From Bachofen to Adler To
Nowadays
Female power
versus male power into the Courtroom
Ugo Sodini, Psy. D.
Italian Centre of Adlerian Studies
Ponte Buggianese (PT) Italy
e-mail:
info@centroitalianostudiadleriani.org
Summary. This presentation delineates the relationship
between two ancient and opposed types of power, those
female and male with regard to historical survivals and
exasperation of the striving for superiority into a
neurotic behaviour (will to power). It examines the
matter above all studying the marital relationship in
couples during civil proceedings to identify which
parent is more suitable for having custody of underage
children when a couple have separated without mutual
consent.
Cultural and scientific background
We would like to open this work doing a consideration about
the relationship between women and men because it has always
been into a difficult balance since the humanity arose. This
thesis, obviously, calls to our mind the Johann Jakob
Bachofen’s studies and the researches that he led during his
life. Particularly what he wrote on his most important and
well known book published in 1861 titled Das Mutterrecht
where he pointed out his discovery about the natural
maternal law. His discoveries had so much influence on many
authors and between these we would like to quote McLennan
(1866), Morgan (1877), Engels (1884), Bebel (1885) and
finally Adler. McLennan arrived to similar conclusions about
the descending through the maternal line although, as he
said, in a really different way. If we exam the history of
the development of humanity we always find an unstable
equilibrium that characterized the relationship between the
sexes. Examining the social development of human being with
regard to the relationship between the sexes we synthesize
it as it follows according to Bachofen. Originally there
was a first stage of the humanity where there weren’t rules
and regarding the sexual unions the woman was subjected to
man’s abuse (stage of Aphroditism and etherism). This attack
against the women’s right would made to arouse a very hard
reaction inciting the women to offer an armed resistance for
getting a better existence (stage of Amazonism). After this
stage would have taken place a pacific gynaecocratic period
where the woman got the politic, social and religious power.
McLennan, the Scottish jurist, considered there was a
promiscuity between the sexes and a system of relationship
through maternal line even in places where today there isn’t
trace anymore of this. Morgan, jurist too and the most
important American ethnologist at his time, speaks about a
development of humanity according to three stages: Savagery,
Barbarism and Civilization. He shared every one of these
into two parts, inferior and superior part and he considered
that the human beings lived into polygamy and polyandry up
to the inferior part of second stage so the human descent
was by maternal line only at that time. Subsequently, a
progressive modification brought at the monogamist couple
as we can see it today. The Morgan’s work maybe was also
the contact point for Mark and Engels with the Bachofen’s
work. Engels agreed with Bachofen about the fact that the
passage from the group marriage to the monogamist marriage
was a passage that the women strongest wanted for protecting
themselves about the too much pregnancies but he also noted
this was the only way to make sure the paternity of man
about the children he procreated. So, the monogamy was above
all for the women and the monogamist family was founded
through the power and dominie of man. This, according Engels,
was necessary because only in this way the man could pass
his own property to them and they could inherit the estate
from him, their father. In this way his property could be
passed on paternal line rather than maternal line. In this
passage Engels saw the origin of process that brought the
origin of the private property and Bebel described it as the
process that reduced women to slavery. We know the
Bachofen’s work arrived to Adler just through Engels and
Bebel as also Ellenberger underlines (1970). Particularly he
quoted the Bachofen’s work on 1926 in comprehensive works at
a his written: “Bachofen, J. Das Mutterrecht
(Matriarchy), Stuttgard, 1861” (Adler, 1926, p. 118)
and the Bebel’s work on 1927: A good detailed
description of this development is to be found in August
Bebel (1885), Woman e Socialism” (Adler, 1982, p. 6).
Beside we can find something similar at the position
described by Engels on the same book where it is reads: “Male
dominance has not been a natural state, but became necessary
only in the course of continuous fighting with neighbouring
peoples, when a significant role fell to man that he finally
used to seize leadership definitely. Hand in hand with this
went the development of private property and the law of
inheritance as a foundation of male predominance, inasmuch
as man is generally the earning and owning part (Adler,
1982, p. 6).
To return to Bachofen he supposed the gynaecocracy
developed also the tendency to return to forms of amazonism
and this fact would have produced a male rebellion versus
the women’s power. So there was a hard battle between the
sexes and it was finished when the paternal principle
subjected the maternal one. This evolution have gone on for
a long period, from the ancient Greece up to nowadays,
where there was the passage from the maternal law to
paternal law: from matriarchy to patriarchy. This period had
its paladins in Apollo and Augustus. About this Adler said:
“There is indeed historical evidence for a time of
matriarchy, matrilineality (Mutterrecht), when the
mother, the woman, played the more important role in life,
especially toward the child, and all men of the tribe had a
kind of obligation to her” (1982, p. 6).
