Abstract
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
|
Part VII: Light Light rom Other Forms
of Cultural Behaviour on Some Incidents in Scripture
Chapter 1
The Rationale of Cultural Patterns
IN GENESIS 2:24
it is written, "Wherefore a man shall forsake his father
and mother and shall cleave unto his wife." It is amazing
how many repercussions in the cultural behaviour of people can
hinge upon some apparently inconsequential fragment of the total
behaviour pattern. That a man should leave his home and take
up residence with his wife's people rather than that a woman
should leave hers and take up residence with his people seems
on the face of it of not very profound consequence. And yet there
stems from this single procedure a whole chain of consequences
which can be traced in virtually every kind of culture in the
world, both high and low, and which sheds a wonderful light on
a surprising number of events in Scripture.
That it should be the first distinct
reference to cultural behaviour in Scripture suggests that the
writer recognized its prime importance. And, incidentally, it
raises the interesting question as to how the passage got in
at this place in Genesis, since it is reasonably certain that
Adam himself did not insert it -- unless under divine inspiration
he was instructed to set down as a guide to marital conduct in
the future something about which he could not possibly have had
personal experience at the time.
For many years biblical scholars
have held that the book of Genesis was originally composed of
11 brief histories which had accumulated from Adam to Moses and
which Moses took and combined into a single narrative. This view
holds that the first narrative was written by God Himself and
terminated with the words (in Genesis 2:4), "This is the
history (generations) of the heavens and the earth, etc."
That God should write such a record is by no means impossible.
He wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets for Moses;
pg
1 of 11
and He wrote on the wall
of Belshazzar's palace. This first record was presumably put
into Adam's keeping who subsequently added an historical record
of his own, a record which terminates with the words, "This
is the book of the history (generations) of Adam. . . ."
(Genesis 5:1). There are 11 of these in all, and when Moses put
together the book of Genesis they formed the basis of his account.
To these he added a few explanatory "editorial" notes,
which, for example, recorded the identity of places which had
since changed in name. To this History he then added the other
four books, so that with complete justice the whole Pentateuch
is credited to Moses, but with the significant restraint that
no quotation in the New Testament from Genesis itself is ever
actually attributed to Moses. It is therefore possible, but by
no means certain, that Genesis 2:24 was added by the hand of
Moses by divine instruction.
Why should the
man leave his home rather than the woman leave hers? Primitive
societies are primitive chiefly in the sense that their dominion
over their physical environment rests on a slender margin. The
term "primitive" has nothing to do with intelligence
or wisdom in dealing with social problems. There are many anthropologists
and sociologists who have expressed the belief that the most
primitive people are often the most socially sophisticated. They
do not always reason out why they have adopted some customs which
contribute to the general well-being of their society, but perhaps
they learned more quickly by trial and error than we tend to
do. In the present context they saw very clearly that when the
wife's mother receives into her household the new husband, she
has gained a son. By contrast if the wife moves into the husband's
home, his mother has "lost" her son. Since from time
immemorial the feelings of the matriarch have carried more emotional
weight in the home than that of the male, who is very likely
to spend far less time at home in any case, it is a sound principle
for the well-being of the community to take steps to lessen as
far as possible the emotional conflicts which are almost certain
to arise when a woman with rights enters the household of another
woman with rights. The introduction of the man into the wife's
household rather than the reverse is a custom that is very widespread.
It is worth noting certain things which follow from it as a principle.
Were each man to bring his wife
into his own family circle, several brothers or a number of males
within a village might well end up bringing together a number
of women who were virtually strangers to one another and belonged
to different tribes with somewhat different patterns of culture,
who would then be called upon
pg.2
of 11
to live together in harmony
when their husbands might, for one reason or another, be all
absent from the village for long periods of time. In most societies
of the world until very recent times, the males were likely to
be away at war, hunting, or engaged in some form of work away
from home. The woman is inevitably in such cases left to care
for the children, the hearth, and the animals and the garden.
When the husband has settled in his wife's home, it comes about
that the women in the community who must live together and work
together rather closely will by this very arrangement already
belong to the same basic family, sharing the same cultural idiosyncrasies
of the tribe.
The consequences of this practice
of residence had other interesting repercussions with respect
to the children. Since the children grew up in their mother's
home territory, they naturally learned to behave as members of
the mother's tribe, and they were in fact accredited to her tribe
and her family and not to his. As a consequence, when the husband
happened to have inherited "property," and by property
is meant rights, titles, movable wealth, and so forth, he might
be reluctant to see it pass out of his hands into the hands of
his wife's tribe. Now he could get around this difficulty, if
he so desired, by adopting an orphan, or a slave, or a youth
captured in war, as his own son, and then passing over to him,
rather than to any of his own children, all his wealth. As we
shall see, adoption of those who were not sons into full sonship
occurs in Scripture. Indeed, when the husband is away for extended
periods of time either trading, fighting, or hunting, there is
always some question of whether all the children born to his
wife are really his children. As a result, there has been a very
widespread practice of having the father officially "adopt"
his own children. And until this adoption has been publicly declared
in some simple ceremonial way, even his own legitimate children
cannot claim him as their father.
In our culture, we are very much
concerned with physical paternity, that is, with the man's role
in conception. In many other cultures physical paternity is either
not even recognized as a fact or is considered of little consequence.
In almost all societies other than our own, children are so welcomed
that the question of who is the legitimate father is very secondary.
Indeed, an unwed mother who has a child, particularly a man-child,
is likely to be sought eagerly in marriage because she has demonstrated
that she is capable of bearing children. The Chukchee even had
a particularly happy name for such an unwed woman: they called
her a "fawn mother."
A further point of logical consequence
is that since the woman has not left her home, her brothers are
present always while her
pg.3
of 11
children are growing
up and they, so long as they remain bachelors, are likely to
take a larger part in the education of these children than the
father himself does. As a consequence, the children grow up with
a rather special attachment to "uncles" as a class.
Every daughter in a household looks forward to receiving a bride
price from her intended husband, and in the natural order of
things it has worked out generally that one particular brother
becomes especially attached to one particular sister and that
sister will probably turn over to him much of the bride price
which she receives, so that he in turn will be in a position
to find a wife for himself. This special brother-sister relationship
persists throughout life, and since his sister will in all probability
be married before he can be, she is apt to have children before
he does, and as a result, he will take particular interest in
her children as opposed to the children of other sisters in his
family. He will be the one who will discipline or reward them.
His sister's husband will not be allowed to punish his own children,
and indeed he will generally be very happy not to be required
to do so. This uncle relationship is reflected interestingly
in the Old Testament in certain important ways.
Another consequence of the matrilocal
principle is that in many cultures which are polygynous -- that
is, in which the man may have a number of wives -- his second
wife, and indeed as far as possible all his wives, will be sisters.
The reasons for polygyny will be considered briefly below, but
the point I am trying to make here is that if a man married two
women who were not sisters and if he was by custom to live with
his wife's parents, then he would logically have to live in two
places at once. The fact is that many societies expect the man
who has married one daughter to take in succession each of the
other daughters, so that in the end the whole family stays together.
The first wife will have the priority due to her, which is nothing
less than the priority she had in her own family as the eldest
daughter in any case. To marry one of the younger daughters first
would, in the eyes of such a culture, give rise to an impossible
situation in which a daughter who had been junior in the family
would "lord it over" her seniors. The reader may see
the relevance of this to one well-known biblical event. But as
we shall show, every one of the points which we have considered
thus far sheds light on events in Scripture -- and this not only
in the Old Testament but also in the New.
Because in a polygynous society
a man's wives are likely to be close relatives, the children
as a whole will be apt to call any adult female "mother."
Indeed, since the father is common to them all, they not unnaturally
look upon every female as a potential mother,
pg.4
of 11
and this is reinforced
by the fact that in many such societies any one of the women
will without hesitation suckle any hungry child. As a result,
children will reserve the use of a given name only for their
true mother in order to identify her. The child will, therefore,
call every woman "mother" except the individual who
happens to be his or her mother, and this individual will be
addressed by her first name. By the same token, the women will
refer to the child by the true mother's name as a means of particular
identification. It would not serve the purpose to identify the
child by its father. Thus while Indo-Europeans habitually attach
the determinative -son (i.e., John, Johnson, etc.), other
societies in which physical paternity was not so critical used
such a form as Mary, Maryson, etc.
But this is only one of many names
which a child is likely to receive, names which identify the
tribe, and which even summarize the individual's personal history.
We cannot leave this subject without touching
upon one particular concept of marriage which I believe must
virtually be absent in every culture except that of so-called
Western Man. This is the concept of romantic love as the basis
for engagement. People in primitive cultures as well as high
non-Western cultures do not marry for love except on rare occasions,
and do not marry to legitimize sex. For the most part marriage
serves two purposes which are clearly recognized: the first is
that, by it, the individual achieves adult status, and the second
is that the children may be legitimized. And by "legitimized"
is meant here that the children will have a recognized relationship
to everyone else in the community. They belong in an orderly
way.
It should be emphasized that genuine
love often develops between man and wife even when it has had
little or no part in the original marriage. When I said that
romantic love is not the basis of engagement, I meant only that
it is not as a rule the reason for becoming married in the first
place. But there are many accounts in the anthropological literature
of strong attachment between two married people which has developed
as the result of living together. It has been said that any two
people of the opposite sex who are thrown together closely for
a sufficient length of time and whose background makes them congenial
to one another will have a tendency to become increasingly attached
in the course of time. There is still much to be said for the
once common practice, even in European society, of arranging
marriages on the basis of over-all appropriateness rather than
prerequisite affection. Unfortunately, all too frequently, romantic
love is based upon too shallow a foundation to survive the stresses
and strains of individual growth of the two parties.
pg.5
of 11
In
many cultures, it is very firmly believed that in procreation
the man provides the spirit of the child whereas the woman provides
only the body. Since such societies are less materialistic than
we are, it is honestly believed that at the time of birth the
man makes a greater sacrifice than the woman does and is in greater
danger. One interesting consequence of this concept of the relative
roles played by the man and the woman in procreation is that
the marriage of brothers and sisters is very often considered
incestuous, and therefore abhorrent, only when the two children
are the offspring of the same mother. Having the same mother,
they are believed to have the same kind of body -- which forms
a dangerous union. On the other hand, having the same father
is not nearly as serious. Two children of one father, then, whom
we would therefore consider as brother and sister may marry legitimately,
provided that they are the children of two different wives. A
very interesting story in the Old Testament involving two of
David's children might have ended differently if the young man
had realized the implication of his exact relationship to the
girl he violated
As we have already noted, earlier
cultures tried to make provision for the achievement of familial
harmony by insisting upon the union in marriage of people who
were related in a special way. They wished to see joined together
people who were closely enough related by blood that the involvement
of the equally closely related relatives would stabilize the
marriage as far as possible with the least emotional disturbance
for all concerned, especially when the husband was likely to
be absent from home a large part of the time. But they also wished
to avoid bringing into the world defective children, an eventuality
which people had very early observed was more frequent if the
blood relationships were too close. Since each brother in the
family tended to be paired off in a special relationship with
a particular sister, his sister's children became of special
concern to him. When these children grew up, it was often taken
for granted that the ideal marriage partner for them would be
one of his own children. Thus a man's son would ideally marry
his mother's brother's daughter, i.e., a cross cousin. This can
be set forth diagrammatically as follows:
pg.6
of 11
However,
among Semitic people another kind of cousin relationship seems
to have been preferred. In this case the ideal marriage partner
was not the mother's brother's daughter but the father's brother's
daughter, a relationship known as parallel cousin marriage. This
is set forth diagrammatically as follows:
Frequently,
tied in with this parallel-cousin relationship, was a further
principle which is as follows. If my brother marries a woman
and dies at a time when his wife may still bear children, then
I will assume the position of husband towards his wife. When
this happens, his children would then become my children. However,
since I am not related by blood to his wife, her children would
not be considered related bodily to my children because they
have received their bodies primarily from their mother. It thus
comes about that although her children have now become my children
and are thus counted as brothers and sisters to my children,
since I am the appointed father of them all, yet it is perfectly
legitimate in societies so structured in this way for such children
to be joined in marriage. Indeed, a son may marry a "sister"
so that his spouse is both wife and sister, a circumstance which
illuminates one particularly well-known story in the Old Testament.
He truthfully marries his sister; and yet because she is the
daughter of his father (by a process of "adoption")
she is not the daughter of his own mother. It is this last fact
which earlier cultures saw as being crucial. It depends entirely
on the concept that incest is dangerous because of the close
relationship of two bodies derived from the same mother, and
not the close relationship of two spirits derived from a common
father. This is why a man may not marry his own mother or his
own sister by his mother.
It is abhorrent to us that a man
should have several wives at once, and yet for thousands of years
polygyny has been practiced very widely. One reason for this
is that there was a tendency for the succession of wives to be
sufficiently closely related that they were already well conditioned
to living together. The notion of romantic love introduced a
most disruptive of all forces in human relationships, namely,
jealousy. And there is no jealousy as divisive as that which
pg.7
of 11
stems from wounded love.
The jealousy which stems from wounded pride is bad enough, but
there are often ways in which it can be compensated for on a
social plane. The simple fact is that the practice of a number
of women sharing a single husband does not automatically lead
to family chaos. The rights of each wife and her children have
almost always been protected by custom. And, curiously enough,
it is not infrequently the women themselves who insist upon other
women being added to the "community." This is partly
a question of social prestige, for as each wife is added all
the previous wives move up in rank by one order. Moreover, a
man who can support successfully a number of wives is generally
considered to be a superior individual to the man who has only
one or two wives. In addition to this is the plain fact that,
in many such societies the women far outnumber the men. Not only
do they tend to mature sooner and live longer, but the very occupation
of men keeps the male population down. The hazards of war, hunting,
travelling in general, cause a steady attrition of the male population.
In some societies this is so serious in fact that the balance
is preserved by destroying a large number of female infants at
birth.
Only in Western culture are people
comparatively indifferent to the plight of the widow. In non-Western
cultures a widow would not be left to grow old by herself, she
would be married to a man able to provide her with the associations
of "family." This factor also contributes to polygyny.
In short, polygyny, unlike the harem, is a social arrangement
not really prompted by sex at all.
There is a further extension of
the connected lines of thought regarding marriage which is logical
enough, granted the other premises. Since the element of romantic
love does not usually enter into the contract of marriage, the
marriage bond is in no way weakened seriously in the eyes of
the community merely because the husband and wife are constantly
at loggerheads. But there is one element in the union which is
quite critical, namely, that the wife must bear children. In
the event that she proves barren, the man may take one of several
alternative courses of action. He may divorce his wife and reclaim
in full the bride price, since the "contract" has been
broken. As a second alternative, he may demand from the bride's
family the next oldest sister, not as a substitute for his first
wife but as an addition to his household to bear his children.
It is just such a possibility as this that in many societies
leads to the feeling that the bride's sisters are potential wives
of the oldest sister's husband. And this probably led in some
cases to the potentiality becoming a reality, with the end result
that the man by custom married all the sisters whether
pg.8
of 11
his first wife was barren
or not. There is a third alternative, and this is that the wife
who finds herself unable to bear children has the privilege of
providing her husband with another woman to raise children for
him, the children as they are born being laid at once upon her
knees so that they accept her as true mother from the very first.
The important point here is that the husband himself is not allowed,
in this arrangement, to choose the second wife. And it must be
supposed that the first wife will take care to ensure that the
second wife will be one who will not forseeably compete with
her own privileges as the first wife. The husband has no choice
in this matter, it is entirely for the wife to decide and it
is she who "gives" the substitute to her husband and
not the husband who makes the choice himself.
The opposite of barrenness which
is considered a breach of contract is the birth of more than
one child at a time, which is frequently felt to be undesirable.
The birth of twins has been interpreted in a number of ways by
primitive people, some believing it is a good omen and others
not a good omen. It is considered a good omen by those who desire
only to have a large number of children in their household and
who are not unduly superstitious, although in some circumstances
even those who love children find it necessary to destroy one
of them by exposure since the mother cannot support both because
of the harshness of their environment. Those cultures in which
the forces of evil are more manifest, and some societies like
the Dobuans which are absolutely impregnated with black magic,
the birth of twins is looked upon with distaste, suspicion, fear,
or horror. Those who look upon the event with distaste are people
who usually believe that it is most improper for a human being
to parallel the behaviour of animals by bearing more than one
child at a time. It is an animal, not a human, practice and is
felt to be degrading. Those who look upon the event with suspicion
believe that it is evidence of infidelity on the part of the
woman. In order to bear two children at once she must have "known"
two men, one of whom would, of course, not be her husband. In
this case action is likely to be taken by the mother in order
to avoid suspicion, and one of the two children may either be
destroyed by "exposure" or farmed out to some other
family. Those cultures which look upon the phenomenon with fear
believe that no good can possibly come of such an event if the
sex of the two children is different, since it implies in their
mind that a brother and sister have been far too closely associated
together in the womb. It is a kind of prenatal incest, which
is taboo. Finally, and in the context of this Paper perhaps more
significantly, those who
pg.9
of 11
view the event with
horror do so because they believe that one of the two children
is born of an evil spirit. They therefore destroy both children,
being unable to tell which child is the evil one. It is possible
that this particular belief arose in the course of time as a
consequence of certain events in the early history of mankind
which, as we shall see, may also be implied in certain passages
of Scripture.
Although the father is not believed
to be important in the physical birth of the child, he is believed
to be nearly, if not wholly, responsible for the child's spiritual
soul. As a consequence physical malformation is blamed on the
mother as a rule. On the other hand, where it happens that the
child grows up to look like the father, it is either totally
improper to draw attention to it or it is attributed to the fact
that the father has played so much with him and been familiar
with the child as he grew.
So close is this "spiritual
bond" that when a child turns out to be notably good, it
is credited entirely to the father, and when the child turns
out to be particularly bad, it is blamed upon the father. This
is not unreasonable, and it is reflected in interesting ways.
One final aspect of family life
relates to the fact that in simpler societies, or in the higher
cultures which have a very stable diet, all the members who "belong"
have a tendency to develop the same characteristic body odour.
A foreigner has a body odour which is different and for that
reason apt to be unpleasant. Food has a tremendous effect in
this respect when it is not varied from meal to meal and when
washing of the body is not an important part of daily life. One
of the first things that a man will do when he returns after
a period of absence is to bury his nose in the necks of his children
in order to delight in the familiar odour which is apt to be
most readily detected here where the clothes are vented. Our
noses are challenged with so many conflicting odours that we
become comparatively indifferent. In biblical times it was not
so.
In our culture a man's will is
not usually read until after his death, though he may reveal
some of its content to those concerned while he is still alive.
To many cultures this would appear to be a strange procedure,
for it makes it impossible sometimes for those who are to benefit
to make any long-range plans. And with us it is a rare thing
for a benefactor to pass on his wealth to any of his children
while he is yet alive, thereby anticipating the terms of his
will. This again seems foolish to many peoples because the aged
are robbed of the pleasure of seeing their wealth do some good
and indeed of benefitting reciprocally themselves.
pg.10
of 11
Other
cultures have often tended to adopt the principle of allowing
children upon demand to be given their inheritance. Since the
assumption is generally made in such societies that only sons
will share the inherited wealth, if it happens there is only
one other son, that other son automatically becomes possessor
of all that his father has, a circumstance which is vividly reflected
in a well-known New Testament parable.
We shall now consider these matters
in somewhat greater detail, using illustrations drawn from cultures
in many different parts of the world.
pg.11
of 11
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|