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

Volksblad: Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture
2006-05-27

27 Mei 2006

Moshoeshoe het mense saamgebind
KONING MOSHOESHOE kon bewys dat verskeidenheid ’n bindende eienskap kan wees. Dit blyk ’n sleutelbeginsel van sy leierskap te wees – en dit is nie ’n maklike een om te begryp nie.

Jy bereik die grootste eenheid tussen onderskeidende entiteite waar jy relatief vrye ruimte aan hulle gee om hul eiesoortige kenmerke na vore te bring.

Dít blyk uit prof. Njabulo Ndebele se gedenklesing oor koning Moshoeshoe.
Lesotho; het; onder Moshoeshoe se leierskap mense van verskeie dele van die subkontinent gelok.
Dié mense het hierheen gevlug van die verwoesting wat as lifaqane bekend geword het toe Shaka sy koninkryk met militêre onderwerping verstewig het.

Ndebele het gesê daar is algemene ooreenkoms dat die oorloë wat hieruit gespruit het, die maatskaplike grondslae van talle samelewings in Suider-Afrika geskud het.

“Dit was in dié konteks dat Moshoeshoe leierskap getoon het.”
Prof. Frederick Fourie, rektor en visekanselier van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV), het gesê die lesing vorm deel van ’n groter debat oor leierskapmodelle, veral die konsep van Afrika-leierskap, en die voortgesette diskoers oor nasiebou en versoening.

Die Moshoeshoe-projek is in 2004 aan die UV begin om met Suid-Afrika se eerste dekade van demokrasie saam te val.
Die projek was deel van die UV se eeufeesvieringe in 2004.
Met dié projek word geprobeer om ’n groot Afrika-leier te vereer en die UV se verbintenis tot transformasie te toon sodat ’n ware inklusiewe en nie-rassige universiteit geskep kan word.

“As die stigter van die Basoeto-nasie, word daar wyd erkenning aan koning Moshoeshoe vir sy buitengewone leierskapstyl gegee.

“Diplomasie, versoening en vreedsame naasbestaan is van die kenmerke van sy leierskap, soos getoon in sy pogings om verskillende groepe in een nasie te verenig,” sê Fourie.

KONING MOSHOESHOE, een van Afrika se eertydse groot leiers. Hy is meer as 130 jaar gelede dood. Foto: verskaf

Waarde van openbare spraak ‘nou bedreig’
AANDUIDINGS bestaan dat die waarde van openbare spraak wat hoog deur koning Moshoeshoe van Lesotho op prys gestel is, nou onder ernstige bedreiging kan wees.

Om dié rede dra hy die koning Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing op aan al dié mense in Suid-Afrika en elders wat die moed het om hul oorwoë mening uit te druk oor belangrike sake wat die samelewing in die gesig staar, het prof. Njabulo Ndebele, visekanselier van die Universiteit van Kaapstad, gesê.

Ndebele, wêreldbekende skrywer, het gesê dié lesing kom op ’n kritieke punt in Suid-Afrika se nuwe demokrasie.
Dié lesing, om die buitengewone nalatenskap van een van Afrika se groot leiers te eer, is eergisteraand op die kampus van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) gelewer en het ’n staande toejuiging deur ’n groot gehoor uitgelok.

Ndebele het gesê die mense wat hul menings uitdruk oor belangrike sake, kan rubriekskrywers, redakteurs, kommentators, alle soorte kunstenaars, akademici, koerantbriefskrywers, nie-gewelddadige optoggangers met plakkate en strokiesprentkunstenaars wees “wat ’n spieël voor ons oë sit”.

“Selfs wanneer hulle dit waag op heilige gebied, soos sommige strokiesprentkunstenaars onlangs gedoen het, herinner hulle ons net dat selfs die heilige misbruik kan word vir doeleindes wat min met heiligheid te doen het.

“Dit is hul manier om ons te help, dalk meer diepsinnig as wat ons besef, om daardie einste ruimte van heiligheid in ons lewe te bewaar.

“Hulle verdiep ons insigte deur ons begrip te verdiep.
“Dit is gepas om hul dapperheid te vier,” het Ndebele gesê.
“Hulle herinner ons dat leierskap nie al is wat ons doen wanneer ons in ’n sekere magsposisie geplaas is om ’n organisasie of ’n sekere instelling te stuur nie.”

Hy het gesê onder die mense wat gevier moet word, sluit hy nie dié in wat deur haatspraak ander aanhits om geweld te pleeg; teen; mense; wat hul andersdenkende menings lug nie.

“Dit is nie met dapperheid dat hulle aanhits nie, maar weens hul toevlug tot die narkotiese beskerming van die skare.”

Mense voel glo ál kwesbaarder
Vise-kanselier lewer Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing
’n TOENEMENDE aantal hoogs intelligente, sensitiewe en toegewyde Suid-Afrikaners oor die klas-, ras- en kulturele spektrum heen bely dat hulle – soos nog nooit tevore nie – onseker en kwesbaar voel sedert 1994.

Só het prof. Njabulo Ndebele, vise-kanselier van die Universiteit van Kaapstad, gesê in die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) se eerste koning Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing.

Die onderwerp was Reflections on the leadership challenges in South Africa.
Wanneer ontembare optimiste beken hulle voel dinge is van stryk, versprei die naarheid van angs. “Dit moet iets te doen hê met ’n ophoping van gebeure wat die gevoel van dreigende inploffing oordra.”

’n Gevoel heers dat Suid-Afrika ’n baie komplekse samelewing het wat liewer eenvoudige, gesentraliseerde beheer voortbring in die hoop dat dienslewering dan beter en vinniger gedryf kan word. Die kompleksiteit van beheer word dan in ’n enkele struktuur van gesag gevestig, eerder as in die afgewentelde strukture soos wat in die Grondwet beoog word.

Dat die afgewentelde strukture nie hul grondwetlik-gedefinieerde rolle verwerklik nie, moenie toegeskryf word aan die mislukking van die beheermeganisme nie.

“Dit is te vroeg om te sê dat wat ons sedert 1994 bereik het, nie gewerk het nie,” het Ndebele gesê.
Dit lyk of ’n kombinasie van omstandighede tot die “gevoel van ontknoping” lei.
“Ek wil dit vermy om te sê: ‘Kyk na Khutsong’, asof u sal verstaan wat ek bedoel wanneer ek sê u moet na Khutsong kyk.”
Sulke kennis lei tot wanhoop, want dit roep ’n werklikheid op wat só oorweldigend is dat dit fatalisties kan wees.
Ndebele het gesê niks kon meer vreesaanjaend wees as toe ’n komplot van die Boeremag oopgevlek en sekere Boeremaglede aangekeer is nie.

Sekere Boeremaglede het van ’n maksimum-sekuriteit-tronk ontsnap. “Sover ek weet, is hulle nie weer gevang nie.
“Wat is gedoen om die gaping te oorbrug?” was een van sy vrae hieroor.
“Van só ’n belangrike saak weet die publiek nie baie nie. Die karige kommunikasie kan die gevaarlike boodskap uitdra dat óf niks gedoen word nie, óf die staat in dié saak misluk.”

Hy het gevra: “Hoekom het die kwessie van munisipale afbakening tot die situasie in Khutsong gelei? Dit lyk of die probleem voortgaan, sonder ’n oplossing in sig.”

’n Aantal soortgelyke, oënskynlik plaaslike rebellies het oor die land heen plaasgevind. “Is hier ’n patroon?”
Ndebele het na die onlangse verhoor van oud-adj.pres. Jacob Zuma, wat van verkragting aangekla was, verwys.
Dié drama blyk ver van oor te wees. Dit beloof “om ons almal sonder verligting te hou, in ’n toestand van angs”.
Die gemene draad van dié gebeure is die gevoel van ’n oneindige spiraal van probleme wat vertroue tap. Daar kan ’n sterk suggestie in al dié gebeure wees “dat ons dalk nooit sosiale samehang in Suid-Afrika gehad het nie...”

“Wat ons sekerlik oor dekades gehad het, is ’n mobiliserende visie. Kan dit wees dat die mobiliserende visie onder die gewig van die werklikheid en omvang van maatskaplike heropbouing kraak en dat die legitieme raamwerk om oor dié probleme te debatteer ineenstort?”

‘Swart mense staar hulself in die gesig’
DIE swart meerderheid staar homself nou in die gesig: dalk werklik vir die eerste keer sedert 1994.
Só het prof. Njabulo Ndebele gesê toe hy die koning Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat in Bloemfontein gelewer het.

Hy het gesê dit lyk of Suid-Afrika ’n meganisme nodig het om selfvertroue te bou.
Deur dié meganisme “kan ons die situasie waarin ons is, erken, wat dit ook al is”.
“Ons het ’n meganisme nodig wat die verskillende posisies van die mededingers sal bevestig en hul eerlikheid sal bekragtig op ’n manier wat die publiek vertroue sal gee dat werklike oplossings moontlik is.”

Dit is dié soort “openheid wat nooit maklik kom nie”, wat lei tot deurbraak-oplossings.
Ndebele het gesê ’n komplekse demokrasie soos Suid-Afrika s’n kan nie oorleef met ’n enkele gesag nie.
Net veelvuldige owerhede binne ’n grondwetlike raamwerk “het ’n ware kans”.
“Kan ’n deel van die probleem wees dat ons nie in staat is om die idee van ‘opposisie’ te hanteer nie?
“Ons is verskrik dat enige van ons ‘die opposisie’ kan word.
“Dit is tyd dat ons die koms voorsien van ’n oomblik wanneer daar nie meer ’n enkele, oorweldigende, dominante politieke mag is soos wat nou die geval is nie.”

Ndebele het gesê: “Ek glo ons het dalk ’n oomblik bereik wat nie fundamenteel verskillend is nie van die ontnugterende, tóg hartversterkende nasiebourealiteite wat gelei het tot Kemptonpark in die vroeë jare negentig.”

“Die verskil tussen toe en nou is dat die swart meerderheid nie nou na wit landgenote oor die onderhandelingstafel kyk nie.

“Die swart meerderheid staar homself in die gesig: dalk werklik vir die eerste keer sedert 1994.”
Dit is weer “tyd vir visie”, het Ndebele gesê.

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