CHAPTER VIDISCUSSION OF KINSHIPITheoretical Analysis of this ConceptIt is undoubtedly one of the most valuable discoveries arrived at by modern sociological science that each institution varies in accordance with the social environment in which it is found. A given institution or social form (like the family, the state, the nation, the church) appears under various forms in different societies, and among peoples with a very low culture only rudiments thereof may be expected. This point of view, applied to marriage and the family, has led some writers to the assumption of forms as much opposed to those usual in our societies, as promiscuity and group marriage is opposed to individual marriage and the family. Nevertheless, although the variability and multiplicity of forms of marriage and family were acknowledged, the concepts applied to them were still the old ones, directly borrowed from our own society and formed upon the facts found amongst ourselves. In particular the sociologically untrained ethnographers comprehended the phenomena of kinship only under our own social concepts, judged them according to our own moral standard, and described them with words the meaning of which ought to have been defined when applied to a new case; nevertheless these terms have been nearly always used by ethnographers in the same sense in which we use them amongst ourselves,i. e.as expressing ideas of community of blood throughprocreation.[513]That this is quite erroneous will be shown below. How far the idea of kinship changes from society to society, what are its essential invariable features, and what are the variable elements—these are the problems that must be set forth.The inadequacy of our ideas of kinship as applied to lower societies has been often felt by those ethnographers who wished to enter deeper into the problems of kinship among a given people. They have found the greatest difficulty in conveying to a European reader the meaning of different terms of relationship. While warning the reader to put aside our (the modern European) ideas of kinship, they have hardly succeeded in giving any definite and clear concept instead. The reasons for this failure are simple: our ideas of kinship are defined by certain facts which are not to be found in the given primitive society. In order to define kinship so as to fit the latter, the author ought to bring forward a series of facts, playing a part analogous in the given society to that played by the essential defining elements amongst us. But it is by no means easy to know among which facts to look for such analogous, defining elements. And here again arises the necessity of a general definition of kinship, one which would afford indications in what direction to search for social facts giving a right idea of kinship in any given society. Such a general definition would be like an algebraic formula, having its constant and its variable terms; if for the latter special data be inserted (in this instance the special conditions proper to the given society), the special value for any given case is obtained (namely the special concept of kinship proper to the given society). And it should also be indicated within what range the variables should be taken; in other words, in what facts the elements which specifically determine kinship in thegiven society must be looked for. The practical value of such a general definition of kinship is obvious. On the one hand it indicates the constant elements in kinship common to all societies; on the other hand it indicates the general character of the variable elements, and the way in which they must be looked for and worked into the general formula.By the word kinship, roughly speaking, is denoted a series of family relationships (those of parents to children, brothers to sisters, etc.), all of which consist of a set of extremely complex phenomena. They are made up of the most heterogeneous elements: physiological (birth, procreation, suckling, etc.), social (community of living, of interests, social norms, etc.), and psychological (different ways in which these relations are conceived, different moral ideas, and different types of feelings). Special care must be taken to select in all these elements the essential ones, as an omission would be just as fatal for the investigations as an overburdening with secondary elements. Moreover, it would be specially valuable to look at all these heterogeneous determining elements from the same point of view, and view them all under one and the same aspect. Leaving on one side the purely physiological problem of kinship,[514]it appears necessary to give a sociological view of kinship,i. e.to show the social bearing of physiological facts as well as of psychological elements. But it appears also necessary to view the whole of the phenomena of kinship from the psychological point of view; that is, to show how the sociological and physiological facts of kinship are reflected in the "collective mind" of the given society.Besides for other reasons (adduced below) this appearsnecessary, because one of the most important scientific uses that has been made of the different human systems of kinship is one that presupposes a certain definite meaning, as given to the terms of kinship in very low societies. In Morgan's deductions a very important part is played by the assumption that kinship is always understood in terms of consanguinity; in particular that it was understood thus by primitive man; that in all (even the lowest) societies all ideas of kinship were essentially based upon the community of blood, established in the case of the mother by her share in bearing, in that of the father by his part in procreation. Only by assuming that these facts were known to the lowest, prehistoric savages, could Morgan draw inferences from systems of kinship terms about the forms of sexual intercourse. If, on the other hand, the relation between sexual intercourse and birth escaped the knowledge of primitive men, they could not have based their idea of kinship upon community of blood between father and offspring; hence there could be no connection between forms of sexual intercourse and forms of kinship as conceived by primitive man. Whether there could be connection between marriage, defined sociologically, and kinship is another and more complicated problem. In any case Morgan uses throughout his book the word consanguinity, and he defines it as the tie of common blood arising from the sexual act. In other words he sets forth the problem in a simplified and incorrect form. The question how kinship may be conceived in a given society, especially in a low one, naturally presents itself as a very important point of investigation.As in the following pages there will be question more or less exclusively of the individual relation between parents and children, the present discussion may be fittingly restricted to the individual parental kinship in Australia. In the second part of this chapter facts giving some insight into the aboriginal collective ideas of kinship are set forth; and in the following chapter other different factswill be brought forward in order to complete the definition ofindividual parental kinship. But in accordance with what has been just said, it is needful to have some guiding principle in collecting this material, and this will now be looked for. This discussion, being only concerned with the Australian facts, does not pretend to be complete, but perhaps if the results are worked out so as to suit our modern European concept of kinship as well as the Australian one, it might, should it be correct, be applicable also to other societies.[515]Let us now proceed to give the general definition of kinship and in the first place to indicate which are its constant, uniform factors found in all societies.Amongst the heterogeneous factors which together make up parental kinship, the physiological facts appear to be the most constant, for the natural process of procreation is in all human societies the same. But the social consequences of this process vary very widely according to other variable elements, as will appear clearly below in our discussion of consanguinity. Part of them only, together with some social elements, may be taken as the uniform, constant basis of kinship, such as must serve for the first point of departure in an attempt to discuss more in detail the kinship in any society. It appears probable that this basis is given by the existence of a group formed by a woman, her husband, and the children whom she has borne, suckled and reared. The existence of such a group will be considered as the necessary and sufficient condition forindividual parental kinship. Where such a group exists we are justified in affirming that individual parental kinship exists, although it is not yet completely defined thereby; further facts must be adduced in order to complete the definition. Those further facts are precisely the variable terms in the general formula of kinship; it remains still to indicate their general character. But a few words must be first said about the constant factors of kinship just mentioned.They consist in the existence of the individual family group as determined by individual marriage and by individual motherhood. Individual motherhood means that the same woman who gave birth to a child stands to it in a special close relation in its later life also: she suckles it and rears it, and she is bound to him or her by the manifold ties resulting from the community of life and community of interests. This woman is bound on the other hand to a man by individual marriage; and thereby her children are bound to him also; and the mother, her husband, and her children form the social unit called the individual family. The existence of such a unit is to be established by showing its different social functions, and the different ways in which its solidarity and individuality are marked in a given society. It is clear that the position of the father is in this way first established socially only, as the husband of the children's mother. Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that thus his relation to the children is clearly marked; and that this is only a preliminary, so to say formal, determination of fatherhood, which in all societies appears to be much more materially defined by other factors, discussed hereafter.The existence of the individual family as a social unit, based upon the physiological facts of maternity, the social factor of marriage and other social factors, are thus chosen as the basis upon which we may proceed to analyze more in detail the individual parental relation. Whether this basis exists in all human societies and forms what was called above the constant, invariable elements of parental kinship, may remain an open question. This could only be answered correctlya posteriori, on the basis of a series of special researches in many societies. The existence of individual motherhood, as this word is defined here, seems to obtain in the majority of human societies (or even in all of them). Nevertheless, as pointed out above,[516]even this point cannot be treated as self-evident. This applies in still higher degree toindividual marriage, which has often been denied as regards many societies.[517]In this place we have mainly to keep before our eyes the Australian society and our own society, the latter of which affords, so to say, the heuristic principle, the clue to the understanding of the former. As far as those two societies are concerned, our choice appears to be the right one, and the social-physiological basis mentioned above contains the essential common elements of kinship in both societies.The existence of individual marriage and its legal, sexual and psychological aspects have been discussed and established in the preceding chapters, as far as Australia is concerned. A discussion on individual motherhood will be given below. The existence of the individual family group in Australia, based upon individual marriage and upon individual motherhood, is the subject of the remaining chapters of this study. So that the existence of this physiological and social basis of kinship may be taken as granted.Bearing now in mind that what will be said hereafter applies in the first place to Australia, it may be said that in the physiological and social basis of kinship adopted above, the minimum of conditions necessary for the application of the idea of individual kinship was enumerated. But this minimum is not sufficient to determine this idea completely in any given society. By studying only the social facts which determine the individuality of family life within the society, we should not exhaust all the features and essential aspects of parental kinship in any society. The existence of the individual family merely indicates unambiguously that individual parental kinship exists in thegiven society. For this social unit having a deep analogy with our own individual family, the relation between the members of both these social units must also have some deep resemblance. But to exaggerate this resemblance would be as erroneous as to deny it. Besides the features common both to our parental kinship and to that of the Australian, there are also those which differentiate these two relationships. They must be sought for in the differences in thesocial conditions, which may even modify the physiological basis of kinship, as for instance when physical fatherhood is in one society established beyond doubt by exclusive sexual appropriation, while in the other there can be no question of it, owing to sexual communism. The variations in the general social conditions obviously also affect the purely sociological side of kinship. To point this out clearly, it is enough to mention that each relation is subject to the normative influences of the society in the midst of which it exists, and these norms and their sanction vary with the general social structure.The variable elements in parental kinship must be also looked for in the different elements of thecollective mind, connected with the parental relationship; in other words, in the differentcollective ideasandfeelingswhich have parental kinship for their centre. Moreover, as mentioned above, there are reasons why the knowledge of the collective idea of kinship is sociologically important. It may be emphasized here that we should cripple and curtail our knowledge if we arbitrarily abstained from inquiring what influence the collective knowledge as to procreation, consanguinity, affinity, etc., may have upon the social aspect of the relation in question.The same thing may be said of another domain of collective mentality: that is, of the feelings involved in parental kinship. The type of feelings underlying this relationship may vary with the society, in the same way as these feelings vary with each individual case in any given society. And as these feelings essentially determine the character of parental kinship in any given society, itappears that the discussion of this point cannot be omitted. Thus into the general formula of kinship there must enter also the psychological elements: collective ideas, expressing in a given society what is kinship, what are its legal, moral and customary aspects; and the collective feelings prevailing in a given society. From the interaction of these psychological elements with different variable social elements arise the more special, peculiar factors which define kinship in any given society. In other words, the variable elements in the general formula of kinship are seen to arise chiefly from the collective psychological interpretation and valuation of some of the physiological and social facts underlying parental kinship.To sum up, it may be said that parental kinship is the personal tie obtaining between members of theparental groupor individualfamily, and like all other personalties it must be further determined in each society by the characteristiccollective feelingsandcollective ideaswhich in the given society give it its specific meaning.