What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex, Culture and Myth
Sex, Culture, and Myth by Malinowski, Bronislaw
- GenresAnthropology
346 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1962
1 person is currently reading
76 people want to read
About the author
Bronisław Malinowski
65 books154 followersBronisław Kasper Malinowski (IPA: [ˌmaliˈnɔfski]; April 7, 1884 – May 16, 1942) was a Polish anthropologist widely considered to be one of the most important anthropologists of the twentieth century because of his pioneering work on ethnographic fieldwork, with which he also gave a major contribution to the study of Melanesia, and the study of reciprocity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 30, 2024
A POSTHUMOUSLY-PUBLISHED COLLECTION OF ARTICLES
Author and anthropologist Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (1884-1942) write in the first article (“Marriage”) of this 1962 book, “Perhaps the most important fact in the consideration of prenuptial chastity is the rule that freedom of sexual intercourse does not generally extend to freedom of procreation…. A child born out of wedlock---is an anomaly, whether it be an outcast or an unclaimed asset. Marriage thus appears to be an indispensable element in the institution of the family.” (Pg. 6-7)
He observes, “The mistake has often been made in discussing the ‘origin of marriage,’ or attributing to this of that mode … Marriage has in turn been derived from mere subjugation by brutal force (the old patriarchal theory); from appropriation by capture in foreign tribes (John Ferguson McLennan’s hypothesis); from feminine revolt against hetaerism (Johann Jakob Bachofen); from economic appropriation or purchase (the materialist interpretation of early marriages); from pithecanthropic patriarchy (Atkinson, Freud); and from ‘matria potestas’ (Briffault). All these views overstate the importance of one aspect of marriage or even of one element in the modes of its conclusion; some even invent an imaginary state or condition.” (Pg. 19)
He notes, “Monogamy is not only the most important form of marriage, not only that which predominates in most communities, and which occurs, statistically speaking, in an overwhelming majority of instances, but it is also the pattern and prototype of marriage.” (Pg. 32) He adds in another article, “The family, that is the group consisting of mother, father and children, has been and to a large extent still remains the main educational agency of mankind. This is the verdict of sound modern anthropology, this is the knowledge derived from history and dictated by common sense.” (Pg. 36)
He states, “Then came the discoveries of Bachofen, [Lewis] Morgan, and McLennan which overthrew the [patriarchal theory] once and forever. They disclosed remarkable and unsuspected aspects of primitive kinship; mother-right, avunculate, the clan system and exogamy, the importance of the levirate, polyandry and cross-cousin marriage, and above all the classificatory nomenclature. These discoveries, remarkably enough, were made primarily from the armchair, by the reconstruction and reinterpretation of ancient customs and certain previously known ethnographical facts… Yet these armchair discoveries are perhaps among the most signal proofs of the power of scientific thought in anthropology. For soon a wealth of facts began to pour in from various parts of the world, confirming [these theorists].” (Pg. 52)
He suggests, “It is clear… that anthropology must supply the student of modern society not with precedent but with sociological law. Were we to prove that unbridled promiscuity was the main pastime of Mr. Pithecanthropus Erectus and his wife, this, in itself, could not justify ‘petting parties’ and certain similar institutions. Nor need our views on modern communism or upon its compatibility with human nature be profoundly influenced by the discovery that primitive forms of communism have occurred occasionally in early societies. The argument from ‘natural inclination’ is as spurious as that from primeval precedent. But if we can prove that marriage as a legal contract and the family as a culturally defined group of parents and children… our outlook becomes more plastic and tolerant and our judgment more competent.” (Pg. 88)
He explains, “Towards the middle of the last century a number of scholars hit upon what appeared to be an illuminating as well as a sound and genuine scientific discovery. They suddenly received a revelation … [which] told them that it was not a paradisiacal monogamy but licentious, horrid promiscuity in which primitive man lived… The first perhaps to hit upon the new ideas was [Johann Jakob] Bachofen, a… Swiss lawyer. Pondering over old texts… mythologies, and legal documents, he found that in olden days most human societies lived under mother-right, that is, women were the stronger sex, descent was counted from the mother, and the father was an irrelevant item in the household… The solution of this state of affairs which came to Bachofen… is well known. His inner vision showed him original mankind living in sexual promiscuity, with neither marriage nor fatherhood nor morality.” (Pg.
