being override communal identity dictates. Arguably, contemporary Zambia presents moderate multiple communitarianism paradigms in which the individual and community are in dialogue and the individual has autonomy on which identity to adopt and (re)formulate.
Furthermore, Zambian culture is not homogenous, especially within urban Lusaka in which this study was located. Therefore, depending on circumstances and personal preference, one can choose the level at which communitarian identity overrides personal identity, although community identity requires one not to go against the communal grain. This choice between communitarian identity and personal identity is not unique to study participants as other members of the community sometimes have to make similar choices.
Furthermore, Kanyoro's (2002:14) argument presents African cultures as homogenous. I disagree with her on the homogeneity of African cultures because African cultures are an array of ways of life presented by people of diverse ethnicities in Africa. Therefore, approaching them in their plurality avoids essentialism, thereby allowing for distinctiveness of each culture in Africa. Even within urban Lusaka, there are many cultures not only based on ethnicity. Urban cultures are based on class, age, education levels, and locality, among other determinants. I observed that even among gay Christians there are ambiguous
―city/town cultures‖ which have derivations of rural cultures. Additionally, Kanyoro (2002) offers a critical understanding of African culture in relation to women, showing that African culture needs to be questioned. Such an approach to African cultures leaves room for critiquing African cultures; a task I undertook in interrogating Zambian ―city/town cultures‖
in the ―self-construction‖ of gay Christian identities and how gay Christians construct and reformulate themselves as sexual beings in Lusaka-Zambia.
Kanyoro (2002:13) adds that culture remains ―a double-edged sword and is both the creed for the community identity and the main justification for difference, oppression and injustice – especially to those whom culture defines as ‗the other‘, ‗the outsider‘‖. She offers an analysis of African cultures from a feminist perspective, bringing to light how cultures give communities a sense of who they are and also belonging to community members, whilst at the same time, operating on the notion of inclusion and exclusion on account of adherence or lack of adherence to social norms. She is right by bringing to the fore the positives and negatives in African cultures, as well as showing how the concept of borders in cultures acts as determinants for who is in and who is out. I wish to take her critique of African cultures further by analysing them in relation to gay Christians, acknowledging that there are many
persons that are ―othered‖ by African cultures, apart from women. My study critiques culture from the vantage point of sexually marginalized gay Christians within the Zambian context.
I also borrowed insights from African feminist cultural hermeneutics, a framework espoused by Oduyoye (2001) and Kanyoro (2002) who both contend that not everything in African culture is liberating. They further state that African culture needs to be approached with suspicion and that it remains a locus of resistance. Therefore, using cultural lenses, culture and cultural practices need to be investigated in relation to how they shape people‘s reality in a given context. Premised on this understanding, I critique culture for its role in the construction of gay Christian identities and sexualities within Zambia. Assertions offered by Oduyoye (2001) and Kanyoro (2002) are supported by Russell (2004) and Phiri and Nadar (2006) who point out that everyday realities are socially constructed; there is a need to analyse this construction in regard to the culture that shape our worldviews by providing us with an identity and way of life; and life-giving elements of culture need to be prmoted while life-denying aspects are rejected. In my interrogation of Zambian culture and its place in the construction of gay Christian identities and sexualities, I approached Zambian culture both with suspicion and appreciation, realizing that not everything in it is life-affirming, and yet, it still has elements that promote life, gay life in particular.
I also approached the interrogation of Zambian culture and its role in the construction of gay Christian identities and sexualities cognisant that culture remains contested, especially in relation to matters of sexualities since they dictate which sexualities are included and excluded from communities. However, African feminist cultural hermeneutics was limited for the analysis of ―self-construction‖ of gay Christians‘ identities and sexualities and the role of culture therein, because it focuses on women and not men – especially gay Christians - within the cultural spaces. It also understands men and women within the gender binary.
However, the concept of borderland gender and sexualities is applicable to both men and women, including gay Christians, as it does not focus on gender binaries, heterosexual and homosexual binaries. The interest in this study pushes the argument away from gender binaries to gender and sexualities that lie within the physical and metaphorical borderland of masculinities and femininities, legality and illegality, recognized and unrecognized.
Nevertheless, African feminist cultural hermeneutics provides new possibilities for the inclusion of gay Christians as it queries the notion of stable, all-encompassing African cultures. It therefore facilitates for ―dissidence‖ and difference within African cultures. This
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.