-
10 - 'Boys': Performing manhood in Zimbabwean drama
- Weaver Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
10 ‘Boys’: Performing manhood in Zimbabwean drama PRAISE ZENENGA This chapter examines the supremacy of masculine power and authority in Zimbabwean drama. I argue that masculinity, like imperialism, is a phallocentric , supremacist ideology that subjugates and dominates its subalterns (both male and female). Although the terms masculinity and manhood are not synonymous, their meanings are closely related in so far as they refer to ‘the assemblage of qualities regarded as characteristic of men; maleness, manliness’ (Oxford English Dictionary [OED] online). Within the Zimbabwean context, masculinity like manhood is also a social construction and it means different things at different times to different people (Kimmel, 2006: 5). As such, I will use masculinity and manhood interchangeably because my analysis adopts a wide range of meanings for both terms. In this chapter, the meanings of masculinity and manhood are not only limited to men’s social duties, values and collective qualities perceived as pre-eminently belonging to or characterising a man but are also broadened to include the manifestation of an inner essence related to being a man rather than a woman, being an adult male as opposed to a child (OED). According to Connell’s observation, both terms do not exist except in contrast to femininity or womanhood (Connell, 1995: 68). Manhood and masculinity are ‘defined by the drive for power, for domination , [and] control’ (Kimmel, 2006: 6). Similarly, power, authority, rank and action are central in defining other terms like subaltern and hegemony which are also central terms in my analysis. The concept of hegemony deriving from Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci’s analysis of class relations refers to the cultural dynamic by which a group claims and sustains a leading position and supremacy over others in social life. Zimbabwean history shows that ‘at any given time, one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted’ (Connell, 1995: 68). The similarities and differences between the Rhodie man and the new Zimbabwean man are worth exploring . Although both possess macho qualities described above, there are certain socio-cultural and economic factors that shape their manliness.1 Constitutional and Christian values do not allow the Rhodie man to be polygamous while the new Zimbabwean evokes cultural arguments to 127 marry many wives. However certain cultural norms, values, taboos and intricate extended family networks still govern the ways in which new Zimbabwean men treat and relate to women. For example, it is a serious taboo to beat or insult one’s own mother. Certain Shona rituals and ceremonies also allow women to perform male roles or duties and vice versa thus challenging the rigidity of male-female binaries. In the context of my discussion, hegemonic masculinities refer to the ways in which men attain and maintain dominance (supremacy) (Gramsci, 1996: 57) over other gender categories. On the other hand, Spivak’s (1988) article, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ and the rise of post-colonial studies sparked renewed interest in the term subaltern. While Spivak frames the subaltern as female (Spivak, 1988: 308), my analysis treats it as an inclusive term which refers to inferior or subordinate gender categories. While contending that both male and female identities are not only biological but also historical and social constructions (Connell, 2000: 29), I am primarily interested in exploring parallels between sexual and political oppression and their impact on identity formation as reflected in the two plays I have chosen to analyse. The notion of dominant masculinities implies the existence of subaltern femininities. Since theatre as a literary genre thrives mostly on conflict, these polarised gender categories provide a perennial source of drama for Zimbabwean playwrights. As such, the performance of masculine hegemony becomes the central focus in my analysis of Gonzo H. Msengezi’s The Honourable MP (1984) and Tsitsi Dangarembga’s She No Longer Weeps (1987). The central question I explore in these two plays is: What does it mean to be a man at a particular period in post-independence Zimbabwe? Kimmel contends that the answer to this question ‘depends heavily on one’s class, race, ethnicity, age, [and] sexuality ’ (Kimmel, 2006: 5). Theatre is an ideal site for unmasking Zimbabwean masculinities in a localised context. Two of the country’s popular theatre companies Amakhosi Theatre and Rooftop Promotions serve as examples of how the male body is culturally inscribed within discourses of masculinities (Louie, 2002: 7). The fact that both theatre companies have male proprietors reflects traditional patriarchal attitudes towards women. Zimbabwean society still frowns upon women who work in or with theatre. Chitauro...