Bontle Ba Monna: The Beauty of a Man

(To my brother, the son of my mother's brother)

(I really did not want to caption this, its just provocative lol)

Recently i was confronted with a saying which  our fathers probably received from their fathers. A saying which speaks to the preconditions of the coming together of two (or more) people. The origin of this saying pre exists us and probably holds more water to those who lived in times way before us than it does today. Notwithstanding, my dear brother, i would be fairly ignorant if i would try and suggest that it holds no sway over us today. We live in developing times. By saying "developing" i speak of a passage of change where in shaping our future we find ourselves having to break away with our past as well. In determining what to keep from our past, do we not therefore have to learn from our experiences? In determining what to break away from our past, do we not have to learn from those who went before us? 

There is a saying we were taught growing up- how 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. What a liberating truth wouldn't you say? I would imagine the rationale behind it is that you need not be apologetic over who you deem to be worthy of your affection. The autonomy of choice is bestowed unto a person with that saying. Do you not see how it presupposes that the factors which dictate why a person would want to be with another person are almost inexplicable? How you as a beholder need not account to anyone concerning your choice of infatuation. Does this mean that there are no reasonable or noticeable factors which a third party could infer or try and insinuate as to what propels you to who you are drawn to? On the contrary, perhaps they may be quite explicit and one may try and even suggest that they are 'obvious'. However, the beauty you see, as the beholder, will remain sacred and forever sealed in your perspective. No matter how much you may try and articulate the cause of your affection and what you as a beholder are beholding- we may truly only come close to what your seeing- you will remain the only one witnessing this beauty. The saying gives you as a beholder carte blanche exclusivity to the beauty you are drawn to.  In its uniqueness, no one is entitled to share in the sight you are seeing. It is because of that, you are well justified in not giving reason when asked as to what exactly motivates your love for another.

Love is irrational- and so, would it not result that we are justified when we make "irrational choices"? Did not the same englishmen tell us that 'love is blind'? Ponder with me.

A conflict arose when i found myself eavesdropping whispers from the elders. An interesting narrative I might add, my brother, I will to do well and grant you the context too. This may not be new to you (as I have mentioned earlier, these saying still hold sway over us). In a conversation concerning expectations she has from a man, she added and said: "Bontle ba monna bo bonagala mo potleng" (loosely translated: the beauty of a man is seen in his pockets). I think it is worth pointing out the contrast against what i mentioned above. Firstly, there is a shift in the yardstick from a subjective to a objective one. The test for beauty is now measured by the wealth of a man. This is to say that the thicker his pocket is, the more aesthetically pleasing the man is. By implication, in this context, what ought to motivate women in choosing or accepting a partner should be the according to the purchasing power the man wields. This is a traditional viewpoint my brother, well encapsulated in the African narrative we are exposed to before we spoke of other narratives: "Ubuhle bendoda iz'nkomo zayo" (loosely translated: the beauty of a man is in his cows). The ability to express financial prowess is said to give you privy to your choicest woman it seems. The effects of the narrative explains the objectification of woman in times past. Man works hard to add to his beauty to accumulate the wealth so he can draw unto himself his choice partner. The objectification in that the unequal balance between you and your partner will be that as seen between an owner and his possession. The narrative puts forth an unequal footing at the point of departure between man and woman. While she is born with her beauty and is to be desired for her natural and intrinsic qualities- she is placed on the shelf of society available to the highest bidder (relatively speaking). You as a man needing to access her companionship, cannot rely on your own natural and intrinsic qualities as a basis for beauty, no, you need to make wealth in order to find aesthetic value in her eyes. 

You are practical, self driven and i would not want to suggest that circumstances do not play a role in finding companionship. It is relative, sentiments will differ from person to person. I am however concerned when the criteria suggests that all that you are worth to your significant other is a safe financial net and the added benefits that comes with it. I feel you would be robbed, as some of our fathers were, of true priceless soul searching experiences i believe companionship is about. I am concerned over a narrative that suggests poor people have no beauty- as if the soul of a man loses complexion because his wallet is not thick enough. What then will become of our relationships, when the justification for treating women as property lies on the tip of the tongue of those who embrace the idiom as a cornerstone of intimacy?  I worry, that it will overwhelm and overtake us...that a certain complex will ensue when we relate with other natural beings who are only different because their reproductive organs are not as external as ours. The narrative which sought to show appreciation for the pricelessness of women ended up placing strain on the man and justified dehumanizing behaviour to the "purchased woman". 

Sometimes it really just seems idioms are for idiots. I have left many things unargued, i trust you will read what i have not written. The aim is to challenge the concept, looking at its consequences (sometimes really unintended). Do we not know better? 

Ponder with me.

I do not suggest you do not embrace wealth in your life. I do not suggest you do not use it to add value in pursuit of intimate happiness. I do however implore that you do not find yourself victim to the subtle nuances that may try settling into your subconscious suggesting that whoever will find herself dependent on you, is inferior because of your capital power. She will be priceless, as you are. May you not make her feel inadequate and vice versa if the roles were changed. Your values are priceless, so don't sell out on them as well. For wherever you decide beauty lies, in sight or pocket, both are subject to change. 

Certainly, you will do well to remember the yardstick of the Eternal One, how the value of a man's soul is what was deemed worthy of all creation.

The Revolution is not for SALE

The Revolution is not for SALE
ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall.

What informs this body of work is in the wake of an unprecedented success of a movement that was able to galvanize students politically affiliated and those that are not to a common cause and such a project was specifically #TuksFeesMustFall a resultant concept or trend if you may, from the broader national movement #FeesMustFall. Such a movement’s name is #UPrising, a lot is in a name especially when you conceive of the student body at the University of Pretoria affectionately referred to as Tuks. From the ashes that happened to be the fragments that held students back in terms of a convergence of voices was the reality we had been confronted with and like a phoenix UP rose from this grey area. From race, political affiliation, class and gender is but a few of the spoken of fragments. Although what the movement managed to achieve is history in the making given the institutional space in which their exploits unfolded, criticisms are present in light of the manifestations of the week that has passed. These criticisms are not afforded to discourage, but they are put forth in order for meaningful engagement and the aversion of elementary errors that have the potential to derail the movement or the worst case scenario put its members in danger were manifest especially on/from the 22nd of the month of October. The theories of social movements and resource mobilization will inform the argumentative edifice and criticisms to follow.

Resource Mobilization is a major sociological theory in the study of social movements. This emerged in the 70s but has been in existence since the days of the father of mobilization that asked a very elaborative and infamous question ‘what is to be done?’ Vladimir Lenin. Resource mobilization stresses the ability of a movement’s members to (1) acquire resources and to (2) mobilize people towards accomplishing the movement’s goals. This is contrary to the traditional theory of collective behavior that views social movements are deviant and irrational. Conversely, resource mobilization sees them as rational social institutions that are key actors in the terrain of contentious politics. According to resource mobilization theory, at the core a social movement organization works towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure. The last two factors namely, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure are pivotal to any social movement. Had #UPrising elected to act outside alliances with the respective political organizations on the campus there would be no need to refine organizational structure. But the movement chose to go into an alliance, thus it was obligatory that power and influence to be shared, as to avoid a concentration of power to one group. The differences might have been caucused in private but their ramifications were evident to a tuned eye coupled with intellect. Put simply, working towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media does not warrant ownership of the revolution. Social movements and student movements’ alike need all of the above resources to be effective, as deviance and grievances alone do not bring about social change.

This theory is one that assumes that individuals are rational, (not always, as a tendency of being affective is also a strong possibility) individuals weigh the costs and benefits of movement participation and act only if benefits outweigh costs and this does not however exempt the so-called funders that decide to find a cause. To what ends do the means of funding a revolution entail? What is to be done that student movements do not fall prey to capital tendencies? What conditions and terms did the movement give to the funders? Or does there lay a possibility that the funder dictates to the movement because of the resource in question? These questions are informed by the dynamics of capital’s capability to reconfigure itself and be embedded in social relations. Our funders are capitalists we should at least agree. In the contemporary configuration of capitalism the exchange is no longer one that subscribes to a cash exchange alone. This needs to be looked at by movements as to avoid co-option to capitalist interests in how they go about reaching their goals.

Student movements are goal-oriented, but organization is more important than resources. Organization means the interactions and relations between social movement organizations. In the Tuks context the power dynamic that saw the concentration of power fall to one party and subsequent allegations of sabotage by others are as a result of the reluctance to share power and ideas. Again, it is not only about power but an acknowledgement that parties to the alliance need to take into cognizance that as individual entities they possess both capabilities and limits. A case in point here is that time and again political organizations in the University of Pretoria have attempted to mobilize students but their efforts are often thwarted by the directive that in mobilizing students the end-goal is to align them to a political ideology, to form part of a constituency. What UPrising managed to achieve is to mobilize students inter-sectionally, this mobilization cut-across race, gender, political affiliation, different societal class positions, students-staff dynamic and levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate). But what this movement lacked was the strategic acumen that is deployed in contentious politics, a terrain that political societies relish and are flamboyant in enganging. This highlights the gaps in limits and capabilities in all parties concerned, a call that warrants complementary convergence of the two. Efficiency of the organizational infrastructure is a key resource in itself.

Resource mobilization theory can be divided into two camps. McCarthy and Zald are the originators and major advocates of the classical entrepreneurial (economic) version of the theory while Tilly and McAdam are proponents of the political version of resource mobilization. The former argues that grievances are not sufficient to explain creation of social movements. Instead access to and control over resources is the crucial factor. The grand law of economics supply and demand seems to give a thorough explanation of the ebb flow of resources to and from the movements, and that individual actions (or lack thereof) is accounted for by rational choice theory. This should not however operate in isolation of the latter; the political model focuses on the political struggle instead of economic factors. This division also implies the organic complementary pairing of the two.


What unfolded on the 22nd of October 2015 was rather unfortunate, but we should appreciate it nonetheless as lessons were drawn from it. From #OccupyBurnett to a possible takeover by unknown agents a phenomenon that could have been averted had there been a synergy from all alliance partners. Suspicion among the alliance partners became pronounced and the ends of people’s fingers aimed at their counterparts. It is imperative that I flag the existence of a contemporary capitalist class that thrives when groups they are part of are fragmented. Student movements need to stay vigilant and be on the look-out of capitalistic agendas that may potentially derail the movement and dispirit the masses. We need to take ownership as students of our student movements and let whatever alumni participate only on an advisory capacity. In owning such a movement let us seek our own financial backing and refrain from accepting funds from funders that are willful in such a way that they want a seat at the table.

We have to concede that the power dynamics that unfolded because of a preoccupation with platforms and a concentration of power by one group against the others was a gamble with the safety and lives of students as collateral. However, this was an operational exercise an equivalent of building a car as we simultaneously drive it. We have gone the distance and we have learnt. By ‘we’ I mean the entire student body of the University of Pretoria. The fees have indeed fallen, but they are not flat on the ground as I’m of the belief that they are on their knees. Them falling will be the day we realize free quality education in our lifetime. This was just a small victory of a long gruesome war against the dominant mode of production which is the capitalistic logic. We still need to surmount battles such as transformation and academic exclusions in our institutions amongst others. Reflection upon this victory is necessary and this is by no means a rule book on what is to be done when a movement is in motion. Rather these are pointers on what we duly need to consider as a movement in concert with other movements. We were strategically outplayed however by university management; in that the suspension of academic activities that subsequently meant that support services had to be halted meant that we were thwarted an opportunity to mobilize cleaners in our broader struggle. What I mean by this I have written and articulated in another paper of which I will make available.
The words of a student leader by the name Junior Ackotia hit home when he said to a group of students ‘no-one has ownership of the revolution, because should this be the case, then we have a problem on our hands’.

We have come, we have seen and given the goal we set to achieve we have definitely conquered. But we could do much better if we reiterate this: #ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall. The Revolution is not for SALE! To non-political affiliated groups realize your limits in the terrain of contentious politics and to student political organizations in the terrain of intersectional struggles and mobilization realize your limits and may both converge as we continue to make history in our lifetime.

Amandla!!!

By Tebogo Winston Mogoru

Commercialised Christ: a view from the pew

It suffices me to write this as I am so overwhelmed by the contemplations I have been having over the years. I write out of conviction and a priceless experience of belonging to a community which will forever keep growing even beyond this age. I write to stimulate dialogue and as one who is concerned about those I have identified with. I write for my sanity- try to not go insane as you read this.

The point of departure I use to test the veracity of whether a socially engineered phenomenon is plausible is one of purpose. Purpose as a yardstick seems to withstand the test of time even if we can trace a matter to ages before we came into existence. It is purpose which also seems to precede most of the changes allowed and accepted in a given community. It is because of the ever changing nature of social engagements that one needs to adapt without compromising an entrenched identity- purpose is the prime facilitator of change without compromise. If the car moves from point A to B, it is fulfilling its primary purpose. If a phone makes and receives calls, it is fulfilling its primary purpose. We can truly improve and add secondary and more enhanced features and attributes to cars and cellphones- yet what good are those when cars no longer transport and phones no longer communicate? Will we not seek to address the thing by seeking aid to reinstate its primary purpose?

Socially, religion has been seen as the beacon of morality. The prescriptive power of religion is one used by patients themselves. Religion is seen as an antidote to the root of all social evils i.e., the human condition. It is a generally accepted fact that all faith based institutions aim to alleviate social evils. The whole concept of sanctity dispels anything which falls short of goodness and perfection. Religious institutions are the vanguards of the sacred codes of moral living- whether they are relative or not, whether they are legally recognized or not. It is hard to find a faith based institution explicitly condoning adultery despite the lack of legal sanctions against it. Despite the tacit acceptance of some institutions on matters concerning sexual orientation- the debate still remains a robust and sensitive one. Whenever morality, ethics and justice is concerned- the purpose of faith based institutions is brought to the light. This is not to limit the role of religious institutions as those who have a monopoly on what is socially acceptable or not, but rather to highlight that their primary purpose has and always will be to remedy the human condition and its levels of manifestation.
I will always be concerned with the Christianity around me. I will concern myself with it for it has concerned itself with me. It has concerned itself with the lives of many and in its path, it has not skipped mine. It appealed to me effortlessly as access to a faith based institution had little to no administration. No registration fee was asked of me neither was I compelled to buy any books save one which was sometimes given out freely (I am referring to the bible). The only degree Christianity was offering me was one in life and all it took was one confession to enroll in this university. Religion found purpose in my life as it transcended the constraints I systematically inherited: constraints of poverty and uncertainty. At a time where a family i was a son and a brother in fell apart- it gave me a place of belonging. Indeed, that which we have seen, that which we have heard and that which we have held, I write about. When a faith based institution fulfills its primary purpose, a social engineering of moral significance takes preeminence. One can only imagine how many other thousands of people find experiential profundity in Christianity, no wonder why so many denominations exists- unity is not uniformity! I feel these things are worth mentioning. I feel it would be highly erroneous of me to judge a belief or a school of thought based on the way it is abused. Christianity in its essence aims to do well and bring out every ounce of virtue lying deep within humanity.

It is really futile to raise an antithesis against faith based communities in hope that they are done away with. The waves of secularism and humanism have long failed in rendering these religions irrelevant. The plethora of literature on the need to fight patriarchy fails in challenging patriarchal institutions which have their foundations upon the blood of men of old. Indeed, all pragmatism ever achieved against these institutions is contributing the saying that ‘God helps those who help themselves’. No adequate substitute exists on a level which remains relevant to the masses in governing lives, families and even countries in certain instances. I say this with much conviction, as no textbook has been able to refute the authenticity of many personal experiences I have had because of religious influence- it is almost taboo to try and disprove the existence of God to many people. For such reasons I find it impossible to detach myself from the Christian community I have been influenced by- despite having reservations of my own.

From where I am sitting commercializing faith based products has become a lucrative venture derailing the primary purpose of a faith based community. I do find myself fit to judge on this matter for I write as one who forms part of the laity. I speak as one who forms part of the target market. I speak as one who forms part of the poor- the group being exploited here. As the poor we have filled the pews and have been the recipients of many monologues given in the name of Jesus. We have been taken ransom a times solely because we have sought to answer a call to an upward life of greater moral standards (and sometimes supernatural exploits). There has been a pressure unprecedented that has us wondering whether we are economically equipped to afford the ‘move of God’ in our lives. We the poor fill the pews and are called faithless whenever we second guess parting with our peanuts when a ‘special offering’ is raised. We the poor are troubled in purchasing the books, CDS and other miscellaneous products. We are systematically unable to afford goods of spiritual growth and so we sit wondering whether they were indeed produced for our equipping. We the poor still struggle with inequality as citizens of the state, why is the same inequality brought into faith based institutions? How far have efforts to alleviate poverty within communities gone- how effective is my Christianity in this regard? Where is the morality in my poverty not being practically addressed but rather over looked?

When faith based institutions adopt a culture of flamboyance and affluence, a distorted image is sent forth to those looking from the outside. When the yardstick of ‘Sunday best’ is one of a ‘corporate image’- capitalism is exposed as the root cause of such trends. From where I am sitting, I cannot help but empathize; for the view from the pew strongly suggests to me that the clergy themselves are also victims of a ‘dog eat dog’ world.

What do you see?