ADVERTISEMENTS:
Origin of Family: Legendary Accounts and Theory of Primitive Promiscuism!
Legendary accounts of family origin:
To trace the origin of the family in the unknown past is a much harder task. Family has been found in every human society. It is hard to conceive of any stage of society wherein some degree of social regulation over sex relationships did not exist, and wherein family in one form or the other could be entirely absent.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus there can be no question of its having originated. Nevertheless, most people have within their folk lore certain mythical or legendary accounts of the origin of the family. Another is the Sanskrit myth which is in many respects similar to the Biblical story.
“In the beginning when Twashtri came to the creation of woman, he found that he had exhausted materials in the making of man, and that no solid elements were left. In this dilemma, after profound meditation, he did as follows: He took the rotundity of the moon, and the curves of creepers, and the clinging of tendrils, and the trembling of grass, and the slenderness of the reed, and the bloom of flowers, and the lightness of leaves, and the tapering of the elephant’s trunk, and the glances of deer, and the clustering of rows of bees and the joyous gaiety of sunbeams, and the weeping of clouds, and the fickleness of the winds, and the timidity of the hare, and the vanity of the peacock, and the softness of the parrot’s bosom, and the hardness of almond, and the sweetness of honey, and the cruelty of the tiger, and the warm glow of fire, and the coldness of snow, and the chattering of jays, and the cooing of the kokila and the hypocrisy of the crane, and the fidelity of the chakrawaka and compounding all these together, he made woman and gave her to man. But after one week, man came to him and said. “Lord, this creature that you have given to me makes my life miserable and so I have come to give her back, as I cannot live with her’.
So Twashtri said, ‘Very well’: and he took her back. Then after another week, man came again to him and said. “Lord, I find that my life is very lonely, since I gave you back that creature, I remember how she used to dance and sing to me, and look at me out of the corner of her eye, and play with me, and cling to me, and her laughter was music, and she was beautiful to look at, and soft to touch; so give her back to i.e., again”. So Twashtri said, “Very well”; and gave her back again.
Then after only three days, man came back to him again and said: “Lord, I know not how it is, but after all I have come to the conclusion that she is more of trouble than a pleasure to me, so please take her back again.” But Twashtri said, “Out on you! Be off! I will have no more of this. You must manage how you can.” The man said. “But I cannot live with her.” And Twashtri replied: “Neither could you live without her.” And he turned his back on man. The man said “What to be? For I cannot live either with her or without her.”
Theory of Primitive Promiscuism:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Some early anthropologists as J. L. Lubbock. L. H. Morgan, J. G. Frazer and recently R. Briffault have put forward the theory that “the original state of mankind” was one of animal-like sexual promiscuity with no stable marital relationships among them. There was neither family nor marriage but there were only promiscuous relations between men and women.
Briffault tells in his The Mothers that man originally lived in a state of social promiscuity and that the earliest human family consisted of a mother and her child. It was only after the mother began realizing the economic advantages of having a man attached to her that she tried to turn the casual attachment of the male into a more permanent relationship. He argued that such institutions as the sororate the levirate, sex hospitality, exchange of wives point to an early state of promiscuity.
The advocates of this theory were also impressed by classificatory systems according to which the members of the senior age group are indiscriminately called ‘fathers’ or ‘mothers’; those of the same age group ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’; and of the child age group, ‘sons’ or ‘daughters’.
Moreover, the ignorance of the fact of paternity reported of the Central Australians and the Trobriand Islanders was also cited by them in support of their hypothesis that at the beginning of human society there was no family in the accepted sense of the term.
Evidence refuted:
The evidences cited above, however, are not solid ones to refute the fact even in the earliest society known the family was an established institution. From the existence of the above facts it cannot be concluded that originally there was the state of promiscuity, as these facts can be explained on more logical grounds.
The classificatory system was a conventional device in order to observe the rules of exogamy. Under these rules all those women with whom marriage is forbidden may be called ‘sisters’, while the name ‘wives’ may be given to those women from whom it is permissible to choose a wife.
