, both in the early communal stage and also under later social conditions, where, in certain cases, mother-descent has been maintained. In all the examples cited I have given the marriage customs and domestic habits of the people as they are testified to by authorities whose records cannot be questioned. Many similar examples, it may be said, might be brought forward from other races, and the proof of mother-right and mother-power greatly strengthened thereby.

There is, however, so much similarity in the maternal family, so much correspondence in the marriage forms and social habits prevailing among races widely separated, that the points of difference are little in comparison with those they have in common. My object is not so much to exhaust the subject as to bring into relief the radical differences between the maternal communal clan, with its social life centred around the mothers, and the opposite patriarchal form in which the solitary family is founded on the individual father. I hold that, other conditions being equal, the one system is favourable to the authority of women, the other to the authority of men. The facts which have been cited are, I submit, amply sufficient to support this view.

We have seen that the life of the maternal clan is dependent on the women--and not upon the men; we have noted that the inheritance of the family name and the family property pa.s.sing through the women adds considerably to their importance, and that daughters are preferred to sons. We have found women the organisers of the households, the guardians of the household stores, and the distributors of food, under a social organisation that may be termed "a communal matriarchy." More important than all else, we have noted the remarkable freedom of women in the s.e.xual relations.h.i.+ps; in courts.h.i.+p they are permitted to take the active part; in marriage their position is one of such power that, sometimes, they are able to impose the form of the marriage; in divorce they enjoy equal, and even superior, rights of separation; moreover, they are always the owners and controllers of the children.

Nor is the influence of women restricted to the domestic sphere. We have found them the advisers, and in some cases the dictators, in the social organisation under the headmen of the clan. Then we examined the cases in which the women's power has an industrial as well as a kins.h.i.+p basis, and have proved the existence of an "economic matriarchy." And further even than this, we have found women the sole possessors of acc.u.mulated wealth, and noted that, under the favourable conditions of such a "pecuniary matriarchy," they are able to obtain a position in learning and the arts excelling that of the men. We have even seen G.o.ddesses set above the G.o.ds, and women wors.h.i.+pped as deities.

Now I submit to the judgment of my readers--what do these examples of mother-right show, if not that, broadly speaking, women were the dominant force in this stage of the family. No doubt too much importance may be attached to the idea of women ruling. This is an error I have tried to guard against. My aim throughout has been to establish mother-right, not mother-rule. I believe it is only by an extraordinary power of illusion that we can recognise, in the favourable position of women under mother-descent Bachofen's view of an Amazonian gynaecocracy. But this does not weaken at all my position.

I maintain that such customs of courts.h.i.+p, marriage and divorce, of property inheritance and possession, and of the domestic and social rights, as those we have seen in the cases examined, afford conclusive proof of women's power in the maternal family. If this is denied, the only conclusion that suggests itself to me is that, those who seek to diminish the power of mother-right have done so in reinforcement of a preconceived idea of the superiority of the man as the natural and unchanging order in the relations.h.i.+ps of the s.e.xes. One suspects prejudice here. To approach this question with any fairness, it is absolutely essential to clear the mind from the current theories regarding the family. The order is not sacred in the sense that it has always had the same form. It is this belief in the immutability of our form of marriage and the family which accounts for the prejudice with which this question is approached. The modern civilised man cannot easily accustom himself to the idea that in the maternal family the dominion of the mother was regarded as the natural, and, therefore, the right and accepted order of the family. It is very difficult for us even to believe in a relations.h.i.+p of the mother and the father that is so exactly opposite to that with which we are accustomed.

CHAPTER VIII

MOTHER-RIGHT CUSTOMS AND THE TRANSITION TO FATHER-RIGHT

Endeavour has been made in the previous chapters to present the case for mother-right as clearly and concisely as possible. The point we have now reached is this: while mother-right does not const.i.tute or make necessary rule by women, under that system they enjoy considerable power as the result (1) of their organised position under the maternal marriage among their own clan-kindred, (2) of their importance to the male members of the clan as the transmitters and holders of property.

It is necessary to remember the close connection between these mother-right customs and the communal clan, which was a free a.s.sociation for mutual protection. This is a point of much interest.

As we have seen, the undivided family of the clan could be maintained only by descent through the mothers, since its existence depended on its power to retain and protect all its members. In this way it destroyed the solitary family, by its opposition to the authority and will of the husband and father.

These conclusions will be strengthened as we continue our examination of mother-right customs as we shall find them in all parts of the world. I must select a few examples only and describe them very briefly, not because these cases offer less interest than the complete maternal families already examined, but because of the length to which this part of my inquiry is rapidly growing. The essential fact to establish is the prevalence of mother-descent as a probable universal stage in the past history of mankind, and then to show the causes which, by undermining the dominion of the maternal clan, led to the adoption of father-right and the re-establishment of the patriarchal family.

