CHAPTER V: PROMISCUITY.

§ 291. Already, in the chapter on “The Primitive Relations of the Sexes,” illustrations have been given of the indefiniteness and inconstancy of the connexions between men and women in low societies. The wills of the stronger, unchecked by political restraints, unguided by moral sentiments, determine all behaviour. Forcibly taking women from one another, men recognize no tie between the sexes save that which might establishes and liking maintains. To the instances there given others may be added, showing that at first, marriage, as we understand it, hardly exists.

Poole says of the Haidahs that the women “cohabit almost promiscuously with their own tribe, though rarely with other tribes.” The Hill-tribes of the Piney Hills, Madura district, have very few restrictions on promiscuous intercourse. Captain Harkness writes:—“They [two Erulars of the Neilgherry Hills] informed us that the Erulars have no marriage contract, the sexes cohabiting almost indiscriminately; the option of remaining in union or of separating resting principally with the female.” Of another Indian people, the Teehurs, it is said that they “live together almost indiscriminately in large communities, and even when two people are regarded as married the tie is but nominal.” And according to a Brahmin sepoy who lived more than a year with the Andamanese, promiscuity is so far sanctioned among them Edition: current; Page: [644] by public opinion, that a man who is refused by an unmarried woman “considers himself insulted,” and sometimes takes summary vengeance.

As shown by instances before given, this state of things is in many low tribes very little qualified by such form of union as stands for marriage; which sometimes has not even a name. Temporary fancies determine the connexions and mere whims dissolve them. What is said of the Mantras, who marry without acquaintance and divorce for trifles, and among whom some men marry “forty or fifty” times, may be taken as typical.

§ 292. Facts of this kind are thought by several writers to imply that the primitive condition was one of absolute hetairism. Complete promiscuity is held to have been not simply the practice but in some sort the law. Indeed, the name “communal marriage” has been proposed by Sir John Lubbock for this earliest phase of the sexual relations, as implying recognized rights and bonds. But I do not think the evidence shows that promiscuity ever existed in an unqualified form; and it appears to me that even had it so existed, the name “communal marriage” would not convey a true conception of it.

As before contended, the initial social state must have been one in which there were no social laws. Social laws presuppose continued social existence; and continued social existence presupposes reproduction through successive generations. Hence there could, at first, have been no such social law as that of “communal marriage, where every man and woman in a small community were regarded as equally married to one another”—there could have been no conception of “communal marriage rights.” The words “marriage” and “rights” as applied to such a state have, it seems to me, misleading connotations. Each implies a claim and a limitation. If the claim is co-extensive with the members of the tribe, then the only limitation must be one excluding members Edition: current; Page: [645] of other tribes; and it cannot, I think, be said that the idea of marriage within a tribe is generated by the negation of the claims of those belonging to other tribes. But passing over the terminology, let us consider the essential question raised—whether what we may call tribal monopoly of its women, regarded as a common possession held against other tribes, preceded individual monopoly within the tribe. Sir John Lubbock considers that absence of individual marital possession went along with absence of individual possession generally. While the notion of private ownership of other things did not exist, there did not exist the notion of private ownership of women. Just as in the earliest stages the tribal territory was common property, so, too, he thinks, were the women of the tribe common property; and he thinks that private ownership of women was established only by stealing them from other tribes: women so obtained being recognized as belonging to their captors. But while admitting that development of the conception of property in general, has had much to do with development of the marital relation, it is quite possible to dissent from the belief that the conception of property was ever so undeveloped as Sir John Lubbock’s conclusion implies. It is true that the idea of tribal ownership of territory may be compared to that of many animals, solitary and gregarious, which drive trespassers away from their lairs or habitats: even the swans on each reach of the Thames resist invading swans from other reaches; and the public dogs in each quarter of Constantinople attack dogs from other quarters if they encroach. It is true, also, that generally among savages there is a certain community of property in the game captured; though not an unqualified community. But the reason for all this is clear. Land is jointly held by hunters because it cannot be otherwise held; and joint claims to the food it produces are involved. To infer that there is not in the earliest state a recognition of individual property in other things, is, I think, going further than either the probabilities or the facts warrant. The dog shows Edition: current; Page: [646] us some notion of ownership—will not only fight for the prey he has caught, or for his kennel, but will keep guard over his master’s belongings. We cannot suppose that man in his rudest state had less notion of ownership than this. We must suppose he had more; and our supposition is justified by evidence. Habitually savages individually own their weapons and implements, their decorations, their dresses. Even among the degraded Fuegians there is private property in canoes. Indeed, the very idea of prospective advantage which leads an intelligent being to take possession of, or to make, any useful thing, is an idea which leads him to resist the abstraction of it. Generally, possession is not interfered with, because the thing is not worth the risk of a fight; and even where, after resistance, it is taken by another, still it comes to be held by that other individually. The impulses which lead primitive men thus to monopolize other objects of value, must lead them to monopolize women. There must arise private ownerships of women, ignored only by the stronger, who establish other private ownerships.

