Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 February 2022 | Story Nombulelo Shange | Photo Andre Damons
Romantic love is important and revolutionary and a crucial rebellion when done in a way that is genuine and does not cause pain, writes Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the UFS, and Chairperson of the University of the Free State Women’s Forum.

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State and Chairperson of the University of the Free State Women’s Forum.


Twenty-first-century dating is a nightmare; trying to find the perfect partner can feel like an extreme sport that will literally end you. Dating apps such as Grindr, Bumble, and Tinder are supposed to make finding a partner easier in the stressful modern world, but they add a deeper layer of complexity that turns unsuspecting lovestruck users into sacrificial lambs when they enter the sea of serial cheaters and broken people who flood the apps. All of this is a giant mess that has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, where going out on a date can be a death sentence. 

 

But even with that said, romantic love is important and revolutionary and a crucial rebellion when done in a way that is genuine and does not cause pain. Considering an interpersonal phenomenon such as love as revolutionary is unusual, but when you consider historical events that politicised love and still have an impact on the ways we live today, one realises that love is one of the most important, relatively accessible acts of rebellion needed to undo some of the injustices of the past. The beauty of love is that it is more within our reach as individuals, compared to other grander revolutionary actions such as free education and land expropriation, which require mass action from citizens or big policy shifts and action from structures such as the state, judiciary, and even the profit-driven private sector. Love as a revolution does not rely as heavily on the slow bureaucracies of institutions, which are unwilling to adequately address injustices. Love just requires individuals to make an active choice to be together and to care for each other in ways that empower the individual and the collective. But as ‘easy’ as it sounds, many struggle to find it, and even those who have it struggle to enjoy the transformation that should come with the bond that love should create. I want to argue that this is in part because of the historical politicisation of love, which has not been unlearned even though we enjoy relatively more freedoms today; instead, this politicisation of love has in some ways become ‘cultural norms’ that we blindly and unquestioningly follow, even to our own detriment.

Love and Patriarchal Culture

Discourse on love and family tends to not enjoy as much prominence in macro-institutions such as economies or states. But understanding micro-phenomena such as family, love, and relationships is important for knowing how macro-institutions work and to make sense of social life. This is in part because the socialisation we receive from our families has the potential to influence how we interact with macrostructures as active agents who influence and can be influenced by structures. Even our leaders and the decisions they make are greatly influenced by their family and community socialisation. Discourse on family started to gain dominance in the 1960s through the rise of radical feminism, which popularised slogans such as ‘the personal is political’ as a way of challenging family values, and particularly the nuclear family structure that perpetuated the oppression and at times abuse of women and children in the family, because domestic issues were not considered public concern. 

But even with this rise, discourse on love and family is still largely lacking or only confined to psychological and feminist discourse. Feminist scholar and American professor, the late Bell Hooks, is one scholar who tries to make sense of social life in relation to love, highlighting its importance and the challenges linked to it. In her 2004 book, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love, Hooks says: 

Every female wants to be loved by a male. Every woman wants to love and be loved by the males in her life. Whether gay or straight, bisexual or celibate, she wants to feel the love of father, grandfather, uncle, brother, or male friend. If she is heterosexual, she wants the love of a male partner. We live in a culture where emotionally starved, deprived females are desperately seeking male love.

She later highlights the reason for the desperation and deprivation of male love. Women and girls are taught to believe that male love and attention are more important than the love of women, while men are taught that love is a weakness. An idea that even very young children are exposed to in fairy tales, where princesses and girls are constantly seeking approval from withholding or absent fathers or need a prince saviour. Men who show genuine love to their mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, or partners risk their masculinity, because part of being ‘truly manly’ is withholding love. 

Historically Politicised Love

Hook’s analysis of love helps us to understand some of the dynamics of how the nuclear family exists, even as it marginalises women. Women are often willing to perform free labour in the home, partly because they are seeking the love they are deprived of. This labour allows their husbands, brothers, and fathers to be productive at work and reaffirms their manliness. The invisible labour performed by women in the home is what allows the workplace to exist unencumbered. In South Africa and much of the African context, this exploitation did not just happen along gender lines, it was racial too. The building of capitalism on the continent rested on the dismantling of African families and the destruction of black love. Your worth was only based on your usefulness as a servant or slave, and how you could strengthen Western structures, from family to economy or state. African men were torn from their families and sent to work in fields and mines, while black women were isolated from their children in order to raise those of white women. Even sex, an important expression of love and pleasure and a way to build families, was used as a repressive tool. It was used for ‘breeding’ slaves to be sold. Rape was used as punishment to correct defiance. Homosexual and interracial love was unthinkable and illegal because it threatened the heteronormative, Western dominance status quo.

Love as Revolutionary Action

Love is important, because it offers abstract and emotional needs such as companionship, caring, and happiness, which can spill over to other parts of life, making us better individuals. Love can also be a lifesaving, poverty-eradicating tool that creates healthier, stronger communities. The cost of living globally is becoming higher and is leading to a shrinking middle class. Having someone to share the load, a home, and resources with, means we can undo some of the challenges that push us into poverty or financial difficulty. You can improve your quality of life and come a step closer to accessing rights and a lifestyle that you might never have been able to achieve alone. For women and people of colour, love is an even more important revolutionary action, since it was never intended for us to receive because of the fear that it would disrupt the status quo that rested on our oppression. When we play the games we play, when we hurt each other instead of forming meaningful connections, we take ourselves back to the state of love deprivation that Hook talks about. This is harmful even to men, especially black men, because to live life fearful of love is to live a life of emptiness that maintains the colonial shackles that were designed for you. 

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept