The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
1884. New York: Penguin, 2010.
☆1883年のMarxの死後、遺されたLewis Henry MorganのAncient Society（1877年）に関するMarxのノートに想を得て発行された本書は、表題のとおり家族と国家の歴史化（脱自然化、the materialist interpretation of history）を試みる。"the family form was the product--like religion, politics and culture--of successive modes of production" (intro: 9). 家族はmode of productionの変化に準じて、group marriage (promiscuous intercourse)からconsanguine family、punalua family、pairing family、そしてmonogamous family へと変化し ("for the period of savagery, group marriage; for barbarism, pairing marriage; for civilization, monogamy supplemented by adultery and prostitution" 105)、"state" (as opposed to gentile society)は父権的世襲財産性を擁護する制度として誕生した (141)。家父長制的モノガミーを資本主義の産物として捉えるEngelsの視線の先には、世襲財産を排した（それゆえにモノガミーを必要としない）社会主義と超家族的集団があり、その意味でEngelsの見ているものは後のGilmanやBersaniに近いものがある("The 'family' would evolve to a post-capitalist state of sexual and familial communism remarkably like its pre-capitalist forebears" 15)。言ってみれば社会主義とsocialist faminism、ひいてはQueer theoryの結節点を本書は指し示しているようだ（が、Engelsは同時にmisogynyやhomophobiaでも糾弾されている）。
後期資本主義（及びディスコースとしてのセクシュアリティ）の黎明期にこのような本が出版されたというのはとてもおもしろいし、またMcLennanを筆頭とする他の英国系人類学者を一刀両断にして（EngelsはMcLennanのexogamyとendogamyによる区別に対しては懐疑的）アメリカ人であるMorganのネイティブアメリカン研究に目をつけたというのもとても興味深い（そしてこの本がEngels, Morgan, Marxのfusionとして、ある種のintimate authorshipによるものであるのも面白い）。いずれにしてもAncient Societyは必読である。ついでにTristrum Huntによるイントロはとても簡潔に当時の人類学的動きやThe German Ideologyについてまとめられていてこれも有益。考えてみれば"it is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness" というのはどこかでFreudとも繋がるわけで、モダニティの始まりと自我の解体はマルクス主義にも共有されているわけだな。それからprivate propertyの世襲を行い得ない労働者階級ではモノガミーが解体されている、というような夢見がちな感じもいかにもお金持ち出身のEngelsらしくておもしろかった（特に102-103 "The proletarian family is therefore no longer monogamous in the strict sense, even where there is passionate love and firmest loyalty on both sides and maybe all the blessings of religious and civil authority"）。やはりAlcottのTranscendental Wild Oatsからはじめて（domestic fictionと対置されるものとして）queerと家族解体の夢の系譜を辿るというのもありかもしれない？
★By way of contrast, the English socialist Edward Carpenter, in his privately circulated essay Homogenic Love (1893), took Engels's critique of the bourgeois family to a different conclusion by arguing for the virtue of non-procreative sex and, with it, the cultural and legal acceptance of homosexuality as part of a broader process of socialist emancipation. (Hunt 19) これは後で必ずチェックすること。
★Before the beginning of the sixties, one cannot speak of a history of the family. . . . The study of the family dates from 1861, from the publication of Bachofen's Mutterrecht. (39)
★The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. (87)
★The original meaning of the word 'family' (familia) is not that compund of sentimentality and domestic strife which forms the ideal of the present-da philistine; among the Romans it did not a tfirst even refere to the married pari and their children but only to the slaves. Famulas means domestic slave, and familia is the total number of slaves belonging to one man. (88)
★It is the existence of slavery side by side with monogamy, the presence of young, beautiful slaves belonging unreservedly to the man, that stamps monogamy from the very beginning with its specific character of monogamy for the woman only, but not for the man. (93)
★It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based not on natural but on economic conditions--on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property. (95)
★Stateの誕生―Foucault的もちろんEngelsはAthensの話をしているので時代は違うのだけれど：In the first place, it created a public force which was now no longer simply identical with the whole body of the armed people; secondly, for the first time it divided the people for public purposes, not by groups of kinship, but by common place of residence. (148)
★commodityの定義の中心には「交換されるもの」という特性があり、貨幣は"the commodity of commodities" として定義される(204) With commodity production, production no longer for use by the producers but for exchange, the products necessarily change hands. In exchanging his product, the producer surrenders it; he no longer knows what becomes of it. (213) It was not long then before the great 'truth' was discovered that man also can be a commodity, that human energy can be exchanged and put to use by making a man into a slave. Hardly had men begun exchange that already they themselves were being exchanged. The active became the passive, whether the men liked it or not. (214)
