I våras studerade jag i Berlin och skrev då en uppsats om en österrikisk herr Bachofen. Det tog upp min sommar, och kanske var det dessutom värt det. Eftersom jag vill publicera allt jag skriver, så kommer det här.
Bachofen was a Swiss law scholar, with a great interest in the Roman law and Mythos. He most known work is Das Mutterrecht, which was published in 1861. By combining historical as well as mythological sources, he attempted to investigate and understand the earliest, earlier un-explored time of human development. The result of this ground breaking research was that woman was responsible for the earliest, mythical, human culture, which was matriarchally ruled. This stage he called das Mutterrecht. A consequence of this is then that human culture has not always been ruled by men, but that in fact would be a later stage of human development, that was first introduced in history with the antique Greece. In this way Bachofen is also a part of a german tradition of Kulturwissenschaft and Universalgeschichte.
The influence from Bachofen has been wide. Alfred Baeumler read Bachofen in 1927 as a defence and justification for a hierarchial and patriarchally ruled and undemocratic society, which should bee understood in the light of Baumler connections to a national socialistic ideology. In 1934 Benjamin wrote a left-oriented defence for Bachofen, where he makes a different interpretation of Bachofen. Benjamin attacks Baeumler's understanding of Bachofen, and instead he wants to acknowledge Bachofen as a defence for left politics. He also portraits Bachofen as a pragmatic scholar, and thus also a role model for respecting and understanding different sides.
1. Introduction and background
I was drawn to Johann Jakob Bachofen (1815-1887), because of my weakness for German theoreticians of the latter part of the 18th, and the whole of the 19th Century. I am well aware of that Bachofen in fact was not German, but Swiss. Nevertheless, since he was so strongly influenced by the German tradition of Geisteswissenschaften, and part of the same culture and tradition through language and geographical closeness, I find no reason to exclude him from my field of interest. He has also worked as a big influence in this german tradition. He inspired Friedrich Nietzsche to take use of and desexualize Bachofen's notions of the dionysian and the apollonian, and then use these in Die Geburt der Tragödie. He also played a great inspiration for Sigmund Freud when writing Totem und Tabu . For Friedrich Engels the earliest stage of das Mutterrecht works as a foundation to critizice private property, seen in the light of the earliest stage of human development as communistic and non-patriarchal.
I am fascinated of how these German scholars of the 1900th century have been able to shape, not only the world history as well as academic field of the last century, but also my own personal life and interests. As I have spent the last four years of studying the academic fields of Art History (Kunstwissenschaft) and Aesthetics, the German scholars are constantly present – either as being directly referred to, or just standing in the shadows. I remember a seminar taking place in Stockholm in January 2008, where the topic was a new translation of Johann Joachim Winckelmanns Gedanken über die Nachahmung der Griechischen Wercke in der Mahlerey und Bildhauer-Kunst. Invited were Swedish historians of Literature, Philosophy, and Art, but no one of these could answer the question ”How did the Swedish reception of Winckelmanns texts manifest? And who was the Swedish equivalent to Winckelmann?” I see this anecdote as an evident example of how strong the influence of Germany still is in the humanities today. I also see it as a potential danger, when historians in countries outside of Germany put their effort in penetrating the texts of century old Germans, all while the books written by domestic theoreticians keep on collecting dust, nearly forgotten in the library collections.
Nevertheless, I also acknowledge their great importance and relevance. I do not wish them to be forgotten. There is so many reasons to why their universalistic view of the world, versions of
academic studies and what they stand for in allgemein needs to be critized and rejected. But to be forgotten? No. And they will always for me inherit this certain appeal and influence, and my fascination for them will remain. After all, they were the reason that made me want to study at the university of Humboldt, Hegel and Friedrich Schleiermacher, among others.
