By Michael Baillie
“Zuma’s conduct is un-African”. Not my words, but those of an “expert” as quoted in a news article I read recently. But what on earth does it mean?
On face value it could mean that Zuma’s actions were not African in nature, that in someway they were not representative of what it is to be African. This particular expert must have consulted a code of African-ness, finding that Zuma’s actions were not listed. What a wondrous list it must be and just imagine how many disputes it’ll clear up in the future. I wonder who drew it up and what criteria were used. Also, what edition of the list did he consult?
What a load of nonsense! The idea of single “African-ness”, and being able to measure how African one’s actions are is just nonsense. And the fact that an expert is needed in these matters is just further indication of how problematic the whole idea is. Culture changes constantly and it is contextually specific. It does not simply hover above a society, a yard stick to be used from time to time. Just as culture influences the way people behave, so those very same people are also in the process of shaping a particular culture. It does not exist as something to be “applied” or “consulted”. So it seems nonsensical to refer to culture as a static reference that can be used by “experts” before passing judgement.
Secondly the statement could mean that since Zuma’s conduct is “un-African”, it is less acceptable than if it had been more “African”. It implies that if his actions had been “African”, they would be beyond reproach, excusable and perhaps even condoned.
Again, what rubbish!
The fact that we exist in a multicultural society does not mean that particular actions are excusable simply because they are cultural. In the first place I would love someone to define what makes one action cultural and another not. Is there a check list and are some actions and practices more cultural than others? Or is it perhaps that an action becomes cultural when it attracts criticism. In that case Malema and Zuma must be the custodians for all things cultural.
No, the issue is that cultural, or not, Zuma’s actions took place in a particular time and place. And in this space (a) having unprotected sex with multiple partners is irresponsible, and (b) having 20 children shows a complete disregard for ecological issues. Regardless of whether his actions had been cultural or not, being the president of South Africa and having unprotected sex is not acceptable because of the messages it sends out. Cultural actions are not miraculously sucked out of the context in which they occurred and their consequences are not somehow muffled because they have been cushioned in the rhetoric of culture and multiculturalism.
Living in a multicultural society does not mean we should simply turn a blind eye every time something is labelled as a cultural practice. That isn’t cultural sensitivity, it’s cultural tyranny. Pulling the culture card functions in exactly the same way as the race card does. It’s a way of passing the buck, of saying “I can’t help what I do, it’s my culture”. It’s a coward’s way of sidestepping the issue by making the critic seem backward and out-of-touch, rather than actually engaging with their arguments.
Michael Baillie (25) is a recent graduate working his first job in the media industry. He is extremely passionate about South Africa but very frustrated with the government and apparent lack of political leadership in the country.
What an awesome post. and finally someone with the sense to say what we’ve all been thinking – only with wit and clear thinking to back it up.
I laaaaaaik it!
Culture is very easy to define Michael.There is always a set procedure to follow culturally for all approved cultural happenings
Cultural things are those which dont raise eyebrows in the society it is practised. Lobola polygamy the bull ceremony and even when you want to marry your cousin (you pay a cow to break the relationship first)
Lets get to Zuma now. Would a Zulu raise eyebrows to another man marrying 5 wives No. He would in fact admire him for his sexual prowess or luck or wealth. Now in order to marry wife number 5 she was a girlfriend first. would a zulu man have a problem with a man with 4 wives then has a girlfriend- NO- how else would you get a 5th wife?
Would a zulu man have problems with his friend having a child out of wedlock of course not but the man has to do the right thing by the womans family proper procedures. In any case thats why those procedures are there- the culture knows and has set up a pathway to resolve such situations.
Apart from a shot gun I know of no procedure/ custom you can take in australia if someone gets your 40 year old daughter pregnant.
Is it culture. Go back to that culture and see if there is a set precedent to resolve that situation. If there is- its culture. clearly Zuma is well within his declared culture.
Awesome blog.
I was at a talk the other night where the speaker, Ida Sussers, spoke about how both Mbeki and Zuma used their masculinity as a defense mechanism. This masculinity was firmly rooted in particular positions that prevented critique because of they were presented as ahistorical.
The use of any culture, race, language or sexuality to describe why you did an action and can’t be criticised for it is most certainly cowardice.
My mother would ask: ‘If she threw herself over a cliff, would you?’
To decide whether behaviour is socially acceptable one need only ask the same: ‘Because JZ has 20 children, would you?’ etc. Where the answer to that sort od question is mostly negative, the behaviour is clearly no longer socially acceptable.
we are really tired of white people coming here and telling us of their nonsense standards, and how to live our lives. we don’t need them, and never did. they forced themselves into the system through colonialism and apartheid. Will they get enough?
@Haiwa,
The point is not whether zuma is ‘acting within his culture’ or not. The point is that culture is not a static ‘thing’ that never changes. It responds to the society in which it exists. When aspects of a particular ‘raise eyebrows’ and are no longer acceptable, cultre begins to change.
Zuma’s reference to culture as an excuse for his actions seems to imply that because something was once culturally acceptable, it’ll always be so. This isn’t the case. And he’s a coward to brush criticism aside by merely labeling his actions as cultural.
Bottom line: Culture is fluid and responds dynamically to the social. In this time and place, having 20 children and unprotected sex with numerous partners, send out a dangerous message. The president of a country ought to know that.
@ haiwa tigere
The culture you are referring to were created at some point in the past by the wise men/women at that time to solve the problems of the day and to create oneness and harmony in a tribe and by extension, nation.
Today, we have different problems and the wise men/women of our time are trying to create and redefine a culture to solve them to create a oneness and harmony of the people in South Africa.
The problem arises when the values we want to instill today clashes with the culture of the past.
You have to decide whether you want to be part of the wise men/women of today who want to solve the problems of today or whether you want to blindingly adhere to the solutions of the past.
The problem here is that Zuma is no longer JUST a Zulu man – he is also the President of our country, and with that comes certain other responsibilities. He no longer represents just his culture – he represents all cultures in our country, as our president. He should represent what his government stands for – and one example is that our government preaches safe sex, yet our main leader doesn’t practice it himself.
Whether Zuma likes it or not, he now represents all cultures, and if he can’t handle the heat he should get out of the kitchen…
While I understand your ‘frustration’, it seems your emotion is blinding you a little… You clearly misunderstand, becuz the article u speak of is saying the same thing you are… The issue of whether it is African culture or not to have children out of wedlock (with different women) goes precisely to the issue of not letting anyone hide behind culture – When the President uses culture to absolve his actions, it is very important for those who share that culture to speak out against the (mis)use and tainting of cultural practice to justify unacceptable behaviour… And lets not be naive, unacceptable behaviour happens with PEOPLE of EVERY CULTURE! But just because for you culture isnt important, (and just try this now… put urself in other people’s shoes for a moment…) it may just be important for those who share the culture, to clarify… Lest we walk around distorting customs that are in fact meant to safe guard against bringing your family into disrepute… It is not African to disrespect your family in that way, and the President should not get to say that it is…
Whilst you bemoan the abuse of the concept of culture by outlining what it is not, you provide us with no way of knowing whiat it is.
i find your continued used of the word multi-cultural as a negation of your reference to what is not culture.
Being angry with Zuma should not cloud your view towards cultural existence of others. As the concept is aptly employed culture is the basic distinguishing factor among humans. And it is also the basis for discrimination – the embodiment of the otherness.
Zuma cannot pull the “culture card” when infact his actions are contrary to cultural practise. There are certain indicators for polygamy and none among them suggests that you must have a extramarital affair then marry. The public has been debating the number of wives permissable as oppossed to the morally disturbing issue of our president`s promiscuity.
I disagree Mike. There are certainly “African” ways of doing things. In the post-apartheid era “africanness” and “South Africanness” have had to evolve in order for SA society not to implode – it was necessary so that all who live here would feel that all others ostensibly recognised that SA belongs to all who live in it, to avoid civil war, amongst other things. A central objective of the Govt of National Unity was stated in its name – national unity. In this way, a kind of falsehood was promoted and perpetuated even to the present – spoken into existence; that the place is strangely homogenous and that the idea of “living together” really is happening ‘now’. You know as well as anyone that that isnt the case. The majority of SA’s people live in dire material conditions and likely do not identify entirely with the concept of the rainbow nation. Until we can say that all things originally African are now completely absorbed into some new hybrid of South Africanness, constituted of all the various cultural influences, the ‘African’ label will remain valid. When we speak of origins and the origin of things and ways of doing things, there is definitely a recognisable “African” way of doing things. And the way these things are labelled is directly and diametrically related to their difference from things not-African. Which also exist, especially in terms of culture.
@ Terry
I’m not disputing the existence of something “african” – though what that is, I cannot say. I am merely arguing that the very idea of african-ness must be used carefully precisely because it can be abused so easily.
Just because something is ‘cultural’ doesn’t mean that it can’t be critiqued. Its in the critiquing and debating of cultural traditions that a culture is brought to life.
Culture without constant debate and dialogue is mere tradition – and becomes very outdated very quickly.
@ TumiM
You are obviously correct in saying that unacceptable behaviour happens with people in all cultures. This is precisely why we have fields of thought called Ethics, Meta-Ethics, etc. The question, leaving aside whether the actions under discussion are or are not ‘cultural’, is whether ‘culture’ can be used as a valid justification for actions that may be unnacceptable. This question can be asked of many things from the running of the bulls, polygamy, arranged marriages, respecting of elders, etc.
Any action that falls within the scope of the moral is normally (if not always) a choice between two or more actions that will have consequences (lie-dont lie, save mother-save baby that sort of thing). ‘Culture’ will have a significant effect on the moral choices that any person makes. In this instance the choices are between ‘culture’, true gender equality (polygamy and promiscuity) and a responsibility to lead by example (unprotected sex with multiple concurrent parteners). There are more but that should illustrate it adequately. Now, given that Mr Zuma, or any other person who will defend their actions with ‘Culture’, has the moral choice to make between protecting his actions with culture (and thereby protecting the status quo within his ‘culture’ and gender rights, responsible lifestyle, etc, the question becomes whether protecting the status quo of a ‘culture’ automatically overrides any other arguably desireable ethical considerations.
A famous American author once stated “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”, I believe the same can be applied here to “culture”. Oh, and by the way, I hope that the sycophants above will learn how to drink their culture as we all bonk our way into overstretching our limited environmental resources. But who cares what a white man says these days. It is funny how often ones race is used in refuting an argument. I have read that is the default argument in Zim too.
@ TumiM (Cont)
So I suspect we agree that ‘Culture’ is not an automatic justification, however, to say that behaviours are Un-African and to say that those of the same culture must speak out, allows the hiding behind culture. Another act, one that could not be called Un-African, would still involve the moral choice. If being ‘African’ is used to justify the behaviour then you are using culture as something to hide behind.
Democracy is far from cultural for Zulu, Xhosa or (more broadly) Africa.
Since the argument that ‘its cultural’ is sufficient excuse for how someone behaves, would it be acceptable (to those who buy this argument) for Zuma to declare SA a Monarchy and himself King (with all that means in terms of him being above criticism, and above the law, lawmaker, judge and jury etc.) ?
yes! i have been banging on for a while about the sheer hypocricy of his supporting a global drive to protect the environment yet breeds like he and his kin have never contributed to it’s mire.
bloody good read that was, thank you. please, everyone, for god’s sake leave culture out of it. it’s just downright irresponsible.
@ mallencolly
Your argument presupposes cultural practices are by design immoral… I am saying they are not… They CAN be, but not necessarily… Before you judge and declare it to be so, I suggest you do a little digging, find out where certain cultural practices come from. While it may be inconceivable for you (and me for that matter), that polygamy may have had its purpose, (or that it has a place in modern society), it forms part of a culture that has every right to exist. That culture DESERVES not to be distorted. I believe the author’s objection is misplaced – he bemoans the fact that some want to point out that what the President is doing is not Zulu culture – I am saying they must! In my culture polygamy has not been in practice for decades – lucky me! But while it is still practised in Zulu culture, it is not to be used as an excuse to fool around, or have extramarital affairs! You say lets not use culture to justify anything, but even you use culture to justify your actions – In your culture you send the old people to old-age home to die there,becuz u cant b bothered 2look afta them (not u specificly – ur culture..) Inconceivable in my culture! You cannot decide for others what part of THEIR culture they can use/not… It is not your place, so get off your high horse! And if some1 wants to clarify THEIR culture, well…
@ TumiM
Does it? Please quote the bit that gives you that idea.
And what culture do you imagine my culture to be?
You know Tumi, culture is dynamic. I can almost guarantee that no culture today practices exactly what they practiced 5000, 500 or 100 years ago. The awesome thing about culture is that it is not monolithic – it changes with its people. And when a cultural practice is potentially at odds with the continued survival of the group, that practice must be critically examined.
Now whether Zuma’s behaviour fits or doesn’t fit with Zulu culture is not my main concern here. Unprotected sex with multiple partners when HIV/Aids is ravaging one’s people is selfish, stupid, and potentially deadly you have sex with, no matter what your culture is.
As an aside, whose culture condones not looking after the elderly because one “cant b bothered 2look afta them”? Mine certainly doesn’t. But even if it did, I wouldn’t abandon my parents, culture or no culture. See that is the point, culture should imho never automatically overrule ethical considerations. I am quite sure that’s the point mallencolly was making. I’d be interested to see if you could guess my culture, seeing as you’ve apparently pegged mallencolly’s =)