[518]This is that general formula of kinship which will yield us what we have demanded of it—that is, an indication of the facts for which to look in any given society. As the facts referred to in the first part of the above definition (the establishment of the existence of the family unit) are dealt with in the remaining chapters, it is necessary to discuss only the second part of the definition.The influence upon kinship of the beliefs and ideas as to procreation appears quite plainly upon an analysis of the concept of consanguinity, and to this we may devote a few words.Parental kinship is in our society conceived invariablyand exclusively in terms ofconsanguinity,[519]or, speaking more explicitly, parental kinship is conceived as established by the tie of common blood, resulting from birth (maternal kinship) or procreation (paternal kinship). Of course the mere physiological fact does not establish kinship in its full extent, with all its personal, emotional, social and legal aspects. It is only when the physiological facts of procreation or birth are sanctioned by society, in other words when they are consummated in legal marriage, that the children are full kinsmen of both their parents. Society takes all facts which are of vital importance for itself under its own supervision; and consequently the important facts of propagation are subject to the control of society, which regulates them by a series of religious, legal, customary and conventional norms, all of which are also necessary conditions and essential features of full parental kinship. But this sanction once granted, the tie of common blood is conceived as the main source of all mutual duties and moral and legal obligations; and from this also outflow the feelings of love, attachment, reverence, and so forth, which are in our society the essential features of parental kinship. Once a man knows that a child, which he considered his own, is in reality not begotten by him, undoubtedly all his feelings for this child are affected, and, under certain conditions, its legal position may be modified. The two conditions for full parental kinship in our society are (1) that the child be the real physiological offspring of both presumed parents; (2) that it be legally begotten or its birth legalized.In our society the line of distinction between physiological consanguinity and social consanguinity is quite clear; the one is a mere physiological fact,[520]the other thesocial acknowledgment of this fact and all its consequences, subject to certain norms, laid down by society.There are two separate sets of circumstances in which we may speak of consanguinity: (1) the existence of social institutions, which allow us to trace the physiological blood ties (e. g.monogamy or harem institutions), in which case we can speak of the existence of physiological consanguinity as obtaining between the members of the individual family. (2) The existence of a social acknowledgment of the facts of procreation as creating ties of individual personal kinship, in which case we may speak of social consanguinity. If neither of these conditions are fulfilled, then it would be quite meaningless to speak of consanguinity.[521]Now let us see whether these conditions are to be found in all human societies. That both are found in the majority of the more highly developed societies appears beyond doubt. But this seems not to be the case in the lower societies. Even a superficial glance at them is sufficient to prove it. Whereas, in some of the lowest peoples known conjugal fidelity seems to be the rule,[522]and consequently the physiological tie of blood betweenchildren and both their parents is secured, in other societies of low culture the sexual laxity is so great that there is no possibility at all of tracing the descent of a child from any individual man.[523]This applies in the first place to the majority of the Australian tribes, as is shown in the chapter on sexual matters. In consequence, it may be said that in many low societies, and especially in some of the Australian tribes, there is no possibility of speaking of physiological consanguinity as regards the father.How does the case stand with the social importance attributed to the facts of procreation? Here the variation seems to be still greater. This can be very well exemplified by the Australian material. Over the greater part of the continent the father's share in procreation is not known. There cannot be any social acknowledgment of it. Consanguinity in its social sense does not exist. In some tribes of South-East Australia, on the other hand, the mother's share in procreation is under-rated; the father is considered to be the only consanguineous relative; the child is the father's offspring only, the mother being merely its nurse. Here the consanguineous relation between mother and child is considerably reduced in social importance, and consanguinity as it appears to the social mind is purely paternal. It may be said, therefore, that paternal kinship in the Centre and the North of the continent and maternal kinship in the South-Eastern tribes cannot be called consanguinity (in the social sense of this word), although in both cases very close kinship exists, as will appear from a detailed discussion hereafter.These examples show clearly that it would be incorrect to treat physiological consanguinity as a constant and indispensable constituent of parental kinship.Besides these Australian examples[524]there may be adduced many cases from other societies in which the tiesof blood play no part in the collective ideas of kinship. The Naudowessies have the curious idea that their offspring are indebted to their father for their souls, the invisible part of their essence, and to the mother for their corporeal and visible part.[525]Here the father's part in procreation was probably known, but the interpretation thereof was not the correct physiological one, but one that created, so to say, a spiritual connection as the bond of paternal kinship, whereas maternal kinship was conceived in terms of consanguinity. On the other hand, "according to Kafir ideas a child descends chiefly, though not exclusively, from the father"[526]—a belief analogous to that of the South-East Australians. The same belief was held in several higher societies (Egyptians, Hindoos, Greeks).[527]Dargun has made a list of peoples among whom the (social) father of the children is quite indifferent as to whether they are really begotten by him.[528]Among the Todas, where the determination of paternity is quite out of the question, owing to their polyandry, fatherhood is determined only by the performance of a conventional ceremony (the rite ofpursütpimi, or handing over to the pregnant woman a miniature bow and arrow). This constitutes fatherhood; the man who has performed this ceremony is the (social) father of the child, even if it were certain that he had not begotten it.[529]Another interesting case was discovered by Dr. Rivers amongst the Banks Islanders. There fatherhood is determined by the fact of paying the midwife.But the most noteworthy cases in regard to the present subject are those where fatherhood in its social sense is not consanguineous owing to the ignorance of the physiological laws of reproduction (a state of things mentioned already as obtaining in Central Australia). This ignorance is of general sociological importance, because there are well-founded reasons for believing that it was onceuniversal amongst primitive mankind, as may be held to be proved by Mr. E. S. Hartland in his thorough treatise onPrimitive Paternity. For the detailed argument the reader must be referred to this fundamental work.[530]Mr. Sidney Hartland has besides drawn sociological conclusions from those facts in their bearing upon paternal kinship. In Chapter IV of the first volume he gives numerous examples of peoples among whom there is no tie of consanguinity between father and son.[531]To ascertain the influence of physiological ties of blood on this relation in a given society it is needful to know the way in which they present themselves to the aboriginal mind. That is, we must know the collective ideas of a given society on the facts of procreation. Do they know, or do they not know, the father's part in procreation? But this is not sufficient. Even if they know a certain physiological fact, they may not acknowledge its bearing upon kinship, they may attach no importance to its social aspect. So it is with the fact of physiological maternity in the South-East Australian tribes and with paternity in the cases quoted by Dargun. And it happens very often that in peoples where the causal connectionbetween copulation and pregnancy is well known, fatherhood is by no means determined by its physiological aspect. Not only the collective knowledge of the physiological facts, but also the collective attitude towards them, must therefore be taken into consideration.[532]In short, it may be said thatphysiologicalconsanguinity has no direct bearing upon social facts.To define consanguinity in its social meaning, the collective ideas held by a given society on the facts of procreation must be considered. Consanguinity, therefore, is the set of relations involved by the collective ideas under which the facts of procreation are viewed in a given society. And it must be borne in mind that these ideas express not only the purely theoretical views of the social mind on the facts of procreation; they also involve different emotional elements, and especially the social importance given to these facts by society. Consanguinity (as a sociological concept) is therefore not the physiological bond of common blood; it is the social acknowledgment and interpretation of it.It may be said, therefore, that consanguinity is not always considered as the essence of kinship. If now we wish to determine what are the common features of the different ideas which in different societies define kinship, the only answer is that the said ideas affirm in one way or another a very close, intimate tie between offspring and parents. These ideas may refer kinship to physiological facts (consanguinity as found in the major part of human societies); or they may base kinship on the performance of a quite conventional ceremony (Todas, Banks Islanders); or they may affirm a very close tie between parent and child, on the base of some religious or magic belief (spiritualtie, transmission of soul: the Naudoweissies and some Australian tribes, as will be seen below). It is evident, therefore, that the general idea of kinship cannot be construed in terms of any of these special sets of ideas. The essential features that must be claimed for these ideas (i. e.those ranged in the class of kinship ideas) are: (1) that they must refer to the relation between child and father or mother;[533]and (2) that they must affirm an intimate bond of union of some kind between the parties involved. As may be easily conceived, it will be difficult in very low societies to get hold of these ideas, that is, to obtain the exact answer to the question, "What is kinship?" It is now impossible even to measure exactly the difficulty of getting a precise answer to this question, as ethnographers have never paid special attention to this point. Nevertheless, in Australia we shall be able to get at least some glimpses, which are of the highest theoretical interest. And even the negative result—that the idea of consanguinity must be considered wanting in the majority of Australian tribes—is of considerable theoretical value.Besides the general question, "What is considered as the source of parental (maternal and paternal) kinship?" we may ask questions about the various other ideas connected with kinship. Here come in the legal, moral, and customary ideas, by which society exercises its normative power in reference to the said relation. Some of these are expressed in different social functions.[534]Others may be reached by the study of beliefs, traditions, customs and other forms of folk-lore. The well-known customs of thecouvadeare one of the typical functions of the father, in which there is an expression of a deep connection of a magical kind between the father and his offspring. Whateverexplanation of these customs may be given,[535]it cannot be denied that they are based upon the idea of a very intimate tie between the two individuals involved, and that this tie is conceived as being of a mystical character.There is also a series of social rules which regulate the social position of the offspring according to that of its parents. This group of rules might appropriately be calleddescentin the social sense of this word.[536]In the Australian societies,e. g.the membership of different social groups—as the local group, the totemic clan, the phratry, the class—is determined by the membership of one of the parents of the given individual. And many authors speak of tribes with paternal and maternal descent. It must be borne in mind, nevertheless, that in order to use the word descent in a definite sense it is always necessary to add what social group is meant. For it is possible that membership in the local group is determined by the father, membership of the phratry by the mother, and membership in the clan by neither of them. The facts of descent do not seem to play a very important rôle and are not suitable to be chosen as the most important feature of kinship. The facts of inheritance also have not very much influence upon kinship (compare below,pp. 290,291).As it is easy to see, looking at our own ideas on parental kinship, all the normative ideas, whether religious, moral or legal, are in close connection with the central, basic idea,i. e.in the case of our society, the idea of consanguinity. And these normative ideas are brought by the collective mind into causal connection with the central idea of community of blood.