Women and economic evolution: or, The effects of industrial changes upon the status of women

by Theresa Schmid McMahon

Herman Grosse has a unique place as an exponent of the theory that economic occupations have always been the determining influence in the establishment of the form of marriage and the status of women. “Restricting his examination to the conditions which lie within actual historical or ‘ethnological experience’ he seeks to demonstrate that the ‘various forms of the family correspond to the various forms of economy (Wirthschaft)’; that ‘in its essential features the character of each particular form of the family may be explained by the form of economy in which it is rooted.’”[67]

Grosse’s point of view is recognized by many writers who have given thought to the subject. Howard says, “It seems certain that the whole truth regarding the problem of kinship, as well as regarding the rise and sequence of the forms of the family, can be reached only through historical investigation of the industrial habits of mankind.”[68]

Ward gives expression to the same idea when he says, “marriage is from the beginning an association dictated by economic needs.”[69]

No evidence existed bearing out the theory of the early prevalence of promiscuity in sexual relations other than a recognized looseness of sexual relations outside the marriage bond; or a marriage of such short duration as to warrant the appellation of temporary pairing. Where the latter custom prevails, it is the outcome of certain social conditions existing in a tribe, and not representative of a certain stage of culture.

Even in our advanced western civilization there exist small communities of peoples who stand for certain moral principles developed to such extreme forms as to shock people generally. These principles often have their basis in sexual relations and are conspicuous by virtue of their contrast to general practices. They in nowise warrant the importance given them, representing as they do a mental excrescence and not a healthy social development. The same may apply equally to primitive societies. Only where certain causes have repeatedly brought about certain results are we justified in the conclusion that certain practices were common in a stage of which we have no direct knowledge.

Speaking of promiscuity, Morgan thinks it “was limited to the period when mankind were frugivorous and within their primitive habitat, since its continuance would have been improbable after they had become fishermen and commenced their spread over the earth in dependence upon food artificially acquired. Consanguine groups would then form, with intermarriage within the group as a necessity, resulting in the formation of the consanguine family. At all events, the oldest form of society which meets us in the past through deductions from systems of consanguinity is this family. It would be in the nature of a compact on the part of several males for the joint subsistence of the group, and for the defence of their common wives against the violence of society.”[70]

Hobhouse says, “Sheer promiscuity is probably to be regarded rather as the extreme of looseness in the sexual relation than as a positive institution supported by social sanction.”[71]

Grosse finds in the different stages of industrial occupations which he designates as “lower” and “higher hunters” “pastoral peoples” “lower and higher cultivators of the soil,” prevalent forms of marriage corresponding to the occupations pursued by the men.

The Bushmen and the Esquimaux of the present time are the best representatives of the lower hunters among whom monogamy is the form of marriage. Whether the Bushmen or the Esquimaux represent a primitive type of the culture arising out of a lower stage of culture, or a degeneration from a higher type, the author does not know. But he tells us hunger plays a large part in their lives; and the lack of foresight or sense of accumulation accounts for the little advantage the few have over the many.[72]

Hobhouse says, “the strict monogamy and well-united family life of the Veddahs is partly explained by the fact that they live in great measure in isolation. In the dry season they pass their time on their hunting ground; in the wet season small groups of families will resort to some hillock which is the center of two or three hunting grounds and sometimes two or three families will reside together for a time in one cave.”[73]