92)
He says of Robert Briffault, “I regard… as the main defect in Mr. Briffault’s book [‘The Mothers’] that he fights on the side of communism, as well as of mother-right, without compromise or reservation. The main thesis of the book is that mother-right was the source of social organization, that male influence was entirely irrelevant in the dawn of culture, and that kinship, political organization… and religion were created and completely dominated by woman… It would be easy to indict ‘The Mothers’ for its dogmatic and one-sided affirmations; for the straining of evidence… for unsatisfactory definitions… The work, however, will be useful to a student, even though he reject most of its conclusions.” (Pg. 122-124)
He notes, “For the ‘origins of the clan system’ are not to be found in some nebulous past by imaginary speculations. They happen nowadays under our very eyes. Any … unprejudiced anthropologist who works within a tribe with clan organization can see them taking place. I have, myself, witnessed the ‘origins of the clan’ in Melanesia, and I think that even from this one experience I am able to draw a universally valid conclusion, or at least a generalization which ought to be universally tested. Especially since all the fragmentary evidence from other areas fits perfectly well into the scheme based on Melanesian facts.” (Pg. 159)
He explains, “I have tried to define the scope of anthropology, the pioneer among social sciences in the empirical approach to determinism. Determinism does exist in cultural process, and the scientific statement of the process must be deterministic, objective, fully documented, and unaffected by personal and impressionistic distortion. Scientific anthropology … must work on the foundations laid down by biology and physiology; it must work hand in hand with the psychologist; and it must learn as much as it can learn from the student of environment, the geographer.” (Pg. 194)
He points out, “You can see… the relation of primitive magic to primitive sciences they assist each other and co-operate, but never trespass each other’s preserves. You can see, also, the utility and function of magic. Sociologically, it is an organizing force; it brings order, rhythm, and control into the practical activities. The magician becomes the natural leader and often grows into the chief or the king. Individually, it gives man confidence and allows him to act firmly in the teeth of adversity and heavy odds.” (Pg. 261)
He acknowledges, “You might like… to know my personal opinion as to the relation of science and religion… Personally, I am an agnostic. I am not able, that is, to deny the existence of God; nor would I be inclined to do so, still less to maintain that such a belief is not necessary. I also fervently hope that there is a survival after death, and I deeply desire to obtain some certainty on this matter. But … I am unable to accept any positive religion---Christian or otherwise. I cannot positively believe in Providence in any sense of the word, and I have no conviction of personal immortality. Thus… I profoundly differ from the confident rationalist or disbeliever of the past generation or two… Is science responsible for my agnosticism… I believe it is, and therefore I do n love science, though I have to remain its loyal servant… When I come… to contemporary miracles, to faith-healing… all my scientific morals of method and evidence are roused to protest… Is the modern world, with its devastating wars… really governed by this inner and universal revelation of truth and harmony to all men alike? I see no trace of such control I feel far nearer to the established, traditional creeds… and for them I have a deep reverence.” (Pg. 263-265)
In the final essay, he concludes, “The unity of religion in substance, form, and function is to be found everywhere. Religious development consists probably in the growing predominance of the ethical principle and in the increasing fusion of the two main factors of all belief, the sense of Providence and the faith in immortality.” (Pg. 335)
This book will be of great interest to students of the development of modern anthropology.
Author and anthropologist Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (1884-1942) write in the first article (“Marriage”) of this 1962 book, “Perhaps the most important fact in the consideration of prenuptial chastity is the rule that freedom of sexual intercourse does not generally extend to freedom of procreation…. A child born out of wedlock---is an anomaly, whether it be an outcast or an unclaimed asset. Marriage thus appears to be an indispensable element in the institution of the family.” (Pg. 6-7)
He observes, “The mistake has often been made in discussing the ‘origin of marriage,’ or attributing to this of that mode … Marriage has in turn been derived from mere subjugation by brutal force (the old patriarchal theory); from appropriation by capture in foreign tribes (John Ferguson McLennan’s hypothesis); from feminine revolt against hetaerism (Johann Jakob Bachofen); from economic appropriation or purchase (the materialist interpretation of early marriages); from pithecanthropic patriarchy (Atkinson, Freud); and from ‘matria potestas’ (Briffault). All these views overstate the importance of one aspect of marriage or even of one element in the modes of its conclusion; some even invent an imaginary state or condition.” (Pg. 19)
He notes, “Monogamy is not only the most important form of marriage, not only that which predominates in most communities, and which occurs, statistically speaking, in an overwhelming majority of instances, but it is also the pattern and prototype of marriage.” (Pg. 32) He adds in another article, “The family, that is the group consisting of mother, father and children, has been and to a large extent still remains the main educational agency of mankind. This is the verdict of sound modern anthropology, this is the knowledge derived from history and dictated by common sense.” (Pg. 36)
He states, “Then came the discoveries of Bachofen, [Lewis] Morgan, and McLennan which overthrew the [patriarchal theory] once and forever. They disclosed remarkable and unsuspected aspects of primitive kinship; mother-right, avunculate, the clan system and exogamy, the importance of the levirate, polyandry and cross-cousin marriage, and above all the classificatory nomenclature. These discoveries, remarkably enough, were made primarily from the armchair, by the reconstruction and reinterpretation of ancient customs and certain previously known ethnographical facts… Yet these armchair discoveries are perhaps among the most signal proofs of the power of scientific thought in anthropology. For soon a wealth of facts began to pour in from various parts of the world, confirming [these theorists].” (Pg. 52)
He suggests, “It is clear… that anthropology must supply the student of modern society not with precedent but with sociological law. Were we to prove that unbridled promiscuity was the main pastime of Mr. Pithecanthropus Erectus and his wife, this, in itself, could not justify ‘petting parties’ and certain similar institutions. Nor need our views on modern communism or upon its compatibility with human nature be profoundly influenced by the discovery that primitive forms of communism have occurred occasionally in early societies. The argument from ‘natural inclination’ is as spurious as that from primeval precedent. But if we can prove that marriage as a legal contract and the family as a culturally defined group of parents and children… our outlook becomes more plastic and tolerant and our judgment more competent.” (Pg. 88)
He explains, “Towards the middle of the last century a number of scholars hit upon what appeared to be an illuminating as well as a sound and genuine scientific discovery. They suddenly received a revelation … [which] told them that it was not a paradisiacal monogamy but licentious, horrid promiscuity in which primitive man lived… The first perhaps to hit upon the new ideas was [Johann Jakob] Bachofen, a… Swiss lawyer. Pondering over old texts… mythologies, and legal documents, he found that in olden days most human societies lived under mother-right, that is, women were the stronger sex, descent was counted from the mother, and the father was an irrelevant item in the household… The solution of this state of affairs which came to Bachofen… is well known. His inner vision showed him original mankind living in sexual promiscuity, with neither marriage nor fatherhood nor morality.” (Pg.
92)
He says of Robert Briffault, “I regard… as the main defect in Mr. Briffault’s book [‘The Mothers’] that he fights on the side of communism, as well as of mother-right, without compromise or reservation. The main thesis of the book is that mother-right was the source of social organization, that male influence was entirely irrelevant in the dawn of culture, and that kinship, political organization… and religion were created and completely dominated by woman… It would be easy to indict ‘The Mothers’ for its dogmatic and one-sided affirmations; for the straining of evidence… for unsatisfactory definitions… The work, however, will be useful to a student, even though he reject most of its conclusions.” (Pg. 122-124)
He notes, “For the ‘origins of the clan system’ are not to be found in some nebulous past by imaginary speculations. They happen nowadays under our very eyes. Any … unprejudiced anthropologist who works within a tribe with clan organization can see them taking place. I have, myself, witnessed the ‘origins of the clan’ in Melanesia, and I think that even from this one experience I am able to draw a universally valid conclusion, or at least a generalization which ought to be universally tested. Especially since all the fragmentary evidence from other areas fits perfectly well into the scheme based on Melanesian facts.” (Pg. 159)
He explains, “I have tried to define the scope of anthropology, the pioneer among social sciences in the empirical approach to determinism. Determinism does exist in cultural process, and the scientific statement of the process must be deterministic, objective, fully documented, and unaffected by personal and impressionistic distortion. Scientific anthropology … must work on the foundations laid down by biology and physiology; it must work hand in hand with the psychologist; and it must learn as much as it can learn from the student of environment, the geographer.” (Pg. 194)
He points out, “You can see… the relation of primitive magic to primitive sciences they assist each other and co-operate, but never trespass each other’s preserves. You can see, also, the utility and function of magic. Sociologically, it is an organizing force; it brings order, rhythm, and control into the practical activities. The magician becomes the natural leader and often grows into the chief or the king. Individually, it gives man confidence and allows him to act firmly in the teeth of adversity and heavy odds.” (Pg. 261)
He acknowledges, “You might like… to know my personal opinion as to the relation of science and religion… Personally, I am an agnostic. I am not able, that is, to deny the existence of God; nor would I be inclined to do so, still less to maintain that such a belief is not necessary. I also fervently hope that there is a survival after death, and I deeply desire to obtain some certainty on this matter. But … I am unable to accept any positive religion---Christian or otherwise. I cannot positively believe in Providence in any sense of the word, and I have no conviction of personal immortality. Thus… I profoundly differ from the confident rationalist or disbeliever of the past generation or two… Is science responsible for my agnosticism… I believe it is, and therefore I do n love science, though I have to remain its loyal servant… When I come… to contemporary miracles, to faith-healing… all my scientific morals of method and evidence are roused to protest… Is the modern world, with its devastating wars… really governed by this inner and universal revelation of truth and harmony to all men alike? I see no trace of such control I feel far nearer to the established, traditional creeds… and for them I have a deep reverence.” (Pg. 263-265)
In the final essay, he concludes, “The unity of religion in substance, form, and function is to be found everywhere. Religious development consists probably in the growing predominance of the ethical principle and in the increasing fusion of the two main factors of all belief, the sense of Providence and the faith in immortality.” (Pg. 335)
This book will be of great interest to students of the development of modern anthropology.
October 14, 2013
A splendid and unique book that draws together the research from the author’s illustrious career. The research described here can never be repeated as isolated and primitive societies, as described in the book, have effectively disappeared. These societies have been changed by contact with visitors from modern western societies – culture shock/cultural contamination. It is barely possible to find a pristine primitive society in the world today (2013).
I fully endorse the description found on the book’s protective jacket:
Malinowski’s brilliant, sensitive interpretations of the role of sex and religion – the needs of man’s body and his spirit – are are still unsurpassed. Now some of the most important work of this pioneer of modern anthropology, hitherto unavailable, is brought together in book form for the first time in 'Sex, Culture and Myth'.
Based on his research among primitive tribes but directed primarily to modern problems, this book considers the questions of marital fidelity versus promiscuousness; premarital experiment versus precaution; monogamy versus polygamy; and parental authority versus permissiveness. He also discusses the theories of Freud, Frazer, Westermarck, Havelock Ellis, and other controversial figures. [It is interesting that the radical psychologist Wilhelm Reich refers to Malinowski’s work in his book 'The Invasion of Compulsory Sex Morality'.]
The book moves from the question of sex to other social phenomena, including the institution of the family and the relationships within it, and then, more specifically, to myth and totem, dogma and religion. It devotes attention to the present tension between rational and empirical claims of science and the counter-claims of religious faith. 'Sex, Culture and Myth' is a fascinating and significant book.
I fully endorse the description found on the book’s protective jacket:
Malinowski’s brilliant, sensitive interpretations of the role of sex and religion – the needs of man’s body and his spirit – are are still unsurpassed. Now some of the most important work of this pioneer of modern anthropology, hitherto unavailable, is brought together in book form for the first time in 'Sex, Culture and Myth'.
Based on his research among primitive tribes but directed primarily to modern problems, this book considers the questions of marital fidelity versus promiscuousness; premarital experiment versus precaution; monogamy versus polygamy; and parental authority versus permissiveness. He also discusses the theories of Freud, Frazer, Westermarck, Havelock Ellis, and other controversial figures. [It is interesting that the radical psychologist Wilhelm Reich refers to Malinowski’s work in his book 'The Invasion of Compulsory Sex Morality'.]
The book moves from the question of sex to other social phenomena, including the institution of the family and the relationships within it, and then, more specifically, to myth and totem, dogma and religion. It devotes attention to the present tension between rational and empirical claims of science and the counter-claims of religious faith. 'Sex, Culture and Myth' is a fascinating and significant book.
September 6, 2025
If you don't want to read all the books of Malinowski, I'd consider this the best synthesis of the overall ouvre.
In this compilation of articles he mentions many of the points discussed about myth, religion, sexuality, magic and the functionalist method as well as his "critiques" to communism.
I still consider many of the points Malinowski postulated as plain wrong, liberal and reactionary, yet there is something engaging on him.
In this compilation of articles he mentions many of the points discussed about myth, religion, sexuality, magic and the functionalist method as well as his "critiques" to communism.
I still consider many of the points Malinowski postulated as plain wrong, liberal and reactionary, yet there is something engaging on him.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews