Germaine Tillion, The Republic of Cousins — Women's Oppression in Mediterranean Society, Al Saqi Books, London, £4.95.
'The seclusion of Mediterranean women represents the most massive survival of human bondage' and according to Tillion represents a serious obstacle to progress. In her thesis, the Mediterranean societies (North Africa, Southern Europe and the Levant) whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish share several specific forms of women's oppression. These are the veil, the harem, female seclusion, the strict sexual code imposed on women and the 'male honour' to enforce it.
These particular forms of women's oppression are often equated in the west with Arab society and Islam. Tillion sets out to show that they are common throughout the region, in all religions and that their roots can be traced back to prehistory through the marriage institution common to these societies — endogamous marriage (or the marriage of first cousins where the fathers are brothers). Hence the 'Republic of Cousins'. Tillion divides the world up on the basis of kinship systems (the study in anthropology of marriage, who is related to who, and how women are used in this exchange to form alliances). 'Savage' society is the 'Republic of brothers-in-law' and industrial, urban society the 'Republic of citizens'.
The Republic of Cousins has its origin and legacy today in the Mediterranean area, but according to Tillion, its influence has spread further to America and the far East. She claims that she is setting out to prove the connection between 'bread, butter, soup and the cooking pot with the origins of the harem, preferential marriage between cousins and the philosophy of expansionism'. For this she uses a mixture of anthropology, ethnography, historical sources, archaeology and her own field-work observations amongst nordic peoples [illegible] the prevalence of first cousin marriage, or 'keeping the girls in the family for the boys' [illegible] of plants and animals led to the accumulation of surplus, private property, inheritance and women and children becoming the property of men.
This system of marriage gave rise to societies where male solidarity and the preserving of 'male honour' through the oppression of women became the institutionalised norm as opposed to 'civic or patriotic' duties. As examples, Tillion describes the 'vendetta' in Italy and the 'blood feud' in North Africa.
The veil takes several forms, from the mask in Saudi Arabia to the headscarf in Greece. But Tillion also singles out the veil in the Islamic countries by drawing a parallel between its geographical distribution and where women have some property rights through Koranic laws on inheritance (where women get half a man's share). Where women did inherit, the veil was used to seclude them further from any males outside the family, clan or tribe. In the cities it resulted from being in closer contact with males from other families.
Tillion's leaping around from country to country produces nothing but a jumble of ideas and confusion. She does not prove what she has set out to do — that endogamous marriage is linked to the philosophy of expansionism. Nor is her hypothesis on the origin of marriage unique. She does illustrate that Arab society is not alone in its seclusion of women, but in a very unsatisfactory and superficial way. [illegible] Is it an anthropological travelogue or does it have more serious implications? If it is meant to be a serious contribution to the study of women's oppression, as the title suggests, then what emerges is reaction in the core. Nowhere does she challenge the institution of marriage itself. In fact she implies that where endogamous marriage is breaking down and individuals assert themselves to be able to marry outside the family that this is progressive! For whom? Certainly not women, as we can see very well in this country. I would also question her use of the word 'harem' with all its racist connotations against Arab society, particularly when Tillion does not fully explain what she means apart from symbolising women's seclusion even when this individual [illegible]. What is more, no mention is made of political, economic or class reality, of the effects of colonialism in North Africa, the economic deprivation in the South of Italy, the years of the Generals in Greece and Franco in Spain. For example in discussing the veil, she says Algerian women wear it '... to avoid the ribaldries of urchins ... in many Algerian towns.' What about the effects of brutal French occupation in Algeria? Didn't women take up the veil to avoid the harassment and sexual attacks of the French troops? And how do we explain the phenomena of the veil in the Iranian revolution?
To add injury to insult she repeats the wee old theory that we women are our own worst enemies — we've only ourselves to blame! Women 'have brought up both boys and [illegible] on to them anew the old prehistory virtues'.
As to the rural masses she has very little sympathy — while they are flooding into [illegible], drawing the intelligentsia down [illegible] towards respect for the human individual, a woman. Well I haven't noticed this in London.
This book provides in actual fact, very little information on the oppression of women, [illegible] patronising [illegible] of race and I suggest is an 'intellectual' exercise designed to confuse and distort women's oppression and how we [illegible].
ROS YOUNG is an activist in the Palestine solidarity movement.