208
THE ENIGMA OF INCEST
differences are apparently insignificant. Levi-Strauss has in fact endeavoured to sort out the various effects of the different fonns of relationships on the exchanges and he has sought to provide his hypothesis with a solid foundation in the process. To this end he decides to concentrate on the most tangible aspect of the exchanges he has followed up. Over and against the attractiveness of women already mentioned, and referred to by Levi-Strauss himself, though he does not dwell on it, stand the material benefits to be calculated in services rendered, that the possession of a wife confers on her husband. This material interest cannot be denied and indeed I do not think one could well investigate the process of handing women over in marriage without noticing it. Later on I shall try to resolve these two obviously contradictory points of view. The standpoint I suggest, is not incompatible with Levi-Strauss's interpretation, just the opposite in fact; but I must first stress the aspect he himself stresses. "As has often been observed,"l he says "in the majority of primitive societies, as also to a lesser degree in the rural classes of our own society, marriage has an economic importance. The difference between the economic status¡ of the bachelor and that of the married man in our own society 'is practically only that the fonner has to renew his wardrobe more often2. The situation is completely different among groups in which the satisfaction of economic needs depends entirely upon the man and wife relationship and the division of labour between the sexes. Not only do men and women not have the same specialised technical skills and consequently depend on each other for the manufacture of the objects necessary for the daily tasks, but they produce different types of food. If they are to receive a balanced diet and lOp. cit. page 48. 2 There is an obvious exaggeration here. These days circumstances vary enormously from one case to the next. Similarly we may ask whether the lot of the bachelor is constant even among primitive men. I personally think that LeviStrauss's theory is mainly based on the "generosity" motivation, although "selfinterest" must lend considerable weight to the transactions.