Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights, Newsletter 79, August 2003

Africa

Why are you not married yet?! Heteronormativity in the African Women's Movement

  By Bernedette Muthien

The recent Amanitare conference (February 4-7, 2003, South Africa), on the sexual and reproductive rights of African women coincided with my birthday on the 3^rd, and I had a dear Nigerian sisterfriend gift me with the most magnificent traditional dress I have ever seen. At the conference I received many other gifts from wonderful African sisters, with one of the most memorable ones being Patricia MacFadden's keynote discussion on the need to question heteronormativity in the African women's movement.

As a South African, I am privileged by a generous Constitution that provides protection against all forms of discrimination, including that based on "sexual orientation". Since many of my friends and relatives are homosexual or bisexual, I emphatically support their right to exercise their choices concerning their sexuality, as I do in my choice to be celibate, which is premised on the belief that sexuality changes over time and with circumstances.

Every time I am in African countries other than my own, as I was in Zambia a week ago, I am struck by my continental siblings assertions that "homosexuality is taboo in Africa", and that is indeed un-African.

Heterosexuality is sexuality expressed between a man and a woman,

between people of 'opposite' sex/gender.

Homosexuality is expressed between people of the same sex/gender.

A phobia is a fear of something.

A norm, my Oxford dictionary tells me, is "a standard, pattern, type or customary behaviour". While "normative" is "establishing a norm".   

A norm or principle in itself is not a bad thing, for instance, we all implicitly believe in equality among all people, which is a norm. However, it becomes problematic when this norm becomes intolerant of difference as is currently the case with "heteronormativity". Heterosexual relations as a norm is not surprising, given statistics (from Masters & Johnson to Kinsey) that show approximately 90% of people are heterosexual at any one time. Hence heterosexuality, as far as the majority of people are concerned, is normal or conventional behaviour. But, does that mean it is the only behaviour, and moreover, the only acceptable behaviour? Does it mean that heterosexuals should impose their norm on, and discriminate against, others?

We are all aware of the ancient practice of woman-to-woman marriages in large parts of Africa, which Ifi Amadiume and others have written much of. One of my Ugandan sisterfriends is a descendant of a grandmother who married a woman. Indeed, the colonial regimes sought to eradicate this ancient practice because it did not concord with their ideology of male control in every realm, including the household.

During the height of the mining era in South Africa, male miners in single-sex hostels practiced sexual relations with each other as a norm while living in these hostels. And studies in Lesotho, for example, show Basotho women engaging in lesbian relationships, in the absence of the males in their communities who migrated to the mines.

Various studies, the earliest European record dating to the 18^th century, documents bisexuality as the norm among the Khoisan of Southern Africa. Indeed, sexuality studies of many ancient indigenous societies, in other world regions, show a similar approach towards sexuality. Elizabeth Xhaxhas of Sister Namibia is engaged in research proving that her native Damara, part of the Khoisan of Southern Africa, have fluid notions concerning identity and sexuality, and hence do not aggressively discriminate against homosexuality.

So what's with all this heteronormativity, and assertions that homosexuality is a taboo in Africa?

I am because I am not

Let us look at how identities, including sexualities, are formed. Conventional identities are premised on an understanding of I am because I am not. So one can find statements such as, "I am female because I am not male"; "I am black because I am not white"; "I am African because I am not European". This construction of Self fundamentally needs an Other against which to measure itself and its value. In an intrinsically competitive environment, if the Self is to succeed and triumph, it needs to transcend or overpower the Other, and if the Self is to be valued, the Other by necessity needs to be devalued. This process can be termed Othering.

Such identity construction premised on polarity or Othering breeds conflict over access to, and control of, resources. In this way power also becomes a resource, as in 'power to' and 'power over'. Power as a relation between people became a contest over resources because it is premised on a flawed belief system centred on Othering and the devaluation of the Other. This belief system, based on "I am because I have and you don't", can be juxtaposed to one in which there is a more equitable distribution of resources, i.e. a more 'diffuse' form of power.

This polarised system is called the dominator model by anthropologist Marija Gimbutas, and is fundamentally hierarchical, conflictual and oppressive. All forms of colonisation and slavery are by their very nature premised on domination and Othering.

I am because I care

This domination can be contrasted with Gimbutas' partnership model, premised on principles of equality and cooperation. The Khoisan of Southern Africa is an example of a partnership society, based on harmony and balance. This balance is epitomised by the ancient Hindu yin-yang symbol. Identities are based on "I am because I care", "I am because I belong". Here matriarchy is not the opposite of patriarchy, and women do not rule over others, but all is shared equally according to need.

The continuum of Sex, Gender & Sexualities

Sex is generally agreed to be biological. Microphysiology speaks of chromosomes and hormones, where men are believed to possess XY chromosomes and testosterone, while women have XX chromosomes and oestrogen. In fact, both types of chromosomes and hormones occur in all humans in various mixtures, so women and men have various combinations of XXY chromosomes and different concentrations of oestrogen and testosterone, which may be plotted along a continuum where no single human is either 'purely' male or female. A physiologically 'pure' female or male would be an anomaly in much the same way that 'pure white' people are, who are devoid of melanin, which gives skin its colour, and commonly called 'albinos'.

Indeed, we do not have biologically 'pure' females or males, the idea of an 'essential' feminine or masculine gender is fundamentally flawed. In many respects, we are socialized from birth, for instance, pregnant mothers often ask what sex/gender the unborn child is, gender-specific names are duly assigned, and the respective colours of pink/blue, bought into. Thus we locate ourselves along this spectrum of gender identity, depending on our degree of 'tom-boyishness' and 'sensitive male'.

The dominator system is so fundamentally premised on gender that the 5% of babies born visibly intersexed ('hermaphrodites'), are immediately surgically re-assigned, usually to female, irrespective of how their adolescent bodies later develop, their chromosomal variations at birth, and hormonal concentrations during puberty. The intersexed child's permission is very rarely sought, and the parents views are often not respected by a medical profession that cannot possibly tolerate anything that does not neatly fit its rigidly polar sex/gender norms.

If Tom Cruise is one archetypal symbol of Hollywood masculinity, his personal struggle with breast cancer, due to an 'excess' of oestrogen, not uncommon in many men, confounds the same ideal of masculinity that his films perpetuate. Similarly problematising 'femininity, women are advised by male partners and the medical profession to take testosterone supplements to increase their sex drives!

Thus sex and gender are dichotomised, with female/male and feminine/masculine on either ends of a continuum, while in reality we are all somewhere in between. Sexuality is correspondingly polarised between heterosex on the one end and homosex on the other, with little thought given to the various degrees of bisexuality, and even celibacy as a valid sexual choice. In this way sexuality is viewed as primordial and static, while in fact it is fluid, dynamic, and changes with circumstances over time. This, the mineworkers in South Africa and the women in Lesotho have evinced, and the ancient bisexual Khoisan and women who marry other women in Africa have proven throughout time.

Things are not as clear-cut as they seem. They are neither circumscribed nor separated from each other by lines. Lines are drawn in the mind. There are no lines in nature& [Everything emerges] from a matrix of conditions and in turn becomes part of another matrix of conditions from which something else emerges.         Stephen Batchelor

China Galland recalls an ancient Indian story:

Ramakrishna explained [Kali's] darkness as the result of distance. When we are far away from an object, it appears dark to us. "Go near and you will find her devoid of all color," he said. "The water of a lake appears black from a distance. Go near and take the water in your hand, and you will see it has no color at all. Similarly, the sky looks blue from a distance. But look at the atmosphere near you; it has no color.

Galland's story serves to illustrate that something only looks alien when it is not examined closely enough.

The family as patriarchal norm

The model colonial family centres on father-mother-children as its nucleus, which the colonised may expand to include the extended family and/or community. Paradoxically, however, the imposition of capitalism through the imposition of colonial taxes undermined its own colonial family model. The erosion of the traditional bartering system, which caused men to migrate to urban centres to earn cash to pay the taxes, arguably started the trend of female-headed households. Moreover, with modern men taking less responsibility for their children, born outside of marriage or due to divorce, female-headed households became a socio-politico-anthropological condition subject to study by many an academic, especially in the global North. In addition, deaths due to AIDS further undermines the traditional notion of family, where parents die and leave children to fend for themselves, and hence the newer notion of child-headed households.

Gender oppression

So why all this fuss about polarising sex and gender, who benefits from this? Patriarchy is premised on the dominator model, and the oppression of women by men is the cornerstone of its ideology. Patriarchy cannot exist without gender oppression.

Gender difference, like all exaggerated differences, are essential to oppression and domination. It fundamentally concerns power, control and Othering. For patriarchy, it concerns control over the reproductive and productive powers of women. It seeks control over the reproductive powers of women because women birth new generations of reproducers and producers. And, it commandeers the productive powers of women because these powers are common knowledge, ranging from unpaid agricultural and other labour, to gathering wood-for-fuel and water.

With post-1950s urban capitalism, women are both consumers themselves, as well as reproducers of future generations of consumers. Hence the significance of gaining control of women's critical social powers of production and reproduction.

Heternormativity as critical social function

Women's biological reproductive functions are critical to the physical reproduction of patriarchy and to ensure its continuous replication. Hence heterosexuality is the cornerstone of this reproduction, with heteronormativity its ideological expression.

If you want a society of apples only,

then crossing apples with pears or other fruit will not be tolerated,

and apples only are desirable.

Women also play a critical social function, that of ensuring other women comply with this rigid regime, which sees mothers socialize their children, and women socialize each other, into conforming with this system. We all do this variously and for different reasons at different times: to belong, to benefit (e.g. Lagos market women in Buchi Emecheta's novels), due to fear, or for survival (as some women in Rwanda did when they held down other women to be raped by men).

Since patriarchy is founded on the binary of Self-Other, heterosexuality cannot exist without its (demonised) other, homosexuality. And neither can tolerate the possibility of bisexuality.

Modern society is also premised on consumerised sexuality, from the mega-industry of Valentine's Day to the marketisation of weddings, housing and families consumption. Even in developed countries, where homosexuality is more openly practiced, affluent homosexual couples are specifically targeted for consumer products, due to their combined income and perceived lack of children who may have depleted their income. The targeting of specifically homosexual markets is ironic, since this undermines heteronormative notions of family, and contradicts the need to produce more consumers (since homosexual couples do not produce children as frequently as heterosexuals). However, it does underscore the fact that any market, with disposable income, is a target market for capitalist consumption. This accounts for the consumerisation of sexuality, as well as the sexualisation of consumption, especially geared towards men rather than women, due to perceptions of disposable income (e.g. naked women to sell cars but not nudity to sell household detergent.)

So the mere thought that people choose not to have sex, choose not to couple, is a direct contradiction of the principles underlying a patriarchal consumer society.

Heteronormativity is African

Rosemary Hennessy argues that heteronormativity is critical to ensure an unequal division of labour. Capitalism, she contends, relies on heterosexuality for the many who are poor and underdeveloped, while the "new non-normative" (and commodified) sexualities are reserved for the affluent minority in developed regions. These 'non-normative sexualities' are critical to capitalism's ethos of consumption, where bisexuality or androgyny in the form of e.g. perfumes (CK1) and clothing is marketed to new generations of consumers.

Since the market for 'non-normative' sexualities is miniscule or non-existent in developing regions, Hennessy argues that heteronormativity becomes compulsory in e.g. Africa. Hence the irony, as Frantz Fanon and Steve Biko postulated, that the colonised, internalise and reproduce their own oppression. This also raises the dark secret that the most heteronormative, and homophobic, often have the most to hide: closeted homosexual desires. It gives me much hope that a minority of African men, who practice heterosexuality, are speaking out against homophobia in South Africa especially (as one letter in the Mail & Guardian newspaper recently evinced).

Beyond the binary?

As African women activists, we need to re-examine the basic philosophies underlying our activism. Existing ways of thinking are too often premised on polarity, the kind of thinking and activism that engenders conflict rather than cooperation, and which prohibits or inhibits efforts to seek true transformative solutions for social change.

Hence we need to move away from that which divides us to seek common ground and unity. For only united, will our visions of a just and equitable world be realised. We already have ample evidence of pre-patriarchal societies, in Africa and elsewhere, that were cooperative, equitable, and peaceful. And only through alliances with those who oppose patriarchy, and hence heteronormativity, will our struggles succeed.

China Galland cites a wise Tibetan: "'Our confusion lies in believing something to be separate from ourselves'," he begins, explaining the Buddhist view that sees mind and matter as one continuum, continually arising and falling back into itself, like waves into water."

Let us no longer buy into colonial divide-and-rule strategies, that has us oppress ourselves and each other. Let us free others and ourselves from patriarchal shackles. Strive to fulfill your own potential, and never deprive others from exploring theirs.

China Galland recounts the words of Wisdom Moon, the Mother of all Buddhas, known as Drolma or Mother in Tibet, Kwan Yin in Chinese, Tara (Liberator or Saviour) in Sanskrit, Wisdom or Sophia in the Old Testament, and the Goddess of Compassion everywhere:

Nowhere can I find what is male, nowhere can I find what is female. These are simply forms, no more separate from one another than a wave is from water. But since most buddhas have chosen to come [to earth] as a man, perhaps it would be more helpful if I became enlightened in a woman's body.

If this discussion does not charm you to begin, let's appeal to universal compassion as a final measure:

Those who have the greater strength should show restraint and tolerance towards those who have less strength& Democracy is an ideology that allows everyone to stand up according to [their] beliefs. They should not be threatened or endangered& Do not because of your greater strength be vengeful towards those who are of weaker strength.   Aung San Suu Kyi

God has chosen what the world regards as foolish to shame the wise, and what the world regards as weak, God has chosen to shame the strong, and what the world regards as low, contemptible, mere nothing, God has chosen& [First Lesson, I Corinthians I:27-28]

Bernedette Muthien is an activist and researcher based in Cape Town, South Africa.

E-mail: bmuthien@icon.co.za