Chapter 3: Theories
3.2. African Feminist Theories
73
African feminist theories provide more appropriate lenses through which to view my study phenomenon and it is to this discussion that we now turn.
74
God. They also began to question the views which held that males are more like God and that only males can represent God and the Church in society. Feminist theologians began to redefine symbols, such as God, humanity, male and female, creation, sin, redemption and church in a gender-inclusive way as social and cultural constructs.
African feminist theology therefore, being a branch of feminist theories, reconsiders and reinterprets African traditions, practices, perceptions and scriptures from a feminist perspective (Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Musimbi Kanyoro, Isabel Apawo Phiri, Musa Dube, Madipoane Masenya, Sarojini Nadar). It sees African traditional culture and traditional Christianity as accomplices in perpetuating negative stereotyping, systematic and institutionalised oppression of women as well as training women to settle for less instead of wanting the best for themselves (CEDAW-Swaziland 2004). African feminist theology is an important theoretical lens for my study because, as shown in chapter one, Swaziland is predominantly Christian with a very strong affiliation to traditional culture.
Oduyoye (2001, p.31) names the two „partners in crime‟ - African Traditional Anthropology and Christian Traditional Anthropology - as being predominantly responsible for women‟s subordinate status. In the same vein, Rakoczy (2004) further exposes these anthropological paradigms as having partnered in relegating women to subservience. She proposes a relational anthropological model which is best in emphasizing women‟s full humanity and dignity, as opposed to other lopsided models. Concerned about African women‟s inferior status being pervasive in the Christian tradition, she advances that women throughout history have languished under the burden of mistaken identity named and defined by men. In her words she claims;
75
men have decided that women are less human than they are, sometimes almost a different species; women are lower in dignity, needing men to complete them as human; and women are dangerous, seducers of men, surely a mistake in God‟s creative plan (Rakoczy, 2004, p.28).
Rakoczy further lists renowned early church fathers like Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexander and Thomas Aquinas, to which Oduyoye (1995, p.5) adds the „protesting monk‟
Martin Luther, as having been instrumental in perpetuating negative views about women in Christian tradition. Thomas Aquinas in particular viewed women to have been created by God solely for procreation; otherwise in every other activity a man is better helped by another man.
He described a girl child as a defective human being, the result of an accident to the male sperm, which was thought to contain the complete human being and to reproduce its likeness, another male (Rakoczy, 2004, p.34). St Augustine of Hippo contended that the girl could only assume some status through her husband when she becomes a wife. Matei (2013), who agrees with Rakoczy, asserts that inequalities between women and men were reinforced by the early church fathers who perceived women as inferiors. She adds;
They devised an ideological system in which the ideas of the classics were adapted to Christian context by being legitimised by the biblical text. They did not stop at disseminating the misogynist ideas which eventually became norms of the “divine order”
but they created a more efficient control system which imposed and enforced these norms in society (Matei, 2013, p.24).
In consideration of the influence of the inherited medieval ideologies of the early church fathers on Christianity, Rakoczy suggests what she names relational anthropology, which she claims
76
brings a new paradigm of “good news” in the Christian tradition that affirms women‟s dignity and equality (Rakoczy, 2004, p.30). It is not individualistic as other anthropological models like the traditional dualistic model and the one single nature model, which amongst other things, emphasize women‟s role as biological and spiritual motherhood, thus reducing women to only childbearing and nurturing.
Relational anthropology calls for a whole transformation of the patriarchal thinking that identifies males with God and women as the “other” (Oduyoye 2001; Kanyoro 2001; Ruether 1983; Schüssler Fiorenza 1997). Furthermore, it is premised on a holistic approach which stresses one‟s relationship with herself/himself, with God and with others. Togetherness, according to Rakoczy, also extends beyond human relationships to include created nature. A truly relational anthropology therefore can be achieved through new understandings and praxis that are truly life-giving, which encompass radical counter-action in the family, church and society; “mothers and fathers must raise their daughters and sons to recognize that both have equal opportunities and responsibilities in the family circle…the pulpit must be used to emphasize the real human dignity of women in marriage and in every relationship”. (Rakoczy, 2004, p.55)
Traditional Christian anthropology as Oduyoye (1999) calls it, is perceived as reinforcing women‟s basic experience of inferiority and „otherness‟, thus relegating them to being viewed as property to men. Carter and Parker add that Christianity elaborates the ideology of female domesticity that lays stress on women‟s reproductive and nurturing roles above their autonomy and productivity. Christian teachings underscore the traits of a good Christian mother as submission to the authority of the father and the husband, godliness, decorum, thrift and service to others (1996, p.14).
77
My study drew largely from the academic discourses on Feminist Theologies in Africa (Nadar 2009; Phiri 2004; Kanyoro 2001; Oduyoye 2001; Oduyoye 1995; Hinga 1990), which basically argue that cultural and religious practices which render women powerless and vulnerable are alive and vibrant to varying degrees in African societies, despite modern encounters; hence they must be reevaluated for the liberation of women to be realised. Premised on this feminist approach, my study sought to go beyond what previous research studies on women in Swaziland have already established, which include women‟s minority status in various subsystems in the society, demeaning socio-cultural and religious practices, and overt and covert sanctions. Whilst confirming the vibrancy of these practices in Swazi families, my study using feminist lenses, interpreted their impact in creating a woman‟s self-identity and personhood, such that the woman only becomes „a real person‟ if she bears children. As noted by Nadar (2009), African culture is not homogenous; women in each locality have their own story to tell about culture. This study therefore confined itself within a specific African context.
As it has been repeatedly asserted, the major concern of African feminist theology is patriarchy that has denied or minimised women‟s full dignity (Rakoczy 2004). The earlier discussions on the feminist approaches within which the study is located typically characterise patriarchy as a social construction resulting in inequalities that disadvantage women, but can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations (Phiri 2004; Oduyoye 1995; Hinga 1990).
As noted by Giddens (2005) social phenomena in most societies are determined by patriarchal structures; hence the credence accorded to women‟s fertility in societies like Swazi society is an outcome of pro-natal aspirations in a patriarchal space which shapes women‟s thought patterns into perceiving themselves as “real” women once they bear children at their marital homes.
78
Bem argues that there are three lenses embedded in culture which provide the foundation to explain how biology, culture and the individual psyche interact systematically to reproduce a male power structure (Bem 1993). These lenses are succinctly presented by Ambasa-Shisanya (2009, pp.37, 38) as follows:
i. The lens of male centeredness through which men are viewed as inherently superior, and their experiences as being the norm, whilst those of women are of less value.
ii. The lens of polarisation which entails that as an organising principle for the social life of the peoples‟ cultures, women and men are fundamentally different from one another. Their difference is then superimposed on many aspects of life so that a cultural connection is forged between sex and virtually every other aspect of human experience like sex roles, ways of expressing emotion, and of experiencing sexual desire.
iii. The lens of biological essentialism which rationalises and legitimises the other lenses by treating them as the natural and inevitable consequences of the intrinsic biological natures of women and men. The lenses also draw from the creation story in the Bible to explain the inferiority of women to men, and the superiority of men whom God created first as Adam, and in his own image.
The relevance of these African feminist lenses to the study lies in its assumption that the male power structure is embedded in social constructions. Women‟s fertility therefore is controlled by men, which the women themselves have been made to believe accords them status in their marital families. These social constructions can be best understood through social learning theories. During the process of their socialisation, women gradually internalise the societal
79
perceptions on their fertility, and they assume an identity that is consistent with these perceptions (Nyawo and Nsibande 2014).