1. 1. Purpose and method
The purpose of this paper is to get a deeper and also more multifaceted understanding of das Mutterrecht by Bachofen. My interest of study is consists of two parts. To begin with, I am interested in how a view of contemporary politics and society is expressed by Bachofen, which I do in the first part of my text. I have here choosen to focus on how women are portrayed in das Mutterrecht, and how that maybe as well could mirror women's position in the middle of the 19th century. In the second part I jump half a century in time, and analyse how Bachofen is interpreted from a conservative view represented by Alfred Baeumler, and from a Marxist view represented by Walter Benjamin. Both chose to show interest for the then more then a half century old book das Mutterrecht. Baeumler's preface to Bachofen is published in 1927, and in 1934 Benjamin's defence for Bachofen against Baeumler's interpration is written. This was in Germany in the a time between the two world wars, and a time of unrest and change. By analyzing how Baeumler and Benjamin gives expression to Bachofen, I am interested in how these interpretations may differ. How does their political views play a part? How can das Mutterrecht be used to show their own personal opinions? And, how can these be put in relation to simultaneous rise of national socialism? In this way, I also hope to understand how Bachofen's ideas has been able to play such a significant role in the contemporary, modern Europe during the latter part of the 19th, and earlier part of the 20th century.
Since I have read almost all my literature in German, but written my text in English, I have been generous when it comes to not translating German expressions and words. This may have sometimes resulted in a stylistically 'messy' text, but I have felt it necessary to not loose any meaning in translation.
1. 2. Material and previous research
There has been a lot written about Bachofen. I have not been able to find any previous comparison between Benjamin, Baeumler, and their different use of Bachofen through these texts that I have chosen to analyze further. To understand the extent of the impact of Bachofen, Hans-Jürgen Heinrichs anthology has been helpful. This is were I have found the essay written by Benjamin. For my understanding of Bachofen's das Mutterrecht, it's different stages, construction, and relation to contemporary theory, I have closely read Bachofen's preface that begins das Mutterrecht. I have understood it as that part where Bachofen most throughly presents his theories and how it is connected in a system. The rest of his text I have read in less detail. Even though the rest of the books offers great pleasure for reading, I understand it as only a support and application for his structure of thinking that already has been presented in the preface.
To understand the academic field of german Kulturwissenschaft better, the book Eine Kulturgeschichte der Kulturwissenschaft by Friedrich Kittler has been to a great help for a better understanding of a 19th century Universalgeschichte. It has made a foundation of thinking for my further exploration of das Mutterrecht.
2. Das Mutterrecht
Johann Jakob Bachofens Das Mutterrecht – eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur was first published in 1861. It consists of 461 pages. In different chapters Bachofen explains a developent from das Mutterrecht to das Vaterrecht. He takes examples from history as well as myth, with examples from among others Lykien, Kreta, Athen, Lesbos, Egypt, India, central Asia and Africa.
In the beginning there was Mythos. This earliest phase of the evolution of the human society and culture where dominated by das Mutterrecht. A time which, according to Bachofen, has earlier only been described as mythical and mystical, wrapped in obscurity, and incomprehensible. As no one else before him, his purpose of investigation is to make a scientific study of this era. Of course, nowadays scientists find no support or evidence for an earliest phase of human history as matriarchal dominated, and as such with a universal and empirical validity. But in academia in those days, Bachofen was the first one that had made such an exploration of history before the classical Greece. In this way, he could really be seen as a pioneer.
Das Mutterrecht is described as the Ursprung of the human culture, and is in its materiality divided from a more philosophical and spiritual patriarchal culture that came after. It has only to do with the factual reality of an primeval (ursprünglich) way of life. Thus, according to Bachofen, woman is presented as responsible for making the first initiative to raise humanity from the swamps of the earth from which it sprung. That is, the first advancement ( Fortschritt) towards civilization (Gesittung) and away from barbary is made by woman. This advancement, and consequently also what makes humans human (das menschlichen Daseins), is the motherlove. It illuminates the deep and dark beginning of human existance, and stands against an otherwise prevailing immorality.
A characteristic of the Mutterrecht is also how the right of inheritance goes from the mother side. That means, the children are named only from their mother.
Das Mutterrecht contains two stages in itself. The first, primeval (ursprüngliche) and more primitive one is the Aphroditian hetairism, which is more closely connected with materialism and the earth. The other, and higher, one is the Demeterian Gynaikokratie. Only this stage has the capacity to push itself up from the dark soil that it comes from, albeit not able to entirely leave it. Whereas the hetairism is being described as a promiscuos and amazonian society, the latter Gynaikokratie leaves this stage of promiscuity behind, and becomes instead a monogamous and matrimonial one. Together with marital structure comes agriculture, and thus human development is pushed up and forward.
The Mutterrecht is succeeded by the next, and last, big stage in human cultural development – a patriarchally ruled das Vaterrecht. The success of this Herrschaft der Paternität is connected with the origin and appearance of the Hellenistic world. But, to make this cultural advancement, human culture first has to pass a Dionysian stage. Dionysos preceeds Apollo, and works as uniting bridge from the two opposites of das Mutterrecht and das Vaterrecht. What the dionysian stage and das Mutterrecht have in common is a connection to earth, promiscuity and a decadent lifestyle. What they do not share, however, is Phallus. It is through the entry of Phallus and Dionysos that human development can push it self up from its earthly Mutterrecht, and the transition to das Vaterrecht can take place. Phallus then explains das Vaterrecht as inheriting a natural superiority to das Mutterrecht.
The Vaterrecht is also parted in two sub-categories, which as well finds its correspondence in the difference between the Greek and the roman antique world. The Greek, delphish Apollonian part of das Vaterrecht is more spritual(geistig), whereas the roman governmental principle of the patriarchal empire is less spiritual. But, since it introduces the Roman law, Bachofen finds this part of das Vaterrecht as having a greater and more important impact for humanity. (This must be understood with the knowledge that Bachofen himself held a strong passion for Roman law, which remained during his whole life, and was the reason to why he became a law scholar).
3. The philosophy behind the Universalgeschichte of Bachofen
Bachofen disliked german idealism as being too metaphysical and not interested in 'reality' – how the world really is. He was, as both Baeumler and Benjamin has also pointed out, active in a time when academia wanted to remove itself from earlier romanticism and idealism. One way to do this was to favour its opposite - a new sprung positivism, instead. Bachofen however strongly disliked also positivism, possibly since it contradicts his method of combining history with myth. Another reason could also be its outspoken antireligiousness, which stands in opposite to Bachofen's interest for religion and myth. There is therefore no easy way of explaining Bachofen as either an idealistic romantic, a positivist or in any other scholarly cathegory of this time. There are influences in Bachofens thinking that could be traced in many different directions. Here I am going to discuss his model in thinking for Universalgeschichte. A model very common in different fields of academia during the 19th century, and allthough Bachofen maybe would have disliked to acknowledge it, it is rooted in philosophy. It would not be possible not to recognize the influence from the Kulturwissenschaft of G.W.F. Hegel. He explains the development of humanity to begin with collectivity and end with individualism – a spirituality that starts with the ancient Greeks, just as in the case of Bachofen. And, allthough not the first one , there is also relatedness in the way of separating human development into three stages (Kulturstufen). All in all, Bachofen could without a doubt be said to be part of a german dominated Universalgeschichte, among others together with Giambattista Vico and Hegel.
When reading Bachofen, there is easy to see the connection to other Kulturwissenschaftler in this time, just by looking at which words that are used. Because, the recycling of words, which could be found in numerous earlier as well as contemporary texts at that time, are resumptive. Geist,Universalismus, Weltgeschichte, Entwicklung, Entwicklungsstufe, Ursprung, Fortschritt, Linie, Einheitichkeit, Entstehung, Verflachung and Entartung, are all words which were used to explain and justify a common kulturwissenschaftliche view of history. All though a generalization, and as such inadiquate in describing as an absolute and unquestionable system of rules, I am going to make an effort in presenting a, what I would describe as, rough model of presenting Universalgeschichte during the 19th century. To do this, I am going to use these key words, as mentioned above;
- History (which could be applied to culture in a more sociologic and anthropologic sense, as well as in the other fields of humanities and philosophy) are based on a constant Entwicklung. Starting from the very Ursprung, the Entstehung of human existance, man (in a universal sense) is a product of his Entwicklungsstufe. In this way, he is also part of a greater collective, which is a culture which has in common that it is all part of this same stage of human development. This Fortschritt is taking history through different Kulturstufen (another word for Entwicklungsstufe). Conviniently, the highest point of this development is achieved in Germany and close sorroundings (northern Europe) in the 19th century. There are no sudden jumps, nothing haphazard and random, just gradual continuity in development, which comes from that history is described as universal, general and linear. According to this logic, the idea of cultural progress and evolution, the inevitably consequence is that Germany in those times were considered to be in the end of a line. In its favor this could mean that the germans were the highlight of humanity. The other side of the coin however, was a fear of what was possibly yet to come. Since there is always an inner logic in the development of history, understanding its causality becomes a way of understanding contemporary society and possibly also its destiny. As Bachofen repeatedly states, the exploration of the mythical beginning of the Mutterrecht is a way to gain knowledge and understanding of the contemporary Kulturstufe of Germany. An interest in exploring a Universalgeschichte could then in a way be understood as a way of handling the fear and insecurity that this uncertainty of what is to come evokes. ”Ohne Kenntnis der Ursprünge kann das historische Wissen nie zu innern Abschluss gelangen.”
This way of interpreting and understanding cultures, history and human nature were prevailing in many different fields of the academia, and is today usually described as cultural evolutionism or social darwinism. The method of putting an evolutionary system to explain the existance of cultures and its characteristics, usually categorized then in ethnology as a new field of studies, was characterized as a succession of cultures in chronological order . For example – the anthropologist Lewis. H. Morgan was convinced, that what was refered to as the ethnical periods savagery(Wildheit), barbary and civilization reflected a real, and expired, process in history.
The Universalgeschichte that is being presented by Bachofen is highly influenced from this way of describing history. There is for example nothing random in appearance of the culture of das Mutterrecht. It is an inevitable part of such a development of the human Geist. It shows uniformity in its manifestations, since the form of this Entwicklungsstufe is a very predestined one.
Bachofen also states how he does not want to just use a ready system of thinking (Gedänkengebäude) and then loose the importance of the particular. He wants to acknowledge the differences, but in so doing also understand that the human soul both has a need for homogeneity and diversity to find fullfillment. In this way, he states that there is always unity and causality in a higher, uniting thought. In a similar way, there is also a question of individuality that stands against collectiveness. From the anonymity of the ”typish-allgemeinen Character”, an expression used to describe human when still in the stage of motherhood, the individual rices. From the material and bodily (stoffliche) to the higher, more spiritually (geistigen) developed, state. Or, expressed in a slightly more positive way - motherhood unites, whereas fatherhood separates.
Throughout Bachofen's text there is dialectic polarity applied to explain his model of history. Light, form and clarity is put in opposition to obscurity, darkness and formlessness, a higher spirituality to matter and body. Das Mutterrecht is connected to earth, moon and Tellus, whereas das Vaterrecht is connected to the sun, Uranus and spirituality. These dialectical dicotomies is then throughout the text used with other examples, meant to further prove this dicotomy between logos and mythos. In this way Bachofen follows the western philosophical separation between body and soul. A dualism that usually refers back to Platon and Aristotle, and which has been a ground foundation in western Kulturwissenschaft ever since.
When exploring das Mutterrecht, Bachofen uses historical as well as mythological sources. Although, what is what could sometimes be hard to sort out when it comes to the antique, as in the case with Herodotus and Homer for example. In this way, there are no strict lines between literature, myth, and historical sources. Bachofen also finds supports in a broad use of metaphors and analogies, when describing das Mutterrecht. One example of how he finds support in metaphors is how he describes how human development begins deep down in the darkest of the soil and then pushes and struggles itself up in a constant rising, up finally to air, light and spiritual advancement. A model then that starts from the bottom and then works its way up. There are similarities in this model to the analogy of a tree to explain human development, which was also widely popular during the 1900th century. This metaphor of a tree is also based in roots grounded in the earth, and the top branches at its height. It is also applicable to use as a model to explain family relations. Bachofen explains for example how the Lykians – a people who represented das Mutterrecht – only had the law of inheritance succeeding from the mother’s side. This could be explained by the example how leaves do not grow from other leaves, but from the tree trunk. In a culture dominated by das Mutterrecht humans does not spring from each other, but from der Urkraft des Stoffes. In the same way, in das Vaterrecht a son of a father may have line of forefathers. A son from a mother though has only one, female, ancestor (Ahnin)- the great mother earth. Accordingly, a father is then only one of the already fallen leaves from the tree.
4. Bachofen as part of contemporary society and modernity
To construct a history of human development that is dependent of hierarchy and opposites can, when looked upon today, make unpleasant connotations to the practice of historical realities such as colonialism caused by eurocentrism and its logical consequence racism, National Socialism and the Second World War. What is interesting when reading Bachofen is that das Mutterrecht could be read as a logical defence for many different practices. In a hierarchial view of the world, there is acctually little doubt which position the orient and women have, in comparison with the occident and men. But, whether to read Bachofen as an attack on women's right and for a racial divided society or not could be interpreted differently. A good example of such a different understanding of Bachofen is Benjamin and Baeumler, who both shows great interest for the writings of Bachofen, more than 60 years after das Mutterrecht was published. I would however first like to highlight the relationship between contemporary society and modernity in the middle of the 19th century and how this could be mirrored in das Mutterrecht.
My point of departure for this part is that Bachofen is a part of modernity. A modernity as a result of a new, modern society that were shaped during the 19th century in Europe. The industrial revolution had with its new industries and need for workers made the cities grow, as a consequence of a growing capitalism as well as growing proletariat, and a new, middle class of the bourgoisie. These new societal conditions, inventions and medias, as well as enlightenment opened up emancipatory movements for workers struggle, womens fight for equal rights, and democracy.
The idea of nation state could be counted in to this category as well, a model that has the capacibility to both include and exclude to collectiveness. The lack back then of such a uniting, nationalistic community in what that today is Germany must be seen as a backdrop to the Universalgeschichte that dominated in german Kulturwissenschaft as well as in other field of german intellectual discussion. When constructing such a universal and all-encompassing history, a dependent part of this is a belief in the, by enlightenment shaped, new modern subject. It is in its purposes rational, and in its being connected to the ideal and spiritual(geistigkeit). This rational and objective role is something that Bachofen himself uses, it is in the mask as such an unbiased scholar that he writes about das Mutterrecht.
This European modernity, with it's self-concept as logical and in the latest stage of human development, is dependent on its own justification by mirroring itself in its opposite. It becomes a consequence of universalism, where the whole world would then be judged by the same standards. Only, the construction of these criterions and norms are only defined by Europe. Everything that the occident is could then find its inversion in the construction of the orient. This dualistic divide could then be found during the 1900th century in Kulturwissenschaft just as well as culture, politics and other fields of European modernity. This eurocentrism and its pretended developed advantage thus becomes a justification for colonialism.Also Bachofen accentuates and defines such a difference between occident and orient. When studying under the great german jurist Carl Savigny, his interest for the antique, Roman law had been roused. He was much in favour of the Roman law, which he regarded it as the most important invention sprung from das Vaterrecht. It came to represent ”the civilised world”, and worked as a superior defense towards all assaults and dangers that could originate from the Orient. In this way, the Orient, Asia and Africa is described as being stuck in the oldest stage of human development, das Mutterrecht, and even without possibility to push itself forward. Consequently, colonialism could then be explained as liberation from this primitivism. As the nature of the people of the occident is explained to be more pure and chaste, it is then even their duty to liberate humanity from being tied to this deep and earthly stage, dominated by
the mythical power of the oriental. Das Mutterrecht could then be seen as one of countless examples of how European colonialism during this time was legitimized and justified.
One could also describe modernity as an age of great utopian ideas, a passionate belief in that another society and world order is possible. In theory, such a belief in change could be seen as commendable. But when translated into politics, the result has sometimes turned out disastrous. Two exellent examples with a big importance for Germany are communism and national socialism. Even though these two ideologies are different, I would describe their belief in utopianism is mutual. And, as also Walter Benjamin observes in his essay about Bachofen, what is very interesting is how ideas that sprungs from Bachofen has been used to justify and strengthen both these ideologies, through Friedrich Engels and Alfred Baeumler. This is something I will continue discussing further in the last chapter, by discussing the differences in how Benjamin and Baeumler read Bachofen.
4. 1. Women
A consequence of universalistical claims and point of view is that in a patriarchy the intended reader and interpreter of the world without a doubt is a man. This androcentric point of departure only confirms Bachofens establishment, where the age of das Mutterrecht is a past one, and the patriarchal das Vaterrecht is inevitably what humanity has to be controlled by past this. When history is explained to be built from an inner hierarchial logic, by which there is inevitably so that manhood is superior to femininity, then it becomes a way of proving equality between men and women as not possible. Just in the same time as the fight for women's rights are in its early rise. On the other side, das Mutterrecht could just as well be read as an honouring and defence of the value of motherhood and its love and care. In this way there are similarities between Bachofen and the early suffragettes, who wanted to rice appreciation for the ‘special qualities’ of women.
I understand Bachofen as writing from an ambiguous point of view, with the possibility of different interpretations. For example, in the dualistic opposition between orient and occident, I understand him as critical towards the roman defiance against the precept of das Mutterrecht. He explains it as a necessity for resistance from das Mutterrecht-dominated orient.
Das Mutterrecht is dependent of a division between nature and culture, body and soul (stoff and geist), womenness and maleness. Among the female sex there are two types of women prevailing.Since they are both so material, their sexuality conditions their whole being and existance. This strong connection to materiality (stofflichkeit), becomes a way of explaining a 'natural' attraction among women for hetairism. A consequence therefore is that ”Das Gesetz des Stoffes” makes prostitution the natural and predestined work for women. In das Mutterrecht, another name for this first stage of hetairismus is ins naturale. That it, the act of sex is possible without constrains from marital constitution. This concept is making a clear connection to 'primitivism' and sexual reproduction as among the animals. Ins naturale is then followed by ins civile, which is the boundaries that marriage constitutes. This way of categorizing and stereotyping women into either the Madonna/mother or the whore/sexually promiscuous has in contemporary academia been largely criticized in the field of gender studies, and it is interesting how it is also such a evident part by Bachofen. Knowing this is important as for understanding the deep division between men and women in bourgeois society during the 19th century modernity in Europe. I believe Bachofen's curiosity in learning more about this unknown female-dominated world, das Mutterrecht, could exemplify how men and women's lives were lived separately, and with little knowledge of each others enclosed worlds. In a sence, I also believe the mythical das Mutterrecht as being Bachofens own version of Arcadia – a past time and way of life of female domination and without moral constrains to dream and fantasize about. Accordingly, Bachofen has sometimes been described as a romantic, in relationship to the german Romantic Movement. It is stated by both Benjamin and Baeumler how Bachofen is, in his way of writing, was part of the last breath of romanticism. And, there is also a romantic touch in Bachofens emotional depiction of das Mutterrecht. I would describe his exploration of this previously unknown stage in the beginning of human existance as almost gothic. A mystical, dark and mythological Arcadia, far away from a modern and rational society.
The opposition between das Mutterrecht and das Vaterrecht is explained as a question about possessing Phallus or not. Phallus and its connected, potent malehood become then superior to lacking phallus, which is, being a woman. It is thus through Phallus and Dionysos that historic development and das Vaterrecht can push it self up from the swamps of das Mutterrecht. The way that Bachofen lets Phallus play such a key role inevitable reminds of Sigmund Freud phallocentric dream interpretation, which was to be described in his Traumdeutung originally published in german in 1899. Accordingly for Freud, more than Bachofen (even though this is also evident for him), this phallocentrism is indirectly regulating the world order as well as the human condition and development. There are also other similarities in how they both poses universal validity as well as stages in human development. And, of course, by both Freud and Bachofen it could all be traced down to the antique world.
In the same time as Bachofen's book about das Mutterrecht is published in 1861, the diagnosis of female hysteria became widely spread in the fields of neorology, psychology,gynecology and obstetrics in the western world. I mention this, since I think that this (today outdated) medical diagnosisis can work as an example of a widely spread view of women at that time as being controlled and dominated by their corporeality. Associating women with promiscuity and incapability of free herself from her body, making her nerveous, hysteric, and anything except rational and thinking was part of a common view on women at those days. And, it is also present by Bachofen. For women, being inable to ”get their act together” and being able to successfully compete against the Dionysian and das Vaterrecht is explained by the inevitably irrational female nature. This is however not explained by Bachofen as a defeat as such. He uses the struggle between the hero Achilles and the Amazon Penthesileia as an example. When she is dying in the arms of the strong, male hero she understands her true nature, which instead of being a warrior is to be subordinate, loving and nurturing. And, it is only in this moment that Achilles feels compassion for, and sees the consummate beauty in, the dying Penthesileia. There is reconciliation. ”Nicht Kampf und Mord, nein, Liebe und Ehe sollte zwischen ihnen herrschen.”
5. Alfred Baeumler and a the use of Bachofen as a defence for a totalitarian state
Alfred Baeumler (1887-1968) was an influential German philosopher in the national socialistic Germany. He had a big interest for both Friedrich Nietzsche and Bachofen, and is known as misinterpreting Nietzsche as a justification for nazism. As I will now analyze further, such a justifying interpretation could also be found in his understanding of Bachofen.
For Baeumler, in contradiction to Benjamin, it seems impossible for Baeumler to see any pragmatic stance, any reconciliation in Bachofen. Thus, Baeumler has no problems as to describe das Mutterrecht as depicting a battle (Kampf) between opposites. He sees in Bachofen a decisiveness made out of steel, strongly convinced in fighting for faith, truth and “princips of history” (das historische Prinzip) against the philosophical, disbelief and delusion. It is not hard to relate this way of explaining an continuous battle as something natural and necessary for the progress of humanity as a part of a conservative and right wing, fascist agenda. In das Mutterrecht Bachofen never uses – as far as I know –the expression Volkseele or Volkgeist. This could probably be because Bachofen’s dislike for Hegel (too idealistic, philosophical and speculative), and therefore a reason not to use a word that could be associated with Hegel’s Geist. Baeumler however uses these expressions repeatedly. What is also quite interesting to point out is the seemingly lack of interest for the mythical and antique. Nota bene. Where Bachofen discusses the antique, das Mutterrecht and draws his examples from history and myth, Baeumler does not even bring these up to discussion. Baeumler does not seem interested in discussing the past. What he is interested in is making parallels to modern politics and society.
Baeumler reuses the so often used metaphor of a tree to describe Bachofen as deeply rooted in his Heimats soil. That is, instead of acknowledge the modern and cosmopolitan Bachofen in his youth, who spends years abroad, studies in Germany for Carl Savigny, visits France, finds affection for the british Harvard and has a great enlightening experience in Italy. I believe that Baeumler chooses not to see the possibility that Bachofen was just as most young people that chooses to travel a lot in their younger lives – curious of seeing other places, maybe as a result of being tired of their own hometown. Instead he wants to see Bachofen as a conservative and patriot, only being able to appreciate England as being a conservative and old fashioned, and Italy as source of the Roman law. Nevertheless – according to Bachofen's selfbiographical letters to his former teacher Karl Savigny he began studying Rechtswissenschaft due to his passion for the roman right and the ancient, mythical world. But, his year of studies spent in Paris at Ecole de Droit before his travel to England made him also appreciate the practical, modern part of juridical studies.
Baeumler emphasizes how Bachofen sees two main directions in human thinking, which stands in direct opposition to each other. The first one would then be a philosophical thinking, influenced by the Enlightenment and guided by reason. As such it defends an independent subject, which with support and influence from philosophy creates its own rules and conditions for living.
But Bachofen is no philosopher, he is a law scholar. Subsequently, Bachofen stands in opposition to this way of letting (political) philosophy and idealistic ”speculation” rule the form of government. The second position is law, and therefore superior to speculation and invention of new ideals represented by the philosophers, since it is instead explained as the result of a collective reason and united endeavour of humanity through history. It is the superiority of the collectiveness towards the single individual, which is the subject of reason sprung from the Enlightenment. Accordingly, this last, supported direction finds it evidence in history (the collectiveness that das Mutterrecht represents), and not in inferior speculation with little connection to reality. I understand Baeumler as expressing an evident sympathy for his understanding of this model of Bachofen.
For Baeumler, the writings of Bachofen become a justification for a hierarchic society. Laws, government, society and as a continuation, world order, has then grown out of a necessity of the human Volkseele, and is therefore not something that neither could, nor should be invented by men. By referring to 'nature’s laws' (that is, an inherent necessity that pushes human development up and forward) as meant to set up the rules for society, it also gets a very contemporary significance for Baeumler. It consitutes a strong conservative opposition against women emancipation as well as the by 'modern philosophy' (Karl Marx et al.) represented communism - a mutual enemy of both Bachofen, Baeumler and Nazi Germany. Its consequence is also a de-individualisation, where persons could be stronger connected to just being a result of the characteristics of their Volk, their race. Even if the consequence of this point of view is unequality between people, Baeumler prefers to describe it more as a gentle enforcement, a caring relationship between a dominating gender (or race) and a submissive one. It becomes a defence for the family as a model for society, with a patriarch that with a firm hand rules over his family and the duty for a woman to, through her mother love, to take gentle care of it. But, it can also be seen as a future confirmation of a belief that the national socialists were to be dependent on – people needed to belive that struggle (read – war) was a necessary and natural part of the protection of humanity. Baeumlers adaption of Bachofen and these ‘laws of nature’ could then could be seen, with the modern eyes of today – as defence for an undemocratic, totalitarian and even fascist society.