It is well known that Adler regarding this wrote: “The
transition from matriarchy to patriarchy was preceded by a
great battle. Originally man did indeed not have the
privileges that today he likes to describe as due him by
nature, but had to fight for them. A good detail
description of this development is to be found in August
Bebel (1885), Woman and Socialism. The victory of the
men was tantamount to the subjugation of the women.
Especially the record of the development of law testify
eloquently to this process of subjugation. Male dominance
has not been a natural state” (Adler, 1982, p.6).
So, if the masculine dominance is not a natural equilibrium
between the sexes, as we also think, a new and more natural
equilibrium should have be found and for this reason signs
in this direction should be also found when we exam the
historical process of humanity with regard to the
relationship between the sexes. In this sense we’d like to
consider signs about this type of difficult behaviours of
couples we can see during civil proceedings separation or
divorce without mutual consent in Court for obtaining
custody of the child or children. During these proceedings
there is so much conflict into the couple where every one is
trying to subject the other one. Here we have again a
manifestation of the primitive battle between the sexes for
finding a new equilibrium. Today we are seeing as the
balance situation between the sexes is breaking again its
equilibrium because the society needs of a new relationships
and about which direction is better to follow the Adler’s
thought because his teaching can help all of us so much.
Some current considerations
We know as can be difficult for a couple to live together
because can be difficult to be ready for the marriage and
for choosing the right partner. This fact is well known for
long time and we’d like to summarize it using the Adler’s
words: “For the right choice of a partner, in addition to
physical and intellectual suitability and attraction, the
following qualities, which indicate a sufficient degree of
social interest, ought principally to be taken into
consideration: (1) capacity for retaining friendships; (2)
an ability to be interested in his work; (3) more interest
in the partner than in self. There is an old German method
for finding out whether a couple is prepared for marriage.
It is the custom in rural district to give the couple a
double-handled saw, each person to hold one end, and then
have them saw the trunk of a tree while all the relatives
stand around and watch. Now sawing a tree is a task for two
person. Each one has to be interest in what the other is
doing and harmonize his strokes with his. This method is
thus considered a good test of fitness for marriage”
(Adler, 1964, p. 438).
Beside he also said: “ In a certain district of Germany
there is an old custom for testing whether an engaged couple
are suited for married life together. Before the wedding
ceremony, the bride and bridegroom are brought to a
clearing, where a tree trunk has been cut down. Here they
are given a two-handed saw and set to work to saw the trunk
across. This is a test of how far they are willing to
co-operate with each other. It is a task for two people. If
there is no trust between them, they will tug against each
other and accomplish nothing. If one of them wishes to take
the lead and do everything by himself, then, even if the
other gives way, the task will take twice as long. They must
both have initiative, but their initiative must combine
together. These German villagers have recognized that
cooperation is the chief prerequisite for marriage”
(Adler, 1982, pp. 121-2).
We know it is difficult to make the right choice of the
partner and also it is difficult enough to be ready for the
wedding above all because today people are not often well
prepared for cooperation and they are trained too much
toward individual success. For this reason so many weddings
and unions have been failing but their dissolution is very
difficult too just because each partner desire to get an
own vantage from conjugal separation or divorce. They are
not interest simply to solve their marital and parental
difficult because the pattern of their thought is the same
that pushed them into their wedding: what can I get out?
Which vantage is there for me along this direction? During
civil proceedings concerning separation or divorce without
mutual consent where it is very important to identify which
parent is more suitable for obtaining custody of the child
very often each partner wants to win, wants to subject the
other one and sometimes to humiliate him or her too. Their
arms are now no more bows, arrows and swords but lawyers and
laws. They don’t struggle anymore in traditional battle
fields, nowadays the struggle is into a new battle field
named Court but they show us anyway the real difficult in
the common life when the persons aren’t trained to
cooperate. In all these cases the private interest overcome
the social interest or, as we prefer to say after the
distinction that Ansbacher made, community feeling (Ansbacher,
1992, Sodini & Sodini, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2003a). In other
words when the behaviour of human being is ruled from
striving to power or will to power and it is not
sufficiently modified in its direction by the degree of
community feeling, we are going to have a neurotic behaviour
(Sodini & Sodini, 1999). It is based on will to power rather
than striving for superiority or perfection and its
fictional goal to get a neurotic superiority, in other
words: what can I get out from this situation? Which
vantages? Many years ago Adler saw and described what today
we can observe very easily into the Court when a couple is
separating or divorcing without mutual consent. If we want
to understand the case in a correct way we have to exam the
personality of people, their life style and we think to set
our analyze of the relationship between the sexes according
to a restless fluctuating between the original pushes from
matriarchal social organization to patriarchal one. In a
certain sense we can also say that the continue tension
between the sexes speaks nowadays in a very clear way into
Courtroom where the reaction originated from the
frustrations experimented in the marital life explodes
openly incarnating and ritualizing the ancient struggle
about the right on own offspring with its heavy
repercussions regarding the education for a better growth of
children.
Is solution of this matter possible? Probable? Impossible?
Paraphrasing the title of the Adler’s article on the
progress of mankind (1937) we’d like to underline as the
humanity has own destiny in its own hands. Obviously a
better type and quality of relationship between the sexes is
part of the progress of mankind so all of us should redouble
our own efforts for doing possible the solution of this
matter. This solution, as Adler underlined, should be long
the direction of cooperation for reaching a real harmony
into marital couples. Indeed, he taught us: “There is no
place in love for the striving of one partner to stand out
the expense of the other, to satisfy his vanity (Adler,
1982, pp. 96-7).
When someone wants to satisfy him or herself anyway an
entirely inappropriate tension is introduced into the sexual
relationships and also in more general sense treating every
chance for happiness into the couple. This situation has a
bad influence in the children explaining why many of them
grow up with the thinking that marriage is a difficult and
dangerous matter (Sodini & Sodini, 2003b).
We could even say that for a full solution of this
co-operation of two, each partner must be more interested in
the other than in himself. This is the only basis on which
love and marriage can be successful
(Adler, 1982, pp. 124-5).
Concluding this article we’ d like to quote what Meiers
says because he, according our opinion, explains in a very
clear and shared way what means also to be Adlerian:
“In my opinion one cannot be a good Adlerian unless he
understands that Individual Psychology is more than just a
therapeutic method or an abstract school of psychology with
certain distinctive feature. All this is vital as a minimum,
but it does non suffice … To me as an individual
psychologist, Individual Psychology is as important to
mankind and to the evolution of mankind, as vitamin … Social
interest is not only vital to Individual Psychology but to
the building of every individual personality, and hence of
whole families, including children, parents, grand-parents,
uncles and aunts, in order to prevent them from tearing
themselves to pieces” (Gröner, 1984, p. 5).
So, the most important thing is to promote the development
of community feeling because only a good degree of it can
offer the possible solution for getting a relationships
between the sexes better than now and a better social
organization of our society because Ansbacher says and we
agree to him: “Adler saw the solution in a close
co-operation between two individuals of different sex,
committed not to a mistaken “self-actualization” but an
actualization of each other and, through children, the
future of humanity” (Ansbacher, 1992, p. viii).
Concluding we’d like also to quote Gastone Canziani, the
first modern Adlerian in Italy (Sodini & Sodini, 1996a,
1996b, 2001), about the role and goals of psychology: “Psychology
is not a neutral area but an area to better the environment
for all humanity” (Canziani, 1977, p. 15). In this sense
we think to understand correctly the spirit of Alfred
Adler’s message in our opinion well express also in
North American Society of Adlerian Psychology motto:
helping to change the world.
References
-
Adler, A. (1926). Psychische Einstellung der Frau zum
Sexualleben, in the Handbuch der Normalen und
Pathologischen Physiologie, 14, 1 : 802-807, new English
translation as Psychological Attitude of Women Toward Sex,
in The Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler, Volume
5, Journal Articles: 1921-1926, pp. 112-18, edited by
H. T. Stein, The Classical Adlerian Translation Project: San
Francisco, 2004.
-
Adler, A. (1937). Ist der Fortschritt der Menschlheit
möglich?
Wahrscheinlich? Unmöglich?, Itn. Z. Indiv. Psychol.
15 S. 1-4, English translation as Is progress of Mankind
possible? Probable? Impossible? In Adler, A. (1979).
Superiory and Social Interest, (The Ansbachers Eds.), W.
W. Norton and Company, New York – London, pp. 23-28.
-
Adler, A (1964). The Individual Psychology of Alfred
Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his
writings. H. L. Ansbachers & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.).
Harper & Row, New York.
-
Adler, A (1982). Co-operation between the sexes: Writings
on women and men, love and marriage, and sexuality. H.
L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.) New York: Norton.
-
Ansbacher, H. L., Preface to Adler A. (1982).
Co-operation between the sexes: Writings on women and men,
love and marriage, and sexuality. H. L. Ansbacher & R.
R. Ansbacher (Eds.) New York: Norton.
-
Ansbacher, H. L. (1992). Alfred Adler’s Concepts of
Community Feeling and Social Interest and the relevance of
Community Feeling for Old Age, Individual Psychology,
48, 4 : 402-12.
-
Bachofen, J. J. (1861). Das Mutterrecht: Eine
Untersuchung über die Gynekokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer
religiösen und rechtlichen Natur.
Kreis & Hoffmann, Stuttgart, English translation as Myth,
religion, and mother right. Princeton University Press,
1967, Italian translation as Il matriarcato. Ricerca
sulla ginecocrazia del mondo antico nei suoi aspetti
religiosi e giuridici, Einaudi, Turin, 1988.
-
Bebel, A. (1885). Die Frau und der Sozialismus, Dietz,
Stuttgard, English translation as Woman and socialism,
Socialist Literature Co., New York 1910, Italian
translation as La donna e il socialismo, Savelli,
Rome, 1977.
-
Canziani, G. (1977). Editoriale, Psicologia e società.
Social Psychology Review, Organizzazioni Speciali,
Florence, II, I : 8-32.
-
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The Discovery of the
Unconscious.
The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry,
Basic Book, New York, Italian translation as La scoperta
dell’inconscio. Storia della psichiatria dinamica,
Boringhieri, Turin, 1976.
-
Engels, F. (1884). L’origine della famiglia, della
proprietà privata e dello stato, Editori Riuniti, Rome,
1963.
-
McLennan, J. F. (1866).
Primitive Marriage. An Inquiry into the Origins of the
Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies, Edinburgh,
Italian translation as Il Matrimonio primitivo,
Pieraldo, Rome, 1991.
-
Morgan, L. H. (1877), Ancient Society, or Research in the
lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to
Civilization, Macmillan, New York, Italian translation
as La società antica.
Le linee del progresso umano dallo stato selvaggio alla
civiltà.
Feltrinelli, Milan, 1974.
-
Gröner, H. (1984). Interview with Dr. Jseph Meiers.
Individual Psychology News Letter, 32, 2 : 5-8.
-
Sodini, U. (1993). Matriarcato e patriarcato: la Psicologia
Individuale come possibile strumento di passaggio
dall’antitesi alla sintesi (Matriarchy and Patriarchi: the
Individual Psychology as a possibile Instrument of Passing
from the Antithesis to Sinthesis), Riv. Psicol. Indiv.,
XXI, 34 : 61-76.
-
Sodini, U. (2004) Alfred Adler. La nascita di una
psicologia per tutti, Attualità in Psicologia,
Edizioni Universitarie Romane, Rome, 19, 3-4 : 205-20.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (1996a).
A Recollation of Gastone Canziani, the first Adlerian of
Italy, ten years after his Disappearance, Individual
Psychology New Letters, 41, 1 : 8-9.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (1996b). Un ricordo di
Gastone Canziani, il primo adleriano d’Italia, a dieci anni
dalla sua scomparsa, Attualità in Psicologia,
Edizioni Universitarie Romane, Rome, XI, 2 : 195-208.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (1999). L’adlerismo italiano
tra monismo e dualismo, Attualità in Psicologia,
Edizioni Universitarie Romane, Rome, 15, 3-4 : 314-22.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (2000a). L’adlerismo
italiano tra monismo e dualismo. Il sentimento comunitario,
Attualità in Psicologia, Edizioni Universitarie Romane,
Rome, 15, 1 : 16-26.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (2000b).
Dualism: The difficult in Italian Individual Psychology,
The Canadian Journal of Adlerian Psychology, 30, 2 :
26-33.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (2001).
Gastone Canziani: The First Modern Adlerian in Italy, The
Canadian Journal of Adlerian Psychology, 31, 2 : 66-73.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (2003a).
Terminological and Conceptual Matters, Adlerian Society
(of the United Kindom) and the Institute for Individual
Psychology, Year Book 2003, pp. 59-70.
-
Sodini, U. & Teglia Sodini, A. (2003b).
An Adlerian Approach to Cpurt-Ordered Custody of Underage,
The Canadian Journal of Adlerian Psychology, 33, 2 :
49-56.
Copyright ©
2005 International Association of Individual
Psychology
