Social Dynamics

A journal of African studies

ISSN: 0253-3952 (Print) 1940-7874 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsdy20

Towards African-centred theories of masculinity

Sakhumzi Mfecane

To cite this article: Sakhumzi Mfecane (2018): Towards African-centred theories of masculinity,
Social Dynamics, DOI: 10.1080/02533952.2018.1481683

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2018.1481683

Published online: 24 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsdy20
SOCIAL DYNAMICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2018.1481683

Towards African-centred theories of masculinity

Sakhumzi Mfecane
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Research on men and masculinities in South Africa, and the related Masculinity; African
intervention programmes, depends largely on theories of gender personhood; gender theory;
developed in the Global North. Such theories define masculinity as Global South; masculine
socially constructed and accomplished relationally in social action. transformation
Masculinity does not have an “inner essence.” This article argues
that Northern gender theories offer inadequate accounts of
African masculinities because of their being embedded in western
epistemologies. In order to account fully for the complex lives of
African men, scholars need to develop theories of masculinity
based on African conceptions of reality. Such theories should
treat masculinity as both socially constructed and as being influ-
enced by unseen elements of personhood, as encapsulated in
traditional African thoughts. To illustrate these ideas, the author
uses anthropological and philosophical literature on African con-
cepts of personhood, together with examples taken from personal
experiences and observations.

Introduction
In this article, I explore some ways of theorising masculinity based on popular African
concepts of personhood, and the implications of this for research and intervention
programmes on masculine transformation in South Africa. The problem that provoked
my thoughts on this topic is that while there has been growth of research and inter-
vention programmes on African masculinities in the past decade, they are based largely
on theories of gender developed in the Global North (see, for example, Morrell 2001;
Morrell et al. 2013; Shefer et al. 2007). Such theories do not only define what mascu-
linity is (Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985; Connell 1995), they also serve as frameworks
for designing intervention programmes with men (Dworkin, Flemming, and Colvin
2015). These programmes, which focus largely on working-class black South African
men, have been described as underperforming due to the limited impact they have in
transforming hegemonic gender norms at societal levels (Ratele 2014). This has led to
suggestions for expanding their theoretical scope in order to improve their effectiveness
(Dworkin, Flemming, and Colvin 2015; Jewkes, Flood, and Lang 2015; Ratele 2015).
This article argues that the reliance of South African masculinity research and
interventions on Northern gender theories, particularly the feminist social construction
paradigm (Shefer et al. 2007, 3), contribute significantly to their underperformance.

CONTACT Sakhumzi Mfecane smfecane@hotmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. MFECANE

This happens because such theories offer narrow definitions of masculinity, which are
unable to fully account for the complex life experiences of African men. Masculinity is
defined as a having no “inner essence,” meaning it does not exist as a reality inside
human bodies (Kimmel 1994, 121). To be a man is to undertake particular set of
practices in given social settings, which position a person as a man (Schrock and
Schwalbe 2009). These may include among others, paid labour, consumption patterns,
dress codes, independence, sexuality, health, and sport (Nye 2005; Herek 1987;
Courtenay 2000; Woodward 2001; Connell 1995).
These definitions of masculinity have gained global acceptance and application, but they
fail to account for what it means to be a person in most African settings. As various scholars
have noted, personhood in most African settings is believed to have an essence and not just
a product of social constructions and performances (Dzobo 1992; Lienhardt 1985; La
Fontaine 1985; Karp 1980). Essence in this case of African cosmology does not just refer
to “inner processes of the body” as argued by some feminist biologists (Birke 1989, 2596). It
is also different from the concept of “self”/“selfhood” which is normally deployed by
western liberal scholars in agency and structure debate (Burridge 1979; 18; Archer 2006;
2; Blumer 1962; 79). It is used here to capture the popular understandings that human
beings are by nature “composite creatures;” they are “composed of material and immaterial
component” (La Fontaine 1985, 126). Therefore, the concrete human body on its own, and
what it “does” socially, does not define a person fully as humans possess other unseen
elements which can have a greater influence on their behaviour and character (Gottlieb
1998; Niehaus 2002). These conceptions of personhood – which will be discussed more in
the later sections of this article – invite us to theorise masculinities beyond the notion of
everyday performances and displays (Schrock and Schwalbe 2009). Theories must also
account for the role that the unseen elements of personhood play in shaping the kinds of
human beings that men become.
To substantiate this argument, I draw examples from extensive anthropological and
philosophical literature on African concepts of personhood, coupled with my personal
observations of social life as it happens in social circles that I inhabit as an African man.
These include, among others, the media, organised social gatherings (for example,
social rituals), and informal conversations. I do not enter such circles with the intention
of soliciting research data; however, I found them to offer rich understandings of
gender that go beyond the established theoretical frameworks. Just listening to public
debates about societal problems or participating in certain cultural activities myself
always brings out ideas that are relevant to my research topic (Mfecane 2016). In these
settings, ordinary people speak freely about their life experiences and sometimes share
deep personal stories. Participants often use popular understanding of reality
(Nyamnjoh 2017) to explain the origins of societal problems, like gender-based vio-
lence, rape, crime, and indiscipline.
Thus, in explaining why a 69-year-old man from the Eastern Cape Province brutally
murdered his wife “when she did not serve him chicken livers for supper” (Tandwa
2016), some callers of a popular Xhosa radio station in South Africa, Umhlobo Wenene
argued that: “he was bewitched” (bamloyile); “Ungenwe nje ngu moya omdaka” (his soul
was invaded by an evil spirit). These popular explanations of violence against women
and other social ills circulate frequently in most social spaces that I inhabit. They take
us beyond the established gender frameworks which normally explain violence against
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 3

women as a pure matter of masculine domination (Moffet 2007). South African

masculinity research will progress significantly if it pays close attention to these popular
understandings of reality that form the core basis of social life in African settings. They
can be used as foundations for formulating African-centred theories of masculinity and
the related intervention programmes (Mfecane 2016).
My ideas will be outlined in three steps. First, I will examine some philosophical
premises of masculinity theories developed in the Global North to illustrate their being
grounded in western epistemologies.1 This discussion is critical in that it surfaces the
notion that theories are not neutral tools for undertaking research (Arowosegbe 2016,
325). Rather, they are underpinned by specific politics and certain philosophical ideas
about the nature of social reality which are widely shared in their place of origin. This
requires them to be carefully assessed before they are used elsewhere as research and
intervention tools. This will be followed by a discussion of some African concepts of
personhood. Later, I will propose some ways of incorporating these concepts into
masculinity theories and intervention programmes in South Africa. I will conclude
with brief summary of the main arguments of this article and further critical remarks
on gender theory.

Contemporary masculinity theory

Masculinity, as an explicit subject of scholarship, gained prominence in the 1980s
(Coltrane 1994). This was a time when most of the theories of masculinity were
formulated, notably by scholars located in the Global North (Brod 1987; Connell
1987; Herek 1987). Masculinity was theorised largely as a “structure of gender relations”
which positioned women and homosexual males as inferior to heterosexual males in
western gender order (Connell 1995; 78; Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985; 587). Before
these formulations, masculinity was theorised through sex role theory; however, the sex
role theory was subsequently critiqued for leaving out power, which is a central
organising feature of gender relations (Demetriou 2001). Since then, masculinity scho-
larship worldwide constantly foregrounds the fact that being a man is to have power
over women and other men. The ensuing activism aims precisely to subvert this power
and render gender as an organising principle of society obsolete (Coltrane 1994).
Although these theories are used globally to frame research, interventions, and
activism, it is important to note that their authors have labelled them specifically as
theories of gender in western settings, which are termed variously as the “contemporary
capitalist world” (Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985, 590), “English-speaking world”
(Connell 1995, 44), “Contemporary American society” and “Our society” (Herek
1987, 567), “Our culture” (Kimmel 1994; 125; Herek 1987; 569), and “Western
Culture” (Schrock and Schwalbe 2009, 280). This implies that these theories may not
hold universal truth regarding the nature and source of gender because they are shaped
by specific cultural contexts in which research took place. Two questions are critical to
consider before such theories are deployed elsewhere as research and intervention tools,
namely, what are their politics and what are their philosophical underpinnings?
In reference to these questions, Connell (1987, xi) noted that: “theories don’t grow
on trees; theorizing is itself a social practice with a politics.” The “politics” under-
pinning theories somehow influence the conceptual framing of their subject matter, and
4 S. MFECANE

they also lead to the exclusion of its features which are likely to undermine their goals.
For example, feminist gender theories, which served as a basis for developing current
masculinity scholarship (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, 831), have been criticised
for overlooking the biological aspects of gender (Birke 1989). This omission of biology
was a deliberate political move designed to undermine patriarchy as it is premised
largely on beliefs about biological “nature” of men and women (Ortner 1974).
Contemporary pro-feminist scholarship, however, does pay analytical attention to the
body as a mechanism for “doing” gender through, for example, dress code, sport,
reproduction, sexuality, consumption, and health (Davis 1997; Gremillion 2005;
Schrock and Schwalbe 2009). However, they do not necessarily treat the body as a
place from which gender originates because of the conviction that gender is not a reality
“inside ourselves” (Kaufman 2001, 7), but rather becomes a reality when we act
(Simpson 2009).
This framing of masculinity as particular acts of manhood and displays (Schrock and
Schwalbe 2009) can be read as an instance of Western “visual ontology” which
privileges sight over other modes of knowing the world (Oyěwùmí 2006, 2). It implies
that masculinity exists only as visible social acts; things which men do, “in front of other
men” (Kimmel 1994, 129), “to be men” (Suggs 1996, 602). This visual ontology
pervades most gender paradigms in western settings, including the feminist biology
paradigm which attributes some elements of gender to our internal biological make-up:
genes, hormones, gonads, and brain (Treadwell 1987; Fausto-Sterling,2012; Birke 1989).
Here, researchers have conducted several experimental tests on gender non-conforming
males to try and discover the biological basis of their gender. Findings indicate that
biology somehow influences people’s gender identification and performances, in con-
junction with societal interactions; therefore, gender is not just a social construction
(Fausto-Sterling, Coll, and Lamarre 2012; Fausto-Sterling, A 2012; Ehrensaft 2012;
Birke 2000). These methods of investigation ultimately limit the reality of gender to
what can be proven empirically, through scientific investigations of human biology.
Another philosophical underpinning of contemporary gender theories, which is
pervasive in western society and in social theory, is individuality (Rapport 1997;
Burridge 1979). In this doctrine, human beings are conceived ideologically as by nature
individualistic, creative, imaginative, and rebellious (Rapport and Overring 2000; Leach
1977). Society is made up of autonomous individuals2 and structure is an outcome of
their conscious decisions and actions (Rapport and Overring 2000). Social structures
exist merely as framework within which action takes place; they do not determine
human conduct as human beings have a choice to either accept or reject structures
based on meanings that each person assigns to them (Blumer 1962; Rapport 1997).
Hence, human beings are their own creators (Rapport 1997, 4).
This individualistic ontology is clearly reflected in writings which define masculinity
as being “about individual men’s quest to accumulate those cultural symbols that
denote manhood” (Kimmel 1994, 125). This statement portrays the individual actor
as a rational, purposeful pursuer of masculinity, and an active agent in its accomplish-
ment. In this framework of individuality, masculinity exists only as acts undertaken by
the individual “within the environment made up, inter alia, of other individuals”
(Rapport 1997, 4). Social structures prescribe gender norms, but individuals make
gender a reality through their everyday behaviour and can produce outcomes which
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 5

either support or undermine the established gender structures (Nye 2005; Birke 1989).
Indeed, the notion that masculinity is a social construct is described by Kimmel (1994)
as “extraordinarily valuable” because it reinforces the perception that “we actively create
our world, our identities.”
Visual ontology and individuality are not universal. In African setting, for example,
it has been shown that truth is “more than meets the eye” (Nyamnjoh 2017). Human
beings are “products of the whole” (La Fontaine 1985, 132), and this includes society
and the supernatural forces which exist in unseen forms (Tefo and Roux 2003; Niehaus
2002). Human beings are active in constructions of their masculinity; however, this
happens in an environment that is made up of more than “other individuals.” Witches,
ancestral spirits, and other evil forces exist in the social environment that human beings
inhabit – and inside human bodies – and can influence the outcomes of human action
(Comaroff and Comaroff 2012). This supports my argument that theories of masculi-
nity must include these popular understandings of reality in African settings. Such
theories will not only transcend limited conceptions of masculinity as socially con-
structed and accomplished individually in social context, but they will also serve as a
basis for developing culturally relevant intervention programmes. The next section
elaborates specifically on some African concepts of personhood as an attempt that
addresses this knowledge gap.

Some African concepts of personhood

In African traditional thought, there are at least three distinctive features of person-
hood. First, as it was mentioned earlier, human beings are conceived ideologically as
having both physical and non-physical elements. The former “includes external and
internal components: flesh, bone, heart, intestines, etc.” (Kaphagawani 2004, 334). It is
the source of their lived experiences of the body-self. The latter is made out of unseen
forces operating either independently of the human body or within it. It constitutes
people’s inner essence and is the fountain of their personality (Gbadegesin 2004).
Examples of these non-physical inner elements of personhood include a spirit
called adro among the Lugbara-speaking group in Uganda, which all human beings
possess: “it is responsible not only for life, but also for an individual’s whims and
desires” (La Fontaine 1985, 127). Its quality accounts for the behaviour of human
beings. Among the ethnically defined Tallensi group of Ghana, human beings are
said to possess a spirit called “sii, which is not life itself, but that which constitutes
the living body as a unique entity, an individual” (La Fontaine 1985, 126–127).
Human beings are distinguished from one another by their distinct sii. The Yoruba-
speaking group in Nigeria believes that individuals have a “hidden private self” in
addition to the outside self displayed to the public. The former “may ultimately be
more important than the outer activity” (Lienhardt 1985, 143). The Beng community
of Côte d’Ivoire believes that human beings are the reincarnation of ancestors who
once lived. Children originate from a place called “wrugbe,” a “way station” where
people’s souls go to be reborn as new humans (Gottlieb 1998, 123). Therefore,
humans embody spirits of their ancestors. They shape their temperaments and can
account for aggressive behaviour among boys.
6 S. MFECANE

Second, research among African societies indicates that most conceive of person-
hood as fundamentally relational, meaning it is achieved in social interaction rather
than in isolation (Hoekeman 2008; Menkiti 2004; De Craemer 1983). Possession of
inner essence does not constitute complete personhood on its own as “the inner essence
emerges as a result of interaction” (Dzobo 1992, 123). In South Africa, this ideology is
captured in the popular maxim: “umntu ngumntu ngabantu” – “a person is a person
because of others” (Magadla and Chitando 2014, 180); in the Grasslands population of
Cameroon, it is expressed by saying: “A child is one person’s only in the womb”
(Nyamnjoh 2002, 116). The Akan maxim in Ghana is that “when a person descends
from heaven, he descends into human society,” this suggests a “conception of the
person as communitarian by nature” (Gyekye 1992, 105). Families are the primary
sites for engendering communitarian persons, followed by the larger community. The
latter exposes children to public displays of selfless communal life, thereby “shutting out
individualism” (Gbadegisin 2004, 292). Hence, in response to the question “Who are
you?” (Ungubani?), studies show that some African people typically offer answers that
go beyond giving their personal name and surname. They might add their clan name,
marriage, and place of residence, suggesting a communitarian conception of self (De
Craemer 1983; Mfecane 2014).
There is, however, controversy in African literature on whether having communitar-
ian personhood implies the absence of individuality, choice, and rights (Oyowe and
Yurkivska 2014). It is beyond the scope of this article to address this debate adequately,
suffice it to mention that exponents of communitarian personhood are in agreement
that it does not necessarily rule out the exercise of individual choice and creativity as
these are perceived to be intrinsic properties of human beings and the foundations of
their rights as individuals (Gyekye 1992; Nyamnjoh 2002; Dzobo 1992; Gbadegesin
2004). What is critical is that these individual needs are exercised in service of society as
a whole rather than purely to fulfil selfish individual desires at the expense of commu-
nity. This differs from the western concept of individuality perceived by some scholars
to be antisocial in nature (Dumont 1986).
Another feature of personhood in traditional African thought is that it is “a status
attained in progressively higher degrees, through the course of human life” (Hoekeman
2008, 262). Being alive does not suffice to confer someone a personhood status in his or
her social setting on its own (Menkiti 2004). Personhood status is generally acquired
through participation in, or performance of “rituals of incorporation” (Menkiti 1979,
71), which, in some settings, start with the ceremonial naming of a newly born child
(Menkiti 2004; Kaphagawani 2004). As an example, Karp (1980, 88–89) describes the
ritual naming of infants, known as Akipudun, which is conducted by the Iteso language
group living across the Kenya–Uganda border: where brewing and commensal drinking
of traditional beer is a pervasive feature of social life and perceived to be a significant
aspect of personhood. Three days after birth, a newborn is taken out of the house that
he or she had exclusively shared with the mother, to be given a family name:

