The Sunday Mail
Pathisa Nyathi
A few days ago I attended a workshop organised by the Organ for Healing National Reconciliation and Integration (OHNRI).
There seem to be moves to push on with efforts at reconciliation, started during the tenure of the Unity Government.
A commission will be constituted to drive and oversee what the organ is currently doing.
What was of interest to me- during the meeting attended by officials from OHNRI, members of the Chiefs’ Council and resource persons- was preoccupation with ‘‘philosophical underpinnings’’.
These were the buzz words throughout the two-day workshop.
That stance was as a result of my determined and sustained drive to go beyond cultural practices and seek ‘‘the philosophical underpinnings’’.
I have campaigned for that stance so that we can begin to appreciate why Africans did what they did.
I realised that the early missionaries and native commissioners concerned themselves with a myriad of African cultural practices without seeking out the underlying beliefs and cosmologies, “the philosophical underpinnings”, as I term them.
When this approach is adopted, we will be better placed to understand more fully the reasons underlying various cultural practices, actions and rituals.
There are universal philosophical underpinnings that characterise African societies, however, the cultural practices may differ widely as these reflect different lived experiences and the unique circumstances pertaining to the particular community.
Our common Africanness is expressed at the level of philosophical underpinnings rather than the cultural practices.
There are actions that are performed as part of reconciling individuals and families and groups of people.
What we give more emphasis to is to unpack the interpretation or underlying meaning to the ritual action.
Where ash is used, as among the Ndebele during the process known as ukukhumelana umlotha (not ukukhumisana umlotha), we need to unearth the philosophical significance of the ash.
The choice of ash was not accidental but was made in relation to the community’s perceptions of ash. This is another way of referring to the “philosophical underpinnings”.
The meeting became alert and was seized with the idea of seeking out the underlying reasons for each cultural practice or action.
For example, the meeting recognised the important role played by a ‘‘muzukuru’’ during burials within the Shona society.
The meeting was no longer content with knowing the roles of a ‘‘muzukuru’’, but demanded explanations why a ‘‘muzukuru’’, an aunt’s son was chosen for this role.
I was happy as this is the way I want us to approach African culture-with emphasis on the underlying reasons, the why question, for particular actions. If we score victory on this front, we will have achieved quite some milestone in seeking to understand the African and his ways.
However, for me the more critical occupation and thrust will be to seek out the African and his philosophy via his cultural practices, ceremonies, rituals and festive events.
Anthropologists concentrate on these and sadly at times end there.
Cultural practices, actions and other behaviours are the expressions of the more succinct and higher level philosophical and cosmological inclinations.
In a nutshell we are saying the mind is at work to design rituals and other cultural actions.
Bodily actions are mere fulfilments of what the mind commands and actions such as rituals and ceremonies are cognitively conjured up or choreographed behaviours which are driven by the philosophical underpinnings.
It is possible to move in reverse-by observing closely cultural behaviour and work out the nature of the mind at work.
This will range from the built environment and artifacts to seemingly complex rituals.
All are products of the mind that is guided and moderated by its cosmologies and beliefs. It is this aspect that we seek to unravel in the forthcoming articles.
A young lady called me from Cape Town recently seeking some information on what she termed Shona roora (amalobolo). For a number of weeks I could not attend to her request. It was her sheer persistence and patience that persuaded me to attend to her request.
However, I did tell her about my thrust. “I do not know the mechanical procedures relating to Shona roora. In any case, that sort of stuff is available in several books and on the internet.”
She seemed somewhat perplexed. “I am interested more in the ‘philosophical underpinnings’ of each stage in the marriage process, including payment of roora. This is the more exciting aspect of the study of African marriages. The mechanical procedures are dreary and dull, but offer an entry point into the ‘philosophical underpinnings’ which are more exciting.
After a lengthy telephone conversation she got my message and was ‘‘converted’’ to my side.
Instead of drawing only on Shona marriage procedures, I also made use of Ndebele marriage procedures (behavioural actions) to provide the underlyng cosmologies. It is that conversation that will form the basis of a few coming articles-from behavior to underlying philosophy or worldview.
Our starting point was why roora/amalobolo in the first place.
I had to take her into my approach to the issue-seeking some philosophical justification for the practice which is what roora/amalobolo is all about.
The marriage institution needs to be perceived as a generative or procreative social institution. It is within that social unit that the family, group and community are perpetuated or continued.
Societal restrictions emerging from ideas on incest mean that a Charumbira family while desirous to extend their lineage, will not be able to do so with their own women folk-sisters, aunts and mothers.
In view of that, their men folk will marry women from families other than their own. Such a woman, coming to extend the Charumbira lineage (blood line) is thus a critical individual whose parents must be ‘paid’ for assisting the Charumbira family to extend its blood line.
Among the Ndebele the bride, after emerging from the cattle byre/pen, isibaya was told by her father, “Ufike uveze abantu”. Go and bring forth children.
Her mission was never in doubt; it was procreation and not sexual gratification. If for some reason or other she failed to conceive, her parents’ behaviuor-sending a surrogate wife, inhlanzi reinforced the reason for her marriage-continuity of the groom’s family line. She possessed the power of continuity and for that her parents were paid.
That is the basis of roora/amalobolo in African societies-acknowledgement of the role the bride will play in ensuring continuity of the family she is being married into.
The mechanical transactions may differ from one ethnic group to the other. These are not the more important considerations, though they bring out cultural diversity.
The highest common factor (HCF) and lowest common multiple (LCM) is the idea of continuity which is made possible by the bride.
Roora/amalobolo is about the reality of continuity through sexual reproduction. In this vein, roora amalobolo should not be seen outside of this consideration of continuity, a concept and philosophical underpinning for many African cultural practices, rituals and ceremonies. It all starts in and with the mind and ends up in body action (behavior-cultural practices).
Next time we shall investigate other mechanical aspects of both Shona and Ndebele marriages and attempt to provide the philosophical underpinnings in the continuing efforts to understand the African better than the early Christian missionaries and native commissioners.
