C:::A. - boLJUJ.-i--~·9~/' -=+­@::

210 Gayle Rubin \,.~('

- .."'t. .

and political analyses are incomplete if they do not conslder Karen Sacks women, marriage, and sexuality. TraditioDal.con~e~s....o~­thropology and social science--such as the evolutlon of social Engels Revisiled: Women, Ihe OrganizalionS&atit1catJon aod tbe::::zmgll'} ol the sEate must_be reworked

,1Q. include the implications ';)Tmatniate;ili cross-~.i.isin....maJ:.. O, prOdUC'Vd Private Properly ,ri@.ge, surplus extractea in_~!!..eJo~ 01 daughters, the conver­~ion~J~LJ~l'!\aIe. fii6or-.iñto male ...wealth, the conversion t;)f fimale lives in!Q..J!l~a.B~.,!llhlJ:tce!~~~ontribution of mar· .¡j-!l~to political power, and the transforrn~jlOnJ!WhlCh aU of . ~hese vanedJlSpects 01 so~iety...hava.undergone in the course ~(ti~e. - ­ This paper reexamines Engels' ideas on the bases oC women's

This sort of endeavor iS7 in the final analysis, exactly what social position relative to that of men. Engels ís almost alone Engels tried to do in his effort to weave a coherent analysis in providing a materialist theory-one that sees women's posi­of so many of the dlverse aspects of social life. He tried to tlon as varying trom society to society, or epoch to epoch, relate men and women, town and country, kinship and state, according to the prevailing economic and political relation­fonns of property, systems of land tenure, convertibility of ships of the society. Though he made Íl number ot speeificwealth, fonns of exchange, the technology of food produc­ ethnographic errors," 1 think his main ideas are correct-and tion, and fonns af trade, to name a few, into a systematic remain the best way of explaining data gathered since he historical account. Eventually, someone will have to write a wrote-namely ethnographic and historical data which show new version of The Origin o( the Family, Priuate Property, that women's social positlon has not always been, everywhere and the State, recognísing the mutual interdependence of or in most respects, subordinate to that of menosexuality, economícs, and politics without underestimating the full signiñcance ol each in human society.

This i. a somewhat revised version ol a paper oC the same lille lbat appeared In Woman, Culture, and Soe;~ty. edited by Mlehelle ZimbaJisl ROl&Ido and Louise Lamphere, and Is reprinted with the permission ol the publlshers, Stanford University Presa. Copyriaht© 1974 by the Board ol Truslees ol the Leland Stanlord Junior Univenily. SpeciaJ persona! thanks to Shelley ROlaldo and Louise Lamphere Cor facilila(,·

'. inf this reprintilla. Judith K. Drown, Kathleen Gouah, Bridaet O'Lauih· IIn, Dorothy Remy, Jean Willlam., anct§oon Younf Yoon aJl eontrib­uted a ¡reat deal to thia paper throuah tJleir valuable aUlrestions and critlcismL • I have exeluded enul:3eratlon or theae partJy for laek or .pace, but aJso beeauae they are substantively aecondary and are more than amply dealt wilh by othen. Two auch erron, however, are aermane lo the diacu.ion in this papero Enaela belleved that men were aJway. the collecton or producers ol aubaiatenee. It hu aince become clear that for ,atherin,-huntln, loeietie. the revene ia dOler to the norm (Lee and DeVo"" 1968); and lor horticultura! loeletJes, it ia often the women'.

211

Since capitalism has dominated anJ transformed the social orden oC most oC the worJd's peoPlerit is uselul to look to the past, as Eogels díd, through ethn graphlc and hlstorical reconstrucnon, both to undersLand th present state ol atlairs and to heJp shape the !uture. Lo~king at noncapltalíst WBYS 01 organizing economic and pol~íca1 relations and how these aClccted the relative positions ot men and women pro­vided l~ngels with an answer as to .,hy women were sub­ordinate lo men in capitaJist society, ~d what political and economic changas "ere needed lo end ~exuaJ inequaJity.

The Ori8ín o{ tñe Family, Private operty, and lhe State (1891) is more than an anaJysil ol ornen's status. It is a contrast between nonclass and class so ieties. Set in an evolu­Lionary lrameworlc, it shows how prív te property oríginated; and how, once on the scene, it und nnined an egaJitarian tribal order, creating Iamilies as econo ic units, inequaJity ol property ownership, and, ñnally, exp oitative class societies. IL includes a descriptíon ol how W'o n's social position de­clíned as priva te property gained str ngth as an organizing principie ot soclety, and weaves in an analysis ol why prop­erty had Lhe effect it did¡ specílicaU , how it transCormed women's work organizatiol.I and, rnore generaJly, the relation­ship ol property to class and sexo

The fínit part of this paper PUllS~tether sorne al Engels' key pointa on how the sexuaJ egalit anjsm ol pceclass soci­eties WIIS undermined by changes in amen 's work, and by the growth al the lamily as ao impo t economjc unit. U is a selective and somewhat intecpretive summary: selective in that it locuses on Engels' ide-as about!pubJic labor, the Cam­ily, and prívate property as they rel~te lo women 's status, and excludes his discusaion oC incest, ,xogarny , and the early

¡ T

borticullural actiYiliea whJc:h are lbe bula ~ aub.iltenc:e (lee Judith Brown, lbia yolume). En,ela alao beUned al tlJe domelUcaUon oC .mm... preceded eulUyaUon ol lb. ~U. ~ ay, u a reault 01 more ncent reaean:h, a more commonJy .ccItPt~theory ÍI lbat cuUivation and putorlliun developed It the SAIne te· in lb. aame milieu, u proCJUlÍ"ely divel1ent and lome"hat interd ,pendent .daptaUo'" (Lato timare, 1957).

stages ol human- social evolution in general"; interpretive in that ( have used sorne oC what has been learned'since Engels wrote as the lens through which to view his ideas. A second section redefines sorne oC Engels' termlnology and framework in the context ol nonclass societies. The third sectíon examines, using eLhnogrllphic data, Engela' ideas about the importance ol public labor, private property, and the lamily lor detennining women's status. WhUe these indeed appear lo be lactora determining wornen's position, this examination suggests sorne modification oC Engels' idea that women are eitñer social adults or witely dapendents, Baaed on this modí­fication, namely that the exis~nce 01 private property does not dilectly lead to a lower social status lor wornen, the Courth section suggests an altemate explanation lor Engels' obssrvation that class societies have used the Camily to cir­cumscribe and subordínate women..

Women in Enge/s' Theory: A Reeonstruction

Engels presents a historical procesa by which women are transformed from free and equal productive members of socio ety to subordinate and dependent wives and wards. The growth ol maJe·owned prívate property, with the lamily as the mstitution that appropriates and perpetuates it, is the cause oC this transfonnation;

According to Engels, in the early stages ol society produc­tive resoueces were owned communally by the tribe or the clan. Food had to be collected and cooked daily. Production WIUl lor use only, that is. to meet people's subsistence needs. There was no surplus produced COl exchange.** The group,

• For a rull disclWion or En.eU' entire "ork in the Iigbt or current knowlede., Eleanor Leacodl:', Intro.!uc&ion to the 1972 .dition iI oC by Importance. ~athleeR Gou.h, in "The Orilin or lbe Family" ( 1971 and lbll .olwn.), and in "An An&hropololilt Loob at Eneell" (1972), providu important reexaminatiof15 oCEn,eb;' theory oC "omen. .~ Thou,h Engell doe, not deal with lbis situalion, people in many Donel... and noncapitaliat ,odetie. do in r.d produce ror excbanle. Tbe questlon oC ho" produc:tloo Cor exchan¡e in tb ••••ocíetie. diller¡

214 Karen Sachs .

consisting of husband, wife, and dependent children, was neither a productive unit nor one for perlorming housework -,-¡or did it own property. Since Engels saw economíc func­tions (production, consumptíon, and property ownership), as defining the lamilYt and since this group was in no way an economic unit, the ·family did not exist at this stage; it had not precipitated out ol the larger household. The household, which was the basic social and economic unit, was commu­nistic in that all food stores were held in common, and all work was done lor the household rather than lor individual members or couples. Women did the housework and ran these households.

In the old communl:ltic household, whlch embraced numerous couples and theír children, the admínlstratlon or the household, entrusted to the wO'.nen, wu just as much a public, a socially necessary Industry II!. the providing of lood by the meno (Engels, 1891:120)

Instead of the lamily, the context 01 men's and women's life and labor was a larger group based on kinship or resi­dence in a common territory. This was a cornmunal property­owning group, called the gens by Engelll. Although indio viduals of both sexes owned tools and oersonal effects, on their death these passed 10 other members of the same SE:! in their gens, not necessarily to their owJ1 children. Decision­making, both economic and political, involved the equal par­ticipation of all members, both men and women. Both sexes were equal members of the group because both made crucial contributions 10 its economic life.

Engels concluded that the absence of private property made men 's productive work and women 's household work of equal social significance. Men and women were simply involved in diflerent stages of the productíon of the same

Crom lhat oC capitaJi.t .ocietiea iI a complex one. A load dilcuuion 01 the Cundamental dlCCerence. involved can be Cound in Manhall Sahlln., Stone Are Economica (l971).

Engels Reuisited 215

kinds of goods-the production of subsistence. AH produc­tion was of the same kind: production for use.

Engels focused on the public ríghts of women in the enrly stages of society: their participation in political decisión­making and (lor the lroquois) their collective right to depose a chief. These rights carne from membership in the gens. which in turn was based on the perfonnance of public or social labor. He was also impressed with the high status of a wife relative to that o!-her husband, which he attributed to the solidarity and kinship among the wornen, who were the core ol the household.

The material base lor women's transfonnation from equal members ot society to subordinate wives lay in the develop­ment of valuable productive resources, initially the domesti­catión of large animals, as private property. For Engels,. the words "prívate" and "property" had a specific meaning. Only goods or resources with productive potential could be consid­ered property. He was aware that people held personal goods individually. Though these were prívate, they were not prop­'erty in the sense Engels meant the word. Only things with productive potential can be considered property. Tools (pro­ductive means) are unimportant because the skills and materí­als for their manufacture are equally available to all. In non­industrial societies, the most important types of prívate property are domesticated animals and cultivated land. These are productive resources.

Engles' use of the word "private" is broader than íts use under capitalism-where there 'are almost no restrictions on what the owner can do with property. For Engels, prívate seems to mean property owned by an individual or by a famUy where rights to manage it are vested in one of the owners. It also means that these goods can be disposed of with sorne leeway-that is, to acquire wives, clients, or service from others. Engels saw "gaining a livelihood" as always men's work, and the means ol production as aJways having been owned by the user (with the stipulation that inheritance remained in the geM). From this he reasoned that the earliest

216 KCJren SCJchs

private property, which seemed to be omestic animala, must have been owned by men." For Engel , prívate property be­l.ime possíble in hu~an history on when technological deveJopment and natunil resources allo ed a socíety to devel­op the skills needed te domestícate an mals or to ínvest labor in land so that ita productívity last for sorne appreciable length ol time. He believed that end ·ng productivíty led te enduring prívate ownenhip.

Domesticated animals were lLIsimila ed ínto the older pat­terns of tool ownership-that is, they were privately owned. Yet animals were a qualitativel)' new ind 01 item: they met subaíatence needs, and they :reprod ced themselves. The growth ol private property shattered he communal poli tica! economy of the gens. The fou.ndatio for ita egaJitarianism had been the collecUve owne.rship o productíve property. Now that property was privately owne (by men), the famUy grew in importance and soon oversh owed the gens as the key economíc and decísion-making oup. Unlike the gens, though, interna! family structure was n t egalitarian. Families contained propertyless dependents (~ women and children, and sorne propertyless men).

Prívate property transfonned the elations betwsen men and women within the hausenold o y because it also radi­cally changed the políticaJ and econom1C relaUons in thc~ larger society. For Engels the new weaJth ~dOmeStiCated animaJs meant that there was a surplus 01 oods available tor ex­change between producüve units. W¡ time, production by men specifically for exchange purpos~deVelOPed' expanded, and carne to overshadow the househo 's produdion tor use. Industrial capit.alism had now reach the stage where pro­

• It i.I worth notínr that Enle" DW these new itenu (domeaticated animal.. cultivated land) .. beinl auimiJata loto an already existin, lOCiaI contad: tIIe panern oCownin¡ penon eCCectl. The qualitatiyely dirterent nature oC thue new "effecta"- at tIIey could reproduce themaelyea and their Cruiu-Ied lo Ule de.· cUon oC the communal poliUcll.l and eeonomic order Lhat had crea ed them. Engel. doea not attribute Lbe development oC private prope to a ¡nedy maje nature.

Engels Remsited 217 . duction waa a1Jnost exclusively social, outside lhe household, and for ezchange, Ieaving women's work as prívate malnte­nance for (CJmUy use.

As production for 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. Women worked tor their husbands and families instead of for society as a whole. Prívate property made ita owner the ruler of the household. Women and other prop­ertyless dependents worked te maintain and augment the household head's property, for he was now engaged in com­petltive production and exchange with other heads of house­holds. Women's labor was a necessary but socially subordi­nate part of producíng an exchangeable surplus. Women became wards, wives, and daughters instead of adult members o! the society. .

Families perpetuated themselves through time by the in­heritance of property. Thus changes took place in the defini­tlon of children. From new members of a societal group, they became either prívate heirs or subordinate, dependent work­ers, This meant that women's reproductive labor, like theír productive work, also underwent a transformation from so­cial te prívate. That is, women bore men 's heirs-to both property and social position-whereas before they had borne new members of a social group that included men and wom­ell' People and property became intertwined, and each be­carne part of the definition of the other.

With the further development ol technology and accumu­latíon of weaJth, the property owners separated themselves trom their subordinate ldnsmen and allied with other prop­erty owners to preserve and defend their holdings against the claims of the nonpropertied. This marked lhe end of kinship­based' productive groups, and Ule beginning of class soc:.J~y

and the state.

218 Karen Sacks

Engels' Theory and Nonclass Societtes

To use Engels' concepts oC social labor and production for exchange and apply them to nonclass societies, I will have to redefine them so that they are more in líne with the ways these societies are organized. Engels' use of social or public labor in nonclass societies emphasizes work tor and in the context of one's own corporate property-owning group. But marriage often jolns two such groups; this leneral1y means that at least one partner is not working for and in the context of his or her natal group, At the same time, he or she is not necessarily doing what Engels would call dcrnestic work­work for one's own household. Therefore 1 will stretch his concept of social labor to include any work done (singly or in a group) for use or appropriation by someone of another household. Sorne examples of social labor, iIIustrated in the next section, indicate the wide range oC organizations it covers: participation in a cooperative worz group, tributary labor for a chief, corvée, collective Iívestock raiding, etc.

Engels' discussion of production tor exchange in the con­text of noncJass societies has to be amplified somewhat. People do not spontaneously work to produce a surplus as Engels implies (1891:264). There has to be some power forcing them to produce more than they use. People in all societies give hospitality and gifts, and these a1ways put the recipient under an obligation to mue a return. I~ a general way, as long as everyone has equal access to th¡; means of subsistence, production is planned to include hospitality and gifts, and these are things which everyone has or can expect to have by his or her own effort-and can thus make an equivalent return in goods. But when the means of subsis­tence are privately and unequally held, a recipient is often unable to make an equivalent retum in goods. He or she may then be expected to retum the favor with service and become a loyal dependent or client-follower, perhaps part of a retinue helping entorce unequal exchange.

Both situations, the return oC equivaJent goods and the return of sen/ice tor goods, are instances of exchange. But

Engels Reuisited 219

only the second gives one of the parties the ability to harness the labor power of others for his or her own ends. Thus the production of goods to gain control over the services oC others must also be included in production for exchange. Indeed, Engels argues that the domestic and private owner­ship o! cattle brought with it increased productivity of labor and the use of cattle to conquer or purchase labor to serve the wealthy (ibid.:265).

While production oC goods for trade or barter between groups exists in societies without private property, it exists in the fabric of a political economy geared principally toward production for use. Perhaps this fabric was rU"St rent when prívate property allowed the use of wealth to gaín fol1owers,* and then the need to use the productive and military labor ot one's fol1owers to crea te still more wealth to keep their loyal­ty. In any case, this particular kind of production for ex­change in nonclass societies goes hand in hand with prívate property, arad with economic and political inequality.

For example, there is wealth inequality and clientage in nonelass societies with large domesticated animals. These animals not.only contribute to subsistence, but they are also necessary in order for a man to marry and to have sorne political standing. Thus, in much o! East Atrica prior to imperialist rule, men obtained cattle from kinsmen or Crom service to a chief or other wealthy man, to whom they then owed loyalty in exchange !or the cattle. The production of cattle was a kind of production for exchange, in that loyalty and service were given for Iivestock and were used to aug­ment the wealth and power of the benefactor, whether kinsman or noto Regardless o! overlapping ríghts and obliga­tions of various people to the livestock, the cattle were pri­vate property because there was sorne choice in how they would be allocated, and because an individual was em­powered to make that choice.

• A dllcuulon o( lbe vuiety oCcondltion. under which loyal (ollowe... would be d••irabJe betonl' in a conaideriltlon o( lb. orilin o( .tratjfi­eatlon and th. ,tate, wbicb 11 beyond lb. teope o( tbi. papero

220 Karen Sacks I

Women as Social Adults and Wiues: Fo~r African Societie»

Though Engels has an integrated ¡eory, at the risk oC sorne distortion I would líke to sep ate out two sets oC ideas: (1) Thcse about the immediate eterminants or mate­rial bases of women's .tatus-that cial or public labor makes men or wol'nen adult citizens n the eyes ot society and that men 's ownership ol prívate property establishes their dominance over women in th~ lwniJy and society. (2) Those about the evoJutionary aspec~-that women's status became solely subordinate and domef.tic with the develop­ment of maJe private property, prodJion for exchange, and elass society.

In this section I will discuss the im diate determinants of women's status by using ethnograPh'iJlustrations. This has the advantage of focusing first on the material bases of women's posítíon. Even iC Eng~ls is . ht in a general way, that women are worse oCf. in class th in nonclass societles, we stiJl need to know what gives . e to this state. Using ethnographic reconstruction allows u~to look at sorne of the variety in women's status in noncapit ist socíetíes-rnonclass as well as cJass-and to use the co parisons 10 illuminate Engels' ideas.

1 do not believe that Engels' evol tionary explanation ls correct as it stands: there iS too m eh data showing thal women are not the complete equals men in most nonclass societies lacking private property. Th re are also rnany soci­eties, with and without classes, whe women do own and inherit property. The final section wi use some illustrations from class societies 10 suggest a di! erent route to Engels' conclusions.

The following illustration is a reco+struction, mainJy from ethnographic sourcea, ol women's p~&ition in tour African societies prior to the imposition ofe~r.ectiVe imperialist dom­inati.ln. •

f

• Thi. Mction slUDmarize. a portian oC my di.uen.tion (Secks, 1971). TI_eae 1I0cieIJe. were selected from the wri~inp on Eut ....d So.,them Arrica beca.,.e the data on women are adeduate .... d comparable. Tbu

Engels Reuisiteti :¿:¿l

The .Mbuti oC Zai"re can be characterized as a barid society with subsistence based on communal net hunting and the gatheríng oC vegetable lood. In South Aírica, the Lovedu were principally hoe agriculturalists, while the Pondo como bined agriculture with Iivestock. The Ganda, a class society in Vianda, were also hoe agriculturalists.

If we place these societies on a continuwn from egalitarian 10 class socíety, our rankings can be seen 10 hold in three principal respecta. First, Mbuti and Lovedu have economies oC production for use; the Pondo have the beginnings of pro­duction for exchange centered aroWJft"attle; and in Ganda production for exchange is quite important. Second, in Mbuti and Lovedu both sexes perform social labor in a use econ­omy; among the Pondo, this remains the organization of women's labor, but the men perform social labor at least in part in an exchange economy; and in Ganda women 's work is individual domestic production for household use, while men work in groups, almost totally in productlon for exchange. Third, the Mbuti band owns the productive resources; these aru largely patrilineal fwnUy estates in Lovedu and Pondo; and in Ganda they become leas enmeshed in family obliga­tions and are in male hands.

Among the Mbuti, Lovedu, and Pondo, women's produc­tive activities Ale social and women have an aduJt social status. In Ganda, where women's 'productive activities are domestic, the status of woman i.& that 01 wife and ward only -despite the fact that women produce tbe bulk of the food. Thia suggests that Engels is right in seeing publíc or social labor as the basís for social adulthood. A more detailed look, however, shows that women do not have to be eharacterized as either social aduJu or wifely wards. Rather, the data sug­leat that women can be both simultaneously, and that women's status in a marital relationship seems to vary inde­pendently 01 their statUJI in the larler society. Engels does seem correct in seeing the status ol wife relative 10 husband

lQany upeclr-for e:Eample. concernin, womeh in trade ....d mukelihl rol.-tboulh &hey are important, .imply cannol be deall wi&h here.

222 Karen Sacha

as dependent on their relationships to the property01 the : household; that is, the spouse who owns the property rules the household.

Table 1 summarizes some índices of women's status in socio ety and in the lamily, and their relationship to women's organization 01 productive activities and to property owner­ship. * EssentiaJly, Mbuti and Lovedu women are the equals ot men, whereas Ganda women are subordinate, and Pondo women tall somewhere in between. The ñrst nine variables I see as representing social adulthood, and the lirst five 01 these involve egalitarian relationships with people outside the household.

A look at the ñrst variable, mutual-aid relationships, sug­gests that social adulthood is based on perforrning collectíve social labor. Though the Mbuti have no categories of relation­ship that are specifically identifiable as mutual aid, Lovedu men and women both have some sort of age groupings that are mobilízed to do sorne work for the district head and queen.** For women, at least, those of a neighborhood age group mhy take col1ective action against the group of a person who has offended one of its members. Pondo women of a neighborhood work together and cooperate in the per­formance 01 girIs' initiation ceremonies, and women of the same household cooperate in arranging extramarital sexual affairs. Women's collective action ís recognized by men when they collectively punish women and gills for what they deem to be sex olfenses. Ganda men enter a number 01 mutual-aid reIationships with nonkín, or even non-Canda; women have no such reIationships.

Self-representation in legal proceedings indicates that a woman is regarded as able to be wronged or to do wrong in the eyes 01 society, as is the case among Mbuti, Lovedu, and

• The variablel and lbeir catelorization, rather lban beinll detenuined in advanee by a IOllical .cheme, emefled u • relult ol comparinl the pOIition ol women in eaeh al lheae Courloeieti.l. ... "Queen," the lide uI.d in th. ethnoluphiel, ia a milnomer. Thoe olnee i. aelually that ol a tribal chiel, earryinl moral luthority but \IUle If any c:oercive power.

Engels Reuisited 223

Tab/~ I Wom~n 's Social and Domestic Status Compared with Men ~

in Four African Soc¡~ties

Discrimlnation against women's participatian

Indexes of women·s status Mbuti Louedu Pondo Ganda

Social

Mutual lid n.a. nene non~ active Self-representation none none none active SoclaIlzlng opportunlty non. none none active Extramaritalsex none none none active Dívoree none nene none active Social disposal oC wealth none none active active Polltica! otñce none none active active Extradomestlc dispute settlement none none active acti,e Extradomestic mediatlon

with supemalur.d none none active active

Domestic

Wlfe's inheritance of marital estate none active active active Wlfe's autbority OVI!r

domestlc afrain none active active actlve WU. 81 priyate reproducer

(adultery compensatlon) none active active active Menstrual and

preenancy restrietlons none weaJc weaJc active

Note: Ownenhip ol malor produetiv. resourees: the band in Mbuti. the lamUy In Lovedu and Pondo, and th. individual in GandL Collec:tive aoelal produc:tion by ..omen. u allainat that by men: equal in Mbuti and Lovedu, unequal in Pondo, and abaent In GandL

224 Karen Sachs

Pondo. A Ganda woman, by contrast, needs a male guardian (generally a husband or lather) to br ng her case 10 court. The guardien is held responsible lor her acts and receives compensation lor wrong5 done to her. ~ .

Though Mbuti, Lovedu, and Pondo en and women pertí­cipate in most of the same social acti~ ties, in the latter two societies young wives are kept busy at domestic work, which significantly restricts their ability to e ~oy these events. But as older wives, as sísters visiting theirl own kinsmen, and as . diviners, women attend social events ~ treely as do men. In Ganda, a large portion ol the social Bftivities are patrón- or state-oriented; lrom these, women are ~xcluded.

Mbuti and Lovedu have a single stahdard regarding extra­marital sexual aflaíra. Pondo women ~iew their extramarital allairs as right and proper, but the menisee women's aflairs as irnmoral. A Gánda husband may kili his wile lor real or sus­

• I

pected adultery, but a wile has Jittl, recourse against ber husband. Men may use the courts to deal out severe punish­ment to their wives' lovers. In genera1~ Ganda restricts extra­marital sexual activity much more than do the other soci­eties. Exceptions are made lor high-nlJlking men who have affairs with peasant women, but men land women in the re­verse situation are punished severely. i'ehudi Cohen's (1969) poínt that restricted sexual activity serves to strengthen the marital bond at the expense ol bonds ¡Wh ích could serve as a basis lor rebellion in class societies seems borne out here.

While marital and social status are v*ry closely related, the ease of divorce lor men versus women indicates the relative importance ol marital and social statu; lor each. In Ganda a husband can effectively end a maniage ¡by simply ignoring his w.ife, but a woman who wishes a divqrce must contend not only with her husband but with her ~rother, who is partial guardian and generally acta to presE'''Ve ~he marriage.

Being able to give and receive lo«d and items ol social exchange is the 'material buis lor exer!cising polítical power. Engels suggests that real power devel~ps only with produc­tion tor exchange and private propert~. In societies without these-that is, in societies based on Pfoduction lor use-the

Engels Reuisited 225

perfonnance ol socia} labor gives a person the right to join with other adults ID making political decisions and settling disputes. This is because politlcal decision-making and dis­pute setUement are responsibilities of adult members ol an egalitarlan society. Among Mbuti and Lovedu both sexes give and receive lood. Lovedu women give ami receive catUe and may marry a wile with them; they become husbands in social status. Pondo women, though they are social producen, cannot dlnpose ol the most important exchange item: live­stock. Perhaps the explanation líes in the nature of Pondo production lor exchange. Women's agricultural work is for use; work ís geared over the long and short run to the needs ol the households. But men 's organization lor livestock raid­ing involves them in production for exchange. Over the short run, warfare is geared more to the power need 01 a cruel,' who keeps a loUowing by having catUe to dlstribute, than to household needs. Over the long run a chief keeps power by actually distributing catUe more or less widely. He owns the cattle captured in warlare, but sooner or later he distributes them among the warriors by virtue of their role in raiding. These livestock are the chief's lo allocate. They are the most important ítem ol exchange (in bridewealth, loans, and feasts], and ol establishing long-term relationships (marriage and service). Because Pondo women do not partícípate in production lor exchange [raídlng], they cannot dispose of the property which establishes these power relationships. Thus, they do not hold overt political power.

Lovedu women hold polítícal olfice, enter the decision· making arenas ol the society, and predominate in officiating in religious rituals on behall of their lineages. Ganda peasant women are barred lrom even the minimal access to polítical positions available to peasant meno Yet the mother and one sister ol the ldng do hold important olfices and exercise sorne power predicated on their relationship to the king.

A wile's position vis-a-vis her husband is based on her ownership, or lack ol it, ol the marital estate. In Lovedu, Pondo, and Ganda, productive resources are inherited patri­lineally. Here there is a contradiction, or opposition, between

226 Karen Sacks

the tact thnt production is organized in a social oro public way, but that lamilies or individuals appropriate and inherit the productive resources. A wíte does not participate in the ownership ol resources ot her marital household. On the other hand , the Mbuti's appropriation tor use by families seems to me qualltatívely dilferent from the appropriation tor inheritance and exchange ot the other societies. Mbuti resources are owned by the territorial band as a whole. Resi­dence entitles a person to use these, and there is no ínher­itance. Thus, Mbuti husbands and wives have the same rela­tionship to the band resources.

Lovedu, Pondo, and Canda wives labor tor their husbands and their husbands' patríkin, but 'do not belong to the group that appropriates the product ol their labor. Wives provide heirs, raise child.ren, and do the bulk ot the domestic work under the authority ot the husband and his kin. They do not represent the household to outsiders. By contrast, Mbuti mar­riage carries no restrictions on a woman's authority over her work, children, or socializing. Her tertility cannot be said to be private since her husband receives no compensation tor her extramaritaJ sexual relationships.

Menstrual and pregnancy restrictions on women's activities among Lovedu, Pondo, and Ganda seem to operate to sepa­rate women's reproductive tunctions trom contact with the social production ot exchange goods; that is, trom contad with warriors, cattle, crait, and some medical practices. In these three societies children inherit property and continue the tamily line. Regardless ot how women 's productive activi­ties are organized, their reproductive potential is prívate, But among the Mbuti, where children are social members rather than private heirs, menstmation and pregnancy are not sur­rounded by any such restrictíons. This contrast suggests that menstrual and pregnancy restrictions are based on private property, antl that they serve to symbolize a contradiction between social production ot exchange goods and private or lamilial appropriation. Since men are also involved in the reproductive pracess, and contain the same contradiction. logically they should-and actually they do-tace analagous

Enge/s Reuisited 227

restrictions. Lovedu, Pondo, and Ganda men must separate sexual relations trom their participation in social production lor exchange. By contrast Mbuti regard the collective hunt as an ideal time lor sexual lialsons,

A final point rernains. Though Canda is a class society, 1 have not dealt with the diflerences between women of rulíng and peasant tamilies. There are severa! privileges accorded to wives, sisters, and daughters ol the king. Each category ot ruling-class women shares sorne privilege with ruling-class men which distinguishes them lrom peasant women: fréedom tram productive labor for some wives; sexual freedom tor sisters and daughters; political and economic power lor the ..•.. queen mother and sister. But none ot these women has all the privileges of the men of their class, which seems 10 reflect the contradictory position ot ruling-class women: they are ot a privileged class, but ol a subordinate sexo I have not dealt with thern in depth because their existence does not reaHy change the generalizations made on the basis ot peasant women. This should not be surprising il we recall Queen Victoria and her times in England, but it should rnake one wary ol generalízatíons based on a lew women holding prom­inent positions.

Though I have separated women's position as wives frorn their position as social beings, in reality the two are inter­related. Wilely subservience reduces the ability ol Lovedu and Pondo women to exercise their social prerogatives. They are held back trom social activities to the extent that they work under the authority ol husband and his kín. Similarly, while Pondo women may become diviners, and while most diviners are women-allowing the women opportunities tor travel, soclalízíng, and financial reward-they may not be initiated to practice without their husband's consent.

Things can work the other way also. It a woman is socially regarded as an adult, this can limit the extent to which ahe can be subordinated as a wile. Thus. while a Pondo woman's lertility may be said to belong to her husband, and while he may claim compensation lor her extrarnarital sexual altairs, this is a matter between meno Women regard these aflairs as

¿,..u ... u, "" ....U ..,... I

proper, and are assisted in arranging thefll by their husband's own kinswomen. Moreover, should a wo*,an choose to end a marriage or vlslt her own kin, there is lidUe her husband can do to prevent it.

I have suggested that there are two position-women as social adults, and that these can vary somewhat indepen enUy. What deter­mines how, or whether, women are reg ded as adults is not the same as what detennines their po itions vis-a-vis their hwsbands. Basically, women are social adulta whe,re they \yor collectively as pan ol a productive group larger than or sepuate lrom t oír domestlc es 15 me . he meaning and status ol "wife,"""lhough. epen on thesture ol the lamily in much the way Engels suggests. Where he estate is lamilial, and the wife works lor it but does not sh in its ownership, she is in much the same relationship to er husband and his kin as is a worker to his boss. Where here are no private estates, or perhaps where the family es te is jointly owned, the domestic relationship is a more eg it.arian one (Friedl, 1967). This last point is overstated, sin e the domestic and social spheres ol lile are not really inde mdent, On the basis ol the American experience, lt is dilfic lt to conceive ol a completely egalitarian domestic relation hip when only the male partner is regarded as fully adult béyond the bounds of the household. J Women in Class Societies: A Reinterprettion .

1f we agree that the position ol wJ~en decli'ned from Mbuti and Lovedu to Ganda, as i1lUS~~ed aboye, in direct correlation to the domestication ol wo en 's work and the. development of production for exchan and private prop­erty, it is tempting to conclude that E gels was right alter all-that prívate property and ¡;>roducti<f lor exchange lead to women's domestication and subordinr.tion. Many anthro­pologists accept something like Engels~ E'ew ol the relation­ship between private property and the owth ol social in­equality and classes. While 1 suspect th. t Women in general

AI,t6Coh' ... '-c.".", ...c.~ ~M'"

stand in more equal relationship to men in nonclass socíeties than in class societles, I do not think that male propero QJIQlcnhip is the basis lor the male's supremacy. First, not all males own (![oductive propeltr. Second, In many clan ocieties-even m those wlEh attero 01 mate

dommance-women as we lllI men own productive property, arnra- wlfe's ownership ol properu gives her a substañtl Q.unt ol domestic power vis-a-viii ber bllsband (ibid.). But

class societies make a sharp díchotomy between the domestic and public spberes ol lile, and th is domestic power is not translatable into social power or posítion in the public spbere. Moreover, in class societies tbe economic and polítical autonomy ol a bousebold is quite restricted. Tbus, in neces­sary dealings in tbe public sector women are at an overt or covert disadvantage. This probably militates against even domestic equality.

It seems likely, then, tbat in class societies tbe subordinate position of women derives not from domestic property rela­tions but from sometbing outside tbe housebold whicb denies women adult social status, Tbe question is tben wby do male publíc power and ideais of male socia! dominance pre­

'domínate in class societies? For an explanation, tbe fOl'US bas to shift from tbe domestic to tbe societallevel.

We have seen that public or socia! labor is tbe material basis for adult social status, lt foUows tbat a society would have to exclude women from public labor or in some way denigrate women's perfonnance of sucb labor in order to deny tbem social adultbood for any lengtb of time. * Tbe fonner seems to have been the case, at least for many pre­capitalist agrarian states oC Eurasia (Boserup, 1970). Leaving aside lor the moment tbe apparent exception of industrial capitalism, wbat were the circumstances tbat may bave led class societies te exclude women from socia! production?

• An euJier ....nion or lhil paper arrued lhal all precepilaHst el... locietiea excluded women rrom public labor. Kalbleen Goulh hu polnted out (penonal communication) thal lbia wu nol lbe cae in precapilaliallndian ltalea. I haye lhu. modified lhis lediaR.

230 Karen Sacks

Class societies are exploitative, which means that many people must work (or the benelit ot a few. While tithes and taxes on domestically produced goods can serve this end, even agrarian societies do not rely exclusively, or even mainly, on this fonn of production. Corvée for public works, both sumptuary and productive, conscription and predatory war, and collective agricultural or wage work tor the rulen­a1l collective fonns of social or public labor--are important productive activities in class societies. While these may not necessarily seem large trom the local viewpoint, they are crucial nationally-for creating the "surpluses" by which rolers and their states are maintained.

Though women may or may not engage in domestic agrio culture, they seem rarely to participate in these large-scale forms o( social production. It seems that class societies tend to socialize the work of men and domesticate that ot women. This creates the material and organizational foundations for denying that women are adults and allows ruling classes to define them as wards of meno

But why would this happen in a class society? With the c'Jevelopment of socialized production for a ruling class, domestic production (or subsistence becomes more preeari­ous, forcing people into greater reliance on production (or exchange-Iaboring for the rulers in exchange for their subsis­tence (arternatively, rulen can force people to work for them as a condition of access to subsistence resources). Ruling ~lasses tend to select men as social laborers partly because they are more mobile, but probably more signiñcantly be­cause they can be more intensively exploited than women, not having to nurse and real children. t ...~\ 4- IJü 'L~~

Alice Clarlc (1968) provides rather gruesome data from seventeenth-century England, a period preceding and setting the social conditions tor later industrialization. Peasants were being torced off the land and swelling a class o( rural, landless laborers. The idea ot wages as something paid (or a task was not yet fuUy institutionalized; and it contlicted .with the earlier notion that an employer was in some way obUgated to meet the subsistence needs of the worlcer. Yet payments were

Enge/s Revisited 231

so low that a landless family had difticulty surviving. Aman or woman without children could survive, but prevailing re­muneration did not allow for reproduction and rearing of the next generation of laborers. Indeed, they did not reproduce themselves. Clark shows that the laboring class grew in size only from constant new recruits from the peasantry. Women and children were deliberately excluded lrom wage work by employers, who felt an obligation to, but could not or would not, bear the burden ot supporting nonprod r,ctive depen­dents. In human tenns the results were the abandonment of women and theirearly death, and in organizational terms a largely male public labor force.

Once such a dichotomy is made-women in domestic work (or family use, men in social production for exchange-there is an organizational. basis for a sexual divide-and-rule policy. Whether such policy is conscious or not is irrelevant. The effect ot state legal systems and other aspects of ideology developed mainly by ruling classes has been to convert differ­ences between men and wornen in terms oi their roles in production into differential worth. Through their labor men are social adults; women aredornestíc wards.

Men are more directly exploited and more ofien collec­tively so-a sítuation which gíves them the possibility of doing something about it, Women's field of activity and. major responsibility ís restricted to the household, which neither produces nor owns the means of production lor more than domestic subsistence, a level ot organization at which little can be done to institute social change in a class society. This situation has severaJ consequences. First, women are relegated to the bottom of a social pecking order (a man 's home is his castle), Second, because of their isolation and exclusion from the public sector, women can be used as a conservative force, unconsciously upholding the status quo in their commitment to the values surrounding maintenance of home, (amUy, and children. Finally, the famUy is the sole institution with responsibility for consumption and for the maintenance o( its members and rearing ot its children, the futúre generation o( exchange workers. It is necessary labor

232 Karen Sacks

for the rulers, but women are forcedlto perfonn it w¡tho~t compensation.

Modem capitalism hu maintained ~his pattern of exploít­ing the private domes tic labor of wom n, but since industrial­ization women have also been involv d heavily in public or wage labor. Meeting the labor burden that capitalism places on the tamily remains socially w men's responsíbility. Responsibility for domestic work is o e of the material bases for present barriers to women workil g lor money and lor placing them in a more exploitable po ition than men in the public labor force. As Margai'et Bens on (1969) shows, this domestic work ís not considered "re .. work beca use it has only private use value and no exchang value--it is not public labor. Women's greater exploltability] in the modern wage labor force may derive from a preindustrial adaptation to being excluded from public labor oro "caJly, because women were less exploitable in a pre-wage m lieu). Only after they had been defined as inadequate lor ublic labor were the1 conditions right for industrial caPitalijm to discover women as a source of cheap labor.

However, there have been precaPfaJist societies where women have participated in social pr duction, On the one hand, thís means that the exclusion ol women is not a neces­sary condition lOl their exploitation, or lor sexual divide­and-rule. On the other hand, the POSi!:t"n ol women involved in such labor seems to reinforee the th is that social labor is the material basis of social adulthood It suggests, too, that social adulthood is not synonymous Ith sexual equality in class :locieties.

At least some of the precapitalist st~tes of India contained a llU'J~e class ol state slaves-lor exa~Ple, the Chola and Vijayanagar empires.. Both men and women of this elus, which was recruited from the "exte 'or" or Untouchable castes, served as agricultural laboren lor religious, military, and govemment officials, as well as be~ng corvéed lor public

• AIl the ¡nfoonation on India has been mo~t lenerolllly supplled by Kalhleen Oough.

Engels Reuisited 233

works. However, women were paid considerably less Ior their labor than meno At the same time, Gough points out that in Untouchable tenant-farming and village-service castes or classes, where women work today for village communities in similar relationships of production, they "have greater sexual freedom, power of divorce, authority to speak and witness in caste assemblies, authority over children, ability to dispose of their own belongings, rights to indemnity for wrongs done 1;0

them, rights to have disputes settled outside the domest.ic sphere, and representation in public rituals." In short, women who perform social labor have a higher status yjs-a-vis men of jheir OWD class .than do Women who labor only in the domes­tic sphere or do no labor..

In sum, I aro suggesting two patterns: (1) Intensive exploi­tation in social produetion by and for ruling classes favored making this men's work. In tum, ruling classes capitaJized on the situation, legitimizing the division of labor by a thorough­going system ol differential worth. In retum for the loss of economic au tonorny, they coníerred upon men exclusive social adulthood and guardianship of women. Under these circumstances, even if women own property the state inter­yenes to limit what they can do with it publicly, and to subordinate the household to the larger society. (2) States incorporate women of the poorer or propertyless classes into social production. Here there is a "second Une of dp.(ense" against equality ínstitutionaliaed through pay differentials. While these women are sociaJ adults with respect to men of their class, economic policies prevent actual equaJity. The key aspect o( women's position, especially in class societies, i.s social adulthood, and this comes from participation in social production.

This brief examination of the bases of women's domestic and soci¡¡J status suggests sorne tentative conclusions about the kinds ol economic and social changes necessaI}' for full sexual equaJity. While property ownership seems important for women 's domestic position vis-a-vis a husband, the exer­cise of domestic power, particularly in class societies, is

234 Karen Sachs

Jimited by whether or not women have adult status 'in the social sphere. This in tum is determined by their particí­patio n in social production. But the dichotomization of lamily and society, which is especially strong in class soci­eties, malees women responsible for the production 01 prívate use value and makes men responsible for the production 01 exchange values. The distinction between production lor use and production for exchange places a heavy responsibility on women lo maintain themselves as well as exchange workers and to rear future exchange and maintenance workers. In this context, wage work (or social labor) becomes an additíonal burden and in no way changes women 's responsibility tor domestic work. For full social equality, men's and women's work must be 01 the same kind: the production 01 social use values. For this to happen, tamily and society cannot remain sepárate economic spheres al Iife. Production, consumption, child-rearing, and economic decision-rnaking all need to take place in a single social sphere-something analogous to the Iroquois gens as described by Engels, or to the production brigades al China during the Great Leap Forward. What is now prívate family work must become public work for

_w~me~n to become fully social adults.

Judith K. Brown

Iroquois Women: An Ethnohistoric Note

My purpose is to investigate the relationship between the position. 01 women and their economic role. At Ieast three possibüities are suggested in theIlterature, Robert H. Lowie (1961:201) felt that the two were unrelated, that in deter­mining women's status, economic considerations could be "offset and even negatlved" by historical factors. On the other hand, Bronislaw Malinowski (1913) maintained that the considerable economic contribution of Australian aborig­ine women confirmed their subservient position, since their labors were extorted from thern through male "brutaliza­tion." The opposite point of view is expressed by Jenness:

1( women amone the Iroquois enjoyed more privileges and pos­sessed (leater Creedom than the women o( other tribes, this was due ... to the Important place that acriculture held in theír eco­nomic Ii(e, and the dlstribution o( labor ... [which leftl the enUre cultivation ot the tields and the acquisitlon o( the greater part gt the tood supply to the women. (1932: 137)

His explanation for the high status of women among the Iroquois stresses the extensiveness al their economic contri­bution. A similar position is taken by B. H. Quain (1961),

Thia ia a reviaed and shertened venion oCBrown, 1970. Th&llks are due to the edlton ol Ethnahútory Cor penniuion to use portions oC lhat papero Tb. reMarch waa made pouible by lhe lleneroul support ol the aadellCCe lnatitute. MUda Kahne. Yin, Yin, Yuan, and Pe ter Bertocci hlve made numerous helpCul eQmmenl.s on prevíous venians oC the manulcript.

235