And this conclusion seems the one supported by the facts. Everywhere promiscuity, however marked, is qualified by unions having some persistence. If, in the various cases before named, as also among the Aleutian Islanders and the Kutchins of North America, the Badagas, Kurumbahs and Keriahs of India, the Hottentots and various other peoples of Africa, there is no marriage ceremony; we have, in the very statement, an implication that there is something having the nature of marriage. If, as with the North American tribes generally, “nothing more than the personal consent of the parties,” unsanctioned and unwitnessed, occurs; still some kind of union is alleged. If, as among the Bushmen and the Indians of California, there is no word signifying this relation between the sexes; still there is evidence that the relation is known. If among such peoples as the Teehurs of Oude, the promiscuity is such that “even when two people are regarded as married the tie is but nominal;” still, some “are Edition: current; Page: [647] regarded as married.” The very lowest races now existing—Fuegians, Australians, Andamanese—show us that, however informally they may originate, sexual relations of a more or less enduring kind exist; and I do not see reasons for concluding that in social groups lower than these, there was no individual possession of women by men. We must infer that even in prehistoric times, promiscuity was checked by the establishment of individual connexions, prompted by men’s likings and maintained against other men by force.

§ 293. Admitting, however, that in the earliest stages promiscuity was but in a small degree thus qualified, let us note, first, the resulting ideas of kinship.

Causes direct and indirect, will conspire to produce recognition of relationship in the female line only. If promiscuity is extensive, and if there are more children born to unknown fathers than to known fathers, then as the connexion between mother and child is obvious in all cases, while that between father and child is inferable only in some cases, there must arise a habit of thinking of maternal kinship rather than of paternal. Hence, even in that minority of cases where paternity is manifest, children will be thought of and spoken of in the same way. Among ourselves common speech habitually indicates a boy as Mr. So-and-so’s son, though descent from his mother is as fully recognized; and a converse usage, caused by prevailing promiscuity among savages, will lead to the speaking of a child as the mother’s child, even when the father is known.

A further influence helps to establish this practice. Though we conclude that promiscuity is in all cases qualified by unions having some duration, yet we find that in the lowest stages, as among the Andamanese, each of these unions ends when a child is weaned: the result being that thereafter, association of the child with its father ceases, while association with its mother continues. Consequently, even when there is acknowledged paternity, the child will be Edition: current; Page: [648] mostly thought of in connexion with its mother; confirming the habit otherwise caused.

This habit having arisen, the resulting recognition of relationship in the female line only, will, as we have seen, be strengthened by the practice of exogamy when passing from the external to the internal form. The requirement that a wife shall be taken from a foreign tribe, readily becomes confounded with the requirement that a wife shall be of foreign blood. If maternal descent alone is recognized, the daughters of foreign women within the tribe will, as Mr. M‘Lennan argues, be rendered available as wives under the law of exogamy; and the custom of so regarding them will be strengthened by making fulfilment of this law possible, when otherwise fulfilment would be impossible. A settled system of kinship through females, and interdict against marriage with those having the same family name, or belonging to the same clan, will result.

Instances collected by Mr. M‘Lennan and Sir John Lubbock, show that this system prevails throughout Western and Eastern Africa, in Circassia, Hindostan, Tartary, Siberia, China, and Australia, as well as in North and South America. For interpreting it in the above manner there are some additional reasons. One is that we are not obliged to make the startling assumption that male parentage was at first entirely unperceived. A second is that we escape an inconsistency. Male parentage is habitually known, though disregarded, where the system of kinship in the female line now obtains; for not only in the lowest races are there unions persistent enough to make male parentage manifest, but the very statement that female kinship is alone counted, cannot be made by these races without implying a consciousness of male kinship: nay, indeed, have not these races, down to the very lowest, always a word for father as well as a word for mother? And a third is that commonly the names of the clans which are forbidden to intermarry, such as Wolf, Bear, Eagle, etc., are names given to men; implying, as I have before contended (§ 170-3), descent from distinguished male Edition: current; Page: [649] ancestors bearing those names—descent which, notwithstanding the system of female kinship, was remembered where there was pride in the connexion.*

§ 294. From the effects of unregulated relations of the sexes on the system of formally-recognized kinship, in pursuing which I have diverged somewhat from the immediate topic, let us now pass to the effects on the society and its individuals.

In proportion to the prevalence of promiscuity, there must be paucity and feebleness of relationships. Besides having no known male parents, the children of each mother are less connected with one another. They are only half-brothers and half-sisters. Family bonds, therefore, are not only weak but cannot spread far; and this implies defect of cohesion among members of the society. Though they have some common interests, with some vague notion of general kinship, there lacks that element of strength arising from the interests within groups distinctly related by blood. At the same time, establishment of subordination is hindered. Nothing beyond temporary predominance of the stronger is likely to arise in the absence of definite descent: there can be no settled political control. For the like reason the growth of ancestor-worship, and of the religious bonds resulting from it, are impeded. Thus in several ways indefinite sexual relations hinder social self-preservation and social evolution.

