Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
JEXLfn
&
JCIENCE
EVELYN REED
PATHFINDER PRESS
New York
C ontents
Introduction
34
54
73
87
98
114
127
161
Glossary
178
Bibliography
181
Index
186
Introduction
Science, by definition and tradition, is supposed to be totally
objective and free of bias. However, this is the ideal, not the
reality.
The activities and theorizing of the scientific community do not
proceed in a vacuum. They are subject to all the biases current in
the established social system; these affect, and sometimes warp,
their conclusions.
The influence of prejudice tends to be strongest in those
branches of science th a t are closest to hum an life and its history
and values. Among them are biology, sociology, anthropology,
and the two younger sciences called sociobiology and primatology. These are the disciplines discussed in this book.
The essays in this compilation do not disparage the genuine
discoveries and advances made by workers in these various
fields. They seek rather to show in w hat specific respects the
infiltration of pseudoscientific notions distort the facts and
obscure the truths to be found in them.
Much has been written in recent years about the racism to be
found in the conclusions of certain geneticists and other writers.
Less attention has been paid to the presence of sexist stereotypes
in the biological and social sciences dealt with in this book. Some
of these are being brought to light by partisans of womens libera
tion, who are more likely to be sensitive to them and aware of the
harm they do both to the pursuit of scientific truth and the cause
of social progress.
The first three essays in this book are primarily concerned with
the newer sciences of sociobiology and primatology, the last five
with the status of anthropology. All of them are by-products of
the same workshop in which my major work, Womans Evolution,
was fashioned; this collection can be regarded as a sequel and
supplement to W omans Evolution.
Evelyn Reed
November 1977
10
11
12
Sexism an d Science
top of the scale are the higher apes; a gorilla mother gives birth to
one child, which reaches sexual m aturity a t about eight to ten
and is full-grown a t twelve to fifteen. This slow rate of
developm ent is closer to h um ans th an to monkeys; a hum an child
reaches sexual m aturity a t thirteen and is full-grown at twenty to
twenty-five.
T his slow m aturation of in fan ts occurs only where mother-care
is prolonged, as it is am ong the higher apes. This is of param ount
im portance in the developm ent of their advanced traits. In the
lower anim als, where mother-care is of short duration, the
offspring are obliged to m ature rapidly to become self-supporting.
Among prim ates, which m ature much more slowly, the young
anim als can learn from im itation and experience, modify their
behavior p atterns, and acquire greater reasoning abilities and
intelligence.
Robert B riffault h as analyzed in detail the prime im portance of
prolonged mother-care in developing these traits. (The Mothers,
vol. I.) More recently, W ashburn and H am burg m ake the same
point. They write th a t m onkeys and apes m ature slowly and
there is strong reason to suppose th a t the m ain function of this
period of protected youth is to allow learning and hence
ad ap tatio n to a wide variety of local situations (Aggressive
Behavior in Old World Monkeys and Apes, in Primates, p. 464).
But there is another side to this prolonged period of mothercareits effect upon the females themselves. The more extensive
functions of the fem ales in providing for and protecting their
infan ts, together with the longer periods in which they exercise
these functions, m ake th e fem ales the more intelligent, capable,
and resourceful sex. T his aspect h as also been dealt with by
Briffault. It m ay explain why fem ales are so often selected for
intelligence tests and experim ents. As one writer complains, all
the intensively studied individual chimps, including those in the
language experim ents, are females. It is time th a t male chimps
dem and equal treatm en t (Joseph Church in a review of Ann J.
Prem acks book, W hy Chim ps Can Read, New York Times Book
Review, April 11, 1976).
T racing the line of continuity from lower to higher forms of
anim al life enabled the evolutionary biologists to show how and
why h um ans ascended from a branch of the anthropoid species
and no other. However, to appraise hum an life it is necessary to
go beyond the continuity of anim al evolution as such to the point
a t which a definitive discontinuity occurredwhen a jump was
13
14
15
16 Sexism an d Science
17
19
20
Sexism an d Science
been hum ans and never anim als. As the scientific evidence to the
contrary piled up, this assertion was displaced by its opposite:
hum ans have always been essentially anim als, comparable to
monkeys and apes.
This disavowal of the uniqueness of hum anity sometimes takes
subtle and indirect forms. One is in the realm of terminology.
Prim ates were formerly referred to as anim als, distinct from
m an, the hum an. Today the term nonhum an prim ate is
widely used, inferring, without explicitly saying so, th a t there is a
hum an prim ate not essentially different from the nonhum an
prim ate. Also, the term society, which belongs exclusively to
hum an organization, has been bestowed upon an endless range of
species, from primates down to ants and termites. So far oysters,
worms, protoplasm, and genes have been excluded, but perhaps
some biological determ inists will soon elevate these clusters into
societies too.
To be sure, every growing branch of science confronts a
problem with terminologyfinding words for new phenomena.
The automobile, for example, was called the horseless carriage
before it acquired a nam e of its own. Similarly, the term social
behavior was used in connection with the study of anim al
interactions and aggregate behavior. Thus, not only are primate
troops called societies but so are lower m am m alian species
such as lions, wolves, elephants, etc. These societies should
more properly be referred to as primate troops, elephant herds,
wolf packs, lion prides, etc.
According to Gordon Childes definition, society is a coop
erative organization for producing the means to satisfy its needs,
for reproducing itself, and for producing new needs (What
Happened in History, p. 17). While anim als, like hum ans,
reproduce themselves, no anim al species, including the higher
apes, have ever produced for their needs; much less have they
produced new needs. From the time of the first digging stick and
fist axe, these new needs have accumulated a t an ever accele
rating pace, spurred on by progress in productive know-how.
Only hum ans can produce the necessities of life as well as
produce new needs and the m eans for their satisfaction.
Production, in turn, cannot exist except in an organized social
arena in which all the adult members coordinate their efforts and
collectively provide for themselves and for the young and old
members of the group. As Childe points out, the experiences
gained in productive activities are pooled, and the techniques are
22
24
Sexism an d Science
P rim ate sexual dim orphism began when some prim ates left the
shelter of tree life to become more or less terrestrial anim als.
There is little difference in size between m ale and female gibbons,
w hich are arboreal anim als. Baboons, however, inhabit rocky,
open country and are surrounded by the large carnivores. As
Irven DeVore rem arks, Life on the ground exposes a species to
far more predators th a n does life in the trees (A Comparison of
the Ecology an d Behavior of Monkeys and Apes, in Classifica
tion and H um an Evolution, p. 313). Males in this species are
usually larger th a n females, and they also have long, sharp,
canine teeth.
Nevertheless, it is incorrect to view m ale anim als as protectors
of their fam ilies or defenders of their societies as hum ans
are. All anim als defend them selves either through fight or flight.
As W ashburn and H am burg put it, individual anim als m ust be
able to m ake the appropriate decisions and fight or flee
(Aggressive Behavior in Old World Monkeys and Apes, in
Primates, p. 463). Fem ales will fight to protect their young but
prefer to flee. Males will often turn and fight. But they do so as
individuals an d not as protectors of their families. Females are
26
28
Sexism an d Science
30
Two years later, after further studies, she resolved this question
in her own mind. She said:
unfortunately many popular writers . . . have misapplied the data in
order to sell books. Theyve used animal behavior as a justification
for what the authors like to think about human behavior. . . . We
cant use animal behavior to justify human foibles, and decide were
destined to behave with violence or force or male dominance because
its an irrepressible part of our animal nature. These are misleading
and dangerous assumptions [W estways, March 1977, p. 76].
32
Sexism an d Science
S o cio b io lo g y
and P seu d o scien ce
(1975 )
The em inent H arvard zoologist Edward 0 . Wilson, whose
specialty is the study of insects, m ainly ants, published an
authoritative work on the subject in 1971 called The Insect
Societies. T h at work h as since been largely incorporated into a
massive tome called Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.
With its 700 outsize pages, 120 of them devoted to glossary,
bibliography, and index, the new abundantly illustrated book
weighs nearly six pounds. For all that, it is retrogressive com
pared to his earlier work. Wilson has here amplified his entomo
logical studies with some reports on birds, m amm als, and
prim ates in order to draw exclusively biological conclusions
about hum an life and behavior.
Sociobiology is a word so new th a t it will not be found in
dictionaries fifteen years old. The term implies the fusion of two
sciencessociology (or anthropology), and biologyand the
correlation of relevant findings from both to shed light upon the
origin and nature of hum an society.
But Wilson does not weave the two together. He excludes the
decisive productive, social, and cultural factors th a t m ark hu
m ans off from all forms of anim al life and views all evolution,
social as well as natural, as predom inantly biological. This
interpretation is even more narrowly reduced to genetic evolu
tion. Since genes m ake up all organic life from bacteria to
hum an beings, Wilson perceives no qualitative jump from anim al
evolution to hum an evolution. In his view all species which
aggregate into groups (and all species do) are lumped together
indiscrim inately as societies. Wilsons book, despite its new
prefix socio, is really about biology.
This attem pt to explain hum an life in term s of anim als, birds,
34
and insects is not new. Biologism has been with us ever since
Darwin set forth his theory of evolution. Once the anim al origin
of hum ans was ascertained, the Garden of Eden m yth was
replaced by the scientific study of the genesis of hum ankind. This
required an exam ination of anim al evolution and then of the
socializing factors th a t transform ed a certain branch of the
higher apes into the first hominids.
Mechanical-minded thinkers, however, could not pass beyond
the biological factors th a t led to hum an life. They inflated certain
characteristics common to both hum ans and anim als while
underplaying or erasing the v ast distinctions between them. The
school of biologism gave birth to two m ain trends of thought: one
emphasizing anim al competition and the other anim al coopera
tion to account for hum an competition and cooperation.
P recon d ition s for H um anization
The first fostered social Darwinism , which is sometimes
called the nothing but school. Man, its proponents said, was
nothing but an anim al with a few extra tricks. The catchwords
struggle for survival and survival of the fittest were bandied
about to buttress the thesis th a t anim al jungle relations were
carried over into the m odem capitalist jungle. The proposition
th at hum an nature never changes m eant th a t hum an nature is
nothing but anim al nature.
The other tendency, offended by the one-sidedness of the toothand-claw theorists, affirmed th a t not only competition but cooper
ation could be found in anim al behavior. They pointed to the
social insects as confirmation. This thesis was popularized by
Wilsons predecessor a t H arvard, W. N. Wheeler, another re
nowned entomologist. In 1922, after the First World War and the
Russian revolution, he gave six lectures on the cooperative
insects th a t were subsequently published in the book Social Life
Am ong the Insects.
Wheeler was imbued with good intentions. He singled out the
insects, he said, because they represent N atures most startling
efforts in communal organization, and thus had developed a
cooperative communism so complete th a t in comparison the most
radical of our bolsheviks are ultraconservative capitalists (So
cial Life Am ong the Insects, pp. 5, 8). He appealed for worldwide
disarm am ent on the basis th a t if such organic cooperativeness
could exist am ong insects it could surely prevail among men. In
36
37
38
A nts, w asps, and bees (above) form aggregates for reproductive func
tions. Only hum ans can create the social organization required for their
productive and cultural activities.
39
40
Sexism an d Science
42
44
generally keep ap art from m ales except for the rutting season,
Wilson singles out the A frican elephant as a striking example of
a m atriarch in charge of her daughters and granddaughters.
These female-female bonds can be assum ed to last as long as 50
years, he writes. The m atriarch rallies the others and leads
them from one place to another. She takes the forward position
when confronting danger and the rear position during retreats.
Wilsons text is accom panied by a picture of these intelligent
anim als in protective form ation with their young. In the back
ground are peripheral m ales, two fighting each other for domi
nance (ibid., pp. 494-97).
In another instance Wilson speaks of the m atrilineal red
deer, where a female leads the herd and another female brings up
the rear. As with the African elephants, he points out, the adult
females and m ales stay ap art except during the rutting season
(ibid., p. 312). A gain, the caption of a picture illustrating the
reconstructed social life of the dinosaurs of m any millions of
years ago reads: A herd of females and young moves in from the
left, led by an old m atriarch. In the foreground two males fight
for dom inance (ibid., pp. 446-47).
Among th e carnivores, w hich stand higher in anim al evolution
th an the ungulates, Wilson shows th a t the lion pride is more
accurately a pride of lionesses; here too the m ales are peripheral.
The core of a lion pride is a closed sisterhood of several adult
females. . . . The degree of cooperation that the female members
display is one of the most extreme recorded for mammal species other
than man. The lionesses often stalk prey by fanning out and then
rushing sim ultaneously from different directions. Their young, like
calves of the African elephant, are maintained in something like a
crche: each lactating female . . . will permit [the cubs] of other pride
members to suckle. A single cub m ay wander to three, four, or five
nursing females in succession. . . . The adult males, in contrast, exist
as partial parasites on the females [ibid., p. 504].
Above the carnivores are the prim ates. Wilson writes th a t the
m acaques and chim panzees are m atrifocal in the choice of
helpers. The fem ales band together and tru st their infants to one
another. He notes of the rhesus m onkeys th a t the m other comes
to tru st the females and to use them as baby sitters while she
conducts foraging trips. Puzzled by this female cooperation, he
asks: Why should fem ales care for the infants of others, and
why should m others tolerate such behavior? (Ibid., p. 350.)
46
issue with Konrad Lorenz for m inim izing the competitive strife in
the anim al world. He writes,
The annals of lethal violence am ong vertebrate species are beginning
to lengthen. Male Japanese and pig-tailed macaques have been seen
to kill one another under seminatural and captive conditions when
fighting for supremacy. . . . In central India, roaming langur males
som etim es invade established troops, oust the dominant male, and
kill all of the infants. . . . Young black-headed gulls . . . are attacked
and sometimes killed by other gulls. . . .
The evidence of murder and cannibalism in mammals and other
vertebrates has now accumulated to the point that we m ust com
pletely reverse the conclusion advanced by Konrad Lorenz in his book
On Aggression [Sociobiology, p. 246].
48
50
52
A n A n sw er to
T he N ak ed A pe
and O ther B ook s on A gg ressio n
(1970 )
Since the early 1960s the U nited States, the most powerfully
arm ed n ation on earth, h as been conducting an onslaught
ag ain st Vietnam , a tiny nation far from its shores. This long
drawn-out, genocidal w ar h as produced wave upon wave of
revulsion am ong the Am erican people.
Massive, unprecedented antiw ar dem onstrations have been
accom panied by an intense interest in the root causes of m ilitary
conflict. M any A m ericans who once believed th a t w ars were
waged only to safeguard democracy rightly suspect th a t they
have been hoodwinked. They are coming to see th a t the only
gainers from such conflicts are the monopolists, who seek to
safeguard their empire and expand their power, profits, and
privileges through them. Thus a political aw akening is taking
place w ith regard to the real causes of im perialist aggression,
which are embedded in the drives and decline of the capitalist
system.
In the sam e tim e period a set of writers has come to the fore
whose books present a wholly different view of the causes of
organized warfare. They claim th a t m an s biological heritage and
his killer instincts are responsible for wars, absolving the
predatory capitalist system of all responsibility. Their paper
backs are bought by the hundreds of thousands and have been
high on the best-seller lists. They obviously influence the
thinking of m any readers who are anxiously searching for
answ ers to the problems of w ar and other social evils.
The principal figures am ong these capitalist apologists have
produced six such books in the decade. The pacesetter is Robert
Ardrey, who brought out African Genesis in 1961 and its sequel,
The Territorial Imperative, five years later. A third, The Social
54
56
58
complains. Anyone who chose the arm y for a career was a fool
or a failure. Indeed, after the First World War, certain words
almost vanished from the American vocabulary, among them
such fine patriotic words as honor and glory." And he
sorrowfully adds, Patriotism , naturally, was the last refuge of
the scoundrel.
Bent on changing this attitude, Ardrey warns th at the same
territorial im perative th a t is embedded in our instincts likewise
motivates the enemy. So if we are to save ourselves and our
property we m ust fight, fight, fight. He writes:
The territorial im perative is as blind as a cave fish, as consum ing as
a furnace, and it com m ands beyond logic, opposes all reason, suborns
all m oralities, strives for no goal more sublim e th a n survival. . . .
But todays A m erican m ust also bear in m ind th a t the territorial
principle m otivates all of the hum an species. It is not som ething th a t
A m ericans thought up, like the skyscraper or the Chevrolet. W hether
we approve or we disapprove, w hether we like it or we do not, it is a
power as much an ally of our enemies as it is of ourselves .and our
friends [ibid., p. 236].
60
62
64
Sexism an d Science
Some of the critics are gentler with Lorenz, who has made
certain contributions to n atural science. But they do not
66
Sexism an d Science
68
Sexism an d Science
that everyone can retreat from the stronger and expect submis
sion from the weaker, if they should get in each others way.
Every boss today would certainly like to establish this rule with
regard to the workers. Unfortunately for him, they are not birds
or beastsbut men and women who can organize and fight back.
It is true th at a wasteful method of species survival and
development prevails in nature where, under conditions of limited
food and space, competition prevails and the less fit are elimi
nated to the benefit of the fittest.
But such wasteful methods are unnecessary in hum an society
today, where people can plan their lives and control their own
destiniesonce they get rid of the exploitation and anarchy of
capitalism. As Engels commented, Darwin did not know w hat a
bitter satire he wrote on m ankind, and especially on his country
men, when he showed th at free competition, the struggle for
existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest histori
cal achievement, is the norm al state of the animal kingdom
(.Dialectics o f Nature, p. 19).
R a cist a n d S e x ist
Prejudices of a feather flock together. So it should come as no
surprise th a t those who degrade hum anity to the anim al level are
also racist and sexist in their outlook. Whereas Ardrey denies
th at male birds or anim als fight over anything as unim portant as
females but rather fight over real estate, Lorenz takes a different
tack. He says th at females are no less aggressive than the
males, and in particular display hostility toward members of
their own sexpresumably just as women do in competitive
capitalist society.
This generalization is based on observations of certain rare
fish, such as the E ast Indian yellow cichlids and Brazilian
mother-of-pearl fish, where not only are males hostile to males,
but females are apparently unfriendly to females.
It is well known th at in m any species, above all the mammals,
females will fight in defense of their offspring. Males, on the
other hand, fight one another for sexual access to females. This
trait is not duplicated in the female sex. A female fighting
another female for access to males is conspicuous by its absence
in the anim al world. In herding species, one bull is quite
sufficient for a herd of females, and a pride of lions is composed
of a pack of lionesses to which usually only a solitary adult male
70
72
T here it is, spread out for everyone to see. Man is a killer-ape, and
woman is a sneaky, n asty prim ate th a t castrates men.
These neo-social D arw inians are pushing the most pernicious
prejudices of class society under the label of biological and
anthropological science. The enterprise is highly lucrative for
them and their publishers. But unw ary readers should be warned
th a t they are receiving large doses of poison in the sam e package
with only a few facts.
L ionel T igers
Men in G roups:
S elf-P ortrait o f a W oman-Hater
(1977 )
At speaking engagements I have had across the country, numer
ous feminists have expressed indignation a t the sexist views
espoused by anthropologist Lionel Tiger. Close study of his bestknown work, Men in Groups, shows ample cause for their anger.
Currently a professor at Rutgers University, Tiger came into
prominence with the publication of this book in 1969, not long
after the feminist movement surfaced. A male-biased viewpoint in
the social sciences is not new. But Tigers two-faced stance puts
him in a special niche. Barely concealing his animosity toward
women, he poses as their benevolent friend. His is an ultrasophis
ticated and crafty line of justification for male supremacy.
Tigers central thesis is th at only m ales have the capacity to
form attachm ents to one another, a trait he calls male bonding.
He declares th a t this is built into the biological infrastructure
of the male sex alone and h as no counterpart am ong females. A
female can form m aternal bonds with her offspring and a sexual
bond with the male who im pregnated her, but, according to Tiger,
she is incapable of forming any bonds with other females.
Tiger attributes this superior trait of males to the fact th at they
are the hunters while women are only the breeders. Since men
hunt anim als co-operatively, they alone can form the close-knit
bonds stemming from this occupation. This is the basis for the
adm iration and love found am ong men in groups. Since women
are not hunters, they do not and cannot inspire such solidarity,
trust, and affection am ong themselves. Hence women do not form
groups. Moreover, male bonding is a perm anent feature of
masculine relations while the sexual tie between a m an and a
woman is ephemeral. H unting and male bonding are a t the
bottom of eternal male supremacy. Women can do nothing about
73
74
Self-Portrait of a Woman-Hater 75
76
77
78
Sexism an d Science
Self-Portrait of a Woman-Hater 79
80
Sexism an d Science
Self-Portrait of a Woman-Hater 81
82
fighter pilots, tan k com m anders, or police chiefs? When men join
arm ies they become dishw ashers, laundrym en, and nurses. Yet
when women join arm ies they do not commonly take jobs which
are conventionally defined as m asculine (p. 108).
Perhaps by now, some seven years after he wrote this, Tiger
h as learned th a t it is social discrim ination and male prejudice
th a t have held women back from taking m ens jobs. In the few
years th a t the fem inist m ovem ent h as been on the m arch, women
have already broken down m any barriers; they have moved into
scores of occupations formerly reserved for men only.
Today there are women architects and sportscasters, bartend
ers and engineers, doctors and train operators, stevedores,
m iners, and truck and bus drivers. Women are rig operators,
coast guards, and construction workers, as well as fire fighters,
pilots, and subw ay operators. They are electricians, ditchdiggers,
and cops. Women have broken down their exclusion from
Olympic sports as well as from the m ajor m ale-supremacist
universities. They are now being adm itted into the m ilitary
academies of West Point, A nnapolis, and Colorado Springs. If
they are not yet tan k com m anders, bomber pilots, or astronauts,
this is not because of any fem inine frailties.
The h andicaps placed upon women are exclusively social and
not biological; for th e earliest and longest period in hum an
history there were no such handicaps. Tigers notions about the
in n ate inferiority of women are as outdated as the horse and
buggy.
On M ale Suprem acy
Tiger does not regard production of the necessities of life as the
unique attribute of h u m an sas the activity th a t elevated them
out of the anim al world. To do so would involve disclosing the
prime p a rt played by the women. He begins with the capacity of
men to male-bond and writes: Male bonding I see as the spinal
column of a community, in th is sense: from a hierarchal linkage
of significant m ales, comm unities derive their intra-dependence,
their structure, their social coherence, and in good part their
continuity through th e p ast to the future (p. 78).
T his does not answ er th e key question: how did the aggressivedom inance tra it of m ale anim als th a t leads to antagonism and
isolation give way to the hum an capacity of men to unite through
cooperative bonding? Tigers answ er is som ewhat astonishing.
Women w orking m ens jobs. Clockwise from top right: butcher; welder;
control-room operator in electric power station; steel workers; blacksm ith;
miner.
83
84
Self-Portrait of a Woman-Hater 85
reproduction, w hich is related to work, defense, politics, and perhaps
even the violent m astery and destruction of others [p. 242].
G lorification o f War
This bonding-cum-aggression, as Tiger dubs it, clears the
road for his glorification of the masculine traits of war and
violence. War is alm ost universally an all-male enterprise, he
writes, and other agencies of aggressive-violent mastery are
composed of m ales (p. 226). Among these agencies he cites the
Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. In passing, he notes the few
unspectacular things women can organize: from charity groups
to hairdressing salons to berry-gathering cliques (p. 218).
The exceptional merit of male bonding-cum-violence is th at
women are excluded. He writes th a t m ales bond in a variety of
situations which involve power and force, and they consciously
and emotionally exclude females from these bonds (p. 143, his
emphasis). One well-known example, cited by Tiger, is th at of the
Hitler era in Germany, when Goebbels elaborated the doctrine
that womans place was in the kitchen and nurserykinder,
kirche, und kiichen. He offers this as further evidence of the
innate inferiority of the female sex and writes, apparently even
major changes in political form and ideology can have little effect
on the role of women (p. 90).
To Tiger fascism is merely a change in ideology and not a
disastrous political defeat of women and workers. This is in
keeping with his thoroughly reactionary and racist outlook which
sets whites above Blacks and men against women, and which
glorifies w ars and other forms of the violent mastery of others
as the highest virtues of Manhood.
On this basis Tiger h as h arsh words for women warriorsthey
are as bad as women hunters. In his opinion women who try to
join armies are disparaged as necessarily often transvestite (p.
104). On the other hand, Tiger is favorably disposed to
homosexualityproviding it is maleand he proposes separate
mens houses and all-male societies and clubs where husbands
can find enjoyment and relaxation ap art from the tedium of
wives and domesticity.
When Tigers book appeared, provoking expressions of outrage,
the New York Times Magazine generously accorded him a forum
in which to defend himself. His article appeared on October 25,
1970, under the caption: Male Dominance? Yes, Alas. A Sexist
86
Sexism an d Science
Plot? No. T his disclaim er did not alter his im age as a gross
upholder of m ale suprem acy. Rather, it reinforced his book,
which, despite its shiftiness and sophisticated pseudoscientific
terminology, is essentially the self-portrait of a virulent womanhater.
88
89
90
Sexism an d Science
92
93
94
95
96
Sexism an d Science
tio n and cap italist profits: For the capitalist, a society m ade up
of nuclear fam ilies is a joy. It m eans lots of workers, lots of
consum ption units. . . . With sm all nuclear families, consump
tion is more inefficient (in Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 462).
The reader will also recall Reeds view of the family-asconsum ing-unit, and family-members-as-living-possessions
w hen Millett writes: In noting its economic character, Engels is
calling attention to the fact th a t the family is actually a financial
unit. . . . Due to the n ature of its origins, the fam ily is committed
to the idea of property in persons and in goods (Sexual Politics,
P. 124).
The final solution:
. . . the family, as th a t term is presently understood, m ust go.
In view of the institu tio n s history, this is a kind fate. Engels was
heresy in h is age. These m any decades after, he is heresy still.
But revolution is alw ays heresy, perhaps sexual revolution most
of all (ibid., p. 127).
In short, the new fem inism contains elements of some rather
old theory. The anthropological speculations of the evolutionist
school m ay have been generally disavowed by twentieth-century
Western universities, but the unilinear view of societal develop
m ent rem ained p art of M arx-Engelss rhetoric. The result has
been a curious blend of theory this writer h as called feminist
anthropology.
Of course, not all fem inists are prone to this kind of rhetoric.
W riters like Betty Friedan, dubbed a representative of the
NAACP w ing of th e m ovem ent by her fem inist detractors, has
opted for such m undane dem ands as equal pay for equal work,
equal access to th e professions, and equal opportunity for
advancem ent w ithin these professions. Such concerns seem
lackluster an d run-of-the-mill when placed beside the new
evolutionism in th e g ran d old m anner of writers like psychia
trist M ary J a n e Sherfey or M arxist-feminist Evelyn Reed.
F em inist anthropology, however, probably stands as good a
chance of acceptance am ong m ost Am erican women as evolution
ism does am ong m odem anthropologiststh a t is to say, small
chance indeed.
In th is au th o rs opinion a more realistic perspective for
womens organizations in seeking an end to antifem ale discrimi
nation would lie in a different direction. There are essentially five
broad (and overlapping) areas of struggle for womens groups to
do battle in so as to effect sexism s eradication: legal, educational,
98
Sexism an d Science
EV ELYN R E E D S REPLY
Liberals and other fair-minded men do not object to the feminist
m ovem entproviding women restrict themselves to activities on
such practical issues as equal rights, conduct themselves in a
ladylike m anner, and above all avoid controversial theorizing on
the source of female oppression and its solution. Howard Haymes
is one of these well-intentioned men who h as the best interests of
the womens movem ent a t h eart and gives his advice accordingly.
He surveys the galaxy of fem inist writers who have articulated
the problems and prospects for liberation over the past few years
and finds cause for dissatisfaction. The women are too frank in
their criticism s of sexist men and politics, and even of other
fem inists w ith whom they disagree. They engage in strident
debates am ong them selves on the roots of male supremacy and
female inferiority w ithout consulting any m ale advisers and with
no visible loss of solidarity as fem inists. He deplores the
alienation of New Left women from their men because the
blem ish of m ale chauvinism persists am ong them. But he is most
distressed by the w idespread influence of Engels and his M arxist
followers upon th e thin k in g of the movement.
Not only radical fem inists but even more conservative writers,
Haym es com plains, have adopted E ngelss thesis th a t women are
exploited and oppressed by capitalist society. W hether or not they
call them selves M arxists, the result is a veritable verbal
bom bardm ent of capitalism a t the han d s of these women
liberationists. Moreover, he w arns, this is not mere leftist
rhetoric; it involves serious consideration of the socialist solution
to fully eradicate the oppression of women. As Haymes puts it,
clearly collectivist solutions are freely and frequently men
tioned by the fem inists.
No less disturbing to H aym es is the m ounting fem inist interest
in anthropology in order to learn about the position of women in
prim itive society before they became the oppressed sex. Accord
ing to M organ and other evolutionary founders of the science in
the last century, ancient society was m atriarchal and collectivist.
Women, far from being inferior, played a leadership role and held
an esteemed position. These findings, and the full conclusions to
be draw n from them , were set forth by Engels in his book Origin
o f the Family, Private Property, and the State. He showed how
anthropological d ata confirmed the M arxist theory on the class
roots of female oppression from slavery through feudalism to
99
100
Sexism an d Science
L ew is H. M organ
E dw ard B. T ylor
101
102
103
respectable (p. 345). The other was Julian Steward who stated
that the Marxist support of M organs work has certainly not
favored the acceptability of scientists of the Western nations of
anything labeled evolution (p. 315). I summarized these
political comments as follows:
Here is the real reason for the antimaterialism and antievolution
ism of contemporary anthropologists. The reactionary school has
become predominant because it has accommodated itself to rulingclass prejudices and dogmas and assumed the obligation of stamping
out the spread of revolutionary conclusions.
104
105
106
107
108
109
comes from attem pting great and universal problems (pp. 17577).
More recently, in his book The Rise o f Anthropological Theory,
Marvin Harris, former chairm an of the Columbia Department of
Anthropology, challenged the claims of Lowie and the functional
ists that Morgans stages of evolution were fixed sequences,
every step of which had to be gone through by all cultures. In
his sections on The Myth of Unilinear Evolutionism and The
Myth of the Denial of Diffusion, he shows how Morgan and
Tylor have been system atically m isrepresented with the label
of unilinear evolutionism pinned on to them by Julian Steward.
Although Harris chides the original evolutionists in his field for
pushing their search too farabove all, in the direction of the
priority of the m atriclan systemhe is far more critical of the
particularists, who denied th a t a science of history was
possible (pp. 171-79).
Significantly, the taboo ag ainst applying the evolutionary
method has not always been strictly observed even by some
functionalists. This is the case with Malinowski, who probed
around in the Trobriand Islands, where m atriarchal survivals
existed, and drew some im portant generalizations from his
findings. This aroused the resentm ent of some of his colleagues.
As Lowie wrote: this scom er of history him self reconstructs the
past, and added in biting condemnation, he does so self
consciously, mumbling the purifying spell th a t he is discounting
any undue antiquarian or historical bias (History of Ethnologi
cal Theory, p. 239). Yet Malinowskis utilization of the historical
methodeven on a partial basismakes his researches immea
surably superior to those of the pure descriptionists.
Despite the near-monopoly exercised by the functionalists in
academic anthropology, the evolutionary method could not be
completely exiled. Indeed, a growing uneasiness has asserted
itself over the anomalous position occupied by antievolutionary
anthropology while sister sciences such as biology, paleontology,
and archaeology continued on their evolutionary courses. The
influence of Gordon Childe, the world-renowned archaeologist,
helped to create a dissident current in the field of anthropology.
Prime credit for m aintaining the evolutionary method in the
United States m ust go to Leslie A. White, who kept the flame
burning throughout the decades of deep reaction against it.
Contrary to Haym ess statem ent th at only the heirs of Engels
have adhered to this method, there have been others besides the
110
111
112
Sexism an d Science
113
T he C h a llen g e
o f th e M atriarchy
(1975 )
W om ans Evolution, which deals w ith the hidden history of
women, is a fem inist book. But it is more th an that; it m arks a
new theoretical tu rn in anthropology, which in recent years has
witnessed a progressive deterioration in its methodology. Let us
exam ine the reasons for this decline and w hat is required to put
anthropology back on the rig ht track.
Anthropology was founded by Morgan, Tylor, and other
nineteenth-century evolutionists, who defined the new science as
a study of prehistoric society and its origins. The two most
im portant of the num erous discoveries they made were: Primitive
society was a collectivist egalitarian system having none of the
inequities of m odem society, which is founded upon the
p atriarch al family, private property, and the state. It was
likewise a m atriarch al society in which women occupied positions
of leadership in productive and social life and were held in high
esteem.
These features stood in such sharp contrast to the conditions
which prevail in p atriarch al society th a t they soon gave rise to
controversies which brought about a deep division in anthropo
logical circles. After the tu rn of the century new trends of thought
arose, led by Boas, Radcliffe-Brown, and others, who rejected the
method and principal findings of the founding scholarseven
while paying anniversary hom age to them.
These schools abandoned a comprehensive evolutionary
approach and substituted in its place empirical and descriptive
field studies of contem porary primitive peoples surviving in
various p arts of th e globe. They discarded M organs three stages
of social evolutionfrom savagery through barbarism to
civilizationw ithout offering any pattern of progression of their
This article is based on a presentation Evelyn Reed made during a
debate with Professor Walter Goldschmidt, past president of the
American Anthropological Association, on May 24, 1975, at the
University of California at Los Angeles. At his request, Professor
Goldschmidts rebuttal has not been published.
114
115
116
117
118
119
author of the book Kinship and Marriage has now come to question
what anthropology is all about and how he fits into it. He opens his
later book Encounter with Anthropology, with the following con
fession:
This is a book about anthropology by a puzzled anthropologist who
does not know quite how he fits into his discipline any more. And
judging by the book reviews of some of his colleagues, the discipline has
its doubts about the relationship. Something is wrong somewhere [p.
9].
This is the end result of the wrong course taken more th an h alf a
century ago by the antievolutionists. It has brought about the
stagnation and demoralization of a once-vigorous branch of social
science. Some anthropologists, like Evans-Pritchard, are alarmed
by this confirmation of a w arning once issued by M aitland th a t by
and by anthropology will have the choice of being history or being
nothing (Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Year, p. 14).
What is needed to rescue anthropology from its blind alley? It
must return, although on a higher level, to the evolutionist and
m aterialist approach of the pioneer scholars.
T hat is precisely w hat I have tried to do in my book Womans
Evolution, which begins w ith the basic premise of the priority of the
m aternal clan system or m atriarchy. Upon this foundation I have
been able to develop new theories th a t explain the m eaning and
purpose of certain enigm atic institutions of savage society,
including the ones so cavalierly disqualified as non-subjects
totemism and kinship.
Totem ism and T aboo
My own theory on totemism came about, somewhat accidentally,
through a closer exam ination of taboo, which is indissolubly
connected with totemism. I could not accept the standard reason
given for the primitive tabooth a t it was directed against incest.
Primitive peoples were ignorant of the m ost elementary biological
facts of life, including how babies are conceived and the inevi
tability of death. How, then, could they have understood the concept
of incest, which presupposes a very high degree of scientific
knowledge? Genetics, for example, is only as old as this century.
Moreover, the taboo was a double taboo, applying to food as well
as to sex. In fact, the clause applying to food was the more elaborate
and stringent prohibition. Most investigators were aware of this
120
Sexism an d Science
121
122
Sexism an d Science
123
124
Sexism an d Science
125
126
The M isconceptions o f
Claude L evi-Strauss
On The E lem entary
Structures o f K inship
(1977 )
In a well-known folktale by Hans Christian Andersen called The
Emperors New Clothes, the populace assembled to gaze upon
and admire the new royal raiment o f their ruler. Suddenly the
humbug performance was exposed when a little girl cried out,
But he has no clothes on at allthe Emperor is naked!
After his major work, The Elem entary Structures o f Kinship,
was published in 1949, Claude Lvi-Strauss rapidly ascended the
ladder of eminence to become the unofficially crowned head of
anthropology. But by the 1970s mounting disillusionment and
criticism make his place on the peak somewhat precarious.
This was brought out in a March 20, 1977, (London) Times
article entitled, Lvi-Strauss and the Marriage M arket. It
stated th at in a question put to a number of pundits by the
(London) Times Literary Supplement to nam e the most over
rated of current intellectual or literary eminencies, the nam e of
Claude Lvi-Strauss duly appeared. This drastic change, from
the intense adulation and influence which Lvi-Strauss enjoyed
in the nineteen-sixties, was due to the fact th a t the anthropologi
cal evidence on which he built his theories is either scant or will
not stand up to rigorous verification. The article adds th a t his
very brilliance as a prose-stylist both m asks and reveals this
emptiness of substance.
This negative view of Lvi-Strauss did not, however, extend to
his antiwom an stance. The article sums up Lvi-Strausss views
on this matter: in different societies and kinship systems,
m arriage is a device whereby women literally circulate between
familial and tribal groups. They are exchanged in just the way
in which goods are exchanged in trade. This theme of women as
127
128
129
130
Sexism an d Science
131
132
M aternal C lan K in sh ip
V ersu s F a th er-F a m ily K in sh ip
The elem entary structures of kinship are not to be found in the
father-fam ily, th e un it of patriarchal society, but in the m aternal
clan, the unit of prim itive m atriarchal society. The m aternal clan
was not composed of fam ily relatives but of sisters and brothers
in the social or collective sense. This is called the classificatory
system of kinship.
U nder th a t system all the members of the clan were classified
by sex and by age or generation. Thus the older women were
classified by sex as the m others, and by generation as the
older sisters to the younger sisters in the age-group below
them. Sim ilarly on the m ale side, the older men were classified by
sex as the m others brothers to the younger brothers in the
generation below them.
O riginally there were no m ates residing in the m aternal clan
unit. These m ates lived in their own m aternal clan units where
their social classification was also th a t of sisters and brothers.
Before the p aternal relationship was recognized, the m others
brothers (or m aternal uncles) performed the functions of father
hood to their sisters children. Kinship and descent were reckoned
exclusively through th e m aternal line, with a subsidiary male
line p assing from m others brothers to sisters sons.
It is th is m aternal clan kinship system, or the classificatory
system , which represents the elem entary structures of kin
ship. As the early scholars put it, fathers were unknown, and
only the kin on th e m aternal side were recognized. Thus in the
133
134
135
136
137
138
Sexism an d Science
139
140
141
142
Sexism an d Science
143
144
145
146
147
148
Actually, since the women of the m aternal clan period were the
prime producers of the necessities of life, they held the highest
authority as the social and cultural leaders, a fact th at is
exhaustively documented in W omans Evolution. Lvi-Strauss,
who doesnt deal with the economics of primitive society, tries to
prove eternal m ale suprem acy through his thesis on sister
exchange.
Concealing the fact th a t in cross-cousin m atrim ony there is just
as m uch brother exchange as sister exchange, he writes, the
basic fact [is] th a t it is men who exchange women, and not vice
versa. And he adds:
The total relationship of exchange which constitutes marriage is not
established between a man and a woman, where each owes and
receives som ething, but between two groups of men, and the woman
figures only as one of the objects in the exchange, not as one of the
partners between whom the exchange takes place [ibid., p. 115].
149
151
152
did not exist in the period of the m aternal clan, the question
arises: how and when did men get the power to traffic in women?
Historical m aterialists have explained th a t such male supremacy
began only a few thousand years agowith the overturn of the
m aternal clan system by patriarchal class society. But LviS trauss h as a different outlook. He believes th a t the exchange of
women by men goes all the way back to the beginning of human
life (about a million years ago), and it came about through the
operation of w h at is to him the m ost fundam ental law in all
historythe incest taboo!
The incest theory to explain the primitive taboo is an old
theory. Incest is defined as sexual relations between the closest
genetic relatives. This incest theory was originally based upon
the m istaken notion th a t clan brothers and sisters were such
close genetic relatives th a t inbreeding am ong them would be
harm ful to the species. Subsequently, with the advances made in
biological knowledge about the effects of inbreeding, this
argum ent was underm ined. In addition, it was found th at
classificatory kin were in the overwhelming m ajority not
genetically related a t all. This further undermined the biological
basis for the incest theory.
It should be ap p aren t th a t to underm ine or discard the
biological basis for the taboo is to remove the incest from the
prohibition. W hatever the taboo was directed against, it could
not, then, be characterized as an incest taboo. This problem
created the need for some new theory to take the place of the
incest theory. U nfortunately, the new theories were by and
large attem pts to m ake the untenable incest theory more tenable.
Psychological reasons were advanced to take the place of the
discredited biological reason. But these could not be sustained
under rigorous scrutiny either.
The m ost im plausible aspect of the incest theory was the
premise th a t primitive people, who did not even know the
biological facts about birth and death, could have understood
anyth in g about incest. Such knowledge requires a very high
scientific level of understanding and was acquired only in the
m ost recent period of social development.
The incest taboo thus became the Number One Baffler in
anthropology. Three options remained open after repeated
setbacks in trying to fathom its meaning: to continue to believe in
a biological basis for the prohibition; to stretch the definition of
incest to include categories of fictional relatives who are not
153
154
Sexism an d Science
155
156
His structural study comes down to an unchanging commodityexchange system as we know it today, with a little gift-giving
occasionally throw n in (sim ilar to the way we exchange gifts at
Christm as time). He cannot conceive of a period of time when
there was no other kind of exchange relationship th an gift
interchange, ju st as he cannot conceive of a period of time when
social and sexual equality prevailed. He states, parroting the
current line, th a t sometimes in the primitive system the profit
from gift-exchange m ay be delayed or there m ay be an indirect
kind of rem uneration, such as gaining prestige, status, or future
favors.
He gives as an example the potlatch of the Northwest Coast
Indians where certain intangibles such as prestige and authority
are acquired along with an appropriate am ount of interest,
sometimes as much as 100 per cent. In other instances the
profit is neither direct nor inherent in the things exchanged,
because there is clearly som ething else in w hat we call a
commodity th a t m akes it profitable to its owner or trader. Goods
157
are not only economic commodities, but vehicles and instrum ents
for realities of another order, such as power, influence, sym pathy,
status and emotion. . . . Elsewhere, A gift is at most a venture,
a hopeful speculation (ibid., pp. 52-55).
Thus Lvi-Strauss equates the primitive gift-giving system,
designed to m aintain peace and fraternity am ong clans and
tribes, to modern stores in Latin countries called casas de
regalias and Anglo-Saxon gift shops, where free food and
drink are served to the customers buying the gifts.
Anticipating the criticism th a t this travesty of the primitive
gift-giving system will arouse, Lvi-Strauss writes:
Perhaps we shall be criticized on the ground of having brought
together two dissimilar phenomena, and we will answer this criticism
before proceeding. Admittedly, the gift is a primitive form of
exchange, but it has in fact disappeared in favour of exchange for
profit, except for a few survivals such as invitations, celebrations and
gifts which are given an exaggerated importance. In our society, the
proportion of goods transferred according to these archaic modalities
is very small in comparison with those involved in commerce and
merchandising. Reciprocal gifts are diverting survivals which engage
the curiosity of the antiquarian; but it is not possible to derive an
institution such as the prohibition of incest, which is as general and
important in our society as in any other, from a type of phenomenon
which today is abnormal and exceptional and of pure anecdotal
interest. [Ibid., p. 61.]
158
159
160
E volution ism
and A n tievolu tion ism
(1957)
W hat is the state of anthropology and the m ain direction of its
development in the English-speaking world? How and why have
the predom inant contemporary schools diverged from the
methods used by such pioneers as Lewis Morgan in the United
States and Edward B. Tylor in England? These two men were
instrum ental in establishing the science of anthropology in the
second h alf of the nineteenth century and inspired its first farreaching achievements. Have the modern academic anthropol
ogists advanced beyond the Morgan-Tylor school, as they claim,
rendering the earlier procedures and findings obsolete? Have the
M arxist analyses and conclusions regarding ancient society,
which relied upon m aterials provided by these nineteenth-century
originators of scientific anthropology, become invalidated?
These questions were posed with special force in a volume of
about one thousand pages called Anthropology Today. This
encyclopedic inventory, published in 1953 by the U niversity of
Chicago Press, resulted from a conference sponsored by the
Wenner-Gren Foundation of Anthropological Research. Prepared
under the supervision of A. L. Kroeber, dean of the modem
American school, it contains fifty inventory papers by eminent
scholars from every continent in the world and represents the
first great stocktaking of the whole of our knowledge of m an as it
is embodied in the work of modem anthropologists. It h as been
supplemented by a second volume, A n Appraisal o f Anthropology
Today, which contains critical comments by eighty scholars on
the problems posed in these papers and by the state of their
science.
The compilation surveys and summarizes such diverse yet
related branches of social science as biology, archaeology,
anthropology, genetics, linguistics, art, folklore, psychology, and
includes techniques of field study and applied anthropology in
medicine, government, etc. It is undeniably a useful source and
reference book. But it is most instructive and im portant as a
guide to the current methods used by professional anthropol
ogists, disclosing in detail how these scholars system atically
161
162
Sexism an d Science
163
164
165
166
169
170
Sexism an d Science
171
filled to the brim with further data and documentation during the
past seventy or eighty years, M organs opponents have not
presented any adequate substitute for his theory of social evolu
tion. Having annihilated the positive framework of social evolu
tion developed by the nineteenth-century school, and unable to
provide any alternative of their own, the modern schools are
manifestly bankrupt in theory and method. Leslie White aptly
depicted them as follows:
In addition to being anti-materialist, they are anti-intellectualistic
or anti-philosophicregarding theorizing with contemptand anti
evolutionist. It has been their mission to demonstrate that there are
no laws or significance in ethnology, that there is no rhyme or reason
in cultural phenomena, that civilization isin the words of R. H.
Lowie, the foremost exponent of this philosophymerely a planless
hodgepodge, a chaotic jumble [Philosophy for the Future, pp. 36768].
In truth, the hodgepodge and jumble exist not in the social and
cultural phenomena but in the m inds and methods of Lowie and
his school. Whereas the pioneer anthropologists had sought, and
had succeeded to a large degree, in m aking order out of chaos, the
modem academicians have introduced chaos into the previously
established order. The more m aterials they accumulate the more
narrow their views become. The study of anthropology has
become disjointed and jumbled in their handsand in their
students heads.
P iecem eal E v o lu tio n ists
Some contributors to the Wenner-Gren symposium display
considerable uneasiness about the absence of any general line of
development in primitive history and try to find one. Julian H.
Steward, who was assigned the theme of Evolution and Pro
cess, speaks for this group which seeks some middle ground
between the classical evolutionists and the modern unabashed
antievolutionists. In a subsequent publication which fully devel
ops the ideas in his contribution to the Wenner-Gren book,
Steward exposes the unscientific procedures of the particularists:
Reaction to evolutionism and scientific functionalism has very
172
At the sam e time Steward ranges him self with the particularists ag ain st the advocates of universal evolution, on the
specious ground th a t their generalizations fail to explain particu
lar phenomena:
Universal evolution has yet to provide any very new formulations
that will explain any and all cultures. The most fruitful course of
investigation would seem to be the search for laws which formulate
particular phenomena with reference to particular circumstances
[A nthropology Today, p. 325].
173
But the issue goes even deeper than the historical priority of the
m atriarchy. Morgan and others of the classical school observed
th at wherever m atriarchal vestiges were found, there was also
clear evidence th a t m atriarchal society was collectivist and
egalitarian. It is this combination of the high position of women
and an egalitarian society th at lies at the bottom of the stampede
away from evolutionism. Basically, it is a flight from Marxism.
Fear o f Marxism
In the field of anthropology, as in other fields, a consistently
evolutionist and m aterialist method of thought has revolutionary
implications. Unwittingly, the classical anthropologists had
verified and supported Marxism as the most scientific system of
thought. The science of anthropology did not originate with the
historical m aterialists, but the creators of Marxism drew upon the
m aterials provided by the nineteenth-century anthropologists to
extend their own historical reach and substantiate their m aterial
ist interpretation of history. They drew out to their logical
conclusions the sharp contrasts between capitalism, the highest
form of class society, and primitive, or preclass society. These
conclusions are set forth in the renowned work by Engels, Origin
of the Family, Private Property, and the State, which appeared in
1884.
The reactionary flight from m aterialism and evolutionism
arose out of the effort to counter this challenge of Marxism. But
in the process of disowning the views of the M arxists, they were
174
175
176
177
G lossary
AFFILIATED CLANS: A general category including both linked
(parallel) clans and allied (cross-cousin) clans.
ANTHROPOIDS: Human-like apes out of which the hominids
evolved.
ANTHROPOLOGY: The science of the prehistoric evolution of
h u m an society.
ANTHROPOMORPHISM: Ascribing hum an traits to things not
hum an.
ARTIFACT: Object processed by hum an labor.
BARBARISM: The second and higher level of social evolution,
after savagery, w ith an economy based on agriculture and
stock-raising.
BIOLOGY: The science of life and living organism s.
BLOOD REVENGE: A prim itive system of reciprocal punish
m ent for deaths. Also called vengeance fighting and blood feud.
CIVILIZATION: The th ird and present stage of social evolution,
m arked by th e emergence of private property, class divisions,
and th e p atriarch al family.
CLAN: The u n it of prim itive society, as contrasted w ith the
fam ily, the u n it of civilized society. The primitive clan is
alw ays a m atern al clan composed of social sisters and brothers;
an exogam ous u n it w ithin a tribe.
CLASSIFICATORY KINSHIP: The clan system of social kin
ship, binding together a large group of people w ithout reference
to genetic (family) ties.
COMMODITY EXCHANGE: The transfer of commodities from
one owner to another for commodities of a different kind or
money; a commercial tran saction th a t is the opposite of
interchange, or reciprocal gifts.
CROSS-COUSINS: Men and women of the sam e generation
belonging to opposite (and formerly hostile) groups; the men of
the two sides hav in g fratern al relations with each other as
brothers-in-law, and the women and men of the two sides
being actual or potential m ates.
DIVIDED FAMILY: The m atrifam ily, in which the m others
brother predom inates over the m others husband in relation to
the children.
178
Glossary
179
180
B ibliography
Altmann, Stuart A. Social Communication Among Primates. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Ardrey, Robert. African Genesis: A Personal Investigation Into the
Animal Origins and Nature of Man. New York: Dell Publishers, 1963
(1961).
The Territorial Imperative. New York: Dell Publishers, 1966.
Bachofen, J. J. M yth, Religion and Mother Right. Translated by Ralph
Mannheim. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967 (1861).
Boulding, Kenneth E. Am I A Man Or A MouseOr Both? In Man and
Aggression, M. F. Ashley Montagu, ed. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1969 (1968).
Briffault, Robert. The Mothers: A Study of the Origin of Sentiments and
Institutions. 3 vols. New York: Macmillan; London: Allen and Unwin;
1952 (1927).
Carrighar, Sally. War Is Not in Our Genes. In Man and Aggression,
M. F. Ashley Montagu, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969
(1968).
Childe, V. Gordon. Man Makes Himself. New York: New American
Library, 1951 (1936).
What Happened in History. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books, 1960 (1942).
Clark, J. Grahame D., Archeological Theories and Interpretation: Old
World. In Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory, A. L.
Kroeber, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
Clark, W. E. LeGros. History of the Primates: An Introduction to the
Study of Fossil Man. 2d ed. London: British Museum, 1950.
Cockburn, Alexander. Review of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. In the
Village Voice, July 28, 1975.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. 2d ed., revised. New York: Burt,
1874 (1871).
Eaton, C. Gray. The Social Order of Japanese Macaques. Scientific
American, October 1976.
Eggan, Fred. Aboriginal Sins. Review of Remarks and Inventions:
Sceptical Essays about Kinship, by Rodney Needham. In London
Times Literary Supplement, December 13, 1974.
Emlen, John T., Jr., and Schaller, George. In the Home of the Mountain
Gorilla. In Primate Social Behavior. Charles H. Southwick, ed.
Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1963.
Engels, Frederick. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
Note: Where a later edition is listed, the date of the original edition is
given in parentheses.
Howard Haymes's bibliography follows Evelyn Reed's.
181
182
Bibliography
183
184
185
In d ex
Abortion, 112
Africa, 71
African Genesis, 54, 58, 64, 71
Altmann, Stuart A., 9
American Anthropological Association,
114
Ancient Society, 164, 166
Animals: and aggression, 59; and habi
tats vs. territories, 58, 59; sexual di
morphism of, 24, 26, 45, 78-79, 80;
sexual segregation of, 23, 29-30; and
societies, 20-26, 34, 35, 37, 53
females: and bonds with offspring, 30;
cooperative traits of, 23, 31-32, 69, 74;
"inferiority of, 26-29, 32-33; and
mother-care, 10, 12, 23; power of, 2728, 32-33, 50; primacy of, 12, 47; role
of, in transition to humanity, 23;
sexuality of, 29, 30, 48, 49, 58, 70
males, 23, 24-25, 26; aggressiveness of,
19, 28, 74, 82; in captivity, 28, 50;
sexuality of, 48, 49, 70; sexual violence
of, 69, 121, 155; superiority of, 24-25,
26-29, 32-33, 47; and territory, 49, 58
Anthropologists. See Antievolutionists;
Evolutionists
Anthropology: and unilinear evolu
tion, 89, 97, 103, 106, 107-9; evolution
of, 162-77; feminist, 94, 99; state of,
118-19, 161; and survivals, 103-6, 130.
See also Antievolutionists; Evolution;
Evolutionists
Anthropology Today, 172, 173, 174
Antievolutionists, 89, 99, 114-15, 127-60,
161-77; antimaterialism of, 168-69,
170-71; empiricism of, 8-9; piecemeal
method of, 171-73; reactionary influen
ces on, 102-3, 173-75; descriptionist
school of, 100, 102, 106, 166, 167;
diffusionist school of, 166-67; function
alist school of, 100, 102-8, 160-69
passim; structuralist school of, 156.
See also Anthropology; Evolution;
Evolutionists
Ardrey, Robert, 48, 54, 55, 57-61, 64-65,
69, 71
186
Index
Dual Organization; Family; Kinship
Cuvier, Georges, 162
Darwin, Charles, 8, 35, 101, 163, 175;
Engels on, 69; on male animal vio
lence, 58; and social Darwinism, 42, 67
Death, 119, 138. See also Blood revenge
de Perthes, Boucher, 162
Descent, 122-23, 142, 143, 146-47. See
also Kinship
Descent of Woman, The, 48
DeVore, Irven, 14, 17, 19-20, 24, 27, 28,
29
Dialectics of Nature, 69
Digging stick, 14
Divided family, 124-125, 143. See also
Family
Dual organization, 129-30, 133, 136, 137,
175. See also Cross cousins
du Chaillu, Paul B., 33
Durkheim, Emile, 89
Eaton, G. Gray, 32
Egypt, 166
Elementary Structures of Kinship, The,
127-59 passim
Emlen, John T., Jr., 33
Endogamy, 125, 133
Engels, Frederick, 13, 15, 69, 87, 101,
103, 173; and early anthropologists,
89-90, 98-99, 176-77; on female oppres
sion, 98-99, 102, 124; and modern
feminists, 91, 92, 96; on primitive
society, 164
Equal Rights Amendment, 97, 112
Estrus, 29, 30, 70
Evans-Pritchard, E. E., 119
Evolution, 40, 41; social, 13, 34, 37-38,
75; and uneven and combined develop
ment, 107-8
animal, 9-12, 38; and hand and brain,
10; and mother-care, 10, 12; and tran
sition to human evolution, 12-15
human: and capitalism, 51; compared
to animal evolution, 13, 34, 37-38; and
Ice Age, 14-15; preconditions for, 10,
37; role of women in, 51, 79 (see also
Women); and transition from animals,
12-15; two turning-points in, 74-75
Evolutionists, 88, 131, 136, 161-77
nineteenth century: attacks on, 20-21,
115, 128-32, 140, 143, 170, 174; defend
ers of, 106, 109-10, 169, 171; deficien
187
188
Sexism an d Science
L'Homme, 134
Homosexuality, 85
Hopi, 146
Howells, William, 14-15
Humans: antiquity of, 162-63; compared
to animals, 13, 15, 21, 34-36, 37, 38, 40,
48-49, 57, 61; and human nature, 51,
62-64, 81, 84; and innate agressiveness, 55, 58, 62, 66; and instincts, 61;
and labor activities, 21, 40; and war,
60
Incest, 88; Lvi-Strauss on, 147-55, 159;
and primitive taboo, 119-20, 121, 122,
152; and Tylors findings, 137. See
also Taboo
Insects, 35-36, 40
Insect Societies. The, 34
Interchange system, 120, 126, 133, 154,
157; defined, 149; evolution of, 155-56;
role of men in, 148. See also Fraternal
relationship
In the Shadow of Man, 17, 19, 22
Jay, Phyllis C., 29, 32
Jones, Beverly, 91
Jones, F. Wood, 10
Kalaharis, 14
Kinship, 122-126, 127-60; and animals,
47, 50; bilateral, 145-47; and blood
revenge, 125, 138, 142-43; and canni
balism, 120, 122; and descent, 122-23,
142, 143, 146-47; evolution of, 116, 130,
141; expansion of, see Fraternal rela
tionship; Lvi-Strauss on, 127, 130,
140-41, 145; matrilineal, 104-5, 116,
122-25, 140-41, 143; Morgan on, 87-88,
122; and paternity, 104, 146; patrilin
eal, 116, 123, 140-41, 141-42, 142-43;
and totem-kinship, 120, 122; Tylor on,
137-38
classificatory, 122, 132; compared to
family kinship, 122, 137; end of, 125.
See also Clan; Cross-cousins; Mar
riage; Matriarchy, institutions of;
Mothers brother
Koford, Carl B., 25
Kohler, Wolfgang, 17
Kroeber, A. L 36, 89, 102, 161
Kula, 155-56
Labor, 13-15, 17, 37, 38, 176
Index
117, 118, 173; downfall of, 124, 145;
institutions of, 133-34, 163-64; LviStrauss on, 128, 157; and patrilineal
kinship, 123, 141; recognition of, 26-27,
114, 176; social equality in, 79, 102,
114, 173; and survivals, 105, 106, 109;
Tiger on, 75-76. See also Women, role
in primitive society and status in
primitive society
Mauss, Marcel, 148
Mead, Margaret, 168, 169
Meaning of Evolution, The, 13, 57, 75
Meat-eating, 16, 18-20, 74, 120
Men: and bonding, 73-74, 79, 82, 83, 84,
85; fighting among, 121, 137-38, 149;
as hunters, 73, 74, 76, 78, 93. See also
Fraternal relationship; Fratriarchy;
Interchange System; Male supremacy;
Mothers brother
Men in Groups, 73-86
Millett, Kate, 91, 96
Mitchell, Juliet, 90
Moiety system, 137. See also Dual orga
nization
Montagu, M. F. Ashley, 61, 65, 68
Morgan, Elaine, 48, 90
Morgan, Lewis H., 87-88, 101, 175; at
tacks on, 115, 128-30, 170; on charac
ter of primitive society, 98; commemo
ration of, 117-18; deficiencies of,
165-66; and Engels, 89; on the family,
164; on kinship, 87-88, 122; method of,
128, 131; and three stages of history,
103, 106, 114-15, 128, 165
Morris, Desmond, 48, 55, 60-61, 62, 64,
66, 70
Mother right, 90, 105, 163
Mothers brother, 88, 93, 133; and blood
revenge, 125; and conflict with fa
thers, 125, 142-43; and divided family,
143; downfall of, 123, 143; LviStrauss on, 134-35, 144-45; and male
descent, 142; and relationship with
sisters, 124; role of, 124, 132; status of,
123, 142
Mothers, The, 12, 26, 43, 110, 176
Mutterrecht, Das, 88, 163
Myths, 125
Naked Ape, The, 54, 55, 60-61
Needham, Rodney, 115
On Aggression, 55, 62, 64, 68
Orangutans, 29-30
189
190
Sexism an d Science
Zuckerman, Solly, 28
WOMANS
E m C T IO N
%mi i i i l r S
f c W
d o s t i< i
"How im portant it is to women today that the myth o f the eternal and
preordained patriarchy be exploded. A nd at last we have a good solid
woman anthropologist to do it. A landm ark book." KATE MILLETT
"An instant classic. . . . Reed explores some fascinating concepts:
origins o f the incest taboo: control o f the food supply by prim itive
women: strange savage com binations o f sex and cannibalism: the origins
o f marriage: and the clash o f marriage and m atriarchy. "
-W O M E N S GUIDE TO BOOKS
491 pages, cloth $15.00, paper $4.95
PATHFINDER PRESS
410 West Street, New York, N.Y. 10014
$4.95
exis m a n d s c i e n c e ex
poses the antiwoman bias that
permeates the sciences closest
to human life biology, sociology,
anthropology, and primatology. Evelyn
Reed calls upon investigators in these
fields to reject the sexist stereotypes
that obscure the leading part played by
women in elevating humankind to
civilization. Reed shows the social
pressures that breed this prejudice
against women today and that lead
anthropologists such as Claude LeviStrauss and Lionel Tiger to male supremacist conclusions: She
also refutes the biological determinism purveyed by E. O. Wilson
in his Sociobiology, which distorts the qualitative distinctions
between humans and animals.
Sexism and Science is a supplement to Reeds major work,
Womans Evolution, which documents the preeminent role of
women in the earliest and longest period of human h is to ry prehistoric matriarchal society.
WOMANS EVOLUTION
A landmark book. Ho'w long this needed doing! And how im portant to
women today that the m yth of the eternal and preordained patriarchy be
exploded! And at last we have a good solid woman anthropologist to do
it.
Kate Millett
understand
anthropology from a
Jill Johnston, Ms.
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
me
t8 6P -Z 0 l> -d a*