[537]It would be the ideal ofsociological research as regards our present subject if we could bring in any given society all the normative ideas into such a causal dependence upon the central idea, and explain how they are conceived by the collective mind as the outgrowth of this root idea; thus showing how all the legal, moral and customary aspects converge on the fundamental concept of kinship. Unhappily, in low societies the imperfection of ethnographic material would frustrate any attempt at such an enterprise. In Australia our knowledge of these aspects—moral, legal and customary—is very scanty. Although they are all undoubtedly in quite a rudimentary state, careful investigation would possibly disclose many points of extreme interest.One other problem must be discussed here more in detail, owing to its great theoretical importance, viz. the legal aspect of parental kinship. We have defined above the meaning of the wordlegal.[538]In connection with what has been said, we may affirm that thelegalis only one of the many aspects of kinship; that legal ideas, as far as known for any given society, must be taken into account when defining kinship, but that the latter cannot possibly be reduced to its legal aspect only. And it is still more incorrect[539]to represent physiological consanguinity and legal power over the child as two mutually exclusive sets of facts beyond which there can be no determination of parental kinship. We find the opinion expressed by many authors, especially with regard to Australia, that where-ever the tie binding parent and child was not constituted by the acknowledgment of consanguinity, that there always it was based on legal principles such as potestas, authority,Machtstellung, or other similar ones.The incorrectness of taking only these two alternatives is shown by the three following considerations: (1) Such a view overlooks the facts discussed below, which show that there is actual kinship based on ideas neither physiologicalnor legal. (2) This way of interpreting facts operates with very indeterminate concepts, for we nowhere find any explanation of how to take the general termlegalin connection with a given aboriginal society, and still less are we told how such legal concepts aspotestas, paternal authority, etc., are to be applied to a given aboriginal society. (3) If a definition oflaworlegalbe given, it would plainly be seen that it is quite erroneous to consider any of these concepts as defining parental kinship. This is quite clear if we use the definition oflegalgiven above,p. 11. But even allowing a broad margin for the variations which may result from a varying definition oflegal, it may be safely stated that in whatever way we might try to define this word, our definition must always involve factors of social pressure, stress and authority. In other words, the relation between two individuals may be consideredlegal onlywhen we imply that it is wholly and exclusively determined by the outward regulating control of the society and by a potential direct action of it. And in the case we are speaking of—that is, the relation between parent and child in low societies—there can be hardly any question of this. As will appear in the Australian case, this relation is left quite to itself, and it is regulated by the spontaneous emotional attitude of the father towards his child. No factor of any outer pressure or constraint enters into it, at least we are not informed of any such by the ethnographical evidence extant. The collection and analysis of the statements on this point given below[540]will show that there cannot be any question of potestas, authority, proprietorship, or anything of the kind. Neither social pressure nor economic interest bind the parents to their children, nor does any motive of this kind enter into this relation.As this subject is very important, some examples of the mode of reasoning just now criticized are set out here. These passages are quoted from works of very distinguished writers to show that the mistakes result from seriousdefects in sociological knowledge, and not from any accidental causes. And they are taken from passages which either refer exclusively to the Australian aboriginal society, or are exemplified by Australian facts.Mr. Thomas, at the end of a passage in which he discusses the relation between the concepts of kinship and consanguinity says that in Australia "some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between the father and child; but it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity." So far we perfectly agree with the reasoning of the author. But when Mr. Thomas adds, "In other communitiespotestas[541]and notconsanguinity[541]is held to determine the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a matter for careful inquiry how far the same holds good in Australia, when the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be unrecognized by the natives,"[542]we see that he falls into the error of acknowledging only two possibilities: potestas or consanguinity. It is true that he speaks of consanguinity as being modified by native ideas, and that thus a social element is introduced into the physiological concept of consanguinity. But we are still left to guess how this social element is to be understood. And as pointed out above, the relation between father and child in the tribes in question cannot be considered as based upon consanguinity or community of blood, whatever meaning we give to these words. Erroneous in any case is the opposition of kinship and potestas, as if these two concepts were of the same order, and could be considered as two equivalent categories excluding each other. Whereas, as we saw, these two concepts are of quite different order and cannot be treated as excluding or replacing each other. Kinship is a very complicated social fact, very complex in its sociological and psychological aspects.Potestasis a legal category, expressing a set of attributes and rights of the father over his children. Potestas (or any analogous legal factor) may be a constituent element of kinship incertain societies. It cannot possibly replace kinship entirely.A similar unsatisfactory reasoning, it appears to me, is to be found contained in a passage of the small but clearly and deeply thought out work of the eminent sociologist, the late Prof. Dargun. He stipulates as the most important postulate of studies in family organization the discrimination between authority and consanguinity:"Strenges Auseinanderhalten der Gewaltverhältnisse von den Verwandtschaftsverhältnissen."[543]And he definesVerwandtschaftas a purely physiological fact:"die letztere, (Verwandtschaft) ist durch das natürliche Blutband gegeben."[544]This is obviously an incorrect definition for sociological use.[545]Equally unsatisfactory is the definition given of theGewalt(potestas):Gewalt vom natürlichen Blutband unabhängig kann "auf sehr verschiedene historische Wurzeln zurückführen."[546]This definition is both negative and ambiguous, excluding elements of consanguinity from potestas and assigning to the latter "various historic roots." We might, therefore, expect to find everything in this idea, but on the other hand such a definition lacks precision and does not give either the direction in which to look for the determining factors, or any criterion for our recognition of the existence of personal kinship ties. Now our definition of kinship responds to both these requirements when applied to the Australian facts. Moreover we find in these phrases of Dargun the alternative condemned above between authority and consanguinity, the latter used here in the crude physiological sense. It may be noted that in some passages of the book in question there are hints pointing to the fact that the author felt the necessity of a psychological definition of paternal kinship. So when he says, speaking of the Australians:"Vollkommenste Vaterherrschaft, jaselbst ausgesprochene Vaterliebe—gehen mit ebenso unbedingter Verwandtschaft—und Stammeszugehörigkeit in mütterlicher Linie, Handin Hand,"[547]we see that here the author speaks of paternal love and states that this is what determines the relation of father and child in Australia. When he speaks afterwards of the father as:"Beschützer und Fürsorger"[548]of his children, we see that he mentions purely personal factors of the relation of father to child, such as we lay stress upon in speaking of community of life and of interests. But still the author seems to be entangled in his alternative between consanguinity and potestas. So we read:"Wo zwischen dem Vater und seinen Kindern ein wirkliches Verwandtschaftsverhältniss bestehet, dort muss auf die faktische Zeugung durch den Hausvater entscheidendes Gewicht gelegt werden, und umgekehrt überall wo Gleichgültigkeit gegen dieses Zeugungsverhältniss an den Tag tritt, ist das Gewaltverhältniss des Vaters, noch nicht zur Blutsverwandtschaft herangereift."[549]In this phrase there is a complete oversight of the various actual ways in which an intimate relation between father and child may be established, and which have nothing to do either with consanguinity or withpatria potestas.In the new work of Prof. Frazer there are also some pages touching on this point. Although he distinguishes well between thephysiologicalandsocial consanguinity,[550]still in another place he says, speaking of the Central Tribes: "Denying as they do explicitly that the child is begotten by the father, they can only regard him as the consort, and in a sense as the owner of the mother, and, therefore, as the owner of her progeny, just as a man who owns a cow owns also the calf she brings forth. In short, it seems probable that a man's children were viewed as his property long before they were recognized as his offspring."It is impossible to agree with this opinion. The word "property" can in no strict sense be applied to the relation between father and child in Australia. Besides the author does not even clearly indicate in what sense he uses the word; and this word appears here only as a metaphor. Moreover, it is obvious that this opinion implies opposition between consanguinity and the legal category of "proprietorship," and contrasts the words "property" and "offspring."In fact, as we hinted above, and as we shall have opportunity of discussing below[551]in connection with the evidence, there is little ground for speaking ofauthority,patria potestas, "ownership" or any similar attributes of the father as regards his children in Australia. It must not be forgotten that these words are nearly meaningless as long as they have not a legal sense. According to the definition oflegalwe should say that two people stand to each other in a purely legal relation when certain norms are laid down and actively sanctioned by society, which requires a definite mutual behaviour and attitude on the part of each. It was pointed out above that in Australia we have data allowing us to speak of the legal aspect of social institutions and relations;[552]it appears improbable, though, that there could be found anypurelylegal relation. At any rate, nothing of that sort determines or forms the substance of the relation between father and child in Australia. If a father should kill or abandon his child, he would, for all we know, be left quite undisturbed. Nobody compels him to provide for its subsistence, to protect it and care for it.[553]There are spontaneous elements that bind himto it. And these spontaneous elements (to discover them will be our task) determine his relation to his child. Undoubtedly this kinship relation presentssomelegal features, such as, for instance, his right to dispose of his daughter in marriage (a right which in some tribes is reported to belong to the mother or mother's brother). But we know very little about it.[554]At any rate, there are only a few occasions on which the relation in question involves any possibility of social intervention.[555]Nobody ever doubts, as far as I can see, the fact that all personal ties between two individuals consist not only of ideas, but also of feelings, and that they are influenced no less by the feelings the two individuals mutually inspire than by the ideas they form of each other. To ascertain,e. g., if there be friendship between two people, one seeks to know their feelings towards each other, as well as what they think about each other. The relation between a parent and a child is in our society chiefly determined by their mutual feelings. And in a case where these feelings are absent, this relationship—in spite of all legal, moral, and other factors which tend to maintain its form—is deeply affected. It may be taken for granted that the sentimental side most essentially determines in a given society any kind of personal relationship. And in the same society the character of a given personal relation—be it parental kinship or anything else—varies with the intensity of the feeling and is essentially defined by the latter. It may be accepted also, that in different societies the types of feelings corresponding to given personal relations may vary according to the society, andmay define in each one this given relation in its most essential character. In other words, the concept of collective feelings can be applied as well as the concept of collective ideas.