The last few years have seen a lot of
public debate on traditional roles. Some examples are the now infamous
‘Alangizi’ (matrons who prepare young women for marriage), traditional ceremonies
and dressing (such as the woman who was half nude/ topless at a pageant, in the
name of traditional culture), corporal punishment, and local languages as a
medium of education. In all these discussion, people talk of ‘tradition’ and
‘culture’, but I suspect they do not all mean the same thing. Perhaps if we
could define these terms, we may make some headway in these debates. Then we
will also answer the question, do we have the power or the right to change
tradition and culture?
We will borrow a definition of culture from
Oliver Barclay:
Culture may be defined as the
overall beliefs, priorities and values of the community that are expressed in
its institutions and its practices. In the sense that I have chosen, the term
culture can be Marxist, Muslim, secular, or Christian. There is a Western or
Asian culture, or a city or rural culture.*
The first thing that this brings to light
is that we have several cultures in Zambia, not one culture. There may be
common elements in the tribal cultures, common denominators, but otherwise there
is more than one culture in a nation with 72 tribes. But the picture gets more
complicated. There are rural and urban cultures. I know we usually say the
urban (us!) are Westernised, but since we have an urban, technology based
lifestyle, this pattern of behaviour can be called a culture as well.
To avoid any confusion, we will say that
urban and rural have a common heritage (i.e. common roots) but slightly
different cultures (patterns of behaviour in work, socialising, etc). So our
heritage and our culture are different. But even modern village life is not
what it was a hundred years ago – if a villager could time travel they would
find a cultural shift of some kind when they go to the year 1914. Add to that
other facts such as changes in diet over the years (I am told maize was
introduced around the year 1880) and economic models such as use of money and passports.
Culture, just like life is dynamic. Even if the change is slow over a century.
Even now, within a generation, some of the slang used on Facebook baffles me –
language changing in the space of twenty years.
The next point is that culture is not
perfect. Like people, who are a mixture of good and bad (our great dignity and
high calling, and our inclination to greed and pride) culture is also a
mixture. I quote again:
All culture is a mixture of good
and evil: good because all God’s gifts of creation are good, and man is still
made in the image of God, and not one has reached the same depths of depravity
as the devil; but evil because no one is an angel, no one is perfect in this
life. The structures of society, and even the best aspects of our culture, are
imperfect.*
There are things to be encouraged and
things to be discouraged and even replaced. Culture is not perfect, no more
than the people who practice it, whether Zambian, Asian, or Western.
The conclusion is we must consciously
decide what to encourage and what to discourage. Culture is shifting sand, even
if it shifts slowly over the generations. But then, we must ask, what standard
are we going to use? We can imitate good things from other cultures, but we
must not make them a standard, because they are equally a mixture of good and
bad. Cultural snobs are in the wrong, whatever advantages or advances they may
have in their society. There must be a standard to assess all cultures, not
just comparing one culture to another. For the humanist the standard is
probably utility, or pragmatics. For the secular thinker, the standard may be a
matter of agreement or convenience. For the Christian, the wisdom of the
Creator must set the pace for human life to flourish. The Creator sets the
outline and provides the impetus for human life to reach the order and beauty
and satisfaction it was originally designed for.
The biggest mistake we can make in this
regard is to deify culture. We must not promote new things simply because of
their newness or old things just because they are ancient. The value is not
intrinsic in its novelty or age, but rather in how constructive or destructive
it is for society. The more our social bonds are built on what is right, the
better our society will be. That is something worth passing on to the next
generation.
*[Quote from ‘Developing a Christian Mind’
by Oliver Barclay. Available at Bookworld
shops]
No comments:
Post a Comment