Matriarchaat: verschil tussen versies

Bachofen zelf sprak niet over matriarchaat, maar over [[gynocratie]].<ref>''Johann Jakob Bachofen, author of ''Das Mutterrecht'' (1861), is usually associated with the concept of matriarchy, although he actually never used the term. His English translator substituted matriarchy in place of ''gynaikokraite'' (gynecocracy, meaning rule by women) which he considered a prerequisite for the development of ''mutterrecht'' in which daughters inherit rights through the mother line. This “mother-right” was conceived by analogy with “father-right” rather than from ethnographic studies of female-oriented social forms. For readers of the English translation, the term matriarchy became equated with the idea of a society ruled by women, dismissed as fantasy by most anthropologists. As Sanday deftly notes, “It is impossible to find something that has been defined out of existence from the start.”'' {{aut|Joan Marler|Marler}} (2003)</ref> Een vroeg gebruik van de term is te vinden in ''Het Matriarchaat bij de oude Arabieren'' uit 1884 van [[George Alexander Wilken]]. [[Edward Burnett Tylor|Tylor]] was een van de eersten die de term matriarchaat gebruikte, zich daarbij baserend op het werk van [[Arnold Willem Pieter Verkerk Pistorius|Verkerk Pistorius]]. In zijn artikel ''The Matriarchal Family System'' uit 1896 stelde Tylor dat het werk van McLennan de patriarchale kijk van [[Henry Maine]] in ''Ancient Law'' verwierp. Hij gaf echter ook aan dat de term matriarchaat problematisch was, omdat Verkerk Pistorius in ''Studien over de inlandsche huishouding in de Padangsche Bovenlanden'' uit 1871 een samenleving beschreef waarin vrouwen weliswaar meer rechten hadden, maar waarbij de oudste broer van moederszijde het hoofd van het gezin is, iets wat later een [[Matrilineaire afstamming|matrilineair systeem]] zou worden genoemd.<ref>''In examining the rival family system known as the matriarchal or maternal, far more particular description is needed, being as it is neither sufficiently known nor understood. Let us notice first that if patriarchal society were defined merely as a system of kinship on the father's side, such a definition must be set aside as hopelessly defective and misleading. Yet through lack of full knowledge, the matriarchal system has been thus treated. Europeans, who in such countries as West Africa have met with the law of inheritance through the mother, have explained it offhand by remarks on matrimonial laxity and the convenience of following ' the safer side.' The facts available to McLennan left him little choice but to adopt this current error. The most essential part of the present argument is to make it clear that the matriarchal system is one framed for order, not disorder. For this purpose descriptions will now be given of some of its most complete types which have lasted on into modern times.''<br />[...] ''It will be already evident that these describe an organised form of society, contrasting in its whole type with the patriarchal. The term ' matriarchal ' was an improvement on earlier definitions, but takes it too much for granted that the women govern the family. It is true that in these communities women enjoy greater consideration than in barbaric patriarchal life, but the actual power is rather in the hands of their brothers and uncles on the mother's side. On the whole, the terms ' maternal ' and ' paternal ' seem preferable. Some eight years ago, in working out a method of investigating customs statistically by ascertaining the frequency of their combination with other customs, so as to arrive at indications of their origin and purpose, I applied this method to the study of laws of marriage and descent. It then appeared that the cause of the maternal system was connected with the custom of the father's residence in the wife's family. I find this inference strengthened by passages showing that the Danish anthropologist, Dr. C. N. Starcke, had come to a similar opinion about the same time, and that Dr. Post admits the principle. While re-stating it as agreeing with the facts, I have now to seek the fundamental motive of the maternal family one stage deeper. The Padang and Kasia families show that the maternal system may exist without the husband's residence in the wife's house. He may be only a visitor, but the essential point is that the wife remains in her own family, the obvious consequence being that the husband cannot take the position which belongs to him in patriarchal life. If, then, we can ascertain why families keep the married daughters instead of letting the husbands take them away, we shall arrive at an ultimate cause of the maternal system.'' {{aut|Edward Burnett Tylor|Tylor}} (1896)</ref>

 

 

[[Bestand:Ankara Muzeum B19-36.jpg|thumb|Beeldje van zittende moedergodin; gevonden in Zuidoost-Turkije]]