[556]By this is to be understood certain types of feeling, which being dependent on corresponding collective ideas possess the same essential character as the latter: they exist in a certain society, and are transmitted from generation to generation; they impose themselves on the individual mind, and possess the character of necessity; they are deeply connected with certain social institutions; in fact they stand to them in the relation of functional dependence (in the mathematical sense). So, for instance, it is clear that in the hypothetical primitive promiscuous society, in whichex hypothesithere would be no individual relationship, the feelings of affection for the individual offspring could not exist. We could only speak of the "collective feeling" ofgroup affection. So it seems to me that the relation of parents to children cannot be treated with any approach to completeness without seriously taking into account its emotional character.But even if the foremost importance of emotional elements and the possibility of treating them as collective feelings were granted, there is another objection to be met. Granted that these elements are actually quite essential in determining family relations, it might be objected that they are too shapeless and indeterminate in themselves to be of any practical use in scientific research, especially if our theories have to be based upon ethnographic observations in which the more tangible and the more unambiguous the facts chosen, the less the risk of being misled. Now, are not feelings of the most indeterminate character, the most misleading, and the most difficult to ascertain? In fact, the theoryof feelings and emotions seems to be the least developed in individual as well as in social psychology. Especially it might be suggested that to pursue the investigation on double lines is useless; feelings always find adequate expression in ideas, in fact crystallize in them.[557]Without trying to give a general answer to these objections, they may be met as regards the special case under discussion. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they do not hold good. For our knowledge of the sentimental side of parental kinship is much better and much more determinate than our knowledge of any other aspect of this relation.It may be here indicated why our knowledge on this point may be considered as a well-founded one. As stated below (pp. 249,250) the agreement between the statements as to parental feelings is quite an exceptional one. Comparing it with the usual discrepancy between the reports of different observers on many other points, which would appear much less liable to any subjectivity, this complete agreement and the relative exactness of our information is highly remarkable.[558]It should be noted that on this point there is no extrinsic reason, or secondary motive, that would make us suspect an artificial cause of agreement. The point in question forms no part of any theory; it affects no moral or racial susceptibilities. And there was no special reason why so many observers should pay attention to it, and why they all should state the same thing: viz. extreme love and fondness towards the children on the part of the parents. This agreementshows that the facts which the ethnographers had under observation were so expressive of the underlying psychology, and they struck the writers so strongly that they simply felt compelled to notice them. And observing closely the facts through which those feelings of paternal affection found their expression, it becomes evident that these feelings are not so indeterminate as mighta prioribe supposed; that, on the contrary, they find quite an unequivocal expression in a series of facts. Let us look more closely at these facts.In the first place consider the facts of daily life[559]—the behaviour of parents towards children in all the cases where the latter want help or merit punishment. We read that on all such occasions both parents exhibit great kindness and extreme leniency. The children are carefully looked after by the father as well as by the mother; and they are very seldom punished. In one place it is even stated that the father is more lenient than the mother. Now is it not in agreement with all our every-day experiences that in such facts and features of daily life prominent and characteristic feelings find their adequate expression? And is the accordance of opinion among all our Australian informants on this point not a proof that they were able to judge with great certainty from these facts concerning the underlying feelings?—that these outer signs were unmistakable expressions of the inner facts? Undoubtedly our information is too little detailed, and particulars referring to treatment of children and other features of the aboriginal daily life in this connection would be of the highest value. But considering that the attention of the observers was never specially drawn to these questions by any theoretical writer, and comparing our information on this point with other parts of our evidence, it must be acknowledged that it is exceptionally good. And this reliability is doubtless in the first place due to the fact that the subject of observation was clear, unambiguous and well determined.We are, moreover, in possession of a few reports of actual occurrences in which the great love displayed by the parents for their children is shown in its full strength and under the stress of special circumstances. In a battle that took place between some aborigines and settlers, the former were put to flight. They had to cross a river, but in doing so they left a child behind them. It was seized by a Maori who was at the station, and it was shown to the blacks standing on the other bank of the river. The father of the child recognized it at once. He seemed almost frantic, held out his arms eagerly towards the child, making at the same time signs for it to be given to him. The Maori pretended to be willing to give it and made signs to the black to cross the river again. And the black swam across the river to rescue his child. Thus he did not hesitate to risk his life in order to save his child; in the end he was treacherously murdered by the Maori.[560]Another touching story is told by Rob. Dawson concerning a mother's grief after the loss of her son. He says that the woman was utterly transformed by the blow. "Before the catastrophe she was a remarkably fine woman, being tall and athletic beyond any other in the settlement;now, she was a truly wretched and forlorn spectacle, apparently wasted down by watching and sorrow. I have seen this poor creature often since our first meeting, at their different camps near us, and she has still the same wretched appearance."[561]These tales show that parental feelings could be as deep and pathetic among the Australian blacks as in any cultured society. We read another story in Howitt,[562]who tells us that when he was living one day in his camp in the Dieri country the father of a lad, who was visiting Howitt's camp the day before, came in a state of utmost alarm and terror. The lad, his son, was missing, and they could not find him. The father was terrified and, suspecting that thewhite men had concealed the lad and might carry him away, he looked through Howitt's luggage. It may be noted that this occurred among the Dieri, where it is said that individual paternity does not obtain. Nevertheless it was not a group of fathers that came worrying and striving to find the boy; neither was it a group of fathers that risked their lives for the child, nor a group of mothers that was grieving to death for their child. In the few anecdotes reported below with the other statements we see also how strongly paternal affection is marked. So in the story of the old man quite infatuated with his son and disconsolate after his death, and in the story of another man eager to rescue his boy, and the old man in Curr's story, who allowed his boy to do anything he liked.[563]Such stories and anecdotes could be easily multiplied from the ethnographical material extant. They all corroborate our proposition, viz. that the sentimental side of the parental relation expresses itself quite clearly and tangibly in ever so many facts of different order, and that it would be easy for a well-informed observer to give a fairly exact account of the feelings in terms of facts. These facts, as said above, are in the first place the facts of daily life, which are quite unmistakable in their meaning and easily expressed in an accurate manner. The proof of it is that we have now relatively abundant data, although no methodical research was devoted to these facts. Then there are different occasions on which the limit of affection, the maximum and minimum of their range in a given society, is established. Such are the foregoing stories. I think we can safely conclude that the emotional side is on the one hand quite essential, and important enough to take the first place in our considerations.[564]On the other hand it can be accuratelydescribed in terms of objective data for the purpose of being chosen as the chief characteristic of the parental relation. It must be added that not a single other side or aspect of this relation appears to fulfil these conditions in the same degree. As will subsequently appear, our knowledge about the aboriginalideason parental relationship are not so ample by far as our knowledge about theirfeelingsin that connection.The foregoing discussion has been mainly concerned with the collective ideas which define parental kinship, and the different sets of social facts in which these ideas find their expression have been enumerated. It also dealt with collective feelings, and the different facts in which these are to be looked for were surveyed. We must now emphasize the fact that just as we may say that the different ideas determining kinship converge towards one central concept, or rather flow out of one common central idea of kinship, so there is also an intimate connection between the ideas determining kinship and the feelings bound up with it. This becomes obvious if our own social conditions be considered. As mentioned above, a father in our society loves his child in a great measure because he knows that it is his own offspring. In societies in which the idea of consanguinity (in the social sense) does not exist, such a connection between feelings of paternal love and knowledge of a physiological procreation would be impossible. And it would be of the highest sociological interest to trace what form such connections assume. An attempt at such a study would be possible in our own society and in other highersocieties, although there would be serious difficulties enough. But there would hardly be sufficient material to attempt it in any lower society, and there is absolutely no possibility of doing this for Australia.A brief summary of the foregoing argument may now be given. It was stated at the beginning that parental kinship corresponds to a very complex and manifold set of phenomena; moreover in various societies this relationship is determined by various elements. The problem is to find in all this complexity the structural features, the really essential facts, the knowledge of which in any given society would enable us to give a scientifically valid description of kinship. In other words, the problem is to give a general formula defining kinship, which would state its constant elements and give heed to the essential varying elements therein; that formula being on the one hand not too narrow for application to the various human societies, it would be on the other hand not too vague to afford quite definite results when applied to any special case. A final solution of this problem cannot be arrived ata priori, but only by way of induction, after the facts in the different human societies have been studied. And in order to attempt such a preliminary study of the Australian facts, the foregoing remarks have been given; they aim at a general definition of the kind just described in the form of a tentative or preliminary sketch. Consequently in the first place the attempt was made to ascertain what could be taken as the constant elements in individual parental kinship. What appeared to be nearly universal in this connection is the fact that infants and small children are always specially attached, and stand in a specific close relation to a man and a woman.[565]The woman is invariably their own mother, who gave them birth; the man is the woman's husband. The existence of this group, which may be called the individual family, is the basis upon which kinship may be determined; it isthe condition under which it is possible to speak of individual parental kinship in any given society.But it was shown that the knowledge of these facts is not sufficient to yield a precise idea of maternal and paternal kinship, and that many of its manifold aspects of foremost sociological interest would remain unknown if the inquiry were broken off at this point. These latter aspects depend upon factors which are by no means constant in all societies, but have a very wide range of variation depending on the general social conditions. A discussion of the concept of consanguinity has shown that the variations go so far as to affect the main question of paternal kinship: "Who is the father (in the social sense) of a child, and how is he determined?"In order to indicate in which direction the varying general conditions of society must be investigated so as to yield all that is essential for the sociological knowledge of kinship, it was found most convenient to range the facts in two main lines of inquiry: (1) The different sets of facts which express the central collective idea of what fatherhood is; and the various other collective ideas—legal, customary, moral—of a normative character referring to the relation in question. The social facts in which these ideas must be looked for are: Beliefs, traditions, customs referring to the relation in question (as for instance the couvade type), and functions of kindred such as legal duties and obligations between parent and child. (2) The facts in which the expression of the collective feelings characteristic of the relation in question is to be found. The facts of daily life, as well as the dramatic expression of feelings, come in here. The emotional character of the parental kinship relation is of the highest importance in determining the social feature of this relation, and for the comprehension of its social working.These points of view will be applied hereafter to the discussion of the Australian parental kinship. But in order to illustrate here their theoretical bearing, a shortdiscussion will be given of some of the ways in which the concept of kinship has been applied to low societies by sociologists. Morgan's way of dealing with the meaning of kinship must be first mentioned.[566]He assumes without further discussion that kinship was conceived always and in all societies, even the lowest ones, in terms of consanguinity.[567]Our discussion of consanguinity shows how great a mistake it was on the part of Morgan to impute to the primitive mind a whole series of ideas which absolutely and necessarily must have been foreign to it. As was said above, primitive mankind was certainly wholly ignorant of the process of procreation, and the relation of the sexes cannot possibly have been the source of kinship ideas. How great a part this assumption plays in Morgan's deductions it is easy to perceive.[568]And he was led to it by omitting to discuss and analyze the concept of kinship, and by applying to low societies our own social concept of it.
