This is a reflection from one of the #ArifWond (Cool Man) initiative  members following a discussion with the renowned Alemayehu Gelagay on “Representations of Femininity and Masculinities in Ethiopian Literature”

0-02-01-c433c212fa4620b63cc946c3414c89611e8c20e1ba7d190734423de1d91dce6e_full
Writer Alemayehu Gelagay

The other day we had a continuing debate on the power and limits of  culture on gender relations in Ethiopian society at #ArifWond  (literary means ‘cool guy’) – a bimonthly discussion forum where men  and women gather to explore conceptions of masculinities and their  implications for gender relations in the Ethiopian society. The debate was provoked by an informative presentation by a prominent Ethiopian writer and literary critic, Alemayehu Gelagay, on the historical representation of men and women in Ethiopian literature. The presentation and the heated debate that ensued made me recall two of the lessons about culture I took from my anthropology classes back in graduate school.

One concerns our tendency to think of culture as static and homogeneous phenomena. It is true that some conceptions related to  gender, and the practices that arise out of them, may be dominant in a society at a particular time. This does not, however, mean that there are no conceptions and practices in that society that deviate, in various degrees, from the dominant. In fact, deviant conceptions and behaviors eventually catalyze change in the established order if they  prove to have survival value in a society’s effort in coping with the broader social, political, economic and technological change. They themselves may even engender change in the broader environment.

The other anthropological lesson I recalled in the course of the debate  relate to our tendency to overrate or underrate the role of culture in  determining established gender conceptions and practices: on one hand, we should avoid a deterministic view of culture which makes us subservient to and paralyzes our will to act against the established gender conception and practices. On the other hand, we should appreciate the domesticating power of culture which makes many of us feel that established conceptions and practices as parts of nature. Recognizing  and trying to avoid these two extremes can, in my view, be empowering  in two ways:

  • It can enable us deploy our agency (willpower) to critically examine established conceptions and resist unjust practices on a daily basis; and
  • It can also help us be empathic with others who consciously or unconsciously hold onto those conceptions and practices
    as normal and lovingly help them overcome them.

After all, culture  needs to be at the service of humanity; at the individual level it should meet our innate need for identity and, at societal level, it should provide a framework for orderly relationships. However, humanity  (both men and women) should  not  be  crucified  for  its preservation  as the following excerpt from Bahá’í Writings implies:

If long-cherished ideals and time-honoured institutions, if certain  social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the  welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to  the needs of a continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away  and relegated to the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a world subject to the immutable law of change and  decay, be exempt from the deterioration that must overtake every human institution? For legal standards, political and economic  theories are solely designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as  a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the preservation of the  integrity of any particular law or doctrine.  

~~
Daniel Hailu is from Addis Ababa and a member of the #ArifWond circle.

No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.