Nödvändigheten av att integrera olika maktförståelser

Abstract

In this article Frida Nilsson argues that feminist intersectional studies need to clarify different theoretical understandings of power. Empirical examples from her research in South Africa are used to exemplify the need to integrate cultural and structural understandings of power. Nilsson has interviewed ANC-women politicians about their views on lobola/bridewealth, which is a politically controversial institution widely supported both amongthe politicians interviewed and amongthe African population in general. In pre-colonial societies lobola was constituted by gifts of cattle from the husband's family to the wife's in marriage. The institution was central to the whole organisation of society and regulated, not only the relationship between husband and wife but also that of families and lineages in an intricate web of relations. The institution has undergone fundamental changes with capitalism, missionary activities and apartheid. The "extended family" does not have the same position as before in relation to the wedded couple and money is often used as means of payment. The new forms of lobola is often spöken of as a payment fora woman.The women interviewed describes this objectification of women into goods as the form of lobola which is oppressive but which is also described as a misuse of lobola by men. They make a clear distinction between this form of lobola and "good lobola" which is described as positive tie between families. The clear distinction between good and bad lobola is followed by other discursive distinctions which are interpreted as a discursive strategy to legitimise lobola but which is also coupled with an individualisation and de-politiciation of the institution - the discursive strategy makes "good lobola" seem like a choice every woman is free to make individually irrespective of structures of gender-related power. Women who are negative to lobola in their personal lives and regard it as oppressive to women, also use the mentioned legitimising discourses on lobola in a general discussion of the institution. Nilsson interprets the discursive strategy as a discourse on African identity in the face of colonial discourses on lobola. Furthermore, the same legitimising discourse on lobola may be interpreted as a discursive strategy, which attempts to create a space for action in relation to racist and patriarchal structures.