It is undoubtedly one of the most valuable discoveries arrived at by modern sociological science that each institution varies in accordance with the social environment in which it is found. A given institution or social form (like the family, the state, the nation, the church) appears under various forms in different societies, and among peoples with a very low culture only rudiments thereof may be expected. This point of view, applied to marriage and the family, has led some writers to the assumption of forms as much opposed to those usual in our societies, as promiscuity and group marriage is opposed to individual marriage and the family. Nevertheless, although the variability and multiplicity of forms of marriage and family were acknowledged, the concepts applied to them were still the old ones, directly borrowed from our own society and formed upon the facts found amongst ourselves. In particular the sociologically untrained ethnographers comprehended the phenomena of kinship only under our own social concepts, judged them according to our own moral standard, and described them with words the meaning of which ought to have been defined when applied to a new case; nevertheless these terms have been nearly always used by ethnographers in the same sense in which we use them amongst ourselves,i. e.as expressing ideas of community of blood throughprocreation.[513]That this is quite erroneous will be shown below. How far the idea of kinship changes from society to society, what are its essential invariable features, and what are the variable elements—these are the problems that must be set forth.
The inadequacy of our ideas of kinship as applied to lower societies has been often felt by those ethnographers who wished to enter deeper into the problems of kinship among a given people. They have found the greatest difficulty in conveying to a European reader the meaning of different terms of relationship. While warning the reader to put aside our (the modern European) ideas of kinship, they have hardly succeeded in giving any definite and clear concept instead. The reasons for this failure are simple: our ideas of kinship are defined by certain facts which are not to be found in the given primitive society. In order to define kinship so as to fit the latter, the author ought to bring forward a series of facts, playing a part analogous in the given society to that played by the essential defining elements amongst us. But it is by no means easy to know among which facts to look for such analogous, defining elements. And here again arises the necessity of a general definition of kinship, one which would afford indications in what direction to search for social facts giving a right idea of kinship in any given society. Such a general definition would be like an algebraic formula, having its constant and its variable terms; if for the latter special data be inserted (in this instance the special conditions proper to the given society), the special value for any given case is obtained (namely the special concept of kinship proper to the given society). And it should also be indicated within what range the variables should be taken; in other words, in what facts the elements which specifically determine kinship in thegiven society must be looked for. The practical value of such a general definition of kinship is obvious. On the one hand it indicates the constant elements in kinship common to all societies; on the other hand it indicates the general character of the variable elements, and the way in which they must be looked for and worked into the general formula.
By the word kinship, roughly speaking, is denoted a series of family relationships (those of parents to children, brothers to sisters, etc.), all of which consist of a set of extremely complex phenomena. They are made up of the most heterogeneous elements: physiological (birth, procreation, suckling, etc.), social (community of living, of interests, social norms, etc.), and psychological (different ways in which these relations are conceived, different moral ideas, and different types of feelings). Special care must be taken to select in all these elements the essential ones, as an omission would be just as fatal for the investigations as an overburdening with secondary elements. Moreover, it would be specially valuable to look at all these heterogeneous determining elements from the same point of view, and view them all under one and the same aspect. Leaving on one side the purely physiological problem of kinship,[514]it appears necessary to give a sociological view of kinship,i. e.to show the social bearing of physiological facts as well as of psychological elements. But it appears also necessary to view the whole of the phenomena of kinship from the psychological point of view; that is, to show how the sociological and physiological facts of kinship are reflected in the "collective mind" of the given society.
Besides for other reasons (adduced below) this appearsnecessary, because one of the most important scientific uses that has been made of the different human systems of kinship is one that presupposes a certain definite meaning, as given to the terms of kinship in very low societies. In Morgan's deductions a very important part is played by the assumption that kinship is always understood in terms of consanguinity; in particular that it was understood thus by primitive man; that in all (even the lowest) societies all ideas of kinship were essentially based upon the community of blood, established in the case of the mother by her share in bearing, in that of the father by his part in procreation. Only by assuming that these facts were known to the lowest, prehistoric savages, could Morgan draw inferences from systems of kinship terms about the forms of sexual intercourse. If, on the other hand, the relation between sexual intercourse and birth escaped the knowledge of primitive men, they could not have based their idea of kinship upon community of blood between father and offspring; hence there could be no connection between forms of sexual intercourse and forms of kinship as conceived by primitive man. Whether there could be connection between marriage, defined sociologically, and kinship is another and more complicated problem. In any case Morgan uses throughout his book the word consanguinity, and he defines it as the tie of common blood arising from the sexual act. In other words he sets forth the problem in a simplified and incorrect form. The question how kinship may be conceived in a given society, especially in a low one, naturally presents itself as a very important point of investigation.
As in the following pages there will be question more or less exclusively of the individual relation between parents and children, the present discussion may be fittingly restricted to the individual parental kinship in Australia. In the second part of this chapter facts giving some insight into the aboriginal collective ideas of kinship are set forth; and in the following chapter other different factswill be brought forward in order to complete the definition ofindividual parental kinship. But in accordance with what has been just said, it is needful to have some guiding principle in collecting this material, and this will now be looked for. This discussion, being only concerned with the Australian facts, does not pretend to be complete, but perhaps if the results are worked out so as to suit our modern European concept of kinship as well as the Australian one, it might, should it be correct, be applicable also to other societies.[515]Let us now proceed to give the general definition of kinship and in the first place to indicate which are its constant, uniform factors found in all societies.
Amongst the heterogeneous factors which together make up parental kinship, the physiological facts appear to be the most constant, for the natural process of procreation is in all human societies the same. But the social consequences of this process vary very widely according to other variable elements, as will appear clearly below in our discussion of consanguinity. Part of them only, together with some social elements, may be taken as the uniform, constant basis of kinship, such as must serve for the first point of departure in an attempt to discuss more in detail the kinship in any society. It appears probable that this basis is given by the existence of a group formed by a woman, her husband, and the children whom she has borne, suckled and reared. The existence of such a group will be considered as the necessary and sufficient condition forindividual parental kinship. Where such a group exists we are justified in affirming that individual parental kinship exists, although it is not yet completely defined thereby; further facts must be adduced in order to complete the definition. Those further facts are precisely the variable terms in the general formula of kinship; it remains still to indicate their general character. But a few words must be first said about the constant factors of kinship just mentioned.
They consist in the existence of the individual family group as determined by individual marriage and by individual motherhood. Individual motherhood means that the same woman who gave birth to a child stands to it in a special close relation in its later life also: she suckles it and rears it, and she is bound to him or her by the manifold ties resulting from the community of life and community of interests. This woman is bound on the other hand to a man by individual marriage; and thereby her children are bound to him also; and the mother, her husband, and her children form the social unit called the individual family. The existence of such a unit is to be established by showing its different social functions, and the different ways in which its solidarity and individuality are marked in a given society. It is clear that the position of the father is in this way first established socially only, as the husband of the children's mother. Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that thus his relation to the children is clearly marked; and that this is only a preliminary, so to say formal, determination of fatherhood, which in all societies appears to be much more materially defined by other factors, discussed hereafter.
The existence of the individual family as a social unit, based upon the physiological facts of maternity, the social factor of marriage and other social factors, are thus chosen as the basis upon which we may proceed to analyze more in detail the individual parental relation. Whether this basis exists in all human societies and forms what was called above the constant, invariable elements of parental kinship, may remain an open question. This could only be answered correctlya posteriori, on the basis of a series of special researches in many societies. The existence of individual motherhood, as this word is defined here, seems to obtain in the majority of human societies (or even in all of them). Nevertheless, as pointed out above,[516]even this point cannot be treated as self-evident. This applies in still higher degree toindividual marriage, which has often been denied as regards many societies.[517]In this place we have mainly to keep before our eyes the Australian society and our own society, the latter of which affords, so to say, the heuristic principle, the clue to the understanding of the former. As far as those two societies are concerned, our choice appears to be the right one, and the social-physiological basis mentioned above contains the essential common elements of kinship in both societies.
The existence of individual marriage and its legal, sexual and psychological aspects have been discussed and established in the preceding chapters, as far as Australia is concerned. A discussion on individual motherhood will be given below. The existence of the individual family group in Australia, based upon individual marriage and upon individual motherhood, is the subject of the remaining chapters of this study. So that the existence of this physiological and social basis of kinship may be taken as granted.
Bearing now in mind that what will be said hereafter applies in the first place to Australia, it may be said that in the physiological and social basis of kinship adopted above, the minimum of conditions necessary for the application of the idea of individual kinship was enumerated. But this minimum is not sufficient to determine this idea completely in any given society. By studying only the social facts which determine the individuality of family life within the society, we should not exhaust all the features and essential aspects of parental kinship in any society. The existence of the individual family merely indicates unambiguously that individual parental kinship exists in thegiven society. For this social unit having a deep analogy with our own individual family, the relation between the members of both these social units must also have some deep resemblance. But to exaggerate this resemblance would be as erroneous as to deny it. Besides the features common both to our parental kinship and to that of the Australian, there are also those which differentiate these two relationships. They must be sought for in the differences in thesocial conditions, which may even modify the physiological basis of kinship, as for instance when physical fatherhood is in one society established beyond doubt by exclusive sexual appropriation, while in the other there can be no question of it, owing to sexual communism. The variations in the general social conditions obviously also affect the purely sociological side of kinship. To point this out clearly, it is enough to mention that each relation is subject to the normative influences of the society in the midst of which it exists, and these norms and their sanction vary with the general social structure.
The variable elements in parental kinship must be also looked for in the different elements of thecollective mind, connected with the parental relationship; in other words, in the differentcollective ideasandfeelingswhich have parental kinship for their centre. Moreover, as mentioned above, there are reasons why the knowledge of the collective idea of kinship is sociologically important. It may be emphasized here that we should cripple and curtail our knowledge if we arbitrarily abstained from inquiring what influence the collective knowledge as to procreation, consanguinity, affinity, etc., may have upon the social aspect of the relation in question.
The same thing may be said of another domain of collective mentality: that is, of the feelings involved in parental kinship. The type of feelings underlying this relationship may vary with the society, in the same way as these feelings vary with each individual case in any given society. And as these feelings essentially determine the character of parental kinship in any given society, itappears that the discussion of this point cannot be omitted. Thus into the general formula of kinship there must enter also the psychological elements: collective ideas, expressing in a given society what is kinship, what are its legal, moral and customary aspects; and the collective feelings prevailing in a given society. From the interaction of these psychological elements with different variable social elements arise the more special, peculiar factors which define kinship in any given society. In other words, the variable elements in the general formula of kinship are seen to arise chiefly from the collective psychological interpretation and valuation of some of the physiological and social facts underlying parental kinship.
