By Zuki Mqolomba
Let me dare say that one cannot be a Marxist-Leninist cadre in pursuit of a non-sexist and equal society while standing in defence of a cultural practice designed intrinsically to institutionalise narrow chauvinism in postmodern South Africa.
The sudden resurrection of polygamous practice amongst middle-class ranks comes in tandem with the emergence of extreme right-wing politics, authoritarian democratic demagogy, nationalist chauvinism and narrow populism in anecdotal forms.
It forms part of a right-wing agenda to institutionalise patriarchy and to maintain unequal gender relations between men and women. The codifying of the (ab)normal by the elite must not and cannot remain unabated.
Mine is a brief attempt to give theoretical-informed critique of an increasingly sanctioned trend in postmodern South Africa. It is an attempt to grasp the root of the matter through a class and gender analysis. It is informed and inspired by conversations and analysis of seasoned women belonging to the Spartans bookclub. It pokes holes at the “culture is right” argument. It exposes the gender disparities inherent in the theory that informs the practice. It asks the hard questions.
Dare I?
Firstly, polygamy must be seen through theoretical lenses as an extension of the power politics that govern social interactions generally between men and women. It is a cultural instrument that institutionalises female subjugation and reinforces and perpetuates the climate of male chauvinism, premised on false notions of male superiority and male inheritance.
There’s no denying it.
There is definitely a noticeable relationship between polygamous practice and gendered property relations in society. Economic and political power is often used to subvert women into choosing these forms of marital arrangement. In societies where there are reduced inequalities between men and women, polygamy seizes to be relevant. In societies where there are high income inequalities by gender, polygamous practice abounds. Polygamy therefore is a function of econometrics. Social values and social relations are often codified by those at the apex of property relations in society.
Many have imposed the cultural argument in narrow defence of polygamy, worst yet under the guise of cultural pride, cultural identity and constitutional right. These analyses, however, have often been self-serving.
Many conveniently forget that the history of hitherto society generally attests to changing nature of social relations as a function of changing material conditions. Polygamy too, even as a cultural right, is a function of social constructs intended to benefit men only (polygamous practice in South Africa is a legal and constitutional right of men only).
Culture evolves. Culture cannot and is not static in its very nature and therefore should not be God-sanctioned for its own sake. Take the case of circumcision of Zulu men under Shaka Zulu’s rule vis-à-vis new discussions under King Zwelithini’s leadership to resurrect it for health purposes.
Worst off, a lot of South Africa’s polygamy practitioners often violate the cultural principles and processes of polygamy. Take the example of Mbhele who married all his wives simultaneously, to the point of remarrying the first wife, giving her equal status as all other wives. That was culturally incorrect and grossly undermining. Need I mention the case of our beloved president and the high-levels of opportunism post his inauguration as statesmen?
Many also ask that if the above analysis is correct, then why have educated and middle-class women “chosen” to enter into these sordid forms of marital arrangements?
It’s simple. Women are still to decolonise their minds.
Whereas men are socialised to believe they have an inherent right to have their sexual desires met, women are socialised to believe they’re obliged to meet those desires and to internalise accepted definitions of femininity and sexual objectification. The case is falsely premised on the idea that men’s aggressive sexual nature and need for multiple partners is naturally biological. The case analysis is shallow and void of the nurture perspective.
What is more unfortunate about public discourse on polygamy is that the stories of women in polygamous arrangements are not being told. The stories of children in polygamous relationships also need to be told. Narrow traditionalists continue to set the norms for standard practice.
We’re not even asking the right questions, as difficult as it may be under the circumstances. And we need to ask the inconvenient questions.
• Do women happily go into polygamous relationships as a preference over monogamous relationships? Are they better off in polygamous relationships and more so than in monogamous relationships?
• Does polygamous practice enhance or erode the rights of women?? Why? Why not?
• How does the government then manage the symbolism and negative messaging around issues of HIV/Aids transmissions and multiple partners?
• Bearing in mind uneven gender population ratios, increasing HIV/Aids transmissions, unequal socio-economic conditions of women, is polygamy the way of the future?
So: “If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.”
May our leaders be mindful of these words, lest they be accused otherwise.
Zuki Mqolomba is completing her master’s degree at the University of Cape Town.
You raise very pertinent and legitimate concerns here, I like that. So what is the solution? What happens after the decolonization of the female mind?
Those who dont like polygamy should not enter into polygamous relationships.If its so bad then nobody would practice it.I have a judge and a lawyer and a doctor who are second wives.
On the surface it is nunfair but what do women want???. look I am not being difficult but 120 women (ten dozen women) slept with Tiger woods.All knew he was married. They must believe in sharing of sorts. Who are you to say you are right and they are wrong.
almost all black women in SA believe in lobola. Try not to pay lobola and you will not get married,. Who the hell is anybody to say they are wrong. Polygamy will evolve in its own fine timewith everything else. The made it illegal in the west and guess what we hear of it every day but in name only. Tiger woods, Bill clinton and his cigar.Ted Kennedy,Jesse james and Halle berrys exhusbands.It rears its head (not ugly) all the time. Maybe they got it wrong.
Dont marry a man with a wife if you dont like polygamy. Let those who want to do so.
“…is a cultural instrument that institutionalises female subjugation and reinforces and perpetuates the climate of male chauvinism, premised on false notions of male superiority and male inheritance.”
very well put Zuki. i cannot take away or add anything to what you’ve said. in an era where we talk of equality between the sexes polygamy has no place.
Words of advice: Let those who do not have a problem with it, practice it (men/women). Imposing yourself as a paragon of correctness on women’s right, does nothing but expose your fears/hate over those who are genuinely happy to be in such relationships.
“Women are still to decolonize their minds” sounds very familiar to sentences used by politicians, who assume that people needs, their “powerful minds” to think for themselves. Most of these people have a choice (men/women, lower/middle/upper class citizens, culturally/not), it is their choice. If you could find a space in your sad heart to RESPECT that, you will find peace.
Thank you for an insightful and relevant piece, Zuki. The point about culture being something that is constantly evolving is a very good one- and something that must be considered. Many cultural practices have become obsolete and fallen away- it is a natural, and indeed an essential process
This is so well put. Those who whine “well, don’t do it then” have missed the whole point – that many of the women and girls don’t have the choice, or the education on their own rights and the confidence that comes with being empowered to think through how they want their lives to be. They often are not allowed to “want” anything except a man and children. And too bad if they don’t want those, they get them, often without any choice of husbands or when to have children or how many, or if her husband will murder her and her children by passing on AIDS …
True also that the constitutional right to multiple spouses at the same time is given to men and not to women. Patriarchy says that men have more right to sexual variety because they need it, but when women need sexual variety they are beaten, coerced, disable, starved and killed to discourage them, in every society (except those few that are structured for women to freely have multiple partners and not suffer economically). These acts of force, themselves show that given a choice women would also like sexual variety, altho’ most humans end up with one or two intimate partners to whom they feel most closely matched.
Zuks and Chuma,
I fully agree. Its time people stopped using ‘culture’ as a defense for undefendable acts
This reminds me very much of the colonial masters when they defended colonialism”if it not fo us(white peps) you people would be killing each other killing twins,walking around naked and stuff”,.Someone onced asked is westernisation neccessarily a good thing?if not why not,There has always been a tendency of people to convert people to thier way of thinking or of seeing things thier way.Haiwa raises a critical point but I think Zuki has valid claims too,Historically this has been a tool to oppress women and it was used to validate women’s place in the world,below man,even today, most of the times,but things have changed a bit,women who are working now do it,so is it a question of mental slavery???it differs sometimes it is,can a person who is mentally enslaved make an informed decision??I dont think so,the decision has already been made for them.But how do u determine who is enlsaved??how do u know if ur not?? I think here it comes to a question of selfserving for both sides,both sides want to be right,I think i know what is right for us scenario,for both pro-polygamists and anti-polygamists
The fact that u r looking at a cultural practice thru lenses that are not of that culture makes u see things not as they are, but as the other culture wants them to be. I would suggest you do a full study of the practice from the people who practice it. Its history and implecations before you impose your western judgement on it.
