Criminality and economic conditions

by Willem Adriaan Bonger

As between the two commonplaces, “There have always been poor people”, and “The present institution of marriage springs from human nature itself and is as old as society”, it is hard to say which is repeated oftenest, but it is quite certain that one is no more exact than the other. Sociology has proved that marriage, as it exists at present, is the result of a long process of evolution, and every serious observer must be convinced that its present form will be no more constant than those which preceded it, and that the ideas concerning it have undergone important modifications.

The question to solve is this: “How has monogamy taken its rise?” With the aid of sociology I shall endeavor to give the answer as summarily as possible.[28] It will, however, be necessary to recall the ancient forms of marriage, without which it would be impossible to grasp the origin and evolution of the present form. Most sociologists are of the opinion that primitive man lived in promiscuity, which, if true, must have been in the most remote period, when man was hardly distinguishable from the anthropoid apes. Other authors, [[292]]on the contrary, have attempted to show that such a state of things has never existed.[29] However, the only thing proved is that no case of promiscuity has ever been established among peoples observed by serious ethnologists. But all these peoples, however far removed they may be from us, had already attained a certain degree of development, and were by no means in their primitive state. No amount of observation can prove whether or not primitive man really lived in a state of promiscuity, and we can only take refuge in hypotheses.

We shall be getting at the truth when we come to an agreement as to the meaning of the word “promiscuity.” Do we mean by this a state like that in which dogs live, where after copulation the male and female do not remain together at all? Then it is very likely that human beings have never lived in that state, inasmuch as such promiscuity exists rarely or not at all among the animals most approaching man.[30] If, on the contrary, we mean by promiscuity a state in which rules concerning the sexual life are lacking, but where life in common for a longer or shorter period is not excluded, then, since man is part of the animal kingdom, it is most probable that there has been a time when this state has existed, and that it is only little by little that objective rules have appeared.[31] Let us now leave the domain of hypothesis and examine the real facts.[32]

The most primitive of the peoples who have been observed in detail have been named “lower hunters”; they include the Australian aborigines, the Veddhas, the Botocudos, etc. Among these peoples the men hunt while the women gather fruit and roots. They are forced to wander in small groups in order to provide for their needs, as otherwise the game and fruit would soon fail. Their limited control over nature is a frequent cause of famine and distress generally, and thus prevents any considerable increase in the population.

As to their sexual relations, there could not be any question of [[293]]promiscuity among these peoples. Each horde is divided into three age-classes, and the union of a member of one of these classes with a member of another is forbidden. The cause of this prohibition is not certain. Grosse[33] (as well as other authors[34]) is of the opinion that it lies in the fact that these peoples discovered the unfavorable effects of consanguineous unions upon the children, and that this discovery led to the prohibition.[35] Other authors believe that the hordes which practiced this exclusion, without suspecting its importance, ran less danger of extinction than those which did not practice it.[36]

The hordes being composed of but few persons, this exclusion would force the men more and more to seek wives from outside the horde, thus little by little becoming a group of consanguineous persons with whom union is forbidden. If a man has procured a woman by capture he becomes her absolute owner, can maltreat her, abandon her, do what he likes in short. The power of the man over his wife is less great if he has acquired her by purchase or exchange, since her family then exercises a certain control.

The relation of the sexes is sufficiently explained by the mode of production. When these savages are on the march the woman carries the little that they possess, erects the tent, and searches for fruit; the man on the other hand by his natural qualities is fitted for hunting and for the defense of the hunting ground. Hunting being the principal resource, and in this period bodily strength being of the highest importance, it is natural that the man should rule.

The so-called “higher hunters”, among whom we must reckon the North American Indians of the northwest coast and some peoples of northern Asia, have reached a higher stage of social evolution. The difference between these and the preceding class is only quantitative, and results from the circumstance that they have been able to settle themselves in countries that are rich in game and fish. This permits [[294]]them to be more sedentary, to live in larger groups, and to attain a higher development.

As with the lower hunters there is among them a division of labor between men and women: The man hunts, fishes, and constructs the tools that he has need of; the woman gathers roots and herbs, prepares the food, and gives herself up to the duties of the household. Some of these peoples are capable of producing more than they need, a fact which occasions commerce of some importance, and produces at times a great inequality of fortune.

At this stage of development the woman is of great use, which brings it about that the father does not give his daughter but sells her. Since the man, then, has bought his wife she has become his property, and he can do with her as he wishes; her infidelity is punished with death. If the husband has received gifts of value from his father-in-law, he is a little limited in his power, since, if he wishes to repudiate his wife, he is obliged to return the gifts. However repudiation is rare, since the woman is very useful to the man and he has ordinarily paid very dear for her. This is also why polygyny, though permitted almost everywhere, is rare. Only the very rich can permit themselves the luxury of more than one wife.