“Sizakele and Salome should have been here.”
This was the slogan embalzened on the t-shirts on marchers at Soweto Pride last weekend. It adorned signs and banners at the parade yesterday, too.
I realize that I’ve been mum about my actual research agenda here, and there have been a number of reasons: First, it’s shifted a bit as I’ve made myself available to what I’m experiencing. Second, though six weeks away from home can feel like a very long time, six weeks in a new cultural context, in a new community of people, in a new place- well, it’s actually not much time at all. I am almost four weeks in and I feel very green, and I’m still working on getting the lay of the land.
I can say this - there is an epidemic of horrific violence against black lesbians in South Africa. On July 7th, 2007, two lesbian women were raped and murdered in Soweto. A few weeks later, a 19 year-old lesbian was killed in KwaZulu Natal. Recent statistics from some community-based research show that astronomical levels of homophobia are experienced by LGBT people here, but black lesbians, in particular, are increasingly the targets of gruesome, often sexualized, violence and harassment (often from members of their own families and communities). Pride photos from yesterday show signs for the 07-07-07 Campaign- a coalition of activists and organizations here working to end this rampant homophobic violence.
I’ve been working in and among many of these activists during my time here, and I’m bearing witness to incredible spirit in the midst of daunting obstacles. South Africa has a deeply ingrained culture of patriarchal violence, in general- and a big, big crime problem. As we know from many examples from all over the globe, there is often a rise in crime and violence that accompanies the aftermath of democratic transitions- but the deeply gendered nature of what’s going on here feels, to me, particular to this time and place. Many people here fear violence, carry that fear with them daily- but the burden that rests on black lesbians, and in particular, masculine women, is deep and heavy.
This story seems to have galvanized people across the globe. Do a Google search for “Sizakele and Salome” and you’ll find articles and blog posts from the US, Europe, the UK, Africa, Asia… Marches and demonstrations have happened in many cities. People are touched. I find myself also deeply affected by it, even as I stand in solidarity and in wait for my return to a place where I feel mostly safe on the street. And, it goes to the heart of so much of what I do in my life and my work- which is to think about the ways in which our ideas of gender matter, what happens when we deviate from those norms what are the prices that we pay, emotionally, bodily, materially.
Anyway, for those who are interested, there is much to be found on the web about the campaign, including info on some of the more than 20 organizations joining together in protest of the police inaction on their behalf. Read up on it- I imaigne you'll be moved, too.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Marx on Cell Phones?
First, an explanation why I’m not sharing details about my research itself: I’ve really only just begun, and it's hard to see any forest beyond the trees right now. But more than that, the research I’ve done so far has been pretty intense for me- both because of its content and because of the inevitable insecurities that accompany a first trip into “the field.” I’m not sure I really want to broadcast any of that at this point- though for those who are interested to receive a few small details privately, email me. Suffice it to say that the richness of my experience thus far proves difficult to articulate, even in my own reflective writing.
So, I’ll divert back to sharing the interesting tidbits of consumer culture here. First, absolutely everyone has a cell phone here. EVERYONE. Many people without much money buy very (by US standards) inexpensive phones (a baseline model can cost as little as $20.) The two main cell brands have pay-as-you-go plans, where if you have any money on your phone at all, incoming calls are free and sms messages (texts) cost very little if anything. So, not only are cell phones ubiquitous, but the culture around them is extremely permissive. First of all, it is typical for someone to either pick up their cell or answer an sms in the middle of dinner, an interview, a serious conversation, walking down the street- anytime. And I’ve had more than one person display annoyance when I wasn’t immediately available for consultation. (I am actually deeply ambivalent about cell phones and often ignore mine if I’m not anticipating a call.)
Shortly before coming here, I was reading an interesting series of online postings by friends who, for political reasons, have refused to purchase cell phones. It’s a pretty compelling Marxist argument- that the privatization of communication technology basically creates a situation where it becomes compulsory to own a cell phone. (For example, if all your friends ditch their land lines and you’re traveling and staying with them, nobody can reach you; if cities stop tending to public phones, that creates security risks for folks without their own phones.) My friend Dean has argued persuasively about how poor people really shoulder the burden of this new “need.” (For an old-ish version of his ideas about cellies, check this out.)
So, I’m trying to work through how/if South Africa fits into this model. I feel like one could argue it either way: We might say that the Marxist analysis maps neatly onto Africa- or anywhere for that matter. I suppose another way to look at it, however, is that now, in places with little or no electrical infrastructure, people can now communicate. And whatever deal the phone companies cut with Motorola produced inexpensive and widely available technology (expense, of course, always being relative to what one has). Some take this idea to the extreme and argue that cell phone technology actually itself helps people by creating new economic opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. (See, for example, this article. I'm not sure I'm buying that, though.) What do you all think???
In the meantime, it hasn’t escaped me that the place where I’m staying has two land lines- one in the “landlord’s” house and one in the “cottage” I’m renting- and neither works well. (They both ring intermittently throughout the day and night, if they’re plugged in.) Apparently, the phone company needs to come replace much of the neighborhood wiring- but shockingly, they’re not doing it. Connection?
So, I’ll divert back to sharing the interesting tidbits of consumer culture here. First, absolutely everyone has a cell phone here. EVERYONE. Many people without much money buy very (by US standards) inexpensive phones (a baseline model can cost as little as $20.) The two main cell brands have pay-as-you-go plans, where if you have any money on your phone at all, incoming calls are free and sms messages (texts) cost very little if anything. So, not only are cell phones ubiquitous, but the culture around them is extremely permissive. First of all, it is typical for someone to either pick up their cell or answer an sms in the middle of dinner, an interview, a serious conversation, walking down the street- anytime. And I’ve had more than one person display annoyance when I wasn’t immediately available for consultation. (I am actually deeply ambivalent about cell phones and often ignore mine if I’m not anticipating a call.)
Shortly before coming here, I was reading an interesting series of online postings by friends who, for political reasons, have refused to purchase cell phones. It’s a pretty compelling Marxist argument- that the privatization of communication technology basically creates a situation where it becomes compulsory to own a cell phone. (For example, if all your friends ditch their land lines and you’re traveling and staying with them, nobody can reach you; if cities stop tending to public phones, that creates security risks for folks without their own phones.) My friend Dean has argued persuasively about how poor people really shoulder the burden of this new “need.” (For an old-ish version of his ideas about cellies, check this out.)
So, I’m trying to work through how/if South Africa fits into this model. I feel like one could argue it either way: We might say that the Marxist analysis maps neatly onto Africa- or anywhere for that matter. I suppose another way to look at it, however, is that now, in places with little or no electrical infrastructure, people can now communicate. And whatever deal the phone companies cut with Motorola produced inexpensive and widely available technology (expense, of course, always being relative to what one has). Some take this idea to the extreme and argue that cell phone technology actually itself helps people by creating new economic opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. (See, for example, this article. I'm not sure I'm buying that, though.) What do you all think???
In the meantime, it hasn’t escaped me that the place where I’m staying has two land lines- one in the “landlord’s” house and one in the “cottage” I’m renting- and neither works well. (They both ring intermittently throughout the day and night, if they’re plugged in.) Apparently, the phone company needs to come replace much of the neighborhood wiring- but shockingly, they’re not doing it. Connection?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)