Let us begin with Australia, where the aboriginal population is in a more primitive condition than any other race whose inst.i.tutions have been investigated. I can notice a few facts only from the harvest of information brought together by anthropologists and travellers. The tribes are grouped into exogamous sub-divisions, and each group has its own land from which it takes a local name. Each group wanders about on its own territory in order to hunt game and collect roots, sometimes in detached families and, less often, in larger hordes, for there seems to be a tendency to local isolation. A remarkable feature of the social organisation is found in the more advanced tribes, where, in addition to the division into clans, the group is divided into male and female cla.s.ses. All the members of such clans regard themselves as kinsmen, or brothers and sisters; they have the same totem mark and are bound to protect each other. The totem bond is stronger than any blood tie, while the s.e.x totems are even more sacred than the clan totems.

Much confusion has arisen out of the attempts to explain the Australian system; and for long the close totem kins.h.i.+p was supposed to afford evidence of group marriage, by which a man of one clan was held to have s.e.xual rights over all the women in another clan. But further insight into their customs has proved the error of such a view, which arose from a misunderstanding of the terms of relations.h.i.+p used among the tribes. Nowhere is marriage bound by more severe laws; death is the penalty for s.e.xual intercourse with a person of a forbidden clan. And it is certain that there is no evidence at all of communism in wives.[105]

[105] _See_ Westermarck, _op. cit._, pp. 54-56.

A system of taboos is very strongly established, and as we should expect the women appear to be most active in maintaining these s.e.xual separations. If a man, even by mistake, kills the s.e.x-totem of the women, they are as much enraged as if it were one of their own children, and they will turn and attack him with their long poles.

In Australia it is easy to recognise a very early stage in human society. The organisation of the family group into the clan is still taking place. Moreover, the most primitive patriarchal conditions have not greatly changed, for the males are great individualists and cannot readily suffer the rights of others than themselves. Mother-right can hardly be said to exist, and the position of women is low. It is not the custom among any tribes for the husband to reside in the home of the wife; this in itself is sufficient to explain the power of the husbands. Wives are frequently obtained by capture, and fights for women are of common occurrence. Here it would seem that progress has been very slow. Indeed, it is the chief interest of the Australian tribes that we can trace the transformation from the early patriarchal conditions to the communal clan.

There is still another fact of very special interest. In the large majority of tribes known to us descent is traced through the mother; the proportion of these tribes to those with father-descent being four to one. Now, the question arises as to which of these two systems is the earlier custom? As a rule it is a.s.sumed that in all cases descent was originally traced through the mother. But is this really so? The evidence of the Australian tribes points to the exact opposite opinion. For what do we find? The tribes that have established mother-descent have advanced further, with a more developed social organisation, which could hardly be the case if they were the more primitive. To this question Starcke, in _The Primitive Family_, has drawn particular attention; he regards "the female line as a later development," arrived at after descent through the father was recognised, such change being due to an urgent necessity which arose in the primitive family for cohesion among its members, making necessary s.e.xual regulation and the maternal clan.

It is certainly difficult to decide on the priority of this or that custom. But what is significant is that in Australia the tribes which maintain the male line of descent must be a.s.signed to the lowest stage of development. The rights established by marriage among them are less clearly defined, and the use of the totem marks, with the s.e.xual taboos arising from them, are less developed. Everything tends to show that clan organisation and union in peace have arisen with mother-descent, which cannot thus be regarded as a survival from the earlier order, but as a later development--a step forward in progress and social regulation.

I take this as being exceedingly important: it serves to establish what it has been my purpose to show, that in the first stage the family was patriarchal--small hostile groups living under the jealous authority of the fathers; and that only as advancement came did the maternal clan develop, since it arose through a community of purpose binding all its members in peace, and thereby controlling the warring individual interests. The reasons for mother-descent have been altogether misunderstood by those who regard it as the earliest phase of the family, and connect the custom with s.e.xual disorder and uncertainty of paternity. In all cases the clan system shows a marked organisation, with a much stronger cohesion than is possible in the restricted family, which is held together by the force of the father.

It was within the clan that the rights of the father and husband were endangered: he lost his position as supreme head of the family, and became an alien member in a free a.s.sociation where his position was strictly defined. The incorporation of the family into the clan arose through the struggle for existence forcing it into a.s.sociation; it was the subordinate position of the husband under such a system which finally made the women the rulers of the household. If we regard the social conditions of the maternal system as the first stage of development, they are as difficult to understand as they become intelligible when we consider it as a later and beneficent phase in the growth of society.

This, then, I claim as the chief good of the maternal system. As I see it, each advance in progress rests on the conquest of s.e.xual distrusts and fierceness forcing into isolation. These jealous and odious monopolist instincts have been the bane of humanity. Each race must inevitably in the end outlive them; they are the surviving relics of the ape and the tiger. They arise out of that self-concentration and intensity of animalism that binds the hands of men and women from taking their inheritance. The brute in us still resents a.s.sociation.

Am I wrong in connecting this individual monopolist idea of My power!

My right! with the paternal as opposed to the maternal family? At any rate I find it absent in the communal clan grouped around the mothers, where the enlarged family makes common cause and life is lived by all for and with each other.

An instructive example of the joint maternal family is furnished by the Nars of Malabar, where we see a very late development of the clan system. The family group includes many allied families, who live together in large communal houses and possess everything in common.

There is common tenure of land, over which the eldest male member of the community presides; while the mother, and after her death the eldest daughter, is the ruler in the household. It is impossible to give the details of their curious conjugal customs. The men do not marry, but frequent other houses as lovers, without ceasing to live at home, and without being in any way detached from the maternal family.

There is, however, a symbolic marriage for every girl, by a rite known as tying the _tali_; but this marriage serves the purpose only of initiation, and the couple separate after one day. When thus prepared for marriage, a Nar girl chooses her lovers, and any number of unions may be entered upon without any restrictions other than the strict prohibitions relative to caste and tribe. These later marriages, unlike the solemn initial rite, have no ceremony connected with them, and are entered into freely at the will of the woman and her family.[106]

[106] Starcke's _Primitive Family_, pp. 85-88. Letourneau, _Evolution of Marriage_, pp. 80-81, 311-312. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Vol. I, pp. 269, 288.

Now, if we regard these customs in the light of what has already been established, it is clear that they cannot be regarded as the first stage in the maternal family. Such a view is entirely to mistake the facts. The Nars are in no respect a people of primitive culture.

Through a long period they have most strictly preserved the custom of matriarchal heredity, which has led to an unusual concentration of the family group, and it is probable that here is the best explanation of the conjugal liberty of the Nar girls. However singular their system may appear to us, it is the most logical and complete of any polyandric system. If we compare it with the more usual form of patriarchal polyandry we see at once the influence of maternal descent. Here, the woman makes a free choice of her husbands; in no sense is she their property. It is common for them to work for her, one husband taking on himself to furnish her with clothes, another to give her rice and food, and so on. It is, in fact, the wife who possesses, and it is through her that wealth is transmitted. In fraternal polyandry, on the other hand (as, for instance, it is practised in Thibet and Ceylon), the husbands of a woman are always brothers; she belongs to them, and for her children there is a kind of collective fatherhood. But among the Nars the man as husband and father cannot be said to exist; he is reduced to the most subordinate role of the male--he is simply the progenitor.

I know of no stronger case than this of the degraded position of the father. And what I want to make clear is that in such negation of all father-right rested the inherent weakness in the matriarchal conditions--a weakness which led eventually to the re-establishment of the paternal family. We must be very clear in our minds as to the sharp distinction between the restricted family and the communal clan. The clan as a confederation of members was opposed to the family whose interests were necessarily personal and selfish. Such communism, to some may appear strange at so early a stage of primitive cultures, yet, as I have more than once pointed out, it was a perfectly natural development; it arose through the fierce struggle for existence, forcing the primitive hostile groups to expand and unite with one another for mutual protection. Such conditions of primitive socialism were specially favourable for women. As I have again and again affirmed, the collective motive was more considered by the mothers, and must be sought in the organisation of the maternal clan. But since individual desires can never be wholly subdued, and the male nature is ever directed towards self-a.s.sertion, the clan, organised on the rights of the mothers, had always to contend with an opposing force.

At one stage the clan was able to absorb the family, but only under exceptional conditions could such a system be maintained. The social organisation of the clan was inevitably broken up as society advanced.

With greater security of life the individual interests rea.s.serted their power, and this undermined the dominion of the mother.

To bring these facts home, we must now consider some further examples of mother-right, in order to show how closely these customs are connected with the conditions of the maternal familiar clan.

The Yaos of Africa have what may be regarded as a matriarchal organisation. Kins.h.i.+p is reckoned and property is inherited through the mother. When a man marries, he is expected to live in his wife's village, and his first conjugal duties are to build a house for her, and hoe a garden for her mother. This gives the woman a very important position, and it is she, and not the man, who usually proposes marriage.[107]

[107] Alice Werner, "Our Subject Races", _National Reformer_, Aug. 1897, p. 169.

In Africa descent through the mother is the rule, though there are exceptions, and these are increasing. The amusing account given by Miss Kingsley[108] of Joseph, a member of the Batu tribe in French Congo, strikingly ill.u.s.trates the prevalence of the custom. When asked by a French official to furnish his own name and the name of his father, Joseph was wholly nonplussed. "My fader!" he said. "Who my fader?" Then he gave the name of his mother. The case is the same among the negroes. The Fanti of the Gold Coast may be taken as typical. Among them an intensity of affection (accounted for partly by the fact that the mothers have exclusive care of the children) is felt for the mother, while the father is almost disregarded as a parent, notwithstanding the fact that he may be a wealthy and powerful man.

The practice of the Wamoimia, where the son of a sister is preferred in legacies, "because a man's own son is only the son of his wife," is typical. The Bush husband does not live with his wife, and often has wives in different places.[109]

[108] _Travels_, p. 109.