Their unfavourableness to the welfare of offspring scarcely needs pointing out. Where paternity is not recognized, children must depend almost wholly on maternal care. Among savages, exposed as they are to great privations, the rearing of children is in all cases difficult; and it must be more difficult where the mother is unaided by the father. So too is it, if in a smaller degree, with the progeny of brief marriages, such as those of the Andamanese, whose custom it is for a man and wife to part when a child born to them is weaned. Often the child must die from lacking adequate support and protection, which the mother alone cannot give. No doubt, under such conditions, miscellaneous help is given. Indeed, the Andamanese women are said to aid one another in suckling; and probably food and other things are furnished by the men: the child becomes, in a measure, the child of the tribe. But indefinite tribal care can but partially replace definite paternal care. How unfavourable to the maintenance of population are these unregulated relations of the sexes, we have, indeed, direct evidence. A recent reporter, Mr. Francis Day, a surgeon, says that the Andamanese appear to be dying out. He saw but one woman who had as many as three living children. During a year, thirty-eight deaths were reported and only fourteen births, among the families living near the European settlements.

Turning from progeny to parents, it is clear that to them also the absence of persistent marital relations is very injurious. Maintenance of the race, in so far as it is effected, is effected at excessive cost to the women; and though the men may not suffer directly, they suffer indirectly. After maturity is past, there come the privations of an early decline unmitigated by domestic assistance. Mr. Day says of the Andamanese that few appear to live to a greater age than forty; and they are subject to various diseases. Absence of those higher gratifications accompanying developed family life, is also to be noted as a concomitant evil.

Irregular relations of the sexes are thus at variance with Edition: current; Page: [651] the welfare of the society, of the young, and of the adults. We before saw that in all respects the traits of the primitive man—physical, emotional, intellectual—are immense hindrances to social evolution; and here we see that his lack of those sentiments which lead to permanent marriages, constitutes a further hindrance.

§ 295. Out of this lowest state, however, there tend to arise higher states. In two ways do groups thus loose in their sexual relations, evolve into groups having sexual relations of more definite kinds.

If, as we concluded, prevailing promiscuity was from the first accompanied by unions having some duration—if, as we may infer, the progeny of such unions were more likely to be reared, and more likely to be vigorous, than the rest; then the average result must have been multiplication and predominance of individuals derived from such unions. And bearing in mind that among these there would be inherited, natures leaning towards such unions more than other natures leaned, we must infer that there would, from generation to generation, be an increasing tendency to such unions along certain lines of descent. Where they favoured race-maintenance, survival of the fittest would further the establishment of them. I say advisedly—where they favoured race-maintenance; because it is conceivable that in very barren habitats they might not do this. Sexual relations conducive to the rearing of many children would be of no advantage: the food would not suffice. It may be, too, that in very inclement habitats more careful nurture would be useless; since where the hardships to be borne in adult life were extreme, the raising of children that could not bear them would not help to preserve the society—nay, by wasting food and effort might prove detrimental. The ability of a child to survive with no care beyond that which its mother can give, may in some circumstances be a test of fitness for the life to be led. But save in such extreme cases, the favourable effects on Edition: current; Page: [652] offspring must tend to establish in a social group, persistent relations of the sexes.

The struggle for existence between societies conduces to the same effect. Subject to the foregoing limitation, whatever increases the power of a tribe, either in number or in vigour, gives it an advantage in war; so that other things equal, societies characterized by sexual relations which are the least irregular, will be the most likely to conquer. I say other things equal, because co-operating causes interfere. Success in battle does not depend wholly on relative numbers or relative strengths. There come into play courage, endurance, swiftness, agility, skill in the use of weapons. Though otherwise inferior, a tribe may conquer by the quickness of its members in tracking enemies, by cunning in ambush, etc. Moreover, if among a number of adjacent tribes there are no great differences in degrees of promiscuity, conflicts among them cannot tend to establish higher sexual relations. Hence, only an occasional effect can be produced; and we may anticipate that which the facts indicate—a slow and very irregular diminution. In some cases, too, profusion of food and favourable climate, may render less important the advantage which the offspring of regular sexual relations have over those of irregular ones. And this may be the reason why in a place like Tahiti, where life is so easily maintained and children so easily reared, great sexual irregularity was found to co-exist with large population and considerable social advance.

As, however, under ordinary conditions the rearing of more numerous and stronger offspring must have been favoured by more regular sexual relations, there must, on the average, have been a tendency for the societies most characterized by promiscuity to disappear before those less characterized by it.

§ 296. Considering the facts from the evolution point of view, we see that at first the domestic relations are but little Edition: current; Page: [653] more developed than the political relations: incoherence and indefiniteness characterize both.

From this primitive stage, domestic evolution takes place in several directions by increase of coherence and definiteness. Connexions of a more or less enduring kind are in some cases formed between one woman and several men. In some cases, and very commonly, enduring connexions are formed between one man and several women. Such relations co-exist in the same tribe, or they characterize different tribes; and along with them there usually co-exist relations between individual men and individual women. The evidence implies that all these marital forms by which promiscuity is restricted, have equally early origins.

The different types of the family thus initiated, have now to be considered. We will take them in the above order.