The words custom, culture and tradition are often invoked to shut down debate and discussion instead of used as a meaningful way of explaining a practice, belief or to understand historical events or legacies. The furore surrounding the feast and celebration known as Ukweshwama has raised some interesting points about the sanctity of culture and practices that some may find disgusting. During Ukweshwama a bull is ritually killed more or less by being beaten to death and having its neck broken. I do not wish to offer a direct opinion on the actual practice and I think that the current media debate is hyperbolic in the least and perhaps a little dishonest from both perspectives.
I wish to start with some comments on these terms. Culture has nothing to do with refinement or the high arts or even ritual acts or custom in an immediate meaningful manner. It is simply the way in which people understand and create the web of meanings that surround them. Cultures are not bounded entities that can be pinned down and said this is the essence of being Zulu etc. All cultures flow into one another and in a mediated world in which we live in there is more cultural sharing than ever before. South Africans (and even Canadians like me) do share some common culture through which we create meaning in this world. As such we can all deride or comment on ritual acts and perhaps in doing so we can learn something about one another and engage in a meaningful dialogue.
All tradition is invented. This can be taken as trite and to mean anyone can just make something up and claim it as their culture, but that is not quite accurate in the way in which this is supposed to be meaningful. New practices (even traditions) are invented within a greater context of belief systems and worldview.
Ukweshwama is not a timeless tradition of the Zulus. It has been revitalised after an absence of many years. This of course does not mean there is no tradition involved, but that the contemporary practice is much changed from its original context of a war ceremony to strengthen a regiment before battle. The very violence was integral to a group of people about to go out and commit violence.
The people that are contesting the ceremony have done little to learn something about the larger set of Zulu beliefs that inform the ceremony and the ritual slaughter. What cattle mean for the Zulu people as well as the role played by the ancestors is poorly understood if at all. Despite the advent of Christianity the ancestors play an important role in contemporary Zulu society. Depending on which family the role and significance is different and not always a form of direct ancestor worship as often depicted. Even an atheist Zulu still remembers ancestors and acknowledges a role they play once they have passed away — that role can be the teachings or deeds performed during life, to more direct intervention in life as a ghostly presence, to interceding with God the way the saints are seen to by Catholics.
Cattle are more than meat, they are symbolic creatures that can signify family ties, growth and prosperity and still play an important role even for many city dwellers who never actually own cattle who still calculate bride price (lobola) in relation to cost of a cow. They are ritually slaughtered at funerals and remembrance ceremonies the year after death often called ukubuyisa idlozi — come back ancestor — which is my favourite ceremony. This is where the deceased crosses over from the living to the dead and joins other deceased ancestors. The ceremony is used to mark the end of their journey from the living to the dead and where the ancestor is beseeched to help the living and is usually ten months to a year after death. It is a wonderful celebration of the man’s life and what he accomplished. The mourning is over and it is a happy ceremony often with lots of beer and of course meat from the cattle slaughtered. I am a little off track in revere, but the point is that the importance of the ancestors and the past intersects with the role and symbolic meanings of the cattle.
To simply deride a ceremony and say it must be done away with as it is cruel and to note that cultures can change is to miss the point a little. Culture can and does change and is always a dynamic “thing”, but its dynamism is constrained by those other webs of meaning and the larger worldview that informs its ritual expression.
So if you wish to see and end to the brutal drawn-out death of a cow then perhaps a more nuanced call is needed. First of all Ukweshwama is not that common a ceremony and in most places does not happen at all. It seems to be restricted to an annual event held by the king. The ritual killing is only part of the event, so to call for an end to Ukweshwama is misplaced as the ritual killing is but part of the event. Why not a dialogue about the way in which the bull is killed? A stab in the jugular with an assegai works quickly and is respectful to the ancestors and to custom. I have done this myself with Zulu friends and it ends in seconds. It is very similar to halal or kosher butchering practices.
For the supporters of the killing perhaps they can avoid a knee-jerk reaction that claims no-one other than Zulu can comment. Perhaps they can try and explain why it is done and do so with a little honest retrospection and acknowledge that there are other valid ways to kill a bull. And Ukweshwama used to be a far different ceremony with many other parts that are not performed today. If those parts can change then why not the way in which the bull is killed?
Invoking tradition and culture as essences or things that cannot change are the very same discourses used by the far right to justify violence and xenophobia against those deemed different. No person should be silenced over this no matter their stance on the topic. No cultural norm or standard is to take precedence over another. Culture and cultural change comes from dialogue and debate and external influences can affect change if it is done with some sense and respect. The animal rights group has failed to do so through their court action.
