In this era of HIV/AIDS, silence is a tragedy as the pandemic has been “strongly constructed as a male disease and women as representing a risk to men” (Kitzinger, in Wilton, 1994:5). Silence is a characteristic of gender inequality and accordingly prohibits the negotiation of safe sex, self-discovery, and the expression of susceptibility – eventually “blocking the building of trust and respect and developing a culture of fear”
(Morrell, 2003:1).
In his book The History of Sexuality Foucault (1980:27) contends that there are many silences and that they are a primary part of the strategies that motivate and infuse discourse. Foucault (1980:27) further points out that silence does not exist in isolation but it operates beside speech.
The first definition of silence relevant to this study, is that by which an individual feels incapable of talking about certain subjects or emotions. The second definition of silence, as explained by Foucault (1980:27), is that it is a social phenomenon experienced collectively in that silence is concealed dialogue, dialogue prohibited due to the policing and prohibition that ensues. Those with power control what can and cannot be said.
These two aspects should not be separated but should be understood in relation to one another as they fuel each other. For example, individuals do not talk about certain things as the community forbids them. According to Sesotho culture, young unmarried women are not allowed to talk about sex as it is a taboo subject; as a result it becomes really difficult in workshops or campaigns for Basotho to really open up and talk about sex.
This is a serious issue, as it is virtually impossible to talk about HIV/AIDS prevention without talking about sex.
Gender inequality, which breeds silence, is perpetuated by cultural practices. Dalrymple (2004:1) notes that ‘culture’ as a static notion dates back to the colonial era and has leaked into the post-colonial age to justify cultural practices that strengthen social structures such as patriarchy, which are at the core of oppression, particularly for women.
Patriarchy is a socially constructed system that permits male domination and female subordination – “[there exists within it] political and social control of women” (Coward, 1983:7). The survival of patriarchy through the years is attributed to the fact that it originates in and is nurtured by the family itself, even as it penetrates other sectors (Kambarami, 2006:3).
In the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1972) stipulates that the oppressor (in this context read ‘man’) has disempowered the oppressed (women)3 by denying them freedom. Women (as patriarchally oppressed citizens) are therefore dehumanised by being stripped of their dignity, integrity and respect and deprived of justice and equality of values and choices (Epprecht, 2000:19).
The materialisation of this disempowerment inevitably leads to, amongst other things, silence which, when associated with power, becomes the sphere of influence of the oppressed (Freire, 1972:28). In Lesotho, the patriarchal system that exists limits women’s choices regarding their sexuality, and strips them of their bodily autonomy.
Basotho women are defined in relation to their men, which is why an unmarried woman is referred to as a letekatse (a loose woman) or letlola terata (one who jumps fences) (Epprecht, 2000:85). In Lesotho the patriarchal system is also reinforced by Christianity, which traditionally states that man is head of the house, that a woman should respect her husband, and he will in turn love her (Kambarami, 2006:3).
This silence that exists in societies, and in this case Lesotho, is based on the fact that cultural practices are founded on the belief that women have less value than men; they are just objects whose sole objective is to serve men, entertain and produce babies for them (Epprecht, 2000:19). Such beliefs are driven by cultural practices such as Bohali (bride price). In Lesotho, a woman is a legal minor throughout her life, and is subject to
3 It is not the intention of this thesis to monolithise women as ‘the oppressed’. Further it is not the intention to monolithise Third World women as ‘the oppressed’. Nevertheless, the realities of rural women in particular in Lesotho do constitute a significant degree of oppression. It is my contention that not to acknowledge this would be to further silence these women.
the will of both the senior and junior male relatives until marriage, when she comes under the control of the husband. A Mosotho woman, as she is a ‘child’, is denied ownership of cattle, land and transferable wealth and is not permitted to make any independent decisions about anything – even the welfare of her children – since by virtue of payment of bohali, the children belong to the husband and not her (Epprecht, 2000:18).
This cultural practice gives men rights and absolute control over women and their bodies and in turn, the women are denied their basic human rights and freedom. In this situation, it becomes extremely difficult for a woman to actually negotiate condom use because her body is not her own, but it belongs to the husband. In addition, in Lesotho when a woman marries, she is not only married to the husband but to the family as well, so in some instances when a woman demands that her husband use a condom the whole family is called on to intervene, and the woman is reprimanded4. Sometimes, even though women may know of her husband’s behaviour they may not insist on condom use for fear of family conflict, violence and or economic loss (Holland et al., 1990:19). In the case of young girls, if they initiate condoms they fear that they will be accused of mistrust of not loving her partner enough or being too sexually assertive. Unlike the older married women who are sometimes dependant on their husbands, for girls, the reason why they may stay in relationships, the problem may not so much be “economic or social dependence as a fear of challenging dominant ideas about heterosexuality of asserting their own needs and putting male pleasure second” (Holland et al.,1990:19). It can therefore be said that the main thing standing between women young and old alike and safe sex is the men that they are with (Holland et al., 1990:19) and by extension it could be concluded that for most women they contract HIV/AIDS in a ‘loving’ way from the men they love.
Some cultural practices that encourage silence amongst woman are evident in the upbringing of children. Traditionally the girl-child is brought up differently from the boy-child. The boy is brought up to view himself as a tough head of the household who
4 My experience as a Mosotho woman who lives in the village gives me insight and credibility.
makes all the decisions, while the girl is brought up not to question the man but to be an obedient and submissive woman (Epprecht, 2000:18).
Silence is a trait most typically demonstrated by rural Basotho women (and to some extent urban women, though to a lesser degree) who are not culturally empowered to speak and who, by Sesotho custom, remain legal minors (Epprecht, 2000:18). Silence amongst women has typically been the consequence of patriarchal societies across the globe where silence is seen as submission to patriarchal authority (hooks, 1989:6).
Recently, feminist writers such as American academic bell hooks have tried to recover the undervalued and suppressed women’s voices. hooks (1981) maintains that this silence “was not a gesture of solidarity with black male patriarchs, it was in fact silence of the oppressed – that profound silence engendered by resignation and acceptance of one’s lot” (hooks, 1981:1). Other feminists such as Heidi Mirza (1990:4) and Angela Davis (1993) talk of gender politics and silence and argue for the ‘excavation’ of silence by women. However, the attempt to recover women’s voices reveals numerous types of gendered silence, “silence because women are not speaking, silence because their voices are not heard, silence because their voices are not understood, silence because their voices are preserved” (Balsamo and Treichler, in Treichler and Warren, 1998:140).
An element of silence that is not often acknowledged is the silence of the powerful themselves because “the ability to keep an area silent and virtually unexamined is an important if not the ultimate key to institutional power” (Treichler and Warren, 1998:
141). For example, the decision that a man may take to remain silent reinforces the prevailing situation. Such cases can be observed in domestic abuse where other men (relatives of the perpetrator) simply keep quiet and do not reprimand the perpetrator.
This silence turns the abuse into something that is acceptable, thus normalising the abuse and to a high degree condoning the perpetrator’s situation. This conspiracy of silence denies the existence of the problem for the victim as the silence conserves the privilege of the man.
Furthermore, if we take the position of women in a patriarchal society, they are not necessarily physically silent but those with the power choose not to hear them. As Miranda Young (1997:19) states, “a woman may or may not be physically silent, but it is the extent to which she is heard that signifies the nature of the silence”. An example is that most men are of the view that women have no right to say ‘no’ and when they do, their voices are not heard. Therefore, the silence of women in patriarchal societies should not be taken as an indication that they are not speaking.
It is in this light that, when dealing with the HIV/AIDS pandemic, sensitivity to gender dynamics must be observed. Doyal (1994:18) asserts that many existing prevention programmes “attempt to persuade people to change their sexual behaviours and in the case of women, that of their partners too … however, these prevention programs often fail to recognise difficulties facing women who attempt to do this”.
An example is the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful and Condomise) campaign where women are advised to demand condoms every time they have sex. But what such initiatives fail to recognise is that it is not a simple, practical question about dealing rationally with the risk. Instead, it is solely the outcome of negotiation between potentially unequal partners where a woman’s voice is unheard even though she speaks.
In his essay “Neither Fixed Masterpiece nor Popular Distraction: Voice, Transformation and Encounter in Theatre for Development”, Harding (1998:14) states that having a voice gives people the means to act as agents of social transformation. Those who have a voice have the power to act in all the socio-political structures; however, women under patriarchy are denied that right because they do not speak, nor are they given an opportunity to speak by those who have power and who can speak – “the authoritative voice, the voice of authority” (Harding, 1998:14).
This chapter has highlighted the roots of PPT. The purpose of the theories discussed provide a foundation to explore ways of using PPT and to investigate whether Boal’s techniques of TO have the capacity to allow participants to identify the cause of their oppressions and find ways in which to solve them. Brecht (1957) Freire (1972) and Boal
(1979) wanted individuals to be shapers of their world by playing active roles in their own lives.
This section has also examined the possibility of achieving immediate results through PPT, and has discussed the issue of silence amongst women. It has thus laid a foundation for the investigation of the issue of silence amongst women in Lesotho. The following chapter will discuss the Malealea theatre project. It will take the reader on a journey from the theoretical description of the Malealea Theatre Project to implementation and the challenges faced during the project.