Richard Thurnwald · 1931
Thurnwald’s first volume is a comparative ethnosociological monograph built around “representative life-pictures” of non-European societies. Its governing claim is methodological: sociology must be disciplined by ethnographic particulars rather than by speculative evolutionism, racial explanation, or ready-made cultural types.
Die soziologischen Ergebnisse müssen immer aus der Menge von Einzelvorgängen erarbeitet, dürfen nie in sie hineinkonstruiert werden.
English translation: Sociological findings must always be worked out from the multitude of individual occurrences; they may never be construed into them.
This principle shapes both the book’s organization and its polemic. Thurnwald treats “Naturvölker” not as peoples outside history, but as societies whose transformations have followed different tempos and left different records. Classifications such as Kulturkreise may help arrange material, but they cannot substitute for causal analysis. Likewise, subsistence is indispensable for comparison, yet it is never allowed to become a single master key.
So wichtig die Form der Nahrungsgewinnung ist, die auch für die Gestaltung der Kulturhorizonte eines Volkes die Richtung weist, so wäre es doch völlig verfehlt, auf ihr allein die Unterschiede unter den Gestaltungen der Gemeinwesen aufzubauen.
English translation: However important the mode of food acquisition may be—also pointing the direction for the shaping of a people's cultural horizons—it would be entirely mistaken to build the differences among the forms of communities upon it alone.
The volume’s movement from gathering and hunting to cultivation, pastoralism, kin organization, rank, and political authority shows Thurnwald’s anti-reductive method at work. Agriculture matters because it stabilizes settlement, links descent to land, reorganizes labor, and makes expansion possible. But even here he distinguishes colonizing spread from political conquest, refusing to read every migration through the later model of empire.
Die Feldbauer sind bei den Expansionen keine „Imperialisten“, sondern eher Gründer neuer Tochtervölker und Niederlassungen, sie sind „Kolonisatoren“, aber keine „Eroberer“.
English translation: In their expansions, agriculturalists are not "imperialists" but rather founders of new daughter peoples and settlements; they are "colonizers," but not "conquerors."
Kinship is treated in the same functional and historical way. “Sippe” is not a natural unit with a fixed essence; it must be understood through the concrete cooperation, ritual action, property relation, or political function that binds its members. Gender and domestic economy also enter the analysis as historically variable institutions: women’s labor, marriage transactions, household production, and dependence become crucial for understanding how persons may be socially valued, controlled, or appropriated.
The later chapters turn from household and descent to hierarchy, domination, and the preconditions of state formation. Thurnwald resists theories that derive the state simply from conquest or subjection, arguing instead for a layered process involving economic dependence, military organization, ritual precedence, prestige, and durable symbols of authority.
Man hat vielleicht mehr aus politischem Ressentiment denn aus Kenntnis der Tatsachen Theorien aufgestellt, die in recht einfacher Weise eine Entstehung des Staates aus „Unterwerfung“ erspekulierten.
English translation: Perhaps more out of political resentment than from knowledge of the facts, theories have been advanced that in a rather simple way speculatively derived the origin of the state from "subjugation."
His account of political emergence is therefore gradual and institutional. Authority becomes more than personal command when it is embodied in offices, signs, ceremonies, and collective representations capable of surviving the immediate situation.
Man könnte mit einer gewissen Übertreibung sagen, daß der Staat mit der Schaffung solcher Symbole beginnt.
English translation: One could say, with a certain exaggeration, that the state begins with the creation of such symbols.
The book’s lasting significance lies in this combination of broad comparison and theoretical restraint. Its terminology belongs to early twentieth-century ethnology, but its strongest argument is still methodological: no single factor—subsistence, diffusion area, descent, conquest, race, or economy—explains society by itself. Social forms arise from historically specific combinations of livelihood, settlement, kinship, gendered work, exchange, violence, symbolic representation, and institutional continuity.
This work was divided into 89 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 89 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian