| In an interview with Louisa Ibhaze and Folake Sholola, historian Marc Epprecht discussed the evolving nature and forms of marriage in Africa. How would you define marriage? Since there are many different forms of marriage in Africa and around the world and these have changed over time, to define marriage in one form only would be misleading, oppressive and ultimately unhealthy for society. For me personally, therefore, marriage can come in almost any form as long as it involves mutual consent to be together or a union between people who consider themselves married. A formal ritual and family or community approval are not necessary as long as there's an understanding of the negotiated mutual consent of any person who wants to be together with another. In my view, there should also be a long or mid term commitment to provide enough time to develop mutual understanding and respect between partners beyond simple sexual desires. This makes it hard for me to accept the concept of "temporary marriage," although I acknowledge that many people consider such marriage to be different and better than other short-term sexual unions like prostitution. By this broad definition, anyone can marry whomever she or he pleases. For example, a man can marry another man and the same applies to women. Adults who have made their decision based on mutually agreed discussion without force or coercion can get married. This would exclude an adult marrying a child, although there are cultures that recognize and approve this arrangement particularly in Africa. In my view, which is supported by international conventions on the protection of children, child marriage is unfair and undesirable because one partner is at an extreme disadvantage due to age and lack of maturity. I would also note that marriage is a combination of many things and it is not solely based on sexual relations. A good marriage also recognizes that people change over time. After all, some people have satisfactory marriages without sex. Usually the abstinence period is not permanent, but could be related to short-term stress or ill-health. In other cases, abstinence can go on for a considerable period of time, for example, weaning a child from breast-feeding often takes several years. In such a case, the non-sexual aspects of marriage are critically important to the survival of the marriage. The generation of today is definitely challenging traditional understandings of marriage and sex. For example, it is apparent that some people (young and old) use the internet to indulge in cynical or shallow relationships. As far as I'm concerned, this is not a very promising way forward in the sense that it seems to make long-term and emotionally deep commitments hard to sustain. One result we see in North America is a big decline in heterosexual marriage and a sharp drop in the birth rate. There is also a lot of pornography that is based on, and exploits, gender and racial stereotypes. On the other end, the internet has encouraged people come out with their repressed sexuality, and it allows people to gain honest and accurate information about sexuality. A positive side to this is it can potentially empower young people, and girls in particular, to have some sort of control over their lives, unlike when they had to wait for boys to make the first move, or parents to decide for them. Other forms of Marriages? There is an incredible range of marriages, for example, woman to woman marriage, which is found in many African countries including Nigeria. In Lesotho there is the marriage to the grave which is a situation where a woman would marry a deceased person in order to maintain an alliance with the family. She would be made pregnant by another man but the fiction in this kind of union is that she was married to the dead man so that his inheritance will remain with the family. Another form of marriage I studied is the so-called mine marriage in Southern Africa. This was widely practiced by men who migrated to work in industrial areas. They would take younger men or boys as their wife. In addition to being a passive sex partner, these younger males carried out all the traditionally female activities in the home like fetching water, firewood, and cooking. The model of this type of marriage was not like the kind of gay marriage we see in some parts of the world but was typically that of traditional heterosexual marriages in rural Africa. In many cases the men took boy wives to protect themselves, and their female wives back home, from sexually transmitted infections they would likely catch if they went to female prostitutes in town. These days, gay marriages (between mutually consenting, adult partners) are legal in South Africa. They remain illegal in other African countries, although same-sex marriages are still practiced unofficially or secretively throughout the whole of the continent. There is also Polyandry where a woman takes several husbands unofficially, although this too is not accepted by any law in Africa. These two types of marriages, since they are not recognized by the laws, are usually a private vow of commitment to each other. Another very common relationship is where a man is formally married and has children but he has an informal sexual relationship with another man. His sexual relationship with his formal wife is to have children so he will conform to social expectations, whereas his actual desire is for his male partner. This type is surprisingly common. In many countries around the world homophobia prevents open homosexual relationships and so people hide their sexual orientation behind socially acceptable heterosexual forms. It may also be that the men do not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual but they sometimes have sex with men out of the feeling that there is less stress in such relationships than in sex with women (where the demands of reproduction and perhaps other social obligations come in). It is definitely also true that for women to have sex with women - or let's say very intimate erotic relationships - is less stressful than to have sex with men since there is no danger of unwanted pregnancy, and much less risk of sexually transmitted infection or gender based violence. Are there temporary marriages? Several cultures and religions justify "temporary marriage" including some interpretations of Islam. For me, however, commitment is a big part of marriage, which means sharing much more than sex or favours. Time is required time to learn about each other's emotional and wider social life. I wonder, if you are aware and planning that a union will end in a short while, could it really be considered a marriage or simply a convenience? Perhaps if the temporary marriage is intended to stabilize the "real" marriage, for example, during a long period of abstinence while the wife is breast-feeding, then it could be seen as something more significant than simply satisfying a short-term physical desire. It is a debate. In your opinion, has marriage or long term relationship changed over time? Yes it has in many ways, including in the sense that it used to be considered a formal requirement that there be a public acknowledgement of a marriage by the law and with the family. Nowadays it has been widely accepted that you can have a marriage without the outside recognition. The recognition can be between the partners involved only. Also there are other forms of marriage that have become less common today compared to the past due to the influence of outside ideologies. For example, the woman to woman marriage I mentioned used to be found in many African cultures but came to be regarded as primitive and unacceptable in light of Christian religion. Likewise, the Mine marriage (man to man) used to be acceptable and considered a normal thing to help men survive the long periods away from their proper families. It has faded away in part because of Christian teachings but also due to criticism from African nationalist politicians and trade unionists. This creates an ironic situation whereby, in the old African traditions same sex relationships existed and were tolerated if they were discreet and did not interfere with heterosexual marriage, but now modern African leaders denounce them as "un-African." Those who are defending African culture from the so called perversions of the west are often actually defending the colonial, Christian construction of what marriage should be and not really what the African tradition was when you go back in time. I should also stress that technology has made a huge impact on marriage. Most obviously, technology gives women today a lot more power to control their fertility and to terminate pregnancies than in the past. New technology also makes it harder to keep secrets. How do you view polyamorous relationships? I see them as commonplace but they usually take place in secret. I take it as a sign of improvement that people are beginning to actually talk about it. Openness and honesty have a lot more potential for avoiding exploitative and unhealthy relationships than secrets and dishonesty or denial. By this I mean, for a man or wife who desires this type of relationship it is only right for him or her to discuss and negotiate it with the partner and ensure that they are fully aware of the risks. So, if a woman knows her husband keeps a "small house" or is a "sugar daddy" to other women or girls, then she will know to protect herself from sexually transmitted infections the husband may introduce. Of course, talking honestly and openly about such things is extremely difficult. Most people probably judge the health risks are less scary than the emotional risks of balancing complex polyamorous relationships, and so they continue to keep secrets. Are there any African traditions where these types of relationships are accepted? Informally yes, there are. But people generally prefer not to speak about them openly in order to protect family privacy or reputations. Normally, African societies will have their official story and unofficially have a lot of flexibilities to accommodate different circumstances. For example, an impotent husband might allow his wife to be impregnated by another man or allow his wife or wives to have relationships when he is far away. These men would often be the husband's brothers, which is seen as better for the family than allowing the wife complete freedom to seek her own sexual satisfaction. A child born of such a union would bear the family resemblance so no one would need to say adultery has taken place or that the husband was impotent. What are the Health risks for people involved openly or secretly in such relationships? Secrets can protect family privacy and reputation. But there is the huge risk of Sexually Transmitted Disease, heart break, family break up, violence and in situations where there are children, it can be very detrimental to them as they might suffer emotionally. Reproduction and other reasons for marriage Reproduction is important for many reasons but marriage is not needed to reproduce. Children can and often are born out of wedlock. Likewise, while reproduction is often said to be the reason to get married, this is a cultural argument not founded on biology or even common practice. A lot of heterosexual sex acts in marriage do not result in reproduction. In fact, not all sexual behaviors even involve the genitals. For example, some people would say that a sensuous body rub that lasted for an hour is more sexually gratifying than a five minute, penis-focused round of intercourse. Thus you can say that a wide range of sexual behaviors happen not because of a desire for reproduction but because of the emotional fulfillment they bring. It is also important to recall that people get married for financial, political, or other reasons. What do you think is or should be the legal implication of terminating unregistered or informal unions? That depends on different jurisdictions, as this varies from place to place. In Canada there is a legal threshold where two people are considered to be married if they live together for two years. Such "common law" marriages are entitled to all the legal protection of any other kind of marriage recognized by the law. However, in other countries there is no protection if the partners are not legally married. The implication is that where one partner dies or changes their mind about the relationship the other one has no benefit or protections. He/she is often a victim of persecution by the family who may know about the marriage but disapprove and the person has no claims on the estate of the partner. He/she may also be victimized by the state, for example, deported from a country if they do not have the same citizenship as the partner. In short, they are extremely vulnerable. The law has to be changed to give the non-legal partner some legal standing so that he/she can defend themselves. What would you say are the rights implications of these relationships? Regardless of the form of marital relationships, people involved need to be protected, especially their human and civil rights. There should be protection against being thrown out, being abused, being infected by disease - a lot of this could be achieved through honest and frank education about sexuality. But there should also be the right to go to the police and to request child custody without being subjected to humiliation. There should be no discrimination against people who do not adhere to certain (heterosexual) marriage forms. Why should one form of marriage be protected and the others not? Of course people want to defend their culture but often they have an idealized picture of that culture, not the actual practice. Moreover, culture changes in Africa just like everywhere else in the world. The fact is that most African countries have, if not ratified, at least signed most of the international treaties that guarantee most of these rights. Those rights are stated quite clearly in the African Union, which also encourages freedom of speech and freedom of association. Thus there is, and it will only continue to grow, pressure from both African civil society and the international community to address issues of discrimination. Governments will eventually be compelled at one point or another to make certain changes in their laws. Ideally this will be in ways that balance cultural diversity and dignity with emerging ideas about sexual rights and sexual health. Marc Epprecht is a Historian at Queens University in Kingston Ontario Canada. Much of his research on the history of gender and sexuality has been based on South Africa, Lesotho and Zimbabwe, where he started. He now also works closely with pan-African sexual rights and sexual health networks in the struggle against HIV/AIDS.
Back
to main page | 