6. Walter Benjamin and a pragmatic Bachofen
As a direct response to the version of Bachofen that Baeumler represents, I would like to put Walter Benjamin. With his essay Johann Jakob Bachofen written in 1934 , he aims at saving Bachofen from those that has not actually read Bachofen, or has according to Benjamin misinterpreted him, but still uses him for their own purposes. He especially did not want Bachofen to be 'kidnapped' by fascist theoreticans. Instead he wants to draw attention to how Bachofen also could be of interest for marxist thinkers. According to Benjamin, Bachofen proves the possibility of a forthcoming communist community (Gesellschaft). He sees the texts of Bachofen as profetic, and with great importance for the time that Benjamin himself is part of.
Benjamin was very interested in Mythos. This big interest also turns into an outspoken critique of Baeumler, who according to Benjamin does not find any interest in Bachofen's research of prehistory. Baeumlers interest lays mainly just in the metaphysics of Bachofen. That is, Benjamin criticises Baeumler for not showing any interest in what das Mutterrecht really is about, since Baumlers only interest lays in strengthening his own fascist-oriented philosophy. Where Baeumler sees a strict and cathegorizing scholar, Benjamin instead chooses to see a pragmatic. Benjamin draws parallels between Goethe and Bachofen. The similarity would then be, that both were scholars that transcended the frontiers of their own discipline, and thereby finds influence from other fields of knowledge as well. In that sense, Benjamin makes Bachofen to somewhat of a radical, as well as role model. One cannot help but see the similarities to Benjamin's own cross-boundaries in his academic life. His fields of interest included mythology, politics, literature, estethics, medias, etc. (Today he would probably have fitted best into a multidisciplined field of studies such as Kulturwissenschaft.)
It is interesting to see the different importance given to the, hegelian, idea of a Volksgeist. Baeumler sees it as significant and repeatedly uses it when discussing Bachofen. Benjamin however states that this in fact was a term that Bachofen, because of its diffuse meaning, did not want to use. In that way, he hoped that his text would win greater recognition in the field of law and archeological studies. Benjamin looks positively upon how Bachofen in this way is able to change the diffuse hegelian idea of a Volkgeist, since he nevertheless is taking inspiration from there, to make it more applicable in historical research.
Through a pythagorean model of a ”Tafel of Gegensätze” , he draws conclusions about contemporary fascism as being, literally as well as politically, rightoriented. And, thus wants to turn society more a (non-mythical, rational) patriarchy, which Benjamin looks critically upon. He is, cleverly, using the model of a swastika, (which gives the double meaning of both the national socialistic political sign as well as the mythical fire wheel) to demonstrate a contemporary, disenchanted (entzauberte), right-turn into fascism and a stronger patriarchy as a direct opposite of a previously left-turned matriarchy. According to Benjamin, Bachofen states that this Mutterrecht is inevitably connected with communism. In this way, it is also constituting a disturbance of the patriarchal-ruled family. It relativizes the family as ruled by a dominant patriarchal Father as just another, relatively new, stage in history. The possibility of a Ur-kommunismus would then mean critique and possible damage of authoritarian power.
In the end of his text, Benjamin discusses a painting of Bachofen from analysing details in his appearance. In the face of Bachofen he sees no hardness, but a man with a gentle and almost motherly big heart. He draws the conclusion that it contains an unparalelled harmony - just as he, according to Benjamin, himself was as a person. Benjamin therefore sees Bachofen as an understanding man that could appreciate both sides of opposites. In this way, he represented a balance between matriarcharchy and patriarchal order, archaic democracy and aristocratic conservatism, antique symbolism and Christian belief. His emotional interest would then be in understanding the matriarchal stage of das Mutterrecht. Although, his more historical interest would be in the origin of patriarchy, since this would be the highest of Christian spirituality. Although his passion for Mythos, Bachofen always remained a true protestantic Christian.
I believe that Benjamin wanted to portray Bachofen as an understanding and pragmatic scholar, that could respect and find interest for different views. Even though he is a christian and strongly in favor for the Roman Law, he also shows a deep interest for Mythos and other religious views. In this way, Benjamin wants to present liberal and understanding values. This would then be in opposite to a harder interpretation represented by Baeumler, which presents no possibility for pragmatism and compromises.
