Before class society, the idea of a strictly monogamous pairing of males and females with their offspring–the nuclear family–was unknown to human society. Inequality was also unknown. For more than 2 million years, humans lived in groups made up of people who were mostly related by blood, in conditions of relative equality. This understanding is an important part of Marxist theory. This article investigates how society evolved from this situation of gender equality which made up the bulk of human existence, to the massive inequality that have defined the last few millennia.
Extracts from: International Socialist Review Issue 2, Fall 1997
Engels and the Origin of Women's Oppression
by Sharon Smith Presented as a meeting talk by Kevin H 14/05/2009 Before class society, the idea of a strictly monogamous pairing of males and females with their offspring–the nuclear family–was unknown to human society. Inequality was also unknown. For more than 2 million years, humans lived in groups made up of people who were mostly related by blood, in conditions of relative equality. This understanding is an important part of Marxist theory. Lewis Henry Morgan drew the conclusion, after spending a lengthy period living among the Iroquois in his native New York (state), that the kinship system used by the Iroquois traced all blood lines through the mother rather than the father (matrilineal vs. patrilineal descent). By studying other societies (initially other American Indian cultures), Morgan began to acquire evidence that human social organization had evolved, corresponding to changes in how people gained their livelihood. He outlined three distinct periods, each a progressive stage of social development. He called them "savagery, barbarism and civilization," reflecting the terminology of the Victorian period. The names have changed since then, but the basic outline remains valid: the stage he called "savagery" refers to hunter-gatherer or foraging societies; "barbarism" is a stage in which agriculture predominated, first with "slash and burn" agriculture, or horticulture, and later using advanced techniques, such as the plow and large-scale irrigation; "civilization" is a term still used, which refers to the developments of urban society and the beginnings of industry.
Morgan’s research helped support Marx and Engels’ long-held contention that a long period of "primitive communism" preceded class society. But it also helped Engels to clarify precisely how women’s oppression arose hand in hand with the rise of class society. Morgan’s careful study of the Iroquois showed two things: 1) that Iroquois women and men had a rigid division of labor between the sexes; but 2) that women were the equals of men, with complete autonomy over their own responsibilities and decision-making power within society as a whole.[21]
For example, Women elders participated in the deliberations of the decision-making council.
Morgan’s and others’ data on the Iroquois stand alone in proving that women’s oppression has not existed in all human societies. But it is worth noting that more recent research has provided a plethora of examples which show that women enjoyed relative equality with men in pre-class societies.[23]
For example, studies of !Kung bush people in the Kalahari Desert draw similar conclusions. Patricia Draper found that in !Kung hunter-gatherer societies, women contributed equally, if not more, to the food supply. She described the two sexes living in complete equality
The rise of class society
Human evolution has taken place over a very long time–a period of millions of years. The earliest human ancestors (Homo habilus) probably appeared some 2 million or more years ago, while anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) did not appear until 200,000 to 100,000 years ago. The earliest forms of agriculture did not begin until 10,000 years ago, and it is only over the last thousand years that human society has experienced much more rapid technological development.[25]
For most of human history, it would have been impossible to accumulate wealth–nor was there much motivation to do so. For one thing, there would have been no place to store it. People lived first in nomadic bands – hunter-gatherer societies – sustaining themselves by some combination of gathering berries, roots and other vegetable growth, and hunting or fishing. In most such societies, there would have been no point in working more than the several hours per day it takes to produce what is necessary for subsistence. But even among the first societies to advance to horticulture, it wasn’t really possible to produce much more than what was to be immediately consumed by members of the band.
With the onset of more advanced agricultural production–through the use of the plow and/or advanced methods of irrigation –and the beginnings of settled communities, in some societies human beings were able to extract more than the means of subsistence from the environment. This led to the first accumulation of surplus, or wealth. This was a turning point for human society, for it meant that, over time, production for use could be replaced by production for exchange and eventually for profit – leading to the rise of the first class societies some 6,000 years ago (first in Mesopotamia, followed a few hundred years later by Egypt, Iran, the Indus Valley and China).[27]
Engels argued that the rise of class society brought with it rising inequality – between the rulers and the ruled, and between men and women.
The crux of Engels’ theory of women’s oppression rests on the relationship between the sexual division of labor and the mode of production, which underwent a fundamental transformation with the onset of class society. As said before, in hunter-gatherer and horticultural societies, there was a sexual division of labor–rigidly defined sets of responsibilities for women and men. But both sexes were allowed a high degree of autonomy in performing those tasks. Moreover–and this is an element which has been learned since Engels’ time–women not only provided much of the food for the band in hunter-gatherer societies, but also, in many cases, they provided most of the food.[28] So women in pre-class societies were able to combine motherhood and productive labor–in fact, there was no strict demarcation between the reproductive and productive spheres. Because women were central to production in these pre-class societies, systematic inequality between the sexes was nonexistent, and elder women in particular enjoyed relatively high status.
All of that changed with the development of private property. According to the sexual division of labor, men tended to take charge of heavier agricultural jobs, like plowing, since it was more difficult for pregnant or nursing women and might endanger small children to be carried along. As production shifted away from the household, the role of reproduction changed substantially. Women became trapped within their individual families, as the reproducers of society – cut off from production. These changes took place first among the property-owning families, the first ruling class. But eventually, the nuclear family became an economic unit of society as a whole.
Chris Harman writes, "[T]he exact route from hunter-gathering through horticulture and agriculture to civilization did vary considerably from one society to another." But,
[t]he divergent forms under which class society emerged must not make us forget the enormous similarities from society to society. Everywhere there was, in the beginning, primitive communism. Everywhere, once settled agricultural societies were formed, some lineages, lineage elders or "big men" could begin to gain prestige through their role in undertaking the redistribution of the little surplus that existed in the interests of the group as a whole. Everywhere, as the surplus grew, this small section of society came to control a greater share of the social wealth, putting it in a position where it could begin to crystallize out into a social class.[33]
Karen Sacks summarizes the impact of private property on women’s overall standing in society:
Private property transformed the relations between men and women within the household only because it also radically changed the political and economic relations in the larger society. With time, production by men (namely agriculture and ‘heavy’ work) specifically for exchange purposes developed, expanded, and came to overshadow the household’s production for use... As production of exchange eclipsed production for use, it changed the nature of the household, the significance of women’s work within it, and consequently women’s position in society.[34]
From very early on, the nuclear family’s material roots in class society were crystal clear to Marx and Engels. Engels was undoubtedly correct–with more supporting evidence today than when he was writing–that the rise of the nuclear family brought with it a degradation of women which was unknown in pre-class societies.
Eleanor Burke Leacock describes how the rise of the modern family developed in response to the needs of a rising class society:
The separation of the family from the clan and the institution of monogamous marriage were the social expressions of developing private property; so-called monogamy afforded the means through which property could be individually inherited. And private property for some meant no property for others, or the emerging of differing relations to production on the part of different social groups. The core of Engels’ formulation lies in the intimate connection between the emergence of the family as an economic unit dominated by the male and this development of classes.[43]
For references see the original article on the IS Review site, or reproduced in full here: http://www.iso.org.nz/resources/discussion-documents/252-engels-and-the-origin-of-womens-oppression-study-group-reading-26407.html |
