The Family among the Australian Aborigines

Bronislaw Malinowski

• Publisher: Youcanprint
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9788892698154
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Civil Law
• Index: Law

The importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere collection and description of facts, to have a sufficiently wide theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new standpoint.
I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms—all these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces living man in a living society. In other words each social institution must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its reflexion in the collective psychology.

CHAPTER I EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD

I

The problem of the social forms of family life still presents some obscurities. What appears to be most urgently needed is a careful investigation of facts in all the different ethnographical areas. I propose in this study to undertake this task for Australia. I shall avoid making any hypothetical assumptions, or discussing general problems which refer to the origin or evolution of the family. I wish only to describe in correct terms and as thoroughly as possible all that refers to actual family life in Australia. In other words I intend to give in outline the social morphology of the Australian family.

It may be well to show briefly the necessity for this task, which to some may appear superfluous, and to indicate the lines on which it will be attempted. In the first place there are some contradictions with regard to the problem of relationship or kinship in Australia, which can be reduced to the question: Is kinship in Australia exclusively individual; or is it exclusively group kinship (or tribal kinship, as it often is called); and, further, do these two forms exclude each other or do they perhaps exist side by side? When Howitt says: "The social unit is not the individual, but the group; the former merely takes the relationships of his group, which are of group to group," [1] this obviously means that there is no individual relationship, consequently no individual family in Australia. It is important to note that the passage just quoted is placed in the chapter on Relationship in Howitt's chief work on Australia, and that consequently it refers to all the tribes described by the author, i. e. to the majority of the known Australian tribes. The same opinion that there is only group relationship and no individual family is supported by another passage, no less important and general, for it is placed at the conclusion of Howitt's article on the organization of the Australian tribes in general: "It has been shown that the fundamental idea in the conception of an Australian community is its division into two groups. The relationships which obtain between the members of them are also those of group to group." [2] And again: "The unit of aboriginal society is, therefore, not the individual, but the group. It is the group which marries the group and which begets the group." [3] There are also a few passages in Spencer and Gillen which deny the existence of the individual family, at least in some tribes. [4]

Thus the impression drawn from the passages just quoted [5] is that there is no individual relationship and, what follows as an immediate consequence, no individual marriage, nor individual family in Australia. Such a conclusion would be absolutely false. For the same author (Howitt) writes: "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has been evident to everyone." [6] Curr speaks in still more positive terms: "No relationship but that of blood is known amongst Australians." [7] The social relations which exist amongst the Australian aborigines are of five sorts; first, those of family; second, those of the tribe; third, those between associated tribes; fourth, those of neighbours who belong to different associations; fifth, all other persons. [8] We see that in Curr's statements there is again no room for any kind of group relationship. Obviously Curr's information contradicts in plain terms the foregoing set of statements, and such a contradiction among our best informants is truly puzzling. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the present problem.

This is not only my own opinion. Mr. A. Lang discusses the same question and finds it necessary to prove in a short article that individual relationship exists in Australia. He says: "It is certain that 'blood' or 'own' relations are perfectly recognized. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen inadvertently deny this, saying: 'The savage Australian, it may be said with truth, has no idea of relationships as we understand them.'" This example is not the only one, as has been shown above, and indeed their number could be easily multiplied. Mr. Lang proves by several instances that this opinion of Spencer and Gillen is erroneous, and concludes: "The savage Australian does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations. It was necessary to make this fact clear and certain, as it has been denied." [9] The same contradiction has also been pointed out by Dr. Westermarck: "As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that among the Australian savages groups of males are actually found united to groups of females." [10] And in a footnote Dr. Westermarck quotes Lubbock, Morgan, Kohler, Kovalevsky. With such views Dr. Westermarck contrasts Curr's [11] opinion that strict monogamy obtains, and that of the Rev. J. Mathew, [12] "who fails to see that group marriage 'has been proven to exist in the past and certainly does not occur in Australia now.'"

Again E. Grosse in his well-known book, speaking of Howitt's work on the Kurnai says that this author "... hat sich so gründlich in seine Hypothese einer Gruppenehe ... der prähistorischen Australier vertieft, dass er darüber ganz vergisst, seine Leser darauf aufmerksam zu machen, dass die historischen Australier in Einzelnehe leben." [13] This is quite true, especially the remark that one of the chief sources of error in sociology is speculating on the origins and prehistory of an institution before this institution is thoroughly known in the present state.

And it seems as if in the present case a good many of the difficulties may be solved by understanding some of the statements made as referring to hypothetical earlier stages. As a matter of fact the passage quoted above, where the existence of group relationship is affirmed, is continued thus: "The idea of the relation of individual to individual, and of individual parentage, without reference to the group, is of later origin, and is the result of a number of social forces acting in the same general direction and producing change." [14] It is evident therefore that group relationship is supposed by Howitt to be the former state, and individual relationship a kind of innovation. But there is such a lack of clearness, such a confusion of the past and present tenses, that we are here again at a loss. Take for example the following passage: "The latest advance which has been made in the subject of Australian marriage was the conception of marriage in the group, and of group to group, and of the filial relation of one group to another." [15] This last phrase should be, in all probability, understood in the past tense, as referring to prehistoric times. But the author gives absolutely no hint whether this be so or otherwise. And when he on the next page refers to Mr. Curr's assertion, that there is actually no group relationship in Australia, and criticizes this assertion, a suspicion is aroused that this view of the existence of marital and filial groups is meant to express the actual status. This is enough to show how vague and puzzling the question of the individual family and individual relationship still is.

It is unnecessary to insist on the bewilderment, but the polemical mood in which our informants always approached the problem of relationship and family has had its unfortunate consequences. In the first place it is easy to see that these two groups of facts—individual relationship and group relationship—are treated by the writers as if they excluded each other, or at least as if one of them were gradually encroaching upon the other. Whereas it is quite possible that both individual and group relationship might exist side by side, originating from different sources, and expressing two different sets of social relationships. In the second place, the polemical attitude of our best informants (Howitt, and Spencer and Gillen) against individual relationship resulted in their giving very meagre information about the individual family. As a matter of fact, in all theoretical passages of works devoted to the social organization of the Australian tribes, the individual family is passed over in absolute silence. [16] As this unit obviously plays a foremost part in the social life of Australian tribes, I submit it is quite justifiable that in these pages some information about this unit should be gathered and its importance brought out. Special attention has been devoted to the facts of actual family life.

To sum up, it may be said that the defects in our information as to the individual family, and the contradiction and confusion surrounding it, do of themselves justify an examination of this institution. These contradictions are due probably not to any intrinsic reasons, but to certain theoretical postulates and axioms adopted by some of our informants. And as the exact description of actual facts seems to suffer therefrom, a revision of the theoretical side of the problem, as well as a collection of evidence from a somewhat extensive number of sources appears advisable.

But over and above clearing up some contradictions, solving some difficulties, and filling up a gap in the information concerning Australian kinship organization, there is a much deeper justification for a detailed collection and classification of facts referring to the individual family in Australia. I mean, it is only such a proceeding that can give us a scientific, correct and useful definition of the Australian individual family (or any other social unit in general). A priori only a vague meaning can be attached to the term "individual family," when it refers to a society different from ours. For the essential features of the individual family, as of all other social institutions, depend upon the general structure of a given society and upon the conditions of life therein. A careful and detailed analysis of the family life and of the different aspects of the family unit in connection with other social phenomena is therefore necessary. Such an analysis enables us to describe the said unit in a complete and exact way.

It is Dr. Rivers to whom we are indebted for emphasizing the methodological standpoint in this connection. In his article [17] he points out that we cannot a priori assert the existence of even such an apparently unquestionable fact as individual motherhood in every human society whether actual or hypothetical. To affirm that in a given society motherhood is individual and not communal (group motherhood), a strict analysis of a whole series of circumstances is necessary. Applying Dr. Rivers' argument to the other family relationships, we may say that all the circumstances referring to the relation between man and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, must be submitted to a careful and detailed analysis; and that only such an examination can give us the right idea of what may be called the individual family in a given society—in this case the Australian individual family. [18]

As mentioned above, many authors, who have contributed so much in other respects to our knowledge of Australian kinship organization, have not entered into details as to the family life, or actual relationship. Even Mr. Thomas, although he quite acknowledges the existence of individual relationship, confines himself to the remark that in Australia exists "the family in the European sense." But this expression is not adequate. We cannot possibly find in Australia any social unit that would exactly fit the forms of our individual family; for this is intimately connected with the structure of our society, and none of the social conditions it requires are found in Australia. We can only say a unit which is analogous to our individual family, and even then we would be more metaphorical than exact. Mr. Lang, on the other hand, is not exhaustive enough for our purpose—which is a description of the family unit that will define it fully for sociological use. Nevertheless as he writes in reply to Dr. Rivers he has accepted the latter's methodological standpoint, and he gives a series of apposite remarks and examples. But he concludes: "It is needless to give more examples; the savage Australian does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations." This conclusion is quite correct, but it is not sufficient. The mere affirmation that the actual relationship exists and is recognized by the natives is not enough. This has been obvious to every careful, unprejudiced reader of the first-hand ethnographical material.

The aim of the present study is to define what this individual relationship is; to describe its different aspects and features; how it manifests itself in its different social functions and, as far as can be ascertained, how it must impress itself upon the native mind. And here lies the important methodological point on which some stress must be laid. It is not the actual relationship, or the individual family, or "family in the European sense" which we have to look for in Australia. It is the aboriginal Australian individual family, with all its peculiarities and characteristic features, which must be reconstructed from the evidence. It will be necessary to describe minutely all the relationships generally embraced by the term Family, [19] and to describe them in terms taken from the native social life. In other words we have to look for the connection between the facts of family life and the general structure of society and forms of native life; and to take into account all psychological data available, such as ideas on procreation and reincarnation.

Only by such a description can we reach a correct and scientific definition of a given institution in a given society. It is essential that the elements of this definition should be taken from the conditions of social life in the given society. As an example we may take the legal side of marriage. Amongst us marriage is a legal act enforced on the one hand by the authority of the law with all its complicated social working and the power of the State at its back; on the other hand by the authority of the Church, which exercises a profound moral pressure in relation to this institution. These or even analogous factors will be sought in the Australian tribes in vain. And yet marriage there is not deprived of its legal validity and of its social sanction. It is not an act of mere fancy, brutal force or accident, but the legal factors have there quite a specific character, and can be found and understood only in connection with the general tribal structure and government.

Besides all that has been said above against a general offhand affirmation, that the individual family exists in Australia, it may be added here that such an assertion is practically quite useless. No further conclusions or inferences can be drawn from such a vague statement. Only by knowing exactly and minutely all the features and characters of the said unit can the different questions attached to this problem be answered; only so can it be judged whether the individual family or certain features of it are survivals or innovations; or whether they are so deeply rooted and connected with the social life and the whole organization of the tribes, that neither of these suppositions is justifiable. Such special and concrete definitions of a given social phenomenon in a given ethnic area, as the one which it is intended to give here for the Australian individual family, can serve also as a basis to form by induction a general conception of the individual family; and only from a rich collection of such material from different peoples can any sociological laws be constructed. As said above, a general working definition of the word individual family may be accepted at the outset of our investigations. After a careful analysis of all particular relationships concerned; and further, of the economic unity of the family, division of labour within it, legal sanction, etc., content can be given to the rough definition laid down at the beginning, and scientific exactness can be given to our conception of the individual family in Australia.

It seems desirable in this place to make a digression in order to consider the problem of law and the legal side of social phenomena in the Australian aboriginal society, as we shall often have to use these concepts. A more detailed and exhaustive discussion of it would involve a treatise on primitive law, but as I am unable to indicate any place where the concepts in question are defined in a way satisfactory for the present purpose, I define them here briefly. [20]

All social organization implies a series of norms, which extend over the whole social life and regulate more or less strictly all the social relations. We find such norms and rules in the Australian aboriginal society, different kinds being enforced by different forms of social sanction. The validity of some is due to the evil results which are intrinsically connected with their violation. So e. g. we know that the breaking of certain food taboos has as an inevitable consequence premature grey hair, eruptions on the skin, or some other mishap. There are other rules, which are observed because any departure from them would bring general contempt and ridicule upon the culprit; a form of chastisement to which the natives are said to be extremely sensitive. There are still other types of social norms, sanctioned by a more direct collective action. In some cases the magicians of the tribe will use the dreaded method of "pointing the bone," thus bringing about the illness and death of the culprit; or a regulated fight ensues; or a man has to undergo a definite ordeal. Occasionally a group of people organize an armed party on their own account, but with the consent of the community; and so on.

Briefly it may be said that different types of social norms have different kinds of collective sanction and that we may suitably classify the norms and regulations according to the kind of sanction they enjoy. Here seems the proper place to introduce the concept of Law, Legal. We can agree to call such norms Legal, which enjoy an organized, more or less regulated and active social sanction. To make this definition plausible, we may remark that it makes the Australian legal institutions correspond to what we call law and legal in higher societies. Further it would be necessary, in order fully to justify our definition, to show: (1) that among the Australian blacks there exist such modes of regulated, organized and direct social sanction; (2) that they differ from other modes of sanction and that the collective mind is quite aware which norms enjoy just this form of sanction.

In answer to the first problem we may generally point to the existence of tribal government. That a kind of centralized authority exists in Australia and that it has well-determined functions has been shown at full length by Howitt. [21]

This government consists roughly speaking of headmen and a tribal council, composed in the first place of old men of the tribe, skilled magicians and experienced warriors. This camp council seems as a rule the more influential factor, and only in few cases are we informed of chiefs with extensive powers. [22] What is important for us is that one of the main functions—if not the chief one—of those central authorities is to decide in case of difficulties in tribal affairs and to give sentence, a function which is that both of a legislator and of a judge. [23] The old men are the only depositories of tribal lore; they also know the rules and norms and how to apply them. We are informed in many places that they discuss important matters and decide vital questions; and especially in cases where any law has been transgressed. They possess also executive power; the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• The Family among the Australian Aborigines
• FOREWORD
• CHAPTER I EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD
• CHAPTER II MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES
• CHAPTER III HUSBAND AND WIFE
• CHAPTER IV SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE
• CHAPTER V MODE OF LIVING
• CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION OF KINSHIP
• CHAPTER VII PARENTS AND CHILDREN
• CHAPTER VIII ECONOMICS
• CHAPTER IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• ADDENDA
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• FOOTNOTES: