Mutual Aid · Chapter
VII: The Origin of the Family explained
Kropotkin examines the debate over the origin of the family, contrasting the theories of Bachofen, Morgan, MacLennan, Post, and Kovalevsky, who argue for a late emergence of the patriarchal family, with the counterarguments of Starcke and W
What happens
Kropotkin examines the debate over the origin of the family, contrasting the theories of Bachofen, Morgan, MacLennan, Post, and Kovalevsky, who argue for a late emergence of the patriarchal family, with the counterarguments of Starcke and Westermarck. He defends the clan-based, matrilineal view by citing a cycle of institutions—communal life, classificatory kinship, maternal descent, exogamy, and tribal marriage—that are inexplicable under the patriarchal family theory. He criticizes Westermarck's reliance on primate analogies and emphasizes that early human society was organized around the clan, not the isolated family.
Themes in this chapter
Historical Development of Social Institutions
Kropotkin traces the evolution of marriage and family from clan-based communal structures to the patriarchal family, emphasizing the gradual transformation of institutions.
State vs. Communal Organization
The chapter contrasts the clan (communal) with the later patriarchal family (state-like), arguing that early society was organized around the clan, not the isolated family.
Resilience of Mutual Aid Institutions
Kropotkin highlights the persistence of clan-based mutual obligations (e.g., maternal aunt's role, blood covenant) as survivals of earlier communal forms.
Characters to notice
- Johann Jakob Bachofen
Cited as a foundational theorist of matrilineal descent and tribal marriage, whose monumental work is contrasted with the patriarchal family school.
- Lewis H. Morgan
Key proponent of the classificatory group system and tribal marriage theory; his evidence is defended against patriarchal family critics.
- John Ferguson McLennan
Mentioned alongside Bachofen and Morgan as a systematizer of early marriage institutions.
- Albert Hermann Post
Included as a supporter of the matrilineal and tribal marriage theories, with works discussed in the chapter.
- Maxim Kovalevsky
Referenced as a follower of Bachofen and Morgan, and as a contributor to the study of primitive institutions.
- John Lubbock
Mentioned for his analysis of survivals and customs related to maternal descent and exogamy.
- Edvard Westermarck
Critiqued as a leading advocate of the patriarchal family theory; his arguments from primate behavior are dismissed as insufficient.
- C. N. Starcke
Identified as a Danish professor who contested the matrilineal theory with his work 'Primitive Family'.
Key passages
“When we labour to lift the veil that conceals from us ancient institutions, and especially such institutions as have prevailed at the first appearance of beings of the human type, we are bound—in the necessary absence of direct testimony—to accomplish a most painstaking work of tracing backwards every institution, carefully noting even its faintest traces in habits, customs, traditions, songs, folklore, and so on; and then, combining the separate results of each of these separate studies, to mentally reconstitute the society which would answer to the coexistence of all these institutions.”
To uncover early human institutions, we must meticulously trace every custom and belief backward, then synthesize these fragments to reconstruct the society that produced them.
Kropotkin defends the methodological rigor of the matrilineal school against superficial criticisms.
“Primitive men have not several superposed or juxtaposed institutions as we have now. They have but one institution, the clan, which embodies all the mutual relations of the members of the clan. Marriage-relations and possession-relations are clan-relations.”
Early humans had a single institution—the clan—that governed all social, marital, and property relations, unlike modern societies with multiple separate institutions.
Kropotkin argues that the patriarchal family theory fails to explain how clan-based institutions could coexist with separate families.
“The mass of facts ransacked by Prof. Westermarck is undoubtedly great enough, and his work is certainly very valuable as a criticism; but it hardly will induce those who know the works of Bachofen, Morgan, MacLennan, Post, Kovalevsky, etc., in the originals, and are acquainted with the village-community school, to change their opinions and accept the patriarchal family theory.”
Despite Westermarck's extensive data, his critique does not persuade scholars familiar with the original works of the matrilineal school and the village-community tradition.
Kropotkin dismisses Westermarck's challenge as insufficient to overturn the established evidence.
