Re: Nationalism is Always Gendered

["Mr P.A. Van Heusden" <pvanheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Michael Hoover wrote:

> any lister thoughts on views of Angela Davis and bell hooks, among
> others, that family can be context for experiencing dignity and self-
> worth in exploitative society, as it has been for blacks from
> enslavement to present...

The South African experience, in my view, reflects a variation on this.
The African peasantry which existed in South Africa was targetted with a
set of laws which simulataneously forced them to supply labour to the
white South African economy (the Hut Tax, the 1913 Land Act, etc.) and at
the same time denied African's right to live in the white economic
heartland (the pass laws in their various incarnations).

The result of this was that migration and physical dislocation became an
important part of common history. In these circumstances, family units
(and in particular extended family units) have often become islands of
stability. Family is often a way of getting accomodation in a strange
town, and is a method of accessing economic opportunities - both job
opportunities, and often loans. A number of friends of mine only managed
to go to university because their extended family acted as a network to
mobilise money for their studies. Of course, after these people graduated,
the family expects some reward.

To some extend township communities have played a similar role. Informal
networks of support have existed (and do still exist) amongst township
residents - often women. At times these networks have proved invaluable
for political mobilisation (such as a seemingly spontaneous mobilisation a
couple of years back, when a group of women in Khayelithsha, a large
township near Cape Town, gathered together to protest against evictions
because of non-payment of mortgages). In turn, there is an expectation
that members of the community will ensure that 'private' rewards, such as
education and employment, are of practical value to the community. This
expectation is again, in my experience, focussed more strongly on women.
In my experience, these community networks seem weaker than the family
networks.

There are a number of downsides to this history. The most important, as
far as I am concerned, is that this history is idealised, and becomes the
basis for an uncritical acceptance of a particular 'nature' of community
and family. In the South African political scene this has meant that
these structures - community in particular - are put forwarded as
seemingly homogenous political agents. Much political dicussion centres
around how 'disadvantaged communities' must enter the economic and
political mainstream (families are seldom explicitely mention - mainly, I
think, because family homogeneity is simply assumed). Different ways in
which people within these catagories encounter the world, and different
possibilities for solidarity (e.g. class solidarity) are not
acknowledged.

Thus my feeling is that Davis and hooks are probably right in pointing out
a different side to family, yet I feel that (based on my experience of the
South African situation) the reason family is seen as a site of strength
is because of a larger context of defeat.

Peter