the thing i think a lot of people dont understand is that women do to some degree ‘allow’ themselves to be treated unequally (in relationships as well as in the workplace) but their cultural and economic positions tend to determine the degree of this control. it speaks volumes that the legal and constitutional framework cannot support polyandry as well as polygamy, and the justification for this may be ‘cultural’. i think that the best way to empower women is through education and the evolution of culture, on their terms.
great article. would love to see more on this topic.
The tripe espoused by nontellectuals and covered in a veneer of ‘culture’ is part of the reason for the decay of this lovely country. Don’t defend the indefendable. One extra wife means one other man won’t get a wife. It’s as simple and unethical as that. ‘Culture’ doesn’t wash.
As a woman, I don’t think the idea of polyandry excites me much. One husband is enough hard work to keep contented as it is… might be useful to have a team of indentured ‘workers’ if I had a large estate though! But I don’t. What would I do with them all if they fought?!
Nelson Mandella was the child of a polygamous marriage. He seemed (according to his ‘Long Walk..’ to have been contented enough. I gather each wife wa sort of part of a ‘family business’ and looked after various lands/properties in reasonable co-operation. At least a wife has legal protection, which a mistress does not, and these days one presumes there is a choice of whether to be one of many or not. Gives social recognition doesn’t it?
I believe some cultures which alow polygamy stipulate that each wife must be treated equally.
Perhaps the question should be whether the divorce laws are equal?
While I believe that everybody is entitled to freedom of expression, culture and religion, this freedom should be curtailed when it comes at a cost to others. To put it more simply, polygamy is direcctly harmful to the struggle for gender equality. The author is completely correct to refer to the decolonisation of womens’ minds. the question is, how do we go about acheiving this?
What you say makes perfect sense and I am of the same mind. But, as other commentators have mentioned, the opposite makes sense for them and other women. This is very similar to the religious / atheist conflict. So what is the answer?
Democracy is evolving. Culture is not static. We do not actually have true equality when women aren’t allowed to compete on equal grounds, granted. It annoys and is unhelpful when a female equivalent is created to “correct” the balance, i.e. granting women polygamous rights. I think the answer lies in equal individual rights. Let those who wish enter into a polygamous marriage (male or female) do so, but set the legal bounds for each type of marriage and do it openly and without force, like the different types of business contracts of which a marriage contract, I feel, is just a special type. There are clear rules for CC’s and Pty’s, etc. Also, clear rules for changing one into the other.
Let those who need religion subscribe to it, but not force it on those who don’t and vice versa. The problem starts when people force their opinions onto others. A strong opinions like presented above is great since it offers an option for those unhappy with their lot. I could never share a partner and therefore would never choose a partner who is happier with plenty. Honesty is the biggest problem, not the kind of choice.
The big question confronting black South Africans is how much of our decision making is based on for lack of a better term vindictiveness against the white man. We have embraced many customs and traditions that are at odds with our present reality in restorative fashion. No wonder Dalindyebo is baffled by the decision of South Africa’s courts to question his divine powers and obligation to mete out punishment to his subjects as his sees fit much like it used to happen before colonial rule. Dalindyebo as the mighty king is the custodian of his tribe’s customs and traditions. Shaka as the custodian of his tribe’s customs and traditions in an era when warring and warriorship was popular culture adapted the customs and traditions to the needs of the day or way of living of that day which is called culture.
