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

2010 World Cup: An opportunity for nation-building
2010-05-11

Pictured from the left, front are: Prof. Labuschagne and Prof. Cornelissen. Back: Prof. Kersting, Prof. Teuns Verschoor (Acting Senior Vice-Rector: UFS) and Dr Ralf Hermann (DAAD).
Photo: Mangaliso Radebe

“The 2010 FIFA World Cup creates a window of opportunity for nation-building in South Africa that could even surpass the opportunity created by the 1995 Rugby World Cup.”

This was according to Prof. Pieter Labuschagne from the University of South Africa, who was one of the three speakers during the lecture series on soccer that were recently presented by the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State (UFS), in conjunction with the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), under the theme: Soccer and Nation Building.

Prof. Labuschagne delivered a paper on the topic, The 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa: Nation Building or White Apathy?, highlighting the critical issue of how sport in South Africa was still largely supported along racial lines.

“We are still enforcing the separateness of rugby as a sport for whites and soccer as a sport for blacks,” he said.

He said a high degree of animosity against soccer existed among whites because they felt rugby and cricket were being singled out by parliament as far as transformation was concerned. He said that could be the reason why a large number of South African whites still supported soccer teams from foreign countries instead of local Premier Soccer League teams.

“Bridging social context between different racial groups is still a major problem, even though patriotism is comparatively high in South Africa,” added Prof. Norbert Kersting from the University of Stellenbosch, who also presented a paper on World Cup 2010 and nation building from Germany to South Africa, drawing critical comparisons on issues of national pride and identity between the 2006 World Cup in Germany and the 2010 World Cup.

“Strong leadership is needed to utilize the opportunity provided by the 2010 World Cup to build national unity as former President Nelson Mandela did with the Rugby World Cup in 1995,” said Prof. Labuschagne.

Although acknowledging the power of sport as a unifying force, Prof. Scarlett Cornelissen, also from the University of Stellenbosch, said that, since 1995, the captivating power of sport had been used to achieve political aims and that the 2010 World Cup was no different.

Amongst the reasons she advanced for her argument were that the 2010 World Cup was meant to show the world that South Africa was a capable country; that the World Cup was meant to solidify South Africa’s “African Agenda” – the African Renaissance - and also to extend the idea of the Rainbow Nation; consolidate democracy; contribute to socio-economic development and legitimize the state.

“We should not place too much emphasis on the 2010 World Cup as a nation-building instrument,” she concluded.

She presented a paper on the topic Transforming the Nation? The political legacies of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

The aim of the lecture series was to inspire public debate on the social and cultural dimensions of soccer.

DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst) is one of the world’s largest and most respected intermediary organisations in the field of international academic cooperation.
Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za  
11 May 2010
 

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