Why not send a delegation to the king to discuss the ritual? This could have resulted in meaningful change. As it looks now the ritual will be performed in all its violence for time to come to prove a point. And for that we are all the worse off and understand one another that much less.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
28 Responses to “Culture can and does change”
There are some aspects of culture that should be strongly condemned; like polygamy. But polygamy is not “an African thing”. Some people in Europe and America (esp religious groups) practice it. There are other aspects of modernity (i.e. Western culture) that should be strongly condemned; like killing animals for food when nature has been so generous to us.
Finally, an anthropologist’s view and a sane approach to the whole affair.
Also, I discovered your Thoughtleader pieces only yesterday, but I have now read a fair number of them. Incisive stuff and I especially enjoyed your trilogy about farming.
“Ukweshwama is not that common a ceremony and in most places does not happen at all. It seems to be restricted to an annual event held by the king.”
If something violent happens infrequently but is nevertheless reinforced as a necessary part of culture, it remains violent. Its violence does not disappear with its necessity.
I agree wholeheartedly with your informed and sensitive blog. People have developed the notion that cultures are static and must be preserved at all cost, while others are adamant that barbaric ‘outmoded’ cultural practices must be done away with and never repeated. It seems as though people would like to sanitise all cultures and keep only the picturesque parts, the elements of the culture that will make the tourists happy and spend money. The efficacy in ritual becomes merely entertainment and spectacle. Which is why I am not against the practice of Ukweshwama as such, because it appears as though it is still done for a purpose and with knowledge of why it is being done.
However, cruelty to animals is not an element of a culture that can be condoned, and as cultures are fluid there is the possibility to adapt and change with the society in which a group finds itself. Sadly the all too quick ‘save the animal without thought of the context’ has delayed this transformation as you have pointed out. Although, the hype and attention that has now been given to this practice may contribute to an alternative more humane way of viewing and practicing this ritual amongst the amaZulu.
Here’s an interesting radical left critique of the Animal Rights movement:
“Animals constitute the perfect victims — they don’t talk back. In contrast to oppressed people, who may not only be oppressed, but also racist or sexist themselves, animals are only passively suffering. This means that the activist is not required to deal directly with the objects of her activism. Instead, she will constantly inhabit a necessary role. Since animals cannot liberate themselves, the human liberator is needed. Since animals cannot decide their own fate (presupposing that a concept like “fate” applies to animals), the human liberator will always be necessary to take decisions for “her” victims (2). This gives the activist the gratification of being essential to the struggle. In contrast, would the aim be the liberation of humans who suffer under the capitalist system, who are forced into spirit- and, as in the case of Simon Jones, literally body-crushing work, the activist must loose her vanguard role rather quickly and the victims must become agents of their own freedom struggle. This loss of position can be an uncomfortable prospect for certain kinds of activists and the cause of animal liberation, where the power position of the liberator is guaranteed, appears as a welcome alternative.”
@Rose - It is not about condoning cruelty done in the name of culture, but understanding why something is done in the first place. If one wishes to challenge a practice then they must understand more about it before they jump up and down and insult the King. I too would rather the practice ends but would never advocate the use of the courts and force to do so. All action must start with dialogue and understanding. I would really like people interested in Ukweshwama or other rituals depicted in the media to turn to a Zulu and say what is this all about? If we are to move beyond race and mutual mistrust and misunderstanding then that simple question begins a process that can only benfit us all.
@Jennifer - Ukweshwama is not seen as an integral part of Zulu culture it is but one ceremony and one act. Its necessity was not being stated but that its practice should be allowed. No Zulu out there would see their Zulu-ness compromised due to this ceremony being canceled.
For sure it is a violent ritual act nobody claims otherwise. All I want is people to try and understand the why it happens and the deeper meaning associated with it. Maybe understanding that will not lead to one condoning it, but then at least a dialogue has been entered into and for that we all benefit.
Firstly, You must stop your primitive, barbaric, inhumane culture of undermining other people’s culture and rituals and your belief that everything white is good. You know nothing about Nguni culture, thefore, you are not qualified to demand changes to something that means nothing to you. In SA we have seen animals being treated better than human beings(blacks), at the same time blacks are killed ‘because’ they are mistaken to baboons. Double standards
One should not overlook the fact that the killing is done by young Zulu “warriors”, apparently as an initiation into killing. It is therefore difficult to agree with the author that “the contemporary practice is much changed from its original context of a war ceremony to strengthen a regiment before battle” - especially given the levels of violence that already exist in the country. How can we have a democracy if we still have “kings” who are allowed to intimidate the rest of the country with troops of violence initiated “warriors”?
