Culture evolves, polygamists haven't

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.