To sum up, it may be said that parental kinship is the personal tie obtaining between members of theparental groupor individualfamily, and like all other personalties it must be further determined in each society by the characteristiccollective feelingsandcollective ideaswhich in the given society give it its specific meaning.[518]This is that general formula of kinship which will yield us what we have demanded of it—that is, an indication of the facts for which to look in any given society. As the facts referred to in the first part of the above definition (the establishment of the existence of the family unit) are dealt with in the remaining chapters, it is necessary to discuss only the second part of the definition.
The influence upon kinship of the beliefs and ideas as to procreation appears quite plainly upon an analysis of the concept of consanguinity, and to this we may devote a few words.
Parental kinship is in our society conceived invariablyand exclusively in terms ofconsanguinity,[519]or, speaking more explicitly, parental kinship is conceived as established by the tie of common blood, resulting from birth (maternal kinship) or procreation (paternal kinship). Of course the mere physiological fact does not establish kinship in its full extent, with all its personal, emotional, social and legal aspects. It is only when the physiological facts of procreation or birth are sanctioned by society, in other words when they are consummated in legal marriage, that the children are full kinsmen of both their parents. Society takes all facts which are of vital importance for itself under its own supervision; and consequently the important facts of propagation are subject to the control of society, which regulates them by a series of religious, legal, customary and conventional norms, all of which are also necessary conditions and essential features of full parental kinship. But this sanction once granted, the tie of common blood is conceived as the main source of all mutual duties and moral and legal obligations; and from this also outflow the feelings of love, attachment, reverence, and so forth, which are in our society the essential features of parental kinship. Once a man knows that a child, which he considered his own, is in reality not begotten by him, undoubtedly all his feelings for this child are affected, and, under certain conditions, its legal position may be modified. The two conditions for full parental kinship in our society are (1) that the child be the real physiological offspring of both presumed parents; (2) that it be legally begotten or its birth legalized.
In our society the line of distinction between physiological consanguinity and social consanguinity is quite clear; the one is a mere physiological fact,[520]the other thesocial acknowledgment of this fact and all its consequences, subject to certain norms, laid down by society.
There are two separate sets of circumstances in which we may speak of consanguinity: (1) the existence of social institutions, which allow us to trace the physiological blood ties (e. g.monogamy or harem institutions), in which case we can speak of the existence of physiological consanguinity as obtaining between the members of the individual family. (2) The existence of a social acknowledgment of the facts of procreation as creating ties of individual personal kinship, in which case we may speak of social consanguinity. If neither of these conditions are fulfilled, then it would be quite meaningless to speak of consanguinity.[521]
Now let us see whether these conditions are to be found in all human societies. That both are found in the majority of the more highly developed societies appears beyond doubt. But this seems not to be the case in the lower societies. Even a superficial glance at them is sufficient to prove it. Whereas, in some of the lowest peoples known conjugal fidelity seems to be the rule,[522]and consequently the physiological tie of blood betweenchildren and both their parents is secured, in other societies of low culture the sexual laxity is so great that there is no possibility at all of tracing the descent of a child from any individual man.[523]This applies in the first place to the majority of the Australian tribes, as is shown in the chapter on sexual matters. In consequence, it may be said that in many low societies, and especially in some of the Australian tribes, there is no possibility of speaking of physiological consanguinity as regards the father.
How does the case stand with the social importance attributed to the facts of procreation? Here the variation seems to be still greater. This can be very well exemplified by the Australian material. Over the greater part of the continent the father's share in procreation is not known. There cannot be any social acknowledgment of it. Consanguinity in its social sense does not exist. In some tribes of South-East Australia, on the other hand, the mother's share in procreation is under-rated; the father is considered to be the only consanguineous relative; the child is the father's offspring only, the mother being merely its nurse. Here the consanguineous relation between mother and child is considerably reduced in social importance, and consanguinity as it appears to the social mind is purely paternal. It may be said, therefore, that paternal kinship in the Centre and the North of the continent and maternal kinship in the South-Eastern tribes cannot be called consanguinity (in the social sense of this word), although in both cases very close kinship exists, as will appear from a detailed discussion hereafter.
These examples show clearly that it would be incorrect to treat physiological consanguinity as a constant and indispensable constituent of parental kinship.
Besides these Australian examples[524]there may be adduced many cases from other societies in which the tiesof blood play no part in the collective ideas of kinship. The Naudowessies have the curious idea that their offspring are indebted to their father for their souls, the invisible part of their essence, and to the mother for their corporeal and visible part.[525]Here the father's part in procreation was probably known, but the interpretation thereof was not the correct physiological one, but one that created, so to say, a spiritual connection as the bond of paternal kinship, whereas maternal kinship was conceived in terms of consanguinity. On the other hand, "according to Kafir ideas a child descends chiefly, though not exclusively, from the father"[526]—a belief analogous to that of the South-East Australians. The same belief was held in several higher societies (Egyptians, Hindoos, Greeks).[527]Dargun has made a list of peoples among whom the (social) father of the children is quite indifferent as to whether they are really begotten by him.[528]Among the Todas, where the determination of paternity is quite out of the question, owing to their polyandry, fatherhood is determined only by the performance of a conventional ceremony (the rite ofpursütpimi, or handing over to the pregnant woman a miniature bow and arrow). This constitutes fatherhood; the man who has performed this ceremony is the (social) father of the child, even if it were certain that he had not begotten it.[529]Another interesting case was discovered by Dr. Rivers amongst the Banks Islanders. There fatherhood is determined by the fact of paying the midwife.
But the most noteworthy cases in regard to the present subject are those where fatherhood in its social sense is not consanguineous owing to the ignorance of the physiological laws of reproduction (a state of things mentioned already as obtaining in Central Australia). This ignorance is of general sociological importance, because there are well-founded reasons for believing that it was onceuniversal amongst primitive mankind, as may be held to be proved by Mr. E. S. Hartland in his thorough treatise onPrimitive Paternity. For the detailed argument the reader must be referred to this fundamental work.[530]Mr. Sidney Hartland has besides drawn sociological conclusions from those facts in their bearing upon paternal kinship. In Chapter IV of the first volume he gives numerous examples of peoples among whom there is no tie of consanguinity between father and son.[531]
To ascertain the influence of physiological ties of blood on this relation in a given society it is needful to know the way in which they present themselves to the aboriginal mind. That is, we must know the collective ideas of a given society on the facts of procreation. Do they know, or do they not know, the father's part in procreation? But this is not sufficient. Even if they know a certain physiological fact, they may not acknowledge its bearing upon kinship, they may attach no importance to its social aspect. So it is with the fact of physiological maternity in the South-East Australian tribes and with paternity in the cases quoted by Dargun. And it happens very often that in peoples where the causal connectionbetween copulation and pregnancy is well known, fatherhood is by no means determined by its physiological aspect. Not only the collective knowledge of the physiological facts, but also the collective attitude towards them, must therefore be taken into consideration.[532]In short, it may be said thatphysiologicalconsanguinity has no direct bearing upon social facts.
To define consanguinity in its social meaning, the collective ideas held by a given society on the facts of procreation must be considered. Consanguinity, therefore, is the set of relations involved by the collective ideas under which the facts of procreation are viewed in a given society. And it must be borne in mind that these ideas express not only the purely theoretical views of the social mind on the facts of procreation; they also involve different emotional elements, and especially the social importance given to these facts by society. Consanguinity (as a sociological concept) is therefore not the physiological bond of common blood; it is the social acknowledgment and interpretation of it.
It may be said, therefore, that consanguinity is not always considered as the essence of kinship. If now we wish to determine what are the common features of the different ideas which in different societies define kinship, the only answer is that the said ideas affirm in one way or another a very close, intimate tie between offspring and parents. These ideas may refer kinship to physiological facts (consanguinity as found in the major part of human societies); or they may base kinship on the performance of a quite conventional ceremony (Todas, Banks Islanders); or they may affirm a very close tie between parent and child, on the base of some religious or magic belief (spiritualtie, transmission of soul: the Naudoweissies and some Australian tribes, as will be seen below). It is evident, therefore, that the general idea of kinship cannot be construed in terms of any of these special sets of ideas. The essential features that must be claimed for these ideas (i. e.those ranged in the class of kinship ideas) are: (1) that they must refer to the relation between child and father or mother;[533]and (2) that they must affirm an intimate bond of union of some kind between the parties involved. As may be easily conceived, it will be difficult in very low societies to get hold of these ideas, that is, to obtain the exact answer to the question, "What is kinship?" It is now impossible even to measure exactly the difficulty of getting a precise answer to this question, as ethnographers have never paid special attention to this point. Nevertheless, in Australia we shall be able to get at least some glimpses, which are of the highest theoretical interest. And even the negative result—that the idea of consanguinity must be considered wanting in the majority of Australian tribes—is of considerable theoretical value.
Besides the general question, "What is considered as the source of parental (maternal and paternal) kinship?" we may ask questions about the various other ideas connected with kinship. Here come in the legal, moral, and customary ideas, by which society exercises its normative power in reference to the said relation. Some of these are expressed in different social functions.[534]Others may be reached by the study of beliefs, traditions, customs and other forms of folk-lore. The well-known customs of thecouvadeare one of the typical functions of the father, in which there is an expression of a deep connection of a magical kind between the father and his offspring. Whateverexplanation of these customs may be given,[535]it cannot be denied that they are based upon the idea of a very intimate tie between the two individuals involved, and that this tie is conceived as being of a mystical character.
There is also a series of social rules which regulate the social position of the offspring according to that of its parents. This group of rules might appropriately be calleddescentin the social sense of this word.[536]In the Australian societies,e. g.the membership of different social groups—as the local group, the totemic clan, the phratry, the class—is determined by the membership of one of the parents of the given individual. And many authors speak of tribes with paternal and maternal descent. It must be borne in mind, nevertheless, that in order to use the word descent in a definite sense it is always necessary to add what social group is meant. For it is possible that membership in the local group is determined by the father, membership of the phratry by the mother, and membership in the clan by neither of them. The facts of descent do not seem to play a very important rôle and are not suitable to be chosen as the most important feature of kinship. The facts of inheritance also have not very much influence upon kinship (compare below,pp. 290,291).
As it is easy to see, looking at our own ideas on parental kinship, all the normative ideas, whether religious, moral or legal, are in close connection with the central, basic idea,i. e.in the case of our society, the idea of consanguinity. And these normative ideas are brought by the collective mind into causal connection with the central idea of community of blood.[537]It would be the ideal ofsociological research as regards our present subject if we could bring in any given society all the normative ideas into such a causal dependence upon the central idea, and explain how they are conceived by the collective mind as the outgrowth of this root idea; thus showing how all the legal, moral and customary aspects converge on the fundamental concept of kinship. Unhappily, in low societies the imperfection of ethnographic material would frustrate any attempt at such an enterprise. In Australia our knowledge of these aspects—moral, legal and customary—is very scanty. Although they are all undoubtedly in quite a rudimentary state, careful investigation would possibly disclose many points of extreme interest.
One other problem must be discussed here more in detail, owing to its great theoretical importance, viz. the legal aspect of parental kinship. We have defined above the meaning of the wordlegal.[538]In connection with what has been said, we may affirm that thelegalis only one of the many aspects of kinship; that legal ideas, as far as known for any given society, must be taken into account when defining kinship, but that the latter cannot possibly be reduced to its legal aspect only. And it is still more incorrect[539]to represent physiological consanguinity and legal power over the child as two mutually exclusive sets of facts beyond which there can be no determination of parental kinship. We find the opinion expressed by many authors, especially with regard to Australia, that where-ever the tie binding parent and child was not constituted by the acknowledgment of consanguinity, that there always it was based on legal principles such as potestas, authority,Machtstellung, or other similar ones.
The incorrectness of taking only these two alternatives is shown by the three following considerations: (1) Such a view overlooks the facts discussed below, which show that there is actual kinship based on ideas neither physiologicalnor legal. (2) This way of interpreting facts operates with very indeterminate concepts, for we nowhere find any explanation of how to take the general termlegalin connection with a given aboriginal society, and still less are we told how such legal concepts aspotestas, paternal authority, etc., are to be applied to a given aboriginal society. (3) If a definition oflaworlegalbe given, it would plainly be seen that it is quite erroneous to consider any of these concepts as defining parental kinship. This is quite clear if we use the definition oflegalgiven above,p. 11. But even allowing a broad margin for the variations which may result from a varying definition oflegal, it may be safely stated that in whatever way we might try to define this word, our definition must always involve factors of social pressure, stress and authority. In other words, the relation between two individuals may be consideredlegal onlywhen we imply that it is wholly and exclusively determined by the outward regulating control of the society and by a potential direct action of it. And in the case we are speaking of—that is, the relation between parent and child in low societies—there can be hardly any question of this. As will appear in the Australian case, this relation is left quite to itself, and it is regulated by the spontaneous emotional attitude of the father towards his child. No factor of any outer pressure or constraint enters into it, at least we are not informed of any such by the ethnographical evidence extant. The collection and analysis of the statements on this point given below[540]will show that there cannot be any question of potestas, authority, proprietorship, or anything of the kind. Neither social pressure nor economic interest bind the parents to their children, nor does any motive of this kind enter into this relation.
As this subject is very important, some examples of the mode of reasoning just now criticized are set out here. These passages are quoted from works of very distinguished writers to show that the mistakes result from seriousdefects in sociological knowledge, and not from any accidental causes. And they are taken from passages which either refer exclusively to the Australian aboriginal society, or are exemplified by Australian facts.
Mr. Thomas, at the end of a passage in which he discusses the relation between the concepts of kinship and consanguinity says that in Australia "some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between the father and child; but it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity." So far we perfectly agree with the reasoning of the author. But when Mr. Thomas adds, "In other communitiespotestas[541]and notconsanguinity[541]is held to determine the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a matter for careful inquiry how far the same holds good in Australia, when the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be unrecognized by the natives,"[542]we see that he falls into the error of acknowledging only two possibilities: potestas or consanguinity. It is true that he speaks of consanguinity as being modified by native ideas, and that thus a social element is introduced into the physiological concept of consanguinity. But we are still left to guess how this social element is to be understood. And as pointed out above, the relation between father and child in the tribes in question cannot be considered as based upon consanguinity or community of blood, whatever meaning we give to these words. Erroneous in any case is the opposition of kinship and potestas, as if these two concepts were of the same order, and could be considered as two equivalent categories excluding each other. Whereas, as we saw, these two concepts are of quite different order and cannot be treated as excluding or replacing each other. Kinship is a very complicated social fact, very complex in its sociological and psychological aspects.Potestasis a legal category, expressing a set of attributes and rights of the father over his children. Potestas (or any analogous legal factor) may be a constituent element of kinship incertain societies. It cannot possibly replace kinship entirely.
A similar unsatisfactory reasoning, it appears to me, is to be found contained in a passage of the small but clearly and deeply thought out work of the eminent sociologist, the late Prof. Dargun. He stipulates as the most important postulate of studies in family organization the discrimination between authority and consanguinity:"Strenges Auseinanderhalten der Gewaltverhältnisse von den Verwandtschaftsverhältnissen."[543]And he definesVerwandtschaftas a purely physiological fact:"die letztere, (Verwandtschaft) ist durch das natürliche Blutband gegeben."[544]This is obviously an incorrect definition for sociological use.[545]Equally unsatisfactory is the definition given of theGewalt(potestas):Gewalt vom natürlichen Blutband unabhängig kann "auf sehr verschiedene historische Wurzeln zurückführen."[546]This definition is both negative and ambiguous, excluding elements of consanguinity from potestas and assigning to the latter "various historic roots." We might, therefore, expect to find everything in this idea, but on the other hand such a definition lacks precision and does not give either the direction in which to look for the determining factors, or any criterion for our recognition of the existence of personal kinship ties. Now our definition of kinship responds to both these requirements when applied to the Australian facts. Moreover we find in these phrases of Dargun the alternative condemned above between authority and consanguinity, the latter used here in the crude physiological sense. It may be noted that in some passages of the book in question there are hints pointing to the fact that the author felt the necessity of a psychological definition of paternal kinship. So when he says, speaking of the Australians:"Vollkommenste Vaterherrschaft, jaselbst ausgesprochene Vaterliebe—gehen mit ebenso unbedingter Verwandtschaft—und Stammeszugehörigkeit in mütterlicher Linie, Handin Hand,"[547]we see that here the author speaks of paternal love and states that this is what determines the relation of father and child in Australia. When he speaks afterwards of the father as:"Beschützer und Fürsorger"[548]of his children, we see that he mentions purely personal factors of the relation of father to child, such as we lay stress upon in speaking of community of life and of interests. But still the author seems to be entangled in his alternative between consanguinity and potestas. So we read:"Wo zwischen dem Vater und seinen Kindern ein wirkliches Verwandtschaftsverhältniss bestehet, dort muss auf die faktische Zeugung durch den Hausvater entscheidendes Gewicht gelegt werden, und umgekehrt überall wo Gleichgültigkeit gegen dieses Zeugungsverhältniss an den Tag tritt, ist das Gewaltverhältniss des Vaters, noch nicht zur Blutsverwandtschaft herangereift."[549]In this phrase there is a complete oversight of the various actual ways in which an intimate relation between father and child may be established, and which have nothing to do either with consanguinity or withpatria potestas.
In the new work of Prof. Frazer there are also some pages touching on this point. Although he distinguishes well between thephysiologicalandsocial consanguinity,[550]still in another place he says, speaking of the Central Tribes: "Denying as they do explicitly that the child is begotten by the father, they can only regard him as the consort, and in a sense as the owner of the mother, and, therefore, as the owner of her progeny, just as a man who owns a cow owns also the calf she brings forth. In short, it seems probable that a man's children were viewed as his property long before they were recognized as his offspring."It is impossible to agree with this opinion. The word "property" can in no strict sense be applied to the relation between father and child in Australia. Besides the author does not even clearly indicate in what sense he uses the word; and this word appears here only as a metaphor. Moreover, it is obvious that this opinion implies opposition between consanguinity and the legal category of "proprietorship," and contrasts the words "property" and "offspring."
In fact, as we hinted above, and as we shall have opportunity of discussing below[551]in connection with the evidence, there is little ground for speaking ofauthority,patria potestas, "ownership" or any similar attributes of the father as regards his children in Australia. It must not be forgotten that these words are nearly meaningless as long as they have not a legal sense. According to the definition oflegalwe should say that two people stand to each other in a purely legal relation when certain norms are laid down and actively sanctioned by society, which requires a definite mutual behaviour and attitude on the part of each. It was pointed out above that in Australia we have data allowing us to speak of the legal aspect of social institutions and relations;[552]it appears improbable, though, that there could be found anypurelylegal relation. At any rate, nothing of that sort determines or forms the substance of the relation between father and child in Australia. If a father should kill or abandon his child, he would, for all we know, be left quite undisturbed. Nobody compels him to provide for its subsistence, to protect it and care for it.[553]There are spontaneous elements that bind himto it. And these spontaneous elements (to discover them will be our task) determine his relation to his child. Undoubtedly this kinship relation presentssomelegal features, such as, for instance, his right to dispose of his daughter in marriage (a right which in some tribes is reported to belong to the mother or mother's brother). But we know very little about it.[554]At any rate, there are only a few occasions on which the relation in question involves any possibility of social intervention.[555]
Nobody ever doubts, as far as I can see, the fact that all personal ties between two individuals consist not only of ideas, but also of feelings, and that they are influenced no less by the feelings the two individuals mutually inspire than by the ideas they form of each other. To ascertain,e. g., if there be friendship between two people, one seeks to know their feelings towards each other, as well as what they think about each other. The relation between a parent and a child is in our society chiefly determined by their mutual feelings. And in a case where these feelings are absent, this relationship—in spite of all legal, moral, and other factors which tend to maintain its form—is deeply affected. It may be taken for granted that the sentimental side most essentially determines in a given society any kind of personal relationship. And in the same society the character of a given personal relation—be it parental kinship or anything else—varies with the intensity of the feeling and is essentially defined by the latter. It may be accepted also, that in different societies the types of feelings corresponding to given personal relations may vary according to the society, andmay define in each one this given relation in its most essential character. In other words, the concept of collective feelings can be applied as well as the concept of collective ideas.[556]By this is to be understood certain types of feeling, which being dependent on corresponding collective ideas possess the same essential character as the latter: they exist in a certain society, and are transmitted from generation to generation; they impose themselves on the individual mind, and possess the character of necessity; they are deeply connected with certain social institutions; in fact they stand to them in the relation of functional dependence (in the mathematical sense). So, for instance, it is clear that in the hypothetical primitive promiscuous society, in whichex hypothesithere would be no individual relationship, the feelings of affection for the individual offspring could not exist. We could only speak of the "collective feeling" ofgroup affection. So it seems to me that the relation of parents to children cannot be treated with any approach to completeness without seriously taking into account its emotional character.
But even if the foremost importance of emotional elements and the possibility of treating them as collective feelings were granted, there is another objection to be met. Granted that these elements are actually quite essential in determining family relations, it might be objected that they are too shapeless and indeterminate in themselves to be of any practical use in scientific research, especially if our theories have to be based upon ethnographic observations in which the more tangible and the more unambiguous the facts chosen, the less the risk of being misled. Now, are not feelings of the most indeterminate character, the most misleading, and the most difficult to ascertain? In fact, the theoryof feelings and emotions seems to be the least developed in individual as well as in social psychology. Especially it might be suggested that to pursue the investigation on double lines is useless; feelings always find adequate expression in ideas, in fact crystallize in them.[557]Without trying to give a general answer to these objections, they may be met as regards the special case under discussion. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they do not hold good. For our knowledge of the sentimental side of parental kinship is much better and much more determinate than our knowledge of any other aspect of this relation.
It may be here indicated why our knowledge on this point may be considered as a well-founded one. As stated below (pp. 249,250) the agreement between the statements as to parental feelings is quite an exceptional one. Comparing it with the usual discrepancy between the reports of different observers on many other points, which would appear much less liable to any subjectivity, this complete agreement and the relative exactness of our information is highly remarkable.[558]It should be noted that on this point there is no extrinsic reason, or secondary motive, that would make us suspect an artificial cause of agreement. The point in question forms no part of any theory; it affects no moral or racial susceptibilities. And there was no special reason why so many observers should pay attention to it, and why they all should state the same thing: viz. extreme love and fondness towards the children on the part of the parents. This agreementshows that the facts which the ethnographers had under observation were so expressive of the underlying psychology, and they struck the writers so strongly that they simply felt compelled to notice them. And observing closely the facts through which those feelings of paternal affection found their expression, it becomes evident that these feelings are not so indeterminate as mighta prioribe supposed; that, on the contrary, they find quite an unequivocal expression in a series of facts. Let us look more closely at these facts.
In the first place consider the facts of daily life[559]—the behaviour of parents towards children in all the cases where the latter want help or merit punishment. We read that on all such occasions both parents exhibit great kindness and extreme leniency. The children are carefully looked after by the father as well as by the mother; and they are very seldom punished. In one place it is even stated that the father is more lenient than the mother. Now is it not in agreement with all our every-day experiences that in such facts and features of daily life prominent and characteristic feelings find their adequate expression? And is the accordance of opinion among all our Australian informants on this point not a proof that they were able to judge with great certainty from these facts concerning the underlying feelings?—that these outer signs were unmistakable expressions of the inner facts? Undoubtedly our information is too little detailed, and particulars referring to treatment of children and other features of the aboriginal daily life in this connection would be of the highest value. But considering that the attention of the observers was never specially drawn to these questions by any theoretical writer, and comparing our information on this point with other parts of our evidence, it must be acknowledged that it is exceptionally good. And this reliability is doubtless in the first place due to the fact that the subject of observation was clear, unambiguous and well determined.
We are, moreover, in possession of a few reports of actual occurrences in which the great love displayed by the parents for their children is shown in its full strength and under the stress of special circumstances. In a battle that took place between some aborigines and settlers, the former were put to flight. They had to cross a river, but in doing so they left a child behind them. It was seized by a Maori who was at the station, and it was shown to the blacks standing on the other bank of the river. The father of the child recognized it at once. He seemed almost frantic, held out his arms eagerly towards the child, making at the same time signs for it to be given to him. The Maori pretended to be willing to give it and made signs to the black to cross the river again. And the black swam across the river to rescue his child. Thus he did not hesitate to risk his life in order to save his child; in the end he was treacherously murdered by the Maori.[560]Another touching story is told by Rob. Dawson concerning a mother's grief after the loss of her son. He says that the woman was utterly transformed by the blow. "Before the catastrophe she was a remarkably fine woman, being tall and athletic beyond any other in the settlement;now, she was a truly wretched and forlorn spectacle, apparently wasted down by watching and sorrow. I have seen this poor creature often since our first meeting, at their different camps near us, and she has still the same wretched appearance."[561]These tales show that parental feelings could be as deep and pathetic among the Australian blacks as in any cultured society. We read another story in Howitt,[562]who tells us that when he was living one day in his camp in the Dieri country the father of a lad, who was visiting Howitt's camp the day before, came in a state of utmost alarm and terror. The lad, his son, was missing, and they could not find him. The father was terrified and, suspecting that thewhite men had concealed the lad and might carry him away, he looked through Howitt's luggage. It may be noted that this occurred among the Dieri, where it is said that individual paternity does not obtain. Nevertheless it was not a group of fathers that came worrying and striving to find the boy; neither was it a group of fathers that risked their lives for the child, nor a group of mothers that was grieving to death for their child. In the few anecdotes reported below with the other statements we see also how strongly paternal affection is marked. So in the story of the old man quite infatuated with his son and disconsolate after his death, and in the story of another man eager to rescue his boy, and the old man in Curr's story, who allowed his boy to do anything he liked.[563]
Such stories and anecdotes could be easily multiplied from the ethnographical material extant. They all corroborate our proposition, viz. that the sentimental side of the parental relation expresses itself quite clearly and tangibly in ever so many facts of different order, and that it would be easy for a well-informed observer to give a fairly exact account of the feelings in terms of facts. These facts, as said above, are in the first place the facts of daily life, which are quite unmistakable in their meaning and easily expressed in an accurate manner. The proof of it is that we have now relatively abundant data, although no methodical research was devoted to these facts. Then there are different occasions on which the limit of affection, the maximum and minimum of their range in a given society, is established. Such are the foregoing stories. I think we can safely conclude that the emotional side is on the one hand quite essential, and important enough to take the first place in our considerations.[564]On the other hand it can be accuratelydescribed in terms of objective data for the purpose of being chosen as the chief characteristic of the parental relation. It must be added that not a single other side or aspect of this relation appears to fulfil these conditions in the same degree. As will subsequently appear, our knowledge about the aboriginalideason parental relationship are not so ample by far as our knowledge about theirfeelingsin that connection.
The foregoing discussion has been mainly concerned with the collective ideas which define parental kinship, and the different sets of social facts in which these ideas find their expression have been enumerated. It also dealt with collective feelings, and the different facts in which these are to be looked for were surveyed. We must now emphasize the fact that just as we may say that the different ideas determining kinship converge towards one central concept, or rather flow out of one common central idea of kinship, so there is also an intimate connection between the ideas determining kinship and the feelings bound up with it. This becomes obvious if our own social conditions be considered. As mentioned above, a father in our society loves his child in a great measure because he knows that it is his own offspring. In societies in which the idea of consanguinity (in the social sense) does not exist, such a connection between feelings of paternal love and knowledge of a physiological procreation would be impossible. And it would be of the highest sociological interest to trace what form such connections assume. An attempt at such a study would be possible in our own society and in other highersocieties, although there would be serious difficulties enough. But there would hardly be sufficient material to attempt it in any lower society, and there is absolutely no possibility of doing this for Australia.
A brief summary of the foregoing argument may now be given. It was stated at the beginning that parental kinship corresponds to a very complex and manifold set of phenomena; moreover in various societies this relationship is determined by various elements. The problem is to find in all this complexity the structural features, the really essential facts, the knowledge of which in any given society would enable us to give a scientifically valid description of kinship. In other words, the problem is to give a general formula defining kinship, which would state its constant elements and give heed to the essential varying elements therein; that formula being on the one hand not too narrow for application to the various human societies, it would be on the other hand not too vague to afford quite definite results when applied to any special case. A final solution of this problem cannot be arrived ata priori, but only by way of induction, after the facts in the different human societies have been studied. And in order to attempt such a preliminary study of the Australian facts, the foregoing remarks have been given; they aim at a general definition of the kind just described in the form of a tentative or preliminary sketch. Consequently in the first place the attempt was made to ascertain what could be taken as the constant elements in individual parental kinship. What appeared to be nearly universal in this connection is the fact that infants and small children are always specially attached, and stand in a specific close relation to a man and a woman.[565]The woman is invariably their own mother, who gave them birth; the man is the woman's husband. The existence of this group, which may be called the individual family, is the basis upon which kinship may be determined; it isthe condition under which it is possible to speak of individual parental kinship in any given society.
But it was shown that the knowledge of these facts is not sufficient to yield a precise idea of maternal and paternal kinship, and that many of its manifold aspects of foremost sociological interest would remain unknown if the inquiry were broken off at this point. These latter aspects depend upon factors which are by no means constant in all societies, but have a very wide range of variation depending on the general social conditions. A discussion of the concept of consanguinity has shown that the variations go so far as to affect the main question of paternal kinship: "Who is the father (in the social sense) of a child, and how is he determined?"
In order to indicate in which direction the varying general conditions of society must be investigated so as to yield all that is essential for the sociological knowledge of kinship, it was found most convenient to range the facts in two main lines of inquiry: (1) The different sets of facts which express the central collective idea of what fatherhood is; and the various other collective ideas—legal, customary, moral—of a normative character referring to the relation in question. The social facts in which these ideas must be looked for are: Beliefs, traditions, customs referring to the relation in question (as for instance the couvade type), and functions of kindred such as legal duties and obligations between parent and child. (2) The facts in which the expression of the collective feelings characteristic of the relation in question is to be found. The facts of daily life, as well as the dramatic expression of feelings, come in here. The emotional character of the parental kinship relation is of the highest importance in determining the social feature of this relation, and for the comprehension of its social working.
These points of view will be applied hereafter to the discussion of the Australian parental kinship. But in order to illustrate here their theoretical bearing, a shortdiscussion will be given of some of the ways in which the concept of kinship has been applied to low societies by sociologists. Morgan's way of dealing with the meaning of kinship must be first mentioned.[566]He assumes without further discussion that kinship was conceived always and in all societies, even the lowest ones, in terms of consanguinity.[567]Our discussion of consanguinity shows how great a mistake it was on the part of Morgan to impute to the primitive mind a whole series of ideas which absolutely and necessarily must have been foreign to it. As was said above, primitive mankind was certainly wholly ignorant of the process of procreation, and the relation of the sexes cannot possibly have been the source of kinship ideas. How great a part this assumption plays in Morgan's deductions it is easy to perceive.[568]And he was led to it by omitting to discuss and analyze the concept of kinship, and by applying to low societies our own social concept of it.