Interesting challenge this. I guess I do not need to tell you of the difficulty of talking about a ‘traditional’ practice without being hoodwinked into employing the very discourse against which you are writing. For example, you say “Ukweshwama is not a timeless tradition of the Zulus”. Here you make the point that tradition is not something extra-historical, but the language inadvertantly reifies a category of people in terms of a ‘tribal’ identity. Who are ‘the Zulus’? Are there any ‘traditional’ practices or beliefs that can be properly described as either exclusively Zulu or as shared by all Zulus? (do we identify them as Zulu or do they need to self-identify as Zulu?). Personally my view is that traditional practices need to work - call me the unfashionable functionalist. My feeling is that such ritual practice ought to be revised to articulate meaningfully with the daily lives of those that partake in it. It needs in other words to be seated within a context and do something within that context for the artificial line between those proclaiming the categorical boundary and those acting in terms of it. And surprise surprise it is doing just that. This is culture at work. If culture makes meaning, then culture makes categories and posits relations between them. the limits of that meaning and the extent of those relations are context bound. And fortunately the change is never determined by those at the extremes. so we can ignore the unequivocal cultural and animal rights activists
While I appreciate your sober and well considered approach on this matter, I disagree with you when you say proponents of the ritual should explain why it is done. I don’t think Zulus should explain their traditions to anyone nor do I think white people should explain theirs to anyone. Why is it always Europeans that we have to explain ourselves to?
Why are white people writing articles about our culture when they are uncultured? You say: Culture can and does change…but why haven’t you guys changed your racist attitudes as it has now become a culture. Further more, how long have whites brutally killed black people? Now we perform out rituals and you say we are barbaric. We are killing animals, you killed people. Who is barbaric here?…Clearly we still are less than animals in your eyes Machael.
Michael, your contribution is useful but remains a human-centric one. People, people, people. Earth accommodates a human world, it doesn’t exist to serve us. If we really are to understand everything, as you suggest, then let’s discuss specifics about the bull’s experience. Ethologist, Jordi Casamitja, from Barcelona Uni, offers a clear argument against bull fighting. The papers are published on the web and show the animals suffer pain, confusion. In other words: they suffer. You seem to want to ignore that in favour of diplomatic politesse. Anthropology can help us only so far. Ethology can take us further.
the fact that culture is not followed by every Hindu/Moslem/Zulu/christian does not mean that there is not a right to cultural practice even if 5 people only follow the practice.
I agree with the fact that torturing an animal is wrong, the problem however is that some want to force their views down the throat of others rather than discussing the issues meaning fully.
The fact that I am black/white should not automatically mean that my view is right.
Thank you for explaining some of the spiritual meaning behind the rituals, I have not had the chance to read up on it.
Just a question: Why should polygamy be condemned?
The only reason seem it seem, is because it is not falling in with the christian moralistic view and even if a person is atheist these moral type of inclinations seem to always be derived from some religious background.
I am not a polygamist nor a culturalist. the fact that there is always condemnation just mean that there is a lack of appreciation for cultural diversity.
@Jennifer, we do not deny that the practice is violent. However people need to understand the broader context at which this happens. Notions that there is no such context, is blasphemous to us and tantamount to calling us salvages.
I will vote for modification of the practice to allow for graceful slaughter of the beast. I will do that because I understand it hurts some people we live with. But would have a problem responding favourably to people yelling at us from the media. As if we are animals ourselves and can’t be reconciled, aren’t negotiable. That is wrong.
So @Jenn, I understand your pain and I think you are well within your constitutional rights to echo you views. However I do think you are less effective in your approach because you are not seeking engagement and consensus – taking you from the spirit of you Blog.
My suggestion would be that the concerned group should engage the king, then allow the king and his people to consider the alternatives. This can be a WIN-WIN situation!
Culture can and does change? When does it start and when will it end before it gets the chance to change again? Who, and at what space in time does some dude say, hey, this is now my culture; my tradition? Our human race apparently started right here in Africa and for millions of years since (the big bang?) all we’ve been doing (as an arrogant species), is running here and there migrating or immigrating. So the piece of rock and patch of sky that my relatives win or land on, allows me to make my own laws and start traditions and form cultures that exclude others who may want to settle there? As a bastard I find this ridiculous. I consider myself a citizen of this strange, crazy colourful world, and with no scoundrel-like patriotic ties attached, I want to be friends with all people and free to be part of whatever (so-called) tradition or culture that they can offer or that attracts me; new, old or yet to be formed. And if a so-called tradition or culture is cruel and barbaric and it harms any living thing, I have every right to say so and work to change it… without feeling threatened.
Siza and Dumisane, I challenge you publicly to substantiate your crude racist generalisations.
Give us the statistics!
How many of the perpretrators of homicide where the victims are white, are black?
How many of the perpretrators of homicide where the victims are black, are white?
Rates per/100 000 are fine, it is a generally accepted epidimiological tool.
Give us the statistics, or stand condemned as shameless liars!
While you are at it, tell us how often the incidents occur that you complain of.
You are all in need of a call to reality.Killing Bulls, Killing Seals,in other countries, what gives you the right to kill for culture or tradition?? You are savages, blood thirsty people. You make me vomit. I hope the skins you dress in rise up one day and kill you all who have taken part in this vile so called ceremony. The direct translation for ceremony is (the formal actions carried out on an important occasion , e.g. at a wedding or a funeral.May you all rot in HELL
Sipho
I admit white people have done some awfull things. But compared to what you Black guys have done in Africa to your own people is a criminal act on hunmannity. I do not have to explain anything to you because you are behind the times, you blame everything on apartheid and you will do untill time immemorial.Its not only about killing bulls, its about killing people, rape, killing children every day every night. Unfortunately until respect for animal or human life prevails nothing will change. What a sad world we live in!!
Zulus with their primitive bull-torturing ritual appear to see themselves as something special; hovering above the rest of humanity?
They’re not.
Animal rights activists have far more aggrssively attacked fellow white people too for having savagery as ritual/ tradition/ culture: they’ve all but ended traditional English foxhunts. They’ve created an absolute firestorm of protest around bullfighting and the running at Pamplona. They’ve almost put a complete end to commercial whaling and there it is the Japanese and the Icelanders and Norwegians who are flensed in public.
So the whining Zulus are in very good entirely multiracial company when they are being skewered by negative public opinion.
They should cease being such cry-babies, banging their “your are a racist” bongo drum.
@david marks - I lied culture does not change as it is not a thing. Culture is a process that is always in flux and ways subject to interpretation and not just by outsiders. It is the very interpretation that always gives it meaning
@dre - as usual you make sense. Functionalism is dead not because it is wrong but because it is trite. Culture works as it must but there are larger interpretative frameworks and such that can be spoken of.
Come on people! Don’t do a Julius (colourful hate-speech) on us, and get personal; it doesn’t further the archaic culture debate and it makes savages of you. Human savagery exists – period! Usually in defense of some lame religion or paranoid so-called traditional culture, true – but all humans are guilty. Grow up and get a LIF. Maybe this will help you? Shawn De Waal’s enlightening critique (as it were… more an illumination) on two books by SAfrican writers, Rian Malan & Jacob Dlamini (M&G Friday) could put your blind race hate into a more enlightened historic perspective? If no (comprehendo) I won’t even hazarded a guess as to what your reaction to them (and Shawn’s article) would be. Sadly typical and savage, I predict!? Sorry ‘bout that!
@kerry of course my analysis in antho centric. I am afterall an anthropologist and a human. I do not need to know the bulls perspective to judge an event or spectacle as right or wrong I can do so from a human perspective and indeed to do so from the bulls is to imbue them with human characteristics and values.
@ Dapper - if insulting and undermining others make you feel great I can’t help you.Your approach to a debate is criminal except that yours is not physical. Can you politely tell me why I should explain my tradition and culture to you.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
I am a cultural anthropologist at Athabasca University who writes about ethnicity, identity and social change in a globalised Southern Africa. I am fascinated by the way in which people find and create their 'identity' in this rapidly changing world. Processes of cultural creativity and regeneration of histories was stark in Southern Africa , but I have found that returning to Canada I was shocked to find the familiar strange and when in Africa to see the strange as familiar. I started to see patterns of life that had once been unsee-able and just matter of fact ways of doing things. I enjoy seeing the patterns of life that inform us; the tropes of life that are silently transmitted from our past. And in our increasingly mass-mediated world how these are visualized, transmitted and transformed.
I have worked with Zulu speakers in the Drakensberg Mountains who claim dual identities of San and Zulu as well as different San communities in South Africa and Botswana. I have a deep love and respect for these rural communities who have been kind, welcome places for me since 2002 when I first moved to South Africa. I am sad to have left South Africa, but will return each year for research and to visit my friends.
I am a pacifist, but love a good verbal fight. My pacifism is based on reason and logic and not religious or spiritual beliefs. If I am not to be found in my office look high up in the mountains as I may be there seeking solace from the cruelty of the world.
One thing I dislike and like at the same time about the web is being anonymous. While I am always honest about my identity when I make comments or wri...
Actually many Africans do keep dogs and it is not just the white Africans that do so. There are stereotypes that abound, but like many stereotypes the...
I decided to write another blog on the topic to further clarify my position on a few issues and to adopt a more conciliatory tone. Too many people are...
I decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more informati...
I read with disdain a Thought Leader blog that called the farming of meat "evil". I have just returned to Canada and I visiting my parents on the far...
Loading ...
There are some aspects of culture that should be strongly condemned; like polygamy. But polygamy is not “an African thing”. Some people in Europe and America (esp religious groups) practice it. There are other aspects of modernity (i.e. Western culture) that should be strongly condemned; like killing animals for food when nature has been so generous to us.
(Report abuse)