This is the view espoused by RadclifferBrown 1950; Ogbu 1977; Junod 1927, Holleman 1970 and Shropshire 1970, among others. These writers maintain that ilobolo is best regarded as a means of compensating the family of the bride for the loss in services of their daughter. Among the proponents of this view three main schools of thought may be delineated; the first is represented by Longmore 1959; Murdock 1949; Radcliffe-Brown 1950, and Junod 1927 who regard ilobolo as an economic compensation. In Junod's study of the BaThonga, he maintains that Ilobolo 'restores equilibrium between various collective units of the clan'. He goes on to say that in this type of compensation:
" The first group acquires a new member; the second feels itself diminished, and claims something which permits it to reconstitute itself, in its turn, by acquisition of another woman. This collectivist conception alone explains all the facts (italics mine). In this way, the acquired wife, though she keeps her shibongo (clan) name, becomes the property of the first group ...she is owned by the new family, herself and the children who will be born of her, Junod (1927:278)."
Junod's claim that the compensation theory, based on the collectivist concept, explains all the facts, is an overstatement. Furthermore for him to say that the woman who has been lobol-zA. is owned by the new family does not square up with the fact that she retains her shibongo , or maiden name. She certainly becomes united with her new family, but not owned in the sense of a person owning property.
The weakness of this theory is similar to the bride-price theory above.
Moreover, it would be a strange type of compensation where the groom gives and continues giving of himself and of his substance long after the passing of the initial ihbolo. Normal compensation is based on parties to a transaction exchanging equivalent amounts in money or in kind. Normally the compensator gives a rough equivalent of what they have obtained from the person being compensated. This is clearly not the case in lobol-ing. Here the expectation is that the groom becomes what an isiZulu dictum describes as isigodo sokuqhwula. Literally this means that the groom is a stump or log from which one continues getting wood splinters. In other words, a son-in-law has to give and continue giving as long as the marriage relationship lasts. He has to be ever ready and willing to assist his in-laws. On this understanding ilobolo transactions go way beyond ordinary compensation.
That being the case, and on close examination, ilobolo hardly fits the compensation model. A human life and human value can hardly be measured in material terms.
At the opposite end of the scale are those researchers who divest ilobolo of all economic considerations and regard it as a symbolic compensation (Radcliffe- Brown 1950; Soga 1931 and Junod, 1927). Soga (: 264) agrees with Kromf that, among Ama-Xhosa, the primary meaning of ukulobola is to compensate or indemnify the father for the loss of his daughter through marriage. This type of compensation restores a social imbalance that has been created. Because of that loss, "he has a just claim for compensation." Radcliffe-Brown also subscribes to a compensation theory with the notable difference that the loss, and hence the compensation, is not economic but social. He bases this view on the understanding that marriage involves a "fission and reordering of social structures. Old relationships are modified and new ones made." This, he contends, is particularly the case in patriarchal and patrilocal communities where the woman leaves her natal home and joins that of her husband. Her family suffers the loss of a valued member. Under those circumstances, ilobolo becomes a symbolic means of compensating her family. Radcliffe-Brown concludes, regarding ilobolo, that;
" It is commonly used to replace a daughter by obtaining a wife for some member of the family, usually a brother of the woman who has been lost. A daughter is replaced by a daughter- in-law, a sister by a wife or sister-in-law. The family is compensated for its loss, Radcliffe-Brown (1950:50)."
The compensation, like the bride-price theory is premised on an assumption that ilobolo is driven, at best, by the desire to make good the raptured social bonds (Radcliffe-Brown) and at worst, by economic considerations. This is not entirely accurate. We have shown in paragraph 3:1 above that this is fallacious reasoning since traditionally there was no quid pro quo in ilobolo negotiations.
The groom or his family gave what they could afford. In the majority of cases,
even what they undertook to give was passed in small instalments throughout the duration of the marriage and beyond. Secondly, Dlamini (1994:11) has correctly pointed out that in traditional African communities the marriage of girls
"...was eagerly anticipated, and its realization could not have been interpreted to be a loss in the sense of bereavement. It was a happy though painful event; and the need for compensation, therefore, is out of place."
As further support of that view among Basotho, a maiden who had reached marriageable age yet remained single was referred to as lefetoa, one who has been passed by. The isiZulu equivalent expression is umjendevu. Both terms were anything but complementary. Marriage thus saved maidens from being seen in a negative light. Under those circumstances, the possibility that ilobolo was compensation, economic or social, remains to be demonstrated. However, the probability exists that compensation is a later development that came with industrialisation and the cash economy. Even on that score, ilobolo in the majority of cases, is far less than the cost which the woman's family incurred in raising and educating her. Besides her family bearing the greater cost of the wedding ceremony, the bride was often expected to give an assortment of presents to members of her conjugal home, these days almost equal in value to the ilobolo given to her natal family.
The compensation theory is closely allied to the wife sale theory. A theological critique of the latter (see 3.1 above) equally applies to it.