Even today we use the term ‘sisters’ or ‘brothers’ for our fellow members. As regards the ignorance of paternity, firstly, there is no agreement as to whether this ignorance is real or conventional. Malinowski thinks it to be real though he does not believe it to be a remnant of an early state of promiscuity. Moreover, most primitive peoples were not much troubled about physical paternity. Periodic license and prenuptial promiscuity are not incompatible with some forms of a marriage system.
Freedom of intercourse though not universal does prevail in some human societies. Freedom of conception outside marriage is, however, never allowed. In these societies where pre-nuptial intercourse is regarded as legitimate, marriage is yet a condition ‘sine qua non’ of legitimate children. Liberty of sexual intercourse is not, therefore, identical with liberty of parenthood.
Further, there is no information of any people on earth among whom sexual promiscuity existed as a permanent practice. Linton, a modern anthropologist, says, “The old concept of a promiscuous horde as the starting point for family development was required by the type of logic which made the Victorian family the last step in social evolution but there is nothing else to support it.” Westermark concluded that far from living in promiscuity, man originally lived under a monogamous form of marriage.
Family has no origin:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus, no clear traces of early promiscuity can be found among the primitive peoples. The family has no origin in the sense that there was ever a stage in society from which the family was entirely absent and that it was at a later stage that it emerged. Modern anthropological evidence supports the view of Lowie that the “family, and especially the bilateral family, has been an absolute universal unity of human society.”
Family has its origin in certain needs of man. Hence the origin of family cannot be explained in any historical fact or circumstance which at any stage in human history might have determined its existence, rather it is to be explained in a complex of human desires and conscious needs which find fulfillment in the family.
As soon as many felt these needs, family emerged to satisfy them:
(i) The need for procreation:
There is in the first place, the need for procreation of children in order to perpetuate the family. ‘The wish for children”, says Pliss, “apart from religious and moral motives, is rooted in the instinct of the self preservation of mankind. In general it belongs to the most urgent wishes of individuals, races and peoples and finds its expression in all immense richness of forms.” There is immense evidence to support this statement.
The absence of children in a family casts gloom over the unfortunate parents and sometimes causes domestic feuds and psychological in-equilibrium. The urge to have a child is said to be strong in the mother but in the father also it is no less developed. His desire to transmit his name and property to posterity, the need for help in old age inspire him to have an offspring.
(ii) Sexual urge:
Secondly, there is the need for sexual satisfaction. This need motivates man to seek a recognised basis for its satisfaction “to find some safeguard against the precariousness of unlimited competition.” The consequence of the sexual act is the family.
(iii) Economic needs:
Thirdly, the economic needs lead man and woman to combine into a family. The woman fulfills functions within the household, while the man undertakes functions outside. Both co-operating with each other lead a happy family life.
Besides these three needs of reproduction, sexual satisfaction and economy, there are also other reasons and urges on account of which people marry. To have a partner in life, to share life’s joys and sorrows, to get love and affection, tenderness and devotion, a man is led to marry and thereby establish a family.
From all this it may be concluded that family did not come into existence all of a sudden at a particular date but it emerged as soon as the above mentioned needs were felt by mankind. Its origin cannot be explained on an instinctive basis, it must be recognised as a cultural product.
If we are to speak of the origin of family, we can speak only in terms of its evolution consisting of its transformation from a small self-sufficient society to a specialized institution within a gradually enlarging society.
According to Morgan, the family has passed through five stages:
(i) Consanguine Family:
In this stage of family, marriage between blood relations was not forbidden.
(ii) Punalaunt Family:
In this stage restrictions were imposed on incestuous marriage. But sex relationships among different persons were not definite.
(iii) Syndasmian Family:
In this stage one man married one woman but the sex relationships of the woman married into the family were not clearly defined and certain.
(iv) Patriarchal Family:
In this stage man’s ascendancy was established. He could marry many women and have sexual relationships with them.
(v) Monogamous Family:
This is the present state of the family where one man marries one woman at one time.
It is difficult to believe that there has been evolution of the family in the same sequence of stages in all societies. Historical facts do not support Morgan’s theory. Linton remarks. Societies have not followed a single consistent line of evolution, but a multitude of diverging lines.