• No results found

UNDERSTANDING MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY IN AFRICA

THE HISTORY OF GENDER DYNAMICS IN ZIMBABWE AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY

2.4 UNDERSTANDING MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY IN AFRICA

continue to have heterosexual marital relationships; have families and appear ‘normal’

(McFadden, 2005). Similarly a study by Epprecht (2008) in Lesotho has revealed that the effective and erotic bonds sometimes formed between indigenous women in Lesotho (which often continue alongside heterosexual marriage) neither replace nor challenge overtly the high value placed on heterosexual marriage and reproduction in Sesotho culture. Such a practice reveals the high value placed on heterosexual relationships in African cultures despite the fact that some members of society may have a homosexual orientation. Epprecht (1998:635) reiterates that although homosexuality is a reality in Zimbabwe, it remains secretive and socially unsanctioned by the Zimbabwean society. Mugabe, the former head of the Zimbabwean state, characterised homosexuality as a threat to an idealised patriarchal culture and national values, explicitly linked to cultural imperialism (a practice where a dominant nation imposes its cultural values and beliefs on the local people) (Epprecht 1998:644). By and large marital relationships in Zimbabwean society remain heterosexual, though heterosexual marriages or sexual relationships remain a contested terrain as the expressions of patriarchal masculinity remain deeply entrenched. The small house phenomenon in Zimbabwe becomes yet another heterosexual relationship where men express their sexual virility by having several sexual relationships. Homosexuality is therefore perceived as a threat to the ideals of the heteronormative Zimbabwean society.

2.4 UNDERSTANDING MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY IN AFRICA

Masculinities are configurations of practices structured by gender relations that are inherently social, historical and contextual; and depict the domination of men and subordination of women in society (Schippers, 2007 & Connell, 2001). Thus masculinity, similar to patriarchy, tends to be shaped by culture and is expressed differently at different times and in different circumstances and places by individuals and groups. This therefore argues for diversity in masculinities which should be recognised because different social, cultural and racial milieus can construct different forms of gendered behaviour. Connell (2001:38) asserts that men present themselves in everyday situations in structural factors which are independent in human social relations in four conceptions of masculinities which include subordinate, complicit, marginal and hegemonic masculinities. Of interest to this study is the social construction of masculinity (and femininity) in the Shona culture of Zimbabwe and how the phenomena mediate gender dynamics in marital or even informal sexual relationships like the small house phenomenon.

25 Hegemonic masculinity tends to have great influence on gender dynamics in marital relationships or even on interactions between men themselves. Connell (2001:38-39) views hegemonic masculinity as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy which is taken to guarantee the dominant position of men and subordinate position of women. Hegemonic masculinity can thus be conceptualised as dominant, aggressive, superior and violent tendencies associated with perceptions of being a man. This differs significantly with other masculinities that are not hegemonic. Connell (1997) observes that gender hegemony operates not just through the subordination of femininity to hegemonic masculinity but also through the subordination and marginalisation of other masculinities. However in his study in South Africa, Morrell (2001) concludes that it is difficult to say which masculinity is dominant in society given the diversity of cultures, race, class, ethnicity and histories that men in Africa share. In this regard Morrell argues that in a transitional society, as is the case with South Africa, the question of which discourse is hegemonic becomes a complex one as men respond differently in changing situations; some are defensive, some accommodating or responsive. Generally, gendered power relations in society may influence the different notions of masculinity.

As already alluded, masculinity is a relative phenomenon which influences gendered power relations in intimate relationships differently. In the context of Shona culture a ‘real man’ is seen as possessing many cattle, having many wives, and children, one who holds position of influence in society (Bourdillon 1997 and Gelfand 1979). In this regard Connell (1997:191) presupposes that masculinity is a product of social construction that is forever being constructed in every context. Uchendu’s (2008) study of the Zulu people in KwaZulu- Natal, South Africa reveals how Zulu men were expected to be responsible with regards to sex:

Penetrative sexual encounters of any kind before marriage were unmasculine acts. It was inappropriate behaviour to prove one’s masculinity through sexual conquest. A Zulu masculine subject must not deflower a girl: when he did, it brought public shame as well as severe repercussions to him and his family (Uchendu 2008:8).

The preferred masculinity by the Zulu combined marital prowess with honesty, high morality, loyalty, aggression, endurance and absence of emotions (Uchenda, 2008:8). This implies that masculinity as a social construct is not only a form of identity that influences and shapes

26 attitudes and behaviours but also an ideology that represents the cultural ideals that indicate the expected roles and values that men must adhere to (Leach, 1994). As a result of hegemonic masculinity, men use control, authority, strength and being competitive and aggressive to demonstrate power both among themselves and between men and women. A ‘real man’ in the Shona culture must be able to sire children and when his wife fails to conceive, he either marries another woman or engages in extramarital affairs to prove his potency and hence his manhood (Kambarami, 2006 & Gelfand, 1979). However, masculinity as a product of social construction can be deconstructed and reconstructed in changing circumstances and contexts. Perceptions on hegemonic masculinities can thus influence gendered power relations in marital relations among the Shona people.

The other notions of masculinities which include subordinated, complicit and marginal masculinities are perceived as non-hegemonic because they often display non-violent characteristics (Schippers, 2007 and Connell, 1997:78). Morrell (2001) concurs and adds that there are notions of masculinity which are hegemonic and others that are non-hegemonic. By implication, power relations among men themselves produce subordinated masculinities.

Connell (2005) observes that the most common example of subordinate masculinity in contemporary society is that of homosexual men as they are seen to fail to live up to the ‘ideal’

of hegemonic masculinity and are subjected to name calling such as ‘sissies’. This also applies to the Zimbabwean context where homosexuality is perceived as an anathema and men who engage in such relationships have been castigated and labelled animals (McFadden, 2005).

Schippers (2007) elaborates that heterosexual men express hostility towards homosexual men thereby enhancing their own heterosexual identity; heterosexuality thus becomes an important ingredient of the hegemonic masculinity and by doing so, heterosexual men proclaim their membership to the dominant masculinity. It can thus be argued that masculinity and sexuality tend to overlap with each other in gendered power dynamics producing subordinate masculinities which serve as the inferior ‘other’ as well as a constrained subordinate position of the woman.

As already mentioned, complicit masculinity is another notion of non-hegemonic masculinity.

It can be observed that masculinities constructed in ways that realise the patriarchal dividend, without the tensions or risks of being the frontline troops are known as complicit (Connell, 2001:40-41 & Schippers, 2007). In this regard, some men may be seen supporting equal employment opportunities, but the mere fact that they benefitted from an economic system that

27 favours men over women, are complicit to the status quo. Many men who draw the patriarchal dividend also respect their wives and mothers; they are never violent to the women and bring home the family wage (Connell, 2005 & Schippers, 2007). Thus the social construction of complicit masculinities may result in relatively balanced power relations between men and women in households although men may still benefit disproportionately in the public domain for simply being men (patriarchal dividend). Lastly marginalised masculinities involve men who are marginalised because of class, ethnicity as well as race (Connell, 2001). However, it can be observed that in society and households, even those men who are marginalised tend to dominate women in marital relationships.

Masculinity and femininity are relational concepts that tend to structure and constrain each other in an evolving way as they influence gender dynamics in marital relationships. The definition of masculinity thus influences the notion of femininity in any given context.

Femininity entails attributes that are perceived as womanly and these include obedience, caring, compassionate, loving and non-violent (Kambarami, 2006). To illustrate the symbiotic relationship between masculinity and femininity, Schippers defines hegemonic masculinity as it relates to femininity:

Hegemonic masculinity is the qualities defined as manly that establish and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic femininity and that by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordinate position of women. (Schippers, 2007:94).

She also gives a definition for hegemonic femininity which portrays similar implications for the woman:

Hegemonic femininity consists of characteristics defined as womanly that establish and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic masculinity and that by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordinate position of women (Schippers, 2007:94).

Connell (1997) concurs and elaborates that all forms of femininity in any given society are constructed in the context of the overall subordination of women to men. Thus femininity is defined around compliance with this subordination and is oriented to accommodating the

28 interests and desires of men. In other words, female sexuality tends to be influenced by the definition of femininity and such a definition has a bearing on the nature of marital relationships in any given socio-cultural context.