Siphokazi Magadla, is a Junior Lecturer at the Political and International Studies department at Rhodes University, South Africa.
The third annual “Global Symposium” by the Barnard Liberal Arts College for Women based in New York City took place in Johannesburg, South Africa on 15 March 2011 under the theme “Women Changing Africa.” Among the key women leaders in the symposium was Senator Aloisea Inyumba of Rwanda, Governor of the South African Reserve Bank Gill Marcus, Chairperson of the South African Law Reform Commission, Yvonne Mokgoro and the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and former Senior Director of the World Bank Dr Mamphela Ramphele. It was Ramphele’s assertion during the symposium that the characteristic of a true leader is their “understanding that the personal, the professional and the political have to cohere in our ¬everyday lives.” She argued that her generation in realizing this link “had to create spaces for dialogue, not only about the struggle for freedom from apartheid but also with how to make the “three Ps” come together.”
In this article I argue that in order for the space for the “three Ps” in leadership and knowledge production to be possible, we have to realize that our personal, professional and political daily realities remain dominated by a violent patriarchal discourse that while privileging mostly men, holds hostage our ability to create a true community of men and women dedicated to the creation of a continental project that will see an Africa that lives up to our best aspirations.
To live up to the theme that charges us to commit ourselves to “celebrating our own: the power of local knowledge” and in thus do “our best to bring to the light the best of our local knowledge, our ‘traditional’ or cultural institutions and strategies, and show how useful these can be in the 21st century” then we must be prepared to acknowledge that the “center” in Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s concept of “moving center” was by all means a patriarchal one. It is a center premised on a violent masculinity that is rooted in the violence of colonization as well as the violence of the decolonization project as argued by Fanon’s thesis “on violence” in the classic “The Wretched of the Earth.”
By patriarchy I use bell hook’s (2000) definition in “Feminism is for everybody” that patriarchy is the assumption that men are superior to women and therefore they should rule over women. I also use her definition in “Feminism from margin to center” (1984) that feminist politics is a “movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression.” This means calling for an end to the domination of one gender by the other which is most visible in the infatuation with the control of women’s bodies not only in conflict Africa, but even in ‘stable’ regions like Southern Africa where rape continues to be the biggest cause of insecurity for women. Thus an end to sexist patriarchy opens up an important space where self-actualized women and men at the personal, professional and political spheres can give their utmost best to end other struggles such as racism, class elitism, and imperialism that the African intelligentsia is up against.
It is imperative to emphasise that a submission to the reality that ‘gender matters’ in Africa too must be committed to a nuanced creation of knowledge representative of all Africans. Paul Zeleza maintains in “Gender biases in African historiography” (1997) that equal representation of men and women needs to go beyond the romantic myth in most of African historiography “that the roles of women and men were equal and complementary in traditional, harmonious, pre-colonial Africa, or that the lives of notable, exceptional, heroic women were celebrated” because upon close inspection of ‘great texts’ on Africa, there is a dominant celebration of the “lives of great men…[while] women remain largely invisible or misrepresented in mainstream, or appropriately ‘malestream’ African history.” Moreover a quick examination through some of the leading scholarly articles on African great thinkers and intellectuals reveals this trend of absence of women thinkers being recognized and venerated.
Oumar Ba in the preceding article argues that the politics of selective memory are “disastrous to our societies…”. I agree with him, and also argue that an inclusive remembering in knowledge making in Africa will be one that is curious about women, or at the very least curious about the gender dynamics of the ‘thinking cadre.’ Cynthia Enloe (2004) in “The curious feminist: searching for women in a new age of empire” argues that in order for us to be serious about the gendered nature of our epistemic communities we need to take women seriously.
Whenever therefore we converse with male thinkers such as Kwame Nkrumah, we must also be curious about the lives of women in Africa. When young intelligentsia like Zukiswa Mqolomba urge us to build a new cadre to “move beyond deconstructive theories to constructive theories for Africa’s development” we must there too, be curious about how this intelligentsia is to provide new constructive alternatives of masculinity and femininity not premised on violent domination.
I therefore conclude that an important step to emancipatory projects by the African thinking class will have to start when the intellectual class consciously brings women into the “historical center” (Zeleza 1997) and the present contemporary center. In our research projects and scholarly output we must always be cautious about assuming gender neutrality and start building curiousity about the gender dynamics at play in how men and women could be similarly or differently affected by our academic products. Just as Cornel West argued that democracy and race matter, I argue that gender matters - in everything.
A first and practical step to building academic and intellectual curiosity about women’s lives is to start by remembering and proclaiming their names. When we remember great men, we must recall that they were there with great women. This is aligned to the prophetic spirit of the past under which American Author Alice Walker argued that “how simple a thing it seems to me that to know ourselves as we are, we must know our mothers names.” Unless we address the monster that is patriarchy in our homes, offices and politics we risk losing a special space where without the hindering of sexism we can all truly be human beings thus “humans in a process of being” as prophetically put by Paulo Freire in the “Pedagogy of the oppressed.”
9 comments:
This is an important and urgent article Siphokazi and I agree with it entirely. Indeed, scholars and documenters of African history have tended to give the masculine narrative of the story, often ignoring the contribution of the feminine despite the fact that women were right there along with the ‘great men’ as you correctly state.
I think however one of the biggest problems that contributes to perpetuating the silencing of the female contributors/thinkers is that African women themselves have not taken the lead in defining and ensuring that we know their names. Past experiences have shown clearly that women in power in Africa tend not to innovate, but emulate and imitate the men who occupied those positions before they did consequently marring the positive contribution that they could have (I think one could also arguably contend that this is also not only a continental, but also a global trend, Hilary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice etc).
I think Dr Mamphela Ramphela with all the respect that I have for her is also a typical African woman in power trapped at the ‘violent’ patriarchal centre’. I think, while her speeches in the past two years/so have agitated for a more renewed and novel emergence of female leadership and narratives/voice. I think that is why she has been criticised so much for her time at both the World Bank and as the first black female vice chancellor of the University of Cape Town (SA). She was not bold enough when she was in a position of power to introduce a new form of leadership and thinking at the height of her career – when everyone was listening to what she had to say but rather she fell into the masculine entrapment – a safe comfort zone from which she shied to move from.
I’m always amazed when I read papers/articles/journals on the emergence of ‘soft-power’ as a tool in both International Relations and businesses to some extent and the authors portray this as a new novel innovation in conducting world affairs (largely attributed to Barack Obama – the masculine), when a quick browse through an anthropological textbook will demonstrate that African women employed ‘soft-power’ long before it was academically conceptualised, often opting for conversing than physical battle in conflict resolution, opting for more for forgiveness rather than retaliation, sharing than deprivation etc…
I agree that “an important step to emancipatory projects by the African thinking class will have to start when the intellectual class consciously brings women into the “historical center”” but I want to go further and challenge young female and male thinkers as yourself to start shifting the centre, by not merely articulating the status qou, but by living it as Dr Ramphele correctly contends (the three ‘P’s’ cant be separated).
There is strong evidence that the reason why the 3 waves of feminism failed, was not because the idea of feminism was not particularly appealing, but rather because feminism always defined itself in relation to men (consequently giving the masculine power again over the feminine). I rate therefore that intellectual, scholarly and academic produce that is curious about women will need to not shy from moving away from men and into a careful examination of the past, present and future contributions of women. Indeed as the old Frantz Fanon adage dictates: “The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House”.
But this is a bold article and should start agitating for a deeper engagement with the intellectual contribution that women have, are, and could possibly make…
awesome article!
Thank you Vuyo, Gcobani and Maingi for your comments. I will attempt address comments Gcobani and Maingi ‘s comments one by one. Gcobani you argue that “women themselves have not taken the lead in defining and ensuring that we know their names” I want to put to you that this is perhaps too harsh if not unfair to the women leaders and I will use South Africa as an example. The unprecedented Women’s Coalition of 1992 that brought South African women of ALL races to draw the Women’s Charter was a clear example of the awareness by the women that the struggle was not only against Apartheid but also against sexist patriarchy. The adoption of the Commission for Gender Equality inscribed in our constitution and the establishment of the Office for the Status of women at the presidency was a commitment to acknowledging the struggles of women. Beyond that I think believe it due to the commitment to gender equality at a policy and practice level that it is normal that South African women compose 42% of our cabinet in key positions such as foreign affairs, defence, energy, education, home affairs and other positions not considered as ‘soft positions.’ Of course this was possible because there were men in the ANC who not only aspired for racial equality but also for gender equality thus joining their women counter-parts in creating a community where ‘their comrades’ could be such at all levels- not only comrades in the bush.
Your second point about Ramphela not using her time in power to make the same changes that she is advocating to brings me to my second point about institutions. The reason her assertion of “three Ps” moved me so much was that it stops making gender equality an issue for women only but an issue for ALL of us. That’s including our institutions. I think her inability to practise what she preaches is evident of the “add and stir” approach to gender and racial equality. That is the assumption that if you bring in a bunch of women in an institutions, the institutional culture will change to reflect its new bearers. In the same breath that if you bring in a few black people in institutions that used to be for whites only somehow those individuals will end the racist culture in those institutions. I think in South Africa, as it’s been the case with Affirmative Action in the US, this has not been very successful. As with gender, the argument is that unless there is a wider state, institutional commitment and individual commitment not only by black people in that environment but by ALL people racial equality in our social institutions is unlikely that we will have transformed institutions. I argue that with gender equality it is the same case. That Ramphela as Vice Chancellor or World Bank director alone cannot end sexism unless these institutions themselves open a space for a cultural change- that is meeting her at some point. You are quiet right that a leader in that position has the power to at least open up the discussion on changing the institution, but I put it to you that unless the individuals both men and women in those institutions are committed to transformation her efforts are likely to remain hopes and not reality.
continued from above:
I am sure that even in America with individuals who thought the election of Obama would lead to an end of America’s institutionalised racism against African Americans have realised that unless the same millions of America who were committed to voting for Obama because he was good for ALL Americans, should also commit to changing the institutions that continues to isolate their minority population because the suffering of African Americans is detrimental to ALL Americans. In the same breath I argue that unless ending sexism is seen as I put a condition that holds ALL of us “hostage” thus both women and men, gender equality would remain just a dream. Because even with the example of “soft power” that you use which is usually attributed to women, I find problematic. Because the assumption here is that “hard power” is representative of the masculine, thus any man who exhibits this “soft power” reconciliation approach is seen as a ‘sissy’ to put loosely. I am with those scholars who are arguing that there is nothing inherently soft about women or inherently ‘unsoft’ about men. Thus an alternative masculinity that I call for allows for a wholesome definition that is encompassing of human capabilities instead of specific masculine and feminine traits is what we must strive for. Hence I argue that sexist patriarchy is not only detrimental to women, but also to men as bell hooks argues. This is because there is a privileging of a certain kind of masculinity that is premised on ‘control’ thus by controlling others, in this case ‘their’ women. Thus holding hostage even those men who do not seek to ‘control’ their partners. While creating a femininity that judges masculinity according to how ‘their men control’ them or ‘take charge of the situation’ or as many romance novels will tell you ‘men who have their way with their women.’
I agree with your assertion that the failure of feminism was providing alternatives instead of being seen as “anti-male” or as you put it defining themselves according to men. I think we must remember that most of the ‘radical feminists’ that started the movement were pained women who had violent scars of patriarchy thus one couldn’t blame them for wanting to do away with men. But as people like hook’s show feminism has never been about hating men, but about ending sexism and creating a community of self-actualised men and women. It is this challenge I pose to young African scholars both men and women at all the levels of the personal to do away with sexism. Thus the responsibility again is not only for women, but for ALL of us. Thus without making the same mistake we are making with discussions on non-racialism where we cease to discuss race, because to do away with race as with sexism we will have to address it face to face in order to do away with it. Thus we cannot discuss gender equality without discussing what we plan to do with patriarchy. I notice both of you have not used the word “patriarchy” which is loaded word that centres this discussion.
continued from above:
To you Maingi, while I am not sure what your definition of a “masculinist” is, however your commitment to gender equality and equity seems to be directly in line with my definition of feminism. Your assertion that “it is the responsibility of women to create tomorrow's history today so that this article will not have to be written again in future!” is exactly what I think is wrong with the struggle for gender equality. As I say to Gcobani above, for as long as men see gender equality as a responsibility of women we will not make any overtures. In the same vain I would argue that if white people thought ending racism was a responsibility of black people then even there we would not make any progress. Hence I very much like the concept of the “three Ps” which gives us ALL responsibility to confront our relationship with patriarchy. I am keen to understand how exactly as man you ‘transfer; your power to a woman, because that to me seems like no power at all if someone has to give it to you. The fact that men are able to give this power says a lot more about this discourse where others can ‘give’ and ‘take back’ as they wish because they “own it”. It also goes back to the institution debated I refer Gcobani too and our infatuation with the “add and stir” approach that I have seen in addressing gender and racial equality.
The same argument you make about women being ‘given’ power because they are seen as unthreatening is similar to affirmative action argument of blacks who are ‘window dressing’ our corporate and public institutions as nothing beyond stooges for institutions who do have no interest in genuine racial transformation. My point is here is that for “strong women” to “exercise power at home, at school, at work, church, in the farm” the community in these institutions should also be prepared and at least aspiring for transformation. Because not matter how ‘strong’ those women are, like their men they are also products of patriarchy. And unless some in their community especially their men partners are also prepared for a different type of partnership, those strong women will remain an anomaly in our society. Thus I put it to you that women cannot create “tomorrow’s history” if their community at home, work and political unless the whole community is ready to examine how they contribute to this power structure that’s work towards an alternative power structure. Thus as studies on race have began not only to look at the consequences of racial domination by looking at blackness only, but have been interrogating whiteness thus making the privileged confront their privilege and how their privilege contributes to a distorted racial power dynamic that affects ALL of us at the personal, professional and political level, I argue that we need to do the same with gender.
So poignant madam! I think in addition we need to re-write history textbooks to reflect this recognition of women's roles, this would take things a step further towards conscientisation of youth.
This is an instructive piece Siphokazi not only for its intellectual sophistication but also for being of analytical acuity.
In an essay entitled The Dilemma of the Black Intellectual, Cornel West writes of black intellectuals; “The central task of … black intellectuals is to stimulate, hasten, and enable alternative perceptions and practices by dislodging prevailing discourses and powers.” I would like to challenge you Siphokazi, Nadia, Zukiswa, Bose and others, as emerging black women intellectuals, not only to dislodge the prevailing patriarchal discourses, but to mainstream the ‘peripheral’ voice of the other (the woman) in our African public discourse.
Having observed the world economy, an Argentian economist and scholar, Raul Prebisch and his colleagues at the Economic Commission for Latin America, what was to be know as the dependencia (dependency) theory. This theory holds that, in the global economy, nothing coming from the countries of the periphery is taken seriously because they don't have the economic and political clout. These countries do not have economies of scales-they are not innovative- they use primitive ways of production. They are poor and they are not well integrated in the world economy. They are seen as fields of action rather than as active players in the global political economy. To the ‘core’ or the centre (West), the defining feature of the periphery is the lack of urgency
Post a Comment