The Family among the Australian Aborigines, a Sociological Study

by Bronislaw Malinowski

I

Consideration may first here be given to the cares and benefits a child receives from its mother during the first few years of its infancy. These facts constitute a very strong bond of union between the child and its nurse. Suckling is a physiological tie between the child and the mother, and next to the fact of birth it marks very strongly the individuality of this relation. Group motherhood has therefore never been a very popular idea and has never found a favourable reception amongst sociologists. We saw above, however, that it is very probable that the facts of birth may lack any social significance in the native mind. If it be further possible to imagine in the same tribe suckling performed, according to Dr. Rivers's suggestion,[652] not by the actual mother, but by a group of kindred women, group motherhood would be quite comprehensible in such tribes.

In Australia, however, suckling seems to be strictly individual. This might indeed be inferred in the first place from the aboriginal mode of living. Communism in suckling and rearing a small child would involve a complete communism in life; and we know that unless two women are wives of the same man, they are to a great extent isolated in daily life. It is also highly improbable that in the two or three families which are roaming together there would be always a woman at hand who could help the other in these cares.

There are several other reasons which still more strongly support our view. The best argument may be deduced from the statements referring to infanticide. It is practised amongst all Australian natives. One of the chief reasons given for it is that the mother cannot possibly suckle and carry two children at one time, especially as children are not weaned before their third to fifth year. If there were a custom of common suckling and nursing a child, and another woman who would replace the mother in her functions could be easily found, the practice of infanticide could scarcely be attributed to the above-mentioned reasons. Let us adduce a few statements.

Statements.—Infanticide is carried on among the Lower Darling natives to prevent the toils and troubles of carrying and caring for too many children. The mother's brother decides if the child should be killed or not.[653]

Amongst the Encounter Bay natives "no mother will venture to bring up more than two children, because she considers that the attention which she would have to devote to them would interfere with what she regards as the duty to her husband in searching for roots, etc."[654]

Amongst the Adelaide tribes "female infants at birth are not infrequently put to death for the sake of more valuable boys who are still being suckled."[655]

As justification of infanticide "women plead that they cannot suckle and carry two children together."[656] It is clear from this statement that the impossibility of suckling more than one child at a time is given as justification for infanticide by the natives themselves; and that it is not only an inference of the observer.

Infanticide was practised among the Port Lincoln tribes. "In extenuation of this horrible practice the women allege that they cannot suckle and carry two babies at once."[657] This statement also quite unmistakably points to the fact that children were suckled and attended by their own mother.

Bennett writes that among the New South Wales natives women practice infanticide in order to avoid too much trouble in carrying their infants about.[658]

Another statement, maintaining still more strongly the view that only the mother suckled her child, is that of Collins.[659] He says that he knew two instances in which infants were killed by the father at their mother's grave, the reason alleged being that as no one else could be found to suckle the child and to rear it it must have died a worse death. Collins supposes that this is a general custom.

Gason states that among the Dieri nearly thirty per cent. of the children were destroyed by their mothers at birth to avoid the cares and trouble of rearing.[660]

"The Arunta native does not hesitate to kill a child—always directly it is born—if there be an older one still in need of nourishment from the mother; and suckling is continued up to the age of three years and even older."[661] And again: "The child is killed ... when the mother is ... unable to rear it owing to there being a young child whom she is still feeding."[662]

Among the Kabi and Wakka: "The motive for infanticide with these tribes could not be to save food in times of dearth, for the food supply was constant and plentiful. It would be mainly, if not entirely, that mothers might escape the irksomeness of nursing and caring for infants and of carrying them on their frequent journeys."[663]

Mrs. D. M. Bates writes that when a mother died at childbirth the infant was put to death.[664] We are not informed what reasons the natives gave for this practice; but most probably they are the same as those mentioned by Collins.

All this evidence makes it nearly impossible to suppose that suckling, carrying the baby and caring for it, was the task of a group of women. For then it would not be necessary to kill the infant at the death of its mother, or to kill it when there was another one to be suckled, as the toils could easily be shared by the other women of the group. The assumption we are now able to draw, namely that the mother always suckles and nurses her own child, is of great importance.[665]

Amongst the Australian aborigines suckling establishes undoubtedly much stronger bonds between mother and child than amongst civilized races, for it lasts much longer. As we saw and shall see in a few statements, the child is never weaned before its third year, and sometimes suckling lasts much longer. Between a bigger child and its mother this constant dependence upon each other must necessarily create a strong bond of union. The child must be continually with its mother. During infancy it is carried by her in a pouch or bag on the shoulders. Afterwards it accompanies her on all her wanderings and in all her work. A great addition to her work is the continuous care she must display towards it. This will be exemplified in our statements referring to the economic division of labour. To sum up, we may say that natural necessities of nurture and of the earliest cares, combined with the aboriginal mode of living, make the child absolutely dependent on the personal, individual help it receives from its mother, and creates therefore an intimate relation between the two.

This is not so much in evidence as regards the relationship between the father and child. But here it must be remembered that owing to the character of the native mode of living the man lives in close contact and to a great extent in isolation with his wife, and consequently also with his wife's children. Some of our statements show that he shares to a certain extent in the cares and labours connected with carrying children, feeding them, etc.; he seems to have a great affection towards them and never to treat them with severity. So that we may infer that the general character of his feelings is of the same description as that of the mother's, i. e. one of parental love and attachment.

II

An attempt will be made to illustrate by a series of statements all these characteristics of domestic life as far as they embrace the relations of parents to children. The chief points of inquiry will be: Is there between parents and children any kind of affection? What is the general character of the treatment of children by parents? Are rudiments of education given by father or mother to their offspring? In what way does the position of the father differ from that of the mother—is there any special trait of severity? In what consists the paternal authority and how does it show itself? Is there any strong difference made between male and female children?