At the ceremony the child is held by its paternal grandmother and some other woman [. . .]
The grandmother dips her finger in the beer and places it in the mouth of the child. At that
point its mother calls out the name that has been chosen for it. If the child refuses to
swallow other names are chosen until the child finally complies. After the name has been
accepted by a child it can be taken out of the house. (Karp 1980, 94)
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 7

The significance of this ritual for personhood status is described as follows: “The
capacity to drink beer is a prerequisite for capacity to undertake social life, as the
acceptance of name. Hence beer drinking becomes an essential aspect of the onset of
personhood” (Karp 1980, 89). Gottlieb (1998) describes similar ideas and practices
among Beng speakers in West Africa, whereby infants are not considered as persons
until their umbilical cord falls off. Subsequently, they undergo various “rituals of
incorporation” including an enema undertaken by the mother, the making of a neck-
lace, and ear piercing. In South African communities, the most commonly practised
“ritual of incorporation” for children is called imbeleko, undertaken to formally wel-
come someone into his or her family or clan (Bogopa 2010). The ritual involves, among
others, slaughter of an animal and consumption of certain sacred pieces of meat by the
ritual child who is henceforth formally recognised as a member of the clan and entitled
to ancestral protection. Recipients of the ritual are expected to lead healthy and morally
upright adult lives; those who have not undergone it are said to be prone to sicknesses,
bad luck, and some misdemeanours. Childhood rituals in South African communities
are usually followed by ceremonies which mark the transition to adolescence, puberty,
adulthood, parenthood, manhood, womanhood, elderly, and ancestry (Delius and
Glaser 2002; Magwaza 2009; Ntombana 2011). These ceremonies are not just public
celebrations of the individual’s automatic entry into particular life stages; they carry
significant symbolic meanings about their relationship with their families, community,
and the ancestors. Their recipients are meant to be transformed spiritually, behaviou-
rally, and in terms of their moral virtue.
It is on this basis that South African researchers have reported on experiences of
youths searching for their paternal families because they need to know their “real”
surnames and believe that it will positively impact on their lives (Nduna and Jewkes
2011). We also encounter such cases from popular reality television programmes like
Utatakho and Khumbul’ekhaya which are broadcast weekly on paid and public televi-
sion channels, respectively (see http://mzansimagic.dstv.com/show/utatakho; http://
khumbulekhaya.net.za). The programmes normally feature adults searching for their
biological parents, mostly fathers. This often entails giving interviews which reveal deep
personal and family matters, travelling to faraway places, and doing mandatory pater-
nity DNA tests (in case of Utatakho). One of the constantly mentioned reasons for
embarking on a search for a biological father, or his kin, is that the individual wants
them to perform imbeleko on their behalf because they believe it has power to transform
their lives positively and pave a way for them (vula indlela) to resolve some of their
long-standing personal difficulties. These may include among others, alcoholism, drug
addictions, childlessness, miscarriages, indiscipline, unemployment, and poor academic
performance. People often feel that these personal misfortunes are due to not having a
“proper” identity or due to using a “wrong” surname. Here, ritual acquisition of proper
identity is viewed as precondition for change of behaviour, as the ritual gives them
access to ancestral protection and guidance.
It is for this reason that a 31-year-old man, Thabo, who was featured in an episode of
Utatakho (broadcast on December 27 2016) broke down and sobbed uncontrollably when
he discovered that a man who he believed was his biological father was not paternally
related to him. He developed personal problems that he attributed to having not performed
imbeleko due to not knowing his biological father. He was violent, unruly, and addicted to
8 S. MFECANE

alcohol and drugs which led to his imprisonment for committing crimes. Thabo after his
release from jail decided to change his life positively. He embarked on a frantic search for
his biological father, following the leads provided by his uncle, which took him to Mr
Mabaso, his mother’s ex-partner. Mr Mabaso, who had met Thabo before, had doubts
about his alleged paternity, and a DNA paternity test was conducted to resolve the dispute.
When the tests’ results revealed that Mr Mabaso was not Thabo’s biological father, it was
clear that he was completely shattered by this outcome. The test results not only crushed his
hope that he had found his biological father. They also destroyed his hope of becoming a
complete person and a better man as he wanted to receive guidance from the ancestral
spirits to help him refashion his life as a man.
Similar stories circulate frequently in South African media platforms and the social
circles that I inhabit as an ordinary member of African society. They demonstrate that
masculinity in these African settings is not seen merely as a “type of act” (Schrock and
Schwalbe 2009, 280) or “performances” (Ratele 2008, 528). Masculinity, in the African
cosmology that I just described, can be said to have both material and immaterial basis.
It can be shaped by the kind of ancestor that lives inside a person and forms part of his
inner essence, social interaction, and performance of rituals of incorporation into
various stages of personhood. Masculinity can also be influenced by the seemingly
mundane things, such as a person’s name, because, in most African settings, “[n]ames
are believed to have an influence on the character of a bearer” (Guma 2001, 267). I
know someone who was named “Mncameni,” meaning “We have given up on him.” He
was a violent person; he stole things, and was constantly fighting with other boys. The
villagers felt that they were incapable of stopping him because he was evincing the
qualities attached to his name (ulandela igama lakhe). They blamed his name for his
unruly behaviour, implying that the very process of giving names to boys can make a
difference in terms of their personality and social conduct.

Implications for masculine transformation programmes

I suggest that programmes for masculine transformation in South Africa create space to
accommodate these African concepts of personhood. In South Africa, currently, there
are several masculine transformation programmes targeting black African men and
most of them apply the concept of hegemonic masculinity developed by Connell and
colleagues as their theoretical device (Dworkin, Flemming, and Colvin 2015). The
effectiveness of concept of hegemonic masculinity as a research and intervention tool
globally has been well documented and critiqued (Messerschmidt 2012). However, in
South Africa, it appears that research and intervention programmes on masculine
transformation based on this concept are underperforming. Programmes are effective
in terms of enabling individual boys and men to critically reflect on their gender beliefs
and recognise the risk behaviour informed by hegemonic masculinity (Lindegger and
Maxwell 2007, 99). Their major challenge is how to translate this knowledge into
behaviour change at a societal level.
This has prompted suggestions to expand their theoretical scope and intervention areas.
Dworkin, Flemming, and Colvin (2015) and Ratele (2015) propose an intersectional
approach which tackles aspects of class, race, poverty, and economic marginalisation.
Jewkes, Flood, and Lang (2015) suggest “multi-level interventions” that seek to facilitate
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 9

change in social norms, in addition to advocating for individual behaviour change. Shefer,
Kruger, and Schepers (2015) propose micro-level interventions targeting the vulnerabilities
that young men experience about their sexuality, seeing them as opportunities for engen-
dering critical reflections on the internalised hegemonic gender norms.
While these efforts are laudable and indeed desirable given the urgency of our social
problems, they are premised on the notion that men are mere products of their socio-
economic environments and masculinity has no inner essence. This leads to suggestions to
improve their social and economic conditions because they “all contribute to some men not
changing” (Gibbs et al. 2015, 220). In this regard, Ratele (2015) says: “getting boys and men
to listen to why gender justice is needed might mean working through issues of poverty,
unemployment, and income inequality.” The immaterial elements of personhood, which
are believed to have an influence on social conduct of Africans, are largely neglected in these
feminist, individualistic framings of gender. Thus, part of the reasons for their under-
performance is that they are incongruent with the real-life experiences of African men.
The lives of African men typically unfold in ways that are more complex than these
framings of gender and this requires us to develop “culturally intelligent studies and
activism on men” (Ratele 2014, 31). When black African men experience personal life
problems, such as being violent, alcoholic, and unemployed, their search for change goes
beyond looking for tangible material things, like finding employment. Typically, they start
by consulting family elders and spiritual healers to get some perspectives. An animal may be
slaughtered, and traditional beer brewed to “cleanse” a person’s spirit and remove obstacles
(ukuvula indlela) which stand in the way of progress (Ashforth 2000).
Consider the case of Jabu Mahlangu, formerly known as Jabu Pule and arguably one of
the most distinguished soccer talents in South Africa. Jabu Mahlangu, at the height of his
soccer career, earned a reputation for being undisciplined as he was constantly missing
from training. He was also engaged in taking drugs, drinking alcohol excessively, and
womanising – some key features of hegemonic masculinity in South Africa. Various
attempts to save Mahlangu from self-destruction yielded limited success, and he eventually
embarked on a ritual change of surname because he thought it would bring calmness into
his life. He later joined an overseas football club, but he was dismissed after being found
drunk and asleep in an overturned vehicle. Mahlangu subsequently underwent clinical
counselling and recovered, becoming a responsible father, husband, and role model who
speaks publicly about his past struggles with alcohol and drugs and also warns young soccer
players about the dangers of taking drugs (Mthombeni 2015).
We will likely never know what finally brought lasting changes to Jabu Mahlangu’s
life, but surely he had always wanted to be a better man, and the change of surname was
one of the significant steps that he took to achieve that goal. This implies that masculine
transformation programmes in South Africa cannot be content with using gender
transformation models formulated in the Global North. If African masculinity is
believed to be shaped by forces existing beyond the visible social realm, these should
form part of our engagements with African men. This immediately raises questions
about evidence and verifiability that form the core basis of truth claims in western
epistemology (Gordon 1988), leading to questions such as whether it is possible to
change aspects of masculinity that cannot be seen or verified empirically. Good (1994)
notes that those types of questions expose the “naivety” of western society in thinking
that their way of knowing provides universal pathways to discover the truth.
10 S. MFECANE

Closing remarks
This article argues for the development of African-centred theories of masculinity that
are grounded on popular conceptions of personhood in African contexts. Masculinity
theories developed in the Global North generally reflect the ethic of individuality which
is regarded as a core feature of personhood in western society (Rapport 1997). It leads
into representations of masculinity as being about performances and everyday accom-
plishments undertaken by socially embedded and yet individualistically oriented actors
(Kimmel 1994). Masculinity theories also evince a visual ontology (Oyěwùmí 2006)
typical of western societies, and they reduce the reality of gender to bodily representa-
tions, displays, and some verifiable biological features – genes, hormones, etc. (Schrock
and Schwalbe 2009; Fausto-Sterling 2005).
In this article, I have shown that these ways of conceptualising social reality are not
universal. In popular African epistemologies, truth exists beyond the visible material
world (Nyamnjoh 2017). Persons are conceived as having both physical and non-
physical features which impact equally on their behaviour and personality
(Gbadegesin 2004). Personhood status is conferred by the community collectively and
can be failed (Hoekeman 2008). These established scholarly accounts of personhood in
African settings have been criticised for overstating its communitarian nature (Gyekye
1992; Kaphagawani 2004) and for downplaying gender as an underlying element of
personhood in African contexts (Oyowe and Yurkivska 2014).
It is beyond the scope of this article to address such critiques adequately. Here, I have
discussed some African notions of personhood simply to demonstrate that there can be
other ways of approaching work with men and masculinities in African settings other
than simply importing theoretical framework developed in the Global North. Indeed,
authors of such theories do not claim them to be universal, they specifically refer to
them as theories of gender in “western gender order” (Connell 1995, 77). It is those
scholars located in the Global South, who tend to assign a status of universal applic-
ability to Northern gender theories because, according to Connell (2016), they “seek
recognition there.”3 This leads to a failure to critically interrogate the basic philosophi-
cal underpinnings and politics of Northern gender theories, with a few exceptions
(Morrell and Clowes 2016; Ratele 2017).
Although masculinity in African settings can be said to have an essence, it is
ultimately accomplished in social practice, specifically in front of other men (Kimmel
1994). For example, studies have shown that African men generally prove their mascu-
linity publicly by having multiple sexual partners, being breadwinners, and their
homophobia, violence, dress code, and alcohol consumption (Simpson 2009; Suggs
1996; Campbell 2001; Hunter 2010; Ratele 2017; Selikow, Zulu, and Cedras 2002). In
case of Iteso language group that I discussed earlier, men are required to demonstrate
masculinity publicly by attending communal beer-drinking sessions. If a man refuses to
socialise or he drinks alone, he is negatively labelled as “epog,” meaning “antisocial”
(Karp 1980, 96). Xhosa speakers require men to demonstrate their masculinity through
speech and they sometimes inspect each other’s penises to verify their circumcision
status (Mfecane 2016).
Thus, the visual ontology of gender that Oyěwùmí (2006) associates with western
gender theory still applies to some African societies because masculinity is judged
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 11

largely by “what bodies do” in specific social setting (Connell 1995, 71). The difference
is that in some Northern gender theories, these public displays of masculinity are
perceived as having no essence as they are derived purely from the dominant societal
discourses and social interactions.4 In African cosmology, they can be influenced by
supreme forces operating in an unseen world and turning men into certain types of
human beings. Thus, one never knows what “truly” drives an African man to become
violent, alcoholic, rapist, unruly, etc. It could be due to the quality of his internal soul
(sii, adro, etc.) or the manifestation of an ancestor living inside a person (Gottlieb 1998;
La Fontaine 1985). It could be due to pressure from poverty and unemployment (Ratele
2014). It is on this basis that I propose research and intervention approaches that deal
with the whole person in order to adequately address these multiple dimensions of
masculinity in African settings.

Notes
1. I use the term here to refer to a system of thought that has some origin or association with
Europe.
2. See Comaroff and Comaroff (2012) for a critique of this idea of autonomous individuals;
arguing that autonomous individuals do not exist anywhere in the world as human beings
exist within existing social relations.
3. See Morrell and Clowes (2016) for a constructive rebut of this statement.
4. See Connell (2016) for a recent update of gender theory which pays attention to historical
embodiment.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Sakhumzi Mfecane is an associate professor of anthropology at the University of the Western
Cape, South Africa. His research interests include, men’s health, masculinity, and HIV and AIDS.

References
Archer, M. 2006. Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arowosegbe, J. O. 2016. “African Scholars, African Studies and Knowledge Production on
Africa.” Africa 86 (2): 324–338. doi:10.1017/S0001972016000073.
Ashforth, A. 2000. Modumo, a Man Bewitched. Palo Alta, Chicago: University of California Press.
Birke, L. 1989. “Biological Science.” In Companion to Feminist Philosophy, edited by A. M. Jagger
and I. M. A. Young, 194–203. Malden: Blackwell.
Birke, L. 2000. “Sitting on the Fence: Biology, Feminism and Gender-Bending Environments.”
Women’s Studies International Forum 23 (5): 587–599. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(00)00127-8.
Blumer, H. 1962. “Society as Symbolic Interaction.” In Human Behaviour and Social Processes,
edited by A. Rose, 78–89. London: Routledge and Paul Kegan.
Bogopa, D. 2010. “Health and Ancestors: The Case of South Africa and Beyond.” The Indo-
Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 10 (1): 1–7. doi:10.2989/IPJP.2010.10.1.8.1080.
Brod, H. 1987. The Making of Masculinities: The New Men’s Studies. Boston, US: Allen and
Unwin Publishers.
12 S. MFECANE

Burridge, K. 1979. Someone, No-One: An Essay on Individuality. New Jersey, NY: Princeton
University Press.
Campbell, C. 2001. “Going Underground and Going for Women: Masculinity and HIV
Transmission Amongst Black Workers on Gold Mines.” In Changing Men in Southern
Africa, edited by R. Morrell, 275–285. Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal: University of Natal
Press.
Carrigan, T., R. Connell, and L. Lee. 1985. “Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity.” Theory
and Society 14 (5): 55–604. doi:10.1007/BF00160017.
Coltrane, S. 1994. “Theorising Masculinity in Contemporary Social Science.” In Theorising
Masculinities, edited by H. Brod and M. Kaufman, 31–60. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Comaroff, J. L., and J. Comaroff. 2012. “Theory from the South: Or How Euro-America Is
Evolving Towards Africa.” Anthropological Forum 22 (2): 113–131. doi:10.1080/
00664677.2012.694169.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Palo Alta,
California: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. 2016. “Masculinities in Global Perspective: Hegemony, Contestation, and
Changing Structures of Power.” Theory and Society 45: 303–318. doi:10.1007/s11186-016-
9275-x.
Connell, R. W., and J. W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept.” Gender and Society 19: 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.
Courtenay, W. H. 2000. “Constructions of Masculinity and Their Influence on Men’s Well-Being:
A Theory of Gender and Health.” Social Science and Medicine 50: 1385–1401. doi:10.1016/
S0277-9536(99)00390-1.
Davis, K. 1997. Embodied Practices: Feminist Perspectives on the Body. London: Sage.
De Craemer, W. 1983. “A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personhood.” Millbank Memorial Fund
Quarterly/Health and Society 61 (1): 19–34. doi:10.2307/3349814.
Delius, P., and C. Glaser. 2002. “Sexual Socialisation in South Africa: A Historical Perspective.”
African Studies 61 (1): 27–54. doi:10.1080/00020180220140064.
Demetriou, D. Z. 2001. “Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique.” Theory and
Society 30 (3): 337–361. doi:10.1023/A:1017596718715.
Dumont, L. 1986. Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective.
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Dworkin, S. L., P. J. Flemming, and C. Colvin. 2015. “The Promises and Limitations of
Gender-Transformative Health Programming with Men: Critical Reflections from the Field.”
Culture, Health and Sexuality 17 (Supplement 2): 128–143. doi:10.1080/
13691058.2015.1035751.
Dzobo, N. K. 1992. “The Image of Man in Africa.” In Person and Community: Ghanaian
Philosophical Studies, edited by K. Wiredu and K. Gyekye, 123–135. Washington DC:
Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Ehrensaft, D. 2012. “From Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Identity Creativity: True Gender
Self Child Therapy.” Journal of Homosexuality 59: 337–356. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2012.653303.
Fausto-Sterling, A. 2005. “The Bare Bones of Sex: Part-Sex and Gender Signs.” Journal of Women
in Culture and Society 30 (2): 149–1527. doi:10.1086/424932.
Fausto-Sterling, A., C. G. Coll, and M. Lamarre. 2012. “Sexing the Baby: Part 1 – What Do We
Really Know about Sex Differentiation in the First Three Years of Life?” Social Science and
Medicine 74: 1684–1692. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.051.
Fausto-Sterling, A. 2012. Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. New York & London: Routledge.
Gbadegesin, S. 2004. “Towards a Theory of Destiny.” In A Companion to African Philosophy,
edited by K. Wiredu, 313–323. Malben, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Gibbs, A., R. Jewkes, Y. Skweyiya, and S. William. 2015. “Reconstructing Masculinity? A
Qualitative Evaluation of Stepping Stones and Creating Future Interventions in Urban
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 13

Informal Settlements in South Africa.” Culture, Health and Sexuality 17 (2): 208–222.
doi:10.1080/13691058.2014.966150.
Good, B. 1994. Medicine, Rationality and Experience: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, G. 1988. “Tenacious Assumptions in Western Medicine.” In Biomedicine Examined,
edited by M. Lock and D. Gordon, 19–56. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Gottlieb, A. 1998. “Do Infants Have Religion? The Spiritual Lives of Beng Babies.” American
Anthropologist New Series 100 (1): 122–135. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.issue-1.
Gremillion, H. 2005. “The Cultural Politics of Body Size.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34:
13–32. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143814.
Guma, M. 2001. “The Cultural Meaning of Names among the Basotho of Sothern Africa: A
Historical and Linguistic Analysis.” Nordic Journal of African Studies 10 (3): 265–279.
Gyekye, K. 1992. “Person and Community in Akan Thought.” In Person and Community:
Ghanaian Philosophical Studies, edited by K. Wiredu and K. Gyekye, 123–135. Washington
DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Herek, G. M. 1987. “On Heterosexual Masculinity: Some Psychical Consequences of the Social
Construction of Gender and Sexuality.” American Behavioural Scientist 29 (5): 563–577.
doi:10.1177/000276486029005005.
Hoekeman, D. 2008. “African Personhood: Morality and Identities in the ‘Bush Ghost’.”
Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 91 (¾): 255–286.
Hunter, M. 2010. Love in the Time of AIDS: Inequality, Gender and Human Rights in South
Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jewkes, R., M. Flood, and J. Lang. 2015. “From Work with Men to Change of Social Norms and
Reduction of Inequities in Gender Relations: A Conceptual Shift in Prevention of Violence
against Women and Girls.” Lancet 385: 1580–1589. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4.
Kaphagawani, D. N. 2004. “Some African Conceptions of A Person: A Critical Survey.” In A
Companion to African Philosophy, edited by K. Wiredu, 332–342. Malden, MA, USA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Karp, I. 1980. “Beer Drinking and Social Experience in an African Society: An Essay in Formal
Sociology.” In Explorations on African Systems of Thought, edited by I. Karp and C. S. Bird,
83–100. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kaufman. 2001. Men’s Lives. 5th ed. edited by M. Kimmel and A. Messer. Boston, US: Allyn and
Bacon.
Kimmel, M. S. 1994. “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in Constructions of
Gender Identity.” In Theorising Masculinities, edited by H. Brod and M. Kaufman, 119–141.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
La Fontaine, J. S. 1985. “Person and Individuals: Some Anthropological Reflections.” In The
Category of the Person: Anthropology, edited by M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes,
123–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, E. 1977. Custom, Law, and Terrorist Violence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lienhardt, G. 1985. “Self: Public, Private, Some African Representations.” In The Category of the
Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, edited by M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes,
123–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindegger, G., and J. Maxwell. 2007. “Teenage Masculinity: The Double-Bind of Conformity to
Hegemonic Standards.” In From Boys to Men: Social Constructions of Masculinity in
Contemporary Society, edited by T. Shefer, K. Ratele, A. Strebel, N. Shabalala, and R.
Buikema, 41–54. Cape Town: UCT Press.
Magadla, S., and E. Chitando. 2014. “The Self Become God: The Ubuntu and the ‘Scandal of
Manhood’.” In Ubuntu: Curating the Archive, edited by L. Praeg and S. Magadla, 176–192.
Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
Magwaza, T. 2009. “‘So that I Will Be a Marriageable Girl’: Umemulo in Contemporary Zulu
Society.” In Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, past and Present, edited by J. Laband and J. Sithole,
153–167. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
14 S. MFECANE

Menkiti, I. A. 1979. “Person and Community in African Traditional Thought.” In African

Philosophy, edited by R. Wright, 134. Washington DC: University Press of America.
Menkiti, I. A. 2004. “On the Normative Conception of a Person.” In A Companion to African
Philosophy, edited by K. Wiredu, 324–331. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Messerschmidt, J. 2012. “Engendering Gendered Knowledge: Assessing the Appropriation of
Hegemonic Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 15 (1): 56–78. doi:10.1177/
1097184X11428384.
Mfecane, S. 2014. “Friends in the Field.” In Ethical Quandaries of Social Research, edited by D.
Posel and F. C. Ross, 125–129. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Mfecane, S. 2016. “Ndiyindoda! (I Am a Man). Theorising Xhosa Masculinity.” Anthropology
Southern Africa 39 (3): 202–214. doi:10.1080/23323256.2016.1208535.
Moffet, H. 2007. “These Women, They Force Us to Rape Them: Rape as Narrative of Social
Control in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Journal of Southern African Studies 39 (1):
129–144.
Morrell, R. 2001. Changing Men in Southern Africa. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: University of
KwaZulu-Natal Press.
Morrell, R., and L. Clowes 2016. “The Emergence of Gender Scholarship in South Africa – Reflections
on Southern Theory.” CSSR Working Paper No. 381 Centre for Social Science Research.
Morrell, R., R. Jewkes, G. Lindegger, and V. Hamlaal. 2013. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Reviewing
the Gendered Analysis of Men’s Power in South Africa.” South African Review of Sociology 44
(1): 3–21. doi:10.1080/21528586.2013.784445.
Mthombeni, A. 2015 “Jabu Mahlangu Scores 3.2 Million in Two Deals.” Sunday World,June.23
https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2015-06-24-jabu-mahlangu-scores-millions-in-two-deals
/. Accessed 16 May 2018.
Nduna, M., and R. Jewkes. 2011. “Undisclosed Paternal Identity in Narratives of Distress among
Young People in Eastern Cape, South Africa.” Journal of Child Family Studies. doi:10.1007/
s10826-010-9391-4.
Niehaus, S. 2002. “Bodies, Heat and Taboos: Conceptualising Modern Personhood in the South
African Lowveld.” Ethnology 41 (3): 189–207. doi:10.2307/4153025.
Ntombana, L. 2011. “Should Xhosa Male Initiation Be Abolished?” International Journal of
Cultural Studies 14 (6): 631–640. doi:10.1177/1367877911405755.
Nyamnjoh, F. 2002. “‘A Child Is One Person’s Only in the Womb’: Domestication, Agency and
Subjectivity in Cameroonian Grassfields.” In Postcolonial Subjectivities in Africa, edited by R.
Werbner, 111–138. London: Zed Books.
Nyamnjoh, F. 2017. “Drinking from a Cosmic Gourd. How Amos Tutoula Can Change Our
Minds.” Read African Books March 28. http://www.readafricanbooks.com/opinions/how-amos
-tutuola-can-change-our-minds. Accessed 16 May 2017.
Nye, R. 2005. “Locating Masculinity: Some Recent Work on Men.” Signs 30 (3): 1937–1962.
doi:10.1086/426799.
Ortner, S. 1974. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” In Woman, Culture and Society,
edited by M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere, 67–87. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Oyěwùmí, O. 2006. The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender
Discourses. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Oyowe, O., and O. Yurkivska. 2014. “Can a Communitarian Concept of African Personhood Be
Both Relational and Gender-Neutral?.” South African Journal of Philosophy 33 (1): 85–99.
doi:10.1080/02580136.2014.892682.
Rapport, N. 1997. Transcendental Individual: Towards a Literary and Liberal Anthropology.
London: Routledge.
Rapport, N., and J. Overring. 2000. Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts. London:
Routledge.
Ratele, K. 2008. “Analysing Males in Africa: Certain Elements in considering Ruling
Masculinities.” African and Asian Studies L 7: 515–536. doi:10.1163/156921008X359641.
 SOCIAL DYNAMICS 15

Ratele, K. 2014. “Currents against Gender Transformation of South African Men: Relocating
Marginality to the Centre of Research and Theory of Masculinity.” NORMA: International
Journal for Masculinity Studies 9 (1): 30–44. doi:10.1080/18902138.2014.892285.
Ratele, K. 2015. “Working through Resistance in Engaging Boys and Men Towards Gender
Equality and Progressive Masculinities.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (2): 144–158.
doi:10.1080/13691058.2015.1048527.
Ratele, K. 2017. Liberating Masculinities. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Schrock, D., and M. Schwalbe. 2009. “Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts.” Annual Review of
Sociology 35: 277–295. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933.
Selikow, T. A., B. Zulu, and E. Cedras. 2002. “The Ingagara, the Regte and the Cherry: HIV/AIDS
and Youth Culture in Contemporary Urban Townships.” Agenda 53: 22–32.
Shefer, T., L.-M. Kruger, and Y. Schepers. 2015. “Masculinity, Sexuality and Vulnerability in
‘Working’ with Young Men in South African Contexts: ‘You Feel like a Fool and an Idiot . . . a
Loser’.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (2): 96–111. doi:10.1080/13691058.2015.1075253.
Shefer, T., K. Ratele, A. Strebel, N. Shabalala, and R. Buikema, eds. 2007. From Boys to Men:
Social Construction of Masculinity in Contemporary Society. Landsdowne, Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press.
Simpson, A. 2009. Boys and Men in the Shadow of AIDS: Masculinities and HIV Risk in Zambia.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Suggs, D. 1996. “Mosadi Tshwene: The Constructions of Gender and Consumption of Alcohol in
Botswana.” American Ethnologist 23 (3): 697–710. doi:10.1525/ae.1996.23.3.02a00080.
Tandwa, L. 2016. “Man Kills His Wife for Chicken Livers.” News 24, March 8. https://www.news24.
com/SouthAfrica/News/man-kills-wife-for-not-cooking-chicken-livers-20160308. Accessed 23
November 2017.
Tefo, L. J., and A. P. J. Roux. 2003. “Metaphysical Thinking in Africa.” In Philosophy from Africa:
A Text with Readings, edited by P. H. Coetzee and A. P. J. Roux, 134–148. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Treadwell, P. 1987. “Biological Influences of Masculinity.” In The Making of Masculinities, edited
by H. Brod, 259–285. New York: Routledge.
Woodward, K. 2001. “Body Politics: Masculinities in Sport.” In Global Masculinities and
Manhood, edited by R. L. Jackson and M. Balaji, 202–221. Urbana, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.