Nowadays when all of us are supposed to be equal each man is a custodian of his own culture, there is popular culture driven by intelligentsia and hegemony. Polygamy may become the poular culture of many in our time.
gudone zuki;
refreshing to c that not all our sistas r colonized by zuma n his tendertreneurial machoman nonsence in the name of culture.fact:poligamy is not african culture.its a mans power over economically hapless women n its been practiced all over the world by bougeourse classes not only in africa.the greecs,romans,british n arab overclasses have done it for centuries.so we the hardworking natives who dont want a cursed tender say shamelessly zuma n his uncivilised self is not part of our culture of liberty n womens rights.
“Let me dare say that one cannot be a Marxist-Leninist cadre in pursuit of a non-sexist and equal society while standing in defence of a cultural practice designed intrinsically to institutionalise narrow chauvinism in postmodern South Africa.” (LONG LIVE THE SOAPBOX -opera) These opening lines disqualify the whole article, unfortunately. As though “culture” is something designed to suit Postmodernism.
ut with the old rubbish, make way for new rubbish !
Is the “decolonised” mind of women to be enlightened and freed by Marxism-Leninism? Or is it more like
The author laments no stories of the affected persons being told,: why does’nt she tell them to stave her argumentation. Otherwise, interesting look over the fence into the problems different cultures have in coming to terms with a whirlwind world.
Haiwa, I’ll take you a bet that your various wives would rather not *have* to share you. The same with any children that you may Zumaly be producing for this unfortunately impoverished and over-populated continent.
And to you and your brothers, how would you fancy the idea of one of your wives having 3 or 4 husbands? And needing a blood test to know which of her children are actually yours?
Thank you Zuki. What an excellent piece. Pity it wasn’t written by a man. I think X Cepting raises a good point though. Honesty is the real problem. NOT ONE of my black male friends and acquaintances is not constantly engaged in some kind of subterfuge involving multiple partners. “Culture” is often quoted. Strangely enough, these very same men react with disgust at the discovery that one of their “girlfriends” is playing the same game. Gifts, money and drinks are regarded as adequate tender for sex, but at the same time women are looked down upon for accepting this tender. These contradictions are a constant source of frustration and argument for me because they are not regarded as contradictions. I think this speaks of a lack of personal, cultural and intellectual honesty. Given this, I regard polygamy as a more honourable engagemwnt.
nice one zuki.
eloquoent and to the point.
did you cc our great dancing statesman?
Perhaps he never was one of those, what did you call them… “a Marxist-Leninist cadre in pursuit of a non sexist and equal society… ” Maybe all he ever wanted was to be a ‘babe’ magnet… and for a man hitting seventy he sets a wonderful example of reality in this bizarre prudish world we seem to have become. He is a true role model for anyone who doesn’t believe that if you have a vision of what you want and an idea for how to get it then with resolute determination one can achieve one’s goal… I say Mazel Tov to the Prez.
My history tells me that men were asked to take in widows and take care of them during the time of wars. It was then a duty men were expected to take and sex had nothing to do with it. men who had seen many wars had many cows and stock in general from being honored from the spoils of war. The idea that polygamy was founded to supress women comes from people who look at history from the colonised/Christian mindset of condemning without understanding. Sis Zuki if you want to roll back this backwards culture, start blogging about the real history. i myself as a Zulu am shocked at the people like Zuma abusing what was at the time a solution.
Ignorance is death, not bliss.
@Ash, you made a very good point, how can these people in SA with limited income take care all of these wives and children? In a urban SA where most people are struggling to keep a job or to find a job, it’s a problem to take care one wife and children. President Zuma can marry all of these women because he can use state funds to maintain his life style but, ninety percent of the people in SA can’t afford this life style.
Moreover, people talk about Shaka but, failed to realize that Shaka witness the bringing out of isolation of the Zulu by the Europeans. The Zulus didn’t have science and technology in their culture and they didn’t have writing or a military to compete with the Europeans. Unlike the Japanese who were flexible enough to change by coping many things in the western culture, the Zulus were not able to do this. This is why the Zulus and the rest of Africa came under the Europeans rules.