Paru dans la revue en ligne Marx & Philosophy, un compte-rendu (en anglais) de la main d’Erwan Moysan, que je reproduis ici :
Engels, basing himself on Lewis H. Morgan’s research on the Iroquois, believed classless societies, if not matriarchal, had egalitarian gender relations. Economist and anthropologist Christophe Darmangeat establishes with overwhelming evidence that, in fact, male domination is the norm in classless societies. He criticises Marxists who wish to uphold Engels’ view despite the evidence, quickly remarking that this does not mean that gender equality will not exist in the future. Instead, keeping with a materialist approach, he tries to explain the origin of this male domination. This is an English translation and updated version of a book originally published in French in 2008. Darmangeat has been regularly updating the book.
The first two chapters are dedicated to criticising claims of past matriarchies in the sense of societies dominated by women. For example, he criticises those who wish to establish their existence on the basis of myths. He demonstrates that these myths seek to justify male domination by evoking a distant disorderly past where women were in charge of society, before men set things right. Given how widespread these reversal myths are, he suggests they have a very ancient common origin and thus actually show the great antiquity of male domination.
He criticises Paul Lafargue for believing that patrilineality was impossible in classless societies. Indeed, Darmangeat debunks assumptions about matrilineality : matrilineality does not necessarily precede patrilineality, matrilineality is not due to primitive societies being ignorant about the role of men in reproduction, matrilineality is not due to uncertainty about the father (paternity is often established by social rather than biological criteria), and matrilineality does not necessarily mean women are in a favourable position.
Only a few tribes, featuring both matrilineality and matrilocality, such as the Iroquois, Na (a class society) and Minangkabau, have a balance of power between sexes – which is not the same thing as gender equality in the modern sense. This balance is also found in a few hunter-gatherer societies such as the !Kung, Mbuti, and Andamanese (124). Male domination is the norm. On all continents and at all levels of social development, men hold most, if not all, political and military functions, even in these balanced societies (153). In these societies, the rights women have over the products of their labour is the basis of their counterpower. While women derive their influence through power over things, men have power over people, that is to say, political power (225–228).
The third chapter is dedicated to demonstrating, through many examples, that male domination is the norm in classless societies, including those that had not yet come into contact with capitalist society, such as the Baruya, where gender relations have only recently begun to change (Malbrancke 2023).
In the fourth chapter, Darmangeat criticises Engels explanation for the origin of male domination, wherein women in the oldest type of economy (corresponding to the Paleolithic and early Neolithic) performed domestic tasks within the ‘communistic household’ while men, who owned the instruments of labour, procured food. Economic development then meant accumulation of wealth in masculine hands, leading to the relegation of women to the private sphere. However, in primitive societies women were in fact very much involved in food production, and the Neolithic revolution did not diminish women’s importance in the economy (their knowledge of gathering helped with cultivation). Additionally, Engels assumes the instruments of labour were male property, and the domestic sphere was not so communal (134–139). Therefore, it remains to be explained why the separation of public and private spheres was carried out according to sex and why the male sex took over the public sphere and the female sex took over the private sphere.
Instead, Alexandra Kollontai advanced the argument that the less women contributed to production, the more male domination. However, while contributing little guarantees an unfavourable social position, there are plenty of examples of women contributing very much without being better off (146). Darmangeat accuses Kollontai of applying bourgeois mechanisms to primitive societies. First, in the latter, families were the main socio-economic unit. A woman producing more meant more for the family, not for her individually. Second, there was no abstract labour. Different concrete labours were not made comparable via market exchange. Thus, labour was not ‘valued’ in this way.
If not due to the formation of classes or economic inequalities, how and why did the sexual division of labour and male domination emerge ? Darmangeat ultimately and humbly admits he does not have a full answer, but gives us elements of an answer in the fifth chapter.
In all primitive societies, sex is the main criterion for the division of labour (158). While the activities attributed to men and women vary according to the society, it is easier for men to do a woman’s job than for a woman to be allowed to do a man’s job. Hunting, fishing, metallurgy, starting a fire and war are generally prohibited to women. While warrior women have existed, notably among North American tribes in the ethnological record and among the Sarmatians in the archaeological record, warriors were still predominantly male.
Darmangeat criticises ‘biological’ explanations. He notes that the division is based on sex, rather than individually on muscle, and that gathering could be more dangerous than hunting. He notes that at this time it is not possible to tell whether the neurological differences observed between men and women are caused by the social environment – and even if not, how exactly this difference caused the division would remain unclear. On the flip side to the naturalistic explanation, anthropologists such as Alain Testart, to whom Darmangeat is deeply indebted, have an idealist approach. Observing that the ban on women handling weapons is very commonly linked to the belief that menstrual blood brings bad luck, they explain the ban through this belief but then fail to explain from where this belief derives. Darmangeat proposes a synthesis. Testart believed that the sexual division of labour did not provide an economic advantage whereas Darmangeat believes it did. Darmnageat believes sex was the criteria for this division of labour simply because it ‘stood out’ the most (175). He states the burden of pregnancy must have played a role but does not account for the systematic nature of the division. It is the belief system that systematised it from this basis.
The sexual division of labour was thus born out of the weakness of the productive forces of primitive humanity. Further division of labour did not challenge this. Only with capitalism, where labour-power is a commodity, theoretically indifferent to sex, did the ideal of gender equality become possible. Capitalism has opened the path for communism to realise this equality.
Darmangeat believes male domination emerged due to the male monopoly on weapons caused by the sexual division of labour. He affirms that the sexual division of labour is specific to humans. Because certain of our closest primate relatives display male domination (although others do not), he leaves open the possibility that male domination preceded division of labour, though he is unconvinced. How exactly the male monopoly on weapons caused male domination is unclear. Did the mere possibility of the use of force create domination ?
Darmangeat repeats Testart’s thesis that the development of wealth is linked to food storage. He affirms that there is an intermediate stage between societies without wealth and class societies. In such societies, there may be slavery, for example, but such exploitation remains marginal. It is not yet what society revolves around. In the sixth chapter, he examines how wealth modifies male domination. For example, it makes the customs of ‘bridewealth’ and ‘blood money’ possible. Human lives become exchangeable, slavery possible, and women all the more the property of men. Often, only men can dispose of the product of women’s labour. That is not to say that the status of women is comparable to slaves ; the degree of their subordination depends on other factors such as whether a society has patrilocality or matrilocality. There is also a contingent dimension to gender relations, as shown in the example of the Kara of Tanzania, where patrilocality does not prevent relatively egalitarian relations. Nevertheless, certain correlations can be made. For example, there is a correlation between the economic power of women and warrior peoples where the men travel further away for their activities.
For Darmangeat, the situation of women deteriorates not so much with the advent of class society but rather with that of intensive agriculture, pushing male labour into agriculture and relegating women to domestic labour, eliminating their possible counterpower.
The seventh chapter confirms for the archaeological record what the third chapter establishes for the ethnological record : male domination was the norm. Because male monopoly over political and military functions is a constant and because there is no trace of matriarchies, it is not possible to determine exactly when women’s subordination emerged. Darmangeat argues that the sexual division of labour must have a common origin in the Upper Palaeolithic, otherwise we would have to believe it subsequently arose independently multiple times. The book includes an annex on the periodisation of prehistory. Darmangeat criticises both those who believe that technical level does not influence social forms and the schematic Marxist view that to each technical level corresponds only one social form, that humanity has followed the same paths everywhere. It can be added that Marx himself criticised this latter view (Marx and Engels 1989 : 200). The book also includes an atlas locating the peoples mentioned throughout.
Darmangeat makes an ironclad case that classless societies featured male domination. The explanation of how sexual division of labour and, following, male domination emerged is, however, by his own admission, less solid given the limited evidence.
30 September 2024