A few examples from Africa will emphasize this point even more forcibly, and at the same time indicate along what lines the respective spheres of men’s and women’s actions are drawn there. In the Purrah Society, women are excluded. The society has general war and judicial functions which do not come within the domain of women, according to the ideas of the tribe. In the Attonga Society[44] of Senegambia, only women are admitted, and the society is associated with mortuary rites. In the Dschengu we have another women society connected here with the cult of some water deity.[45] In the region around the mouth of the Ogowe there are a number of powerful women societies associated with various elements.[46]
If we now proceed to Schurtz’s contention, that women societies are merely imitations of men’s societies, we shall see that, as a general statement, this is as unjustified as is his interpretation that the admission of women into societies is a secondary feature. That it is true in a number of cases, is unquestioned. However, when, as in Africa, we see a very strong tendency for the formation of societies, and see at the same time a very large number of women societies, it seems far more justifiable to assume that the women societies are formed in response to the same tendencies as those of men. To judge from parallels in other parts of the world, it is extremely likely that women will form societies wherever men show a strong tendency to do so. A number of factors may, however, interfere with a development of such societies. For instance, it is quite plausible that where, as among the Melanesians, a strong society-forming tendency existed, and women did not participate in it, some strong reason existed which might perhaps be ascribed to the fact that women do not there participate in those rites that are almost universally associated with societies.
In North America there are numerous examples of women belonging to men’s societies. A cursory examination will bring out what were the possible factors at work there. In the Objibwa-Menominee Midewiwin, women are admitted. Now, in the Ojibwa-Menominee culture, women may become shamans as well as men, and the society based on shamans will naturally include both sexes. If there are fewer women than men, this is because fewer women become shamans. In the Winnebago Medicine Dance, wealth and certain requirements possessed by both men and women are the only essentials for admission; and both sexes can accordingly become members. In the present Sore-Eye Dance, women are admitted. Formerly the same society, known as the Night Dance, excluded women. The reason is very simple. Formerly, supernatural communication with the night spirits was essential for membership, and owing to the specific associations attached to these night spirits, women never obtained visions from them. When subsequently it was no more essential to have had a vision, and membership could be purchased by any one, women were admitted. Among the Blackfoot, women are part members of the religious society, because, according to Blackfoot ideas of property, the former have a part in the medicine-bundle of the man. The possession of the medicine-bundle is necessary for admission into the society.[47] It is thus apparent that the explanation for the exclusion of women from a society must lie in a large number of factors, not the least important of which is the nature of the specific ideas of property and the respective spheres of activity of men and women.
4. Functions of the Society.—Our analysis of the five ceremonies has clearly established the differences in the functions of the societies. To Schurtz these differences were due to developments from one historically primary function. His line of argument is a direct consequence of his assumption that secret societies have developed from the men’s associations.
If we glance at the West African, the Melanesian, the Polynesian, North American, and our own societies, we see that their functions are legion. Now, it can be demonstrated that where the whole or a large part of the tribe is included in a society, that society will possess many of the functions of the tribe, because individuals are primarily carriers of their culture, and secondarily members of a society; or, it might be better said that these two functions of an individual are so inextricably connected that they cannot be thought of apart. It can also be demonstrated that specific societies have associated with them a variety of functions. In each case we are dealing with the same phenomenon. The number of possible combinations is practically infinite. It is, however, a suggestive fact that certain functions of a society are distributed over large areas. In Melanesia, for instance, the most constant functions of societies seem to be those connected with mortuary rites and ancestor worship. In Africa, again, they are primarily judicial and administrative. In the case of our five North American ceremonies, they are religious and magical. For the latter our explanation lay in assuming that we were dealing there with a common cultural background. The same explanation holds true for Melanesia and Africa. In other words, societies, like all other social units in which an individual takes part, must necessarily associate themselves with the cultural background in which they are set.
5. Conclusion.—The study we have undertaken can only indirectly be considered an examination of Schurtz’s theories. What we have attempted is the analysis of a number of ceremonies, in order to discover what tendencies were operative in their growth. These examples, combined with others taken from the South Seas and Africa, have demonstrated clearly that there exist in the world certain general ideas that may associate themselves with any type of social and ceremonial organization. Ceremonies in origin historically distinct may thus come to possess general and often specific resemblances. It is consequently of extreme importance, in any scheme of social reconstruction, to determine first whether the common elements in the ethnological data compared are not due to such a convergent evolution.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The description of the ritual is based on material collected by me, and now in the possession of the Bureau of American Ethnology. The full description will appear as a memoir of the Bureau.
[2] X’okê′ means literally “root” or “ancestor.” “Ancestor-host” will be used as its equivalent.
[3] This word means literally “he who puts himself in the place to benefit his relatives.” The reference is to the Rabbit, who, at the first performance of the ceremony, acted as host and initiated his relatives; i. e., the human beings.