observation is made by Chitando (2009) in his book Troubled but not Destroyed. He reflects on how African women scholars differ from African male scholars in their willingness to critique African cultures. Having discussed African feminist cultural hermeneutics, I proceed to discuss border, borderlands and borderland theory.
western cultures. She opts for hybridity in which two cultures come together, not held far apart from each other. However, the question worth raising is: how authentic then would borderland identities be if they are only a hybrid of cultures on both sides of the border? Is it then possible to hold both duality and hybridity simultaneously, drawing from both as need arises, therefore, allowing for semi-authentic and/or authentic dual-hybridized borderland identities?
Borderland spaces are in themselves liminal spaces where one is, but at the same time, is not.
In his book The Rites of Passage, Van Gennep (1960) presents an anthropological and ethnographic account by discussing rites of passage which are considered as liminal spaces.
Building on the works of Van Gennep (1960), in his books The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual and The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, Turner (1967 and 1974) deals with aspects of the ritual system of the Ndembu people of Northwestern Zambia.
He specifically explores the Mukanda ceremony – an initiation rite of passage for boys – as an anti-structured space for identity formulation. Turner (1974) regards the anti-structure as a space allowing identities that would not ordinarily be tolerated within the structure spaces.
Furthermore, in another chapter contribution, ―Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites of Passage‖, Turner (1987) focusses on the nature and characteristics of transition in relatively stable societies by focusing on rites of passage which tend to have developed liminal periods (Turner 1987:5). For Turner, within the liminal space, ―the subject of passage ritual is, in the liminal period, structurally, if not physically, ‗invisible‘‖ (1987:6). The invisibility alluded to here enables initiates to explore ordinarily ―unacceptable‖ structured identities and sexualities. In light of this study, study participants constructed their identities and sexualities on the borders between masculinities and femininities, thus, they experience both masculinities and femininities although they do not categorically fit as either male or female (sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3). Their identities and sexualities lie in between and outside the gender binaries. Implicitly, participants symbolically struggle to overcome the gender binaries within the borderland which allows for experimentation of gender and sexualities and re(creation) of semi dual-hybridized gay Christian identities and sexualities. Therefore, they experience their identities and sexualities as in-between the binaries but remain out of the categorical stipulations of the binaries.
According to Anzaldúa, the border is ―‗una herida abierta‘ or an open wound where ‗the Third World grates against the first and bleeds. . . the lifeblood of two worlds merging to
form a third country – a border culture‖ (1987:3). Arguably, border culture is a reflection of both forms of cultures but cannot be typically classified as either/or as border cultures lie in- between, therefore duality and hybridity are possible. Thus, living on the border allows for non-conformity to either cultures/normative genders or holding both simultaneously. Instead, forging of border culture takes place. Being on the border creates spaces of hybridized and dualistic identities that are continuously re-created, sometimes in contestation with either culture. A similar observation is made by Bhabha (1994) who posits that in relation to identity and diversity, the concept of liminality goes beyond western binaries but instead shows the in-between-ness and hybridity, thereby creating a Third Space. Bhabha (1994) argues that all cultural statements and systems are constructed in ambivalence and are not fixed, which subsequently leads to cultural difference. On the borders, a ―third culture‖, even a ―fourth culture‖ is formed and keeps being formed following interactions of cultures on either sides of the border. Anzaldúa adds that people living on the borders ―have multiple personalities, they have an insider/outsider cultural perspective since they are ―seeing double‖
(Anzaldúa 2002:549). Border cultures allow for plurality of personalities, non-fixed, transitional, dualistic and hybridized identities.
The concept of dual and hybrid borderland culture can also be applied to how the gay Christians in this study forged their identities and sexualities – as sexual dissidents in the broader Zambian context but accepted within some of their families and communities.
Although Anzaldúa‘s (1987) writing is about Mexicans on the border with United States of America and uses border in the literal sense, her argument can still be used symbolically in relation to my study participants whose sexual and gender identities are held as illegal but recognized in some pockets of their communities. They remain ―outsiders‖ within Zambian culture which does not homogenously accept their identities and sexualities, but at the same time, are ―insiders‖ who are sometimes allowed to participate in both masculine and feminine rites of passage (sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3).
The concept of borderland has been expanded to incorporate other components of human life such as spirituality, sexuality, the mind, thereby understood as spaces that ―trigger encounter and exchange (cultural, personal, etc.)‖ (Nicoleta 2006:87). Expanded understanding of borderland and its theorization propelled Anzaldúa to develop the theory ―new mestiza‖ which has been
influential and represents an innovative expansion of previous biologically based definitions of mestizaje. For Anzaldúa, ―new mestizas‖ are people who inhabit multiple worlds because of their gender, sexuality, color, class, body, personality, spirituality, spiritual beliefs, and/or other life experiences. This theory offers a new concept of personhood that synergistically combines apparently contradictory Euro-America and indigenous traditions (Keating 2009:10).
The theory suggests that people can have multiple identities owing to borderlands in gender, sexualities, class, personality, spirituality, among many other forms of categorization. For example, when study participants indicated construction of their identities and sexualities within masculine and feminine cultural spaces, they covertly subscribed to Anzaldúa‘s (1987) notions of borderlands where ambiguities are the very state of being. In this regard, ambiguities are in themselves some form of authentic identities. Borderland theory does not subscribe to operating on the binary but points to hybridized, non-fixed, non-conforming and ever evolving identities which in many instances are in resistance to cultures on both sides of the border. I use borderland theory as allowing for both dualism and hybridity only insofar as the former and the latter denote authentic identities of participants in the process of construction of their identities as gendered and sexual beings.
Therefore, as Anzaldúa points out, ―the borderlands are a bridge between the worlds of the Chicano/a and gabacho/a, the straight and the ‗queer,‘ the male and the female, and essentially breaks down either/or dichotomous thinking. The mestiza consciousness is a 'tolerance for ambiguity‘‖ (1987:79). In her article ―"Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer: Non-binary Identities and the Sexual Borderlands‖, Callis adds that
borderland theory points to the creation and maintenance of identities that fall outside of cultural norms, asking how borderlands simultaneously develop their own cultures while challenging hegemonic ideology…I find the theoretical and metaphorical borderlands to be a productive space to understand identities that are complex, multiple, and existing both within and outside of a binary system (2014:68-69).
The borderland presents itself as a ―safe space‖ for self-discovery, self-(re)formulation as well as potentialities for counter-cultural lifestyle. Culture on the borderland is usually in contestation with dominant ideology and in one way or another. Both borderland and ―in-
state‖ cultures encounter each other and overtly or covertly transform each other. For example, twenty years ago, it was uncommon to openly hear same-sex discourses in Zambia.
Discussions on same-sex sexualities have been brought into the public domain in the last fifteen years mainly as a result of the gay subcultures‘ influence on dominant cultures and also human rights campaigns for sexual minorities. Arguably, borderland cultures in this case are prodding dominant cultures to assimilate elements of the counter-culture. Study participants are on the borderland of counter-cultural forms of identities and sexualities and dominant cultural forms of identity and sexuality. They oscillate between subscribing to gay subcultures and belonging to the broader Zambian culture that may not be embracing of their identities and sexualities.
Furthermore, the borderland is a socially constructed bridge of two worlds for participants – the world of masculinities and femininities, illegality and legality, conformity and non- conformity, belonging and not belonging (section 5.2.2). Additionally, more ambiguities are shown in discussions on how families of some of the study participants intuitively know about their sons‘ identities and sexualities but choose not to openly discuss the subject or risk the rest of community finding out. The ambiguities presented by the participants generated my curiosity, as their identities and sexualities lie in-between – although unaccepted by the general populace, their identities and sexualities are a reality for them and their lives go on within this liminal space. In this regard, the concept of borderland gender and sexualities closely relates with incipient theologies used in chapter five to analyse the role of religion in how participants ―self-construct‖ their identities and themselves as sexual beings mainly because they do not belong within the norm, but adopt elements of the norm to sustain the anti-normative. Both analytical frameworks look at understanding life experiences away from the dominant and focus on the emerging and sometimes counter-discourses mainly located on the margins. The emerging discourses stemming from individual experiences are sometimes in resistance to the already established dominant narrative. Cardinal is that both analytical frameworks point to the agency of participants in how they construct their identities and sexualities amidst the influence of religion and culture.
Critique of Borderland Theory
In spite of using borderland theory for analytical purposes, I still offer the following critique of it: first, it presents a homogenous border people as being in a state of perpetual liminality as a state of being. However, it is possible that cultures on different sides of the borders may
not necessarily influence or affect all people in similar ways. I contend that it is therefore possible that by choice, some people on the border may align themselves with one culture only and not with the other, thus, have fixed cultural identities. Other people may adopt both cultures to form ambiguous borderland cultures. Second, the theory presents the borderland as the end of territorial space and authority. However, the border can also be a starting point of something and not only the end of the territorial space. In this regard, sexual and identities borders offered by the binary model are not an end but a beginning for imagining and conceptualizing sexualities and identities that go beyond the normative boundaries of the binary. Last, Gonzalez (2003:35) has critiqued borderland theory on three accounts: its tendency to romanticize the border; the political limits of multiculturalism and pluralism, projects promoted by borderland theory; and the ideological contradictions of theorizing cultural identity non-dialectically as a condition of perpetual liminality.
In summing up this section, the above discussion shows how the borderland is a space which allows for malleability of self and identities. It is a site that enables operating in between, within, as well as outside the cultures on either sides of the borders. In spite it having been located in a physical location, namely, urban Lusaka in contemporary Zambia, my study adopts the concept of borderland and applies it metaphorically in relation to the construction of study participants‘ identities and sexualities. The borderland gives room for both hybridized and dualistic identities subject to individual preference. One important feature of the borderland is that ambiguity is the very state of being and a sphere that gives rise to ambiguous identities. Therefore, establishing how study participants ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities and the role of culture in this process propelled me to use borderland gender and sexualities as an analytical lens to allow me to adequately analyse ambiguities presented by participants. In this section, I have discussed borderland theory and in the following section, I proceed to analyse borderland theory as appropriated in gender and sexualities.