Previously translated as “bridewealth”, south Mozambican lobolo is often reduced to an archaic economical transaction that vilifies the woman and regulates descent. A case recently observed in Maputo rather presents it as a “traditional” toll which allowed the couple to overpass problems arising from innovative conjugality, by manipulating ancestors’ spirits’ role. Departing from this case and from the historical and synchronic variation of lobolo, it emerges as a polysemic institution, adaptable to very different and changeable needs. It’s also seen as a dignification source to individuals and their families, presenting unique abilities of descent legitimation and control over uncertainty – factors that reinforