What do you think?
Rate this book
Primitive Communism Is Not What It Used to Be: At the Origin of Male Domination
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
January 1, 2025
This is going to be a long one.
While interesting empirically, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the lines of argumentation Darmangeat pursued. I really appreciated a lot of the interventions he made. I share a lot of his gripes with both Marxist and non-Marxist anthropology and he delivers most of his critique in a satisfying and effective way. The first half or so of the book and then another chapter towards the end are dedicated to tearing apart the argument that pre-classed and pre-agricultural society was a utopia of sexual equality that fell once and for all with the advent of the plough (and consequently the whole principle on which much of Marxist thinking has been built since Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State). I was already very sympathetic to that point and in basic agreement. And while I do have some fondness for it, and it was clearly important in a number of regards, the diverse problems with Origin become more and more obvious the more you read anything that’s not Origin. Most of that critique has been hashed out enough, but I think Darmangeat makes two points which I think are more original and important, addressed to the very persistent idea that the quantity of female labour contribution could be automatically understood as endowing both economic power and social respect and dignity (looking at Federici). He argues that the former supposition is rooted in a fundamentally capitalist concept of the relationship between labour and remuneration, while the latter is based in a category of labour as abstract and quantitative rather than discreet and qualitative. He applies Marx's categories to criticize this frustratingIy persistent (usually pre-reflexive and unjustified) assumption in a very well put-together way. One gets the impression that debunking the “primitive matriarchy” is really the most important aspect of the book for him, given the amount of time he dedicates to deconstructing these arguments in comparison with developing the substance of his positive contributions (which fell much more flat for me). To be fair, it is an extremely difficult question (which is most of why I find it so interesting). I think that the “woman question” is a really trying test of the explanatory capacity of Marxist theory, both because sex relations are obviously profoundly related to division of labour and property, but also confound simple explanations in those terms.
The actual content of his argument was pretty vague at points, but his central claim was that, below the point of class stratification, technology had little role in women's position. A high level of technological development automatically rendered women’s economic contributions marginal, which necessarily led to a degradation of their position. But at any lower stage, where women tended to have significant contributions, the specificities of this division of labour and the technologies used were incidental, and any mechanical social organization of production can have any level of inequality. The limitation on the range of possibility here, and why matriarchy has never existed, is for him the general commonalities in the sexual division of labour. According to Darmangeat this developed in response to the functional imperative of the development of a division of labour of literally any sorts in order to improve productivity. Outside of my general problems with functionalism, it’s not obvious to me that the divisions of labour actually employed were in alignment with this maximization of productivity. There are arguably situations in which it was actually rather unproductive, given the quantity of labour and portion of the social product which is devoted towards rites and religious practices which reinforce and demarcate the division between the sexes (initiation rites, esoteric male cults, etc). In the not-uncommon scenario where ceremonial and religious affairs or various other forms of public ostentation are one of the (if not the) main responsibilities of men, it’s hard to see how this division of labour is really more economically efficient at all. It also doesn’t really explain why the division of labour is often accompanied by a series of stringent taboos in terms of consumption, domicile, etc. I’m not saying there’s nothing at all to this argument, and that it’s not to a certain extent expedient to organize tasks alongside the most visible (and demographically consistent) line of demarcation in society. But I find this as a whole not terribly compelling. He argues that the consistent aspect of the division of labour limiting the possibility of women's position is that men are universally accorded a monopoly on large-game hunting. (He explains this through the presence of a menstrual taboo relating to hunting and a universal belief in the incompatibility of the two forms of blood, a claim that I found honestly somewhat ridiculous and much easier to explain as an ex-post-facto justification. But I think that this as a question can be bracketed.) By this, the three conditions setting the stage for the diminution of women's status are set. First of all, he claims that men everywhere consequently have (a.) a monopoly on the most prestiged form of labour (this is obviously an inversion of causality to me, he explains this by the fact that meat can be redistributed as gifts, but so can (and are) vegetable foodstuffs) and (b.) control over warfare and the means of effective violence, which for him derives again from hunting (I don’t really understand why he insisted upon a monopoly on hunting leading to a monopoly on militarism and violence rather than vice versa). Also derivative of this hunting monopoly is (c.) the control over all forms of technique and the ability to produce the means of production, in a leap of reasoning that was unclear. For him, all of these provide the conditions for (if not the guarantee of male domination), which is why in all societies women have been, if not absolutely inferior, never even fully equal. I obviously have issues with some of his claims here, but I think he does hit at what I think is actually the most elementary pre-requisite and basis of sexual inequality, which is so obvious that it is often ignored, the central role of men in warfare and organized violence. This might also explain why formal juridico-political power is everywhere a central prerogative of men, even when women have great de facto economic influence, if you are to believe Marx and Engels regarding the genesis of centralized political power in situations of intertribal warfare. He says that in terms of actual power, what matters is the economic autonomy of women and the control women exert over their means of production and the distribution of socially essential goods. This seems more or less fully doomed to tautology to me, and is additionally somewhat obvious, even to most non-Marxists. The one explanation he provides in the way of the occurrence of relative exploitation versus autonomy was that in situations of long-distance warfare, there was often more economic autonomy as a functional correlate. He makes a similar argument regarding arbitrariness about lineality of descent and kinship, in that he thinks that there are determinate laws for classed societies but it is generally unimportant in “primitive” society.
My biggest problem with this whole argument is that he conceives all of “primitive society” in essentially completely negative terms, as a monolith opposed to classed society, and then on that account decides there was nothing worth analyzing. He creates a break between Marxism’s analytical capacities in classed and pre-classed societies even more dramatic than that made by Godelier (with his determination of the dominant principle of kinship), which is somewhat ironic given that he castigates Godelier’s “one renunciation which led to another” as revealing the sterility of the method of the Marxist structuralism. I also do not find the idea that different spheres of domination (economic and hence juridico-political power, subjection to sexual and physical violence, control over sex, social standing of labour, general ideological regard) are completely distinct and unrelated particularly compelling, which for him is a corollary to his argument, and even less so the claim that none of the above could possibly be meaningfully related to either the system of production in pre-classed society or the mode of kinship and filiation. It repeats the very common sin of Marxists in which "primitive society" is viewed essentially purely negatively in relation to classed society. Marx and Engels’ typology was clearly overly rigid and flat-out wrong in a number of respects, but it at least attempted to take some systematic account.
One thing that I think severely inhibits the potential of this analysis is its insistent focus on production proper (rather than reproduction) as the basis of inequality. I think the most important innovation of Origin was that it attempted to place both reproduction and kinship in a defined Marxist theoretical framework (one in which I think many of the general instincts and directions were correct). A lot of people, in correcting Engels, have also gotten rid of the most interesting elements in the process. There is a lot that becomes very hard to explain when sex inequality is perceived purely in the terms of "productive labour." Why it's not men as such who subjugate women as such, nor brothers their sisters, nor even (except in interim) fathers their daughters, but almost everywhere husbands their wives; why the position of women is clearly tied to a high degree of unilateral sexual control; kinship institutions like bridewealth and polygyny; why sex and reproduction are, in all cases I have heard, the central cultural themes to which anything like muscular weakness is highly tertiary. The author also briefly endorses the female contribution theory of polygyny, which I had a very similar criticism of.
As a whole, it was definitely well-written and also very ethnographically interesting, and I think this does force one to reconsider and qualify common assumptions regarding hunter-gathering societies. My understanding was that it was somewhat established that women’s position was, while obviously not idyllic, somewhat considerably higher in hunter-gatherer societies. I still am not convinced that this is not to some extent true, and he admits that he somewhat cherry-picks for the purpose of critique, but there is a point to be made that in a number of cases women still occupy a quite low and detested position. I’m not very familiar with the details of the social and economic organization of many of the societies he references, and I intend to get into some of the material regarding them and see if I can make sense of the roles that female labour and reproduction play in their economic system. I also think his definition of wealth and his discussions of bridewealth and wergeld are very interesting and too short. I think that understanding the drive to accumulate in terms of material wealth as such is missing the point, the object has always been primarily the relations engendered by them, and the failure to recognize this has been a stubborn obstacle in understanding economic relations in pre-classed society. Despite theoretical weakness, there are definitely things I enjoyed about this book, and I feel like Marxist work on this subject is sparse enough that I kind of just appreciate an attempt being made.
While interesting empirically, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the lines of argumentation Darmangeat pursued. I really appreciated a lot of the interventions he made. I share a lot of his gripes with both Marxist and non-Marxist anthropology and he delivers most of his critique in a satisfying and effective way. The first half or so of the book and then another chapter towards the end are dedicated to tearing apart the argument that pre-classed and pre-agricultural society was a utopia of sexual equality that fell once and for all with the advent of the plough (and consequently the whole principle on which much of Marxist thinking has been built since Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State). I was already very sympathetic to that point and in basic agreement. And while I do have some fondness for it, and it was clearly important in a number of regards, the diverse problems with Origin become more and more obvious the more you read anything that’s not Origin. Most of that critique has been hashed out enough, but I think Darmangeat makes two points which I think are more original and important, addressed to the very persistent idea that the quantity of female labour contribution could be automatically understood as endowing both economic power and social respect and dignity (looking at Federici). He argues that the former supposition is rooted in a fundamentally capitalist concept of the relationship between labour and remuneration, while the latter is based in a category of labour as abstract and quantitative rather than discreet and qualitative. He applies Marx's categories to criticize this frustratingIy persistent (usually pre-reflexive and unjustified) assumption in a very well put-together way. One gets the impression that debunking the “primitive matriarchy” is really the most important aspect of the book for him, given the amount of time he dedicates to deconstructing these arguments in comparison with developing the substance of his positive contributions (which fell much more flat for me). To be fair, it is an extremely difficult question (which is most of why I find it so interesting). I think that the “woman question” is a really trying test of the explanatory capacity of Marxist theory, both because sex relations are obviously profoundly related to division of labour and property, but also confound simple explanations in those terms.
The actual content of his argument was pretty vague at points, but his central claim was that, below the point of class stratification, technology had little role in women's position. A high level of technological development automatically rendered women’s economic contributions marginal, which necessarily led to a degradation of their position. But at any lower stage, where women tended to have significant contributions, the specificities of this division of labour and the technologies used were incidental, and any mechanical social organization of production can have any level of inequality. The limitation on the range of possibility here, and why matriarchy has never existed, is for him the general commonalities in the sexual division of labour. According to Darmangeat this developed in response to the functional imperative of the development of a division of labour of literally any sorts in order to improve productivity. Outside of my general problems with functionalism, it’s not obvious to me that the divisions of labour actually employed were in alignment with this maximization of productivity. There are arguably situations in which it was actually rather unproductive, given the quantity of labour and portion of the social product which is devoted towards rites and religious practices which reinforce and demarcate the division between the sexes (initiation rites, esoteric male cults, etc). In the not-uncommon scenario where ceremonial and religious affairs or various other forms of public ostentation are one of the (if not the) main responsibilities of men, it’s hard to see how this division of labour is really more economically efficient at all. It also doesn’t really explain why the division of labour is often accompanied by a series of stringent taboos in terms of consumption, domicile, etc. I’m not saying there’s nothing at all to this argument, and that it’s not to a certain extent expedient to organize tasks alongside the most visible (and demographically consistent) line of demarcation in society. But I find this as a whole not terribly compelling. He argues that the consistent aspect of the division of labour limiting the possibility of women's position is that men are universally accorded a monopoly on large-game hunting. (He explains this through the presence of a menstrual taboo relating to hunting and a universal belief in the incompatibility of the two forms of blood, a claim that I found honestly somewhat ridiculous and much easier to explain as an ex-post-facto justification. But I think that this as a question can be bracketed.) By this, the three conditions setting the stage for the diminution of women's status are set. First of all, he claims that men everywhere consequently have (a.) a monopoly on the most prestiged form of labour (this is obviously an inversion of causality to me, he explains this by the fact that meat can be redistributed as gifts, but so can (and are) vegetable foodstuffs) and (b.) control over warfare and the means of effective violence, which for him derives again from hunting (I don’t really understand why he insisted upon a monopoly on hunting leading to a monopoly on militarism and violence rather than vice versa). Also derivative of this hunting monopoly is (c.) the control over all forms of technique and the ability to produce the means of production, in a leap of reasoning that was unclear. For him, all of these provide the conditions for (if not the guarantee of male domination), which is why in all societies women have been, if not absolutely inferior, never even fully equal. I obviously have issues with some of his claims here, but I think he does hit at what I think is actually the most elementary pre-requisite and basis of sexual inequality, which is so obvious that it is often ignored, the central role of men in warfare and organized violence. This might also explain why formal juridico-political power is everywhere a central prerogative of men, even when women have great de facto economic influence, if you are to believe Marx and Engels regarding the genesis of centralized political power in situations of intertribal warfare. He says that in terms of actual power, what matters is the economic autonomy of women and the control women exert over their means of production and the distribution of socially essential goods. This seems more or less fully doomed to tautology to me, and is additionally somewhat obvious, even to most non-Marxists. The one explanation he provides in the way of the occurrence of relative exploitation versus autonomy was that in situations of long-distance warfare, there was often more economic autonomy as a functional correlate. He makes a similar argument regarding arbitrariness about lineality of descent and kinship, in that he thinks that there are determinate laws for classed societies but it is generally unimportant in “primitive” society.
My biggest problem with this whole argument is that he conceives all of “primitive society” in essentially completely negative terms, as a monolith opposed to classed society, and then on that account decides there was nothing worth analyzing. He creates a break between Marxism’s analytical capacities in classed and pre-classed societies even more dramatic than that made by Godelier (with his determination of the dominant principle of kinship), which is somewhat ironic given that he castigates Godelier’s “one renunciation which led to another” as revealing the sterility of the method of the Marxist structuralism. I also do not find the idea that different spheres of domination (economic and hence juridico-political power, subjection to sexual and physical violence, control over sex, social standing of labour, general ideological regard) are completely distinct and unrelated particularly compelling, which for him is a corollary to his argument, and even less so the claim that none of the above could possibly be meaningfully related to either the system of production in pre-classed society or the mode of kinship and filiation. It repeats the very common sin of Marxists in which "primitive society" is viewed essentially purely negatively in relation to classed society. Marx and Engels’ typology was clearly overly rigid and flat-out wrong in a number of respects, but it at least attempted to take some systematic account.
One thing that I think severely inhibits the potential of this analysis is its insistent focus on production proper (rather than reproduction) as the basis of inequality. I think the most important innovation of Origin was that it attempted to place both reproduction and kinship in a defined Marxist theoretical framework (one in which I think many of the general instincts and directions were correct). A lot of people, in correcting Engels, have also gotten rid of the most interesting elements in the process. There is a lot that becomes very hard to explain when sex inequality is perceived purely in the terms of "productive labour." Why it's not men as such who subjugate women as such, nor brothers their sisters, nor even (except in interim) fathers their daughters, but almost everywhere husbands their wives; why the position of women is clearly tied to a high degree of unilateral sexual control; kinship institutions like bridewealth and polygyny; why sex and reproduction are, in all cases I have heard, the central cultural themes to which anything like muscular weakness is highly tertiary. The author also briefly endorses the female contribution theory of polygyny, which I had a very similar criticism of.
As a whole, it was definitely well-written and also very ethnographically interesting, and I think this does force one to reconsider and qualify common assumptions regarding hunter-gathering societies. My understanding was that it was somewhat established that women’s position was, while obviously not idyllic, somewhat considerably higher in hunter-gatherer societies. I still am not convinced that this is not to some extent true, and he admits that he somewhat cherry-picks for the purpose of critique, but there is a point to be made that in a number of cases women still occupy a quite low and detested position. I’m not very familiar with the details of the social and economic organization of many of the societies he references, and I intend to get into some of the material regarding them and see if I can make sense of the roles that female labour and reproduction play in their economic system. I also think his definition of wealth and his discussions of bridewealth and wergeld are very interesting and too short. I think that understanding the drive to accumulate in terms of material wealth as such is missing the point, the object has always been primarily the relations engendered by them, and the failure to recognize this has been a stubborn obstacle in understanding economic relations in pre-classed society. Despite theoretical weakness, there are definitely things I enjoyed about this book, and I feel like Marxist work on this subject is sparse enough that I kind of just appreciate an attempt being made.
November 4, 2025
Wichtiges Buch. Das entscheidende, das Darmangeat leistet, ist den Nachweis zu erbringen, dass die wesentlichen Thesen, die Engels hinsichtlich der Uhrgesellschaften im Ursprung aufstellt, nicht mehr haltbar sind. Das liegt nicht unbedingt an Engels, sondern am begrenzten Wissen der Zeit. Das Problem kommt mit den folgenden Generationen von Marxist:innen auf, die über diesen Erkenntnisstand der Zeit von Engels nicht hinausgehen, sich sogar mit Händen und Füßen dagegen wehren unter dem falsch verstandenen Begriff des Marxismus, dass uns ein Abweichen von diesem Kenntnisstand vom Marxismus abbringe.
Das heißt der Gehalt des Buches ist vor allem negativer Art, insofern es tabula rasa macht. Zugleich ist der positive Gehalt (freilich ist der reine Tisch zugleich auch ein positives Resultat insofern wir damit endlich wieder ins Forschen kommen können) eher dünn. Darmangeat versucht sich an theoretischen Erklärungen, die bleiben aber vergleichsweise dünn und spärlich.
Dennoch, gerade für die revolutionäre Bewegung ein wichtiger Durchbruch.
Das heißt der Gehalt des Buches ist vor allem negativer Art, insofern es tabula rasa macht. Zugleich ist der positive Gehalt (freilich ist der reine Tisch zugleich auch ein positives Resultat insofern wir damit endlich wieder ins Forschen kommen können) eher dünn. Darmangeat versucht sich an theoretischen Erklärungen, die bleiben aber vergleichsweise dünn und spärlich.
Dennoch, gerade für die revolutionäre Bewegung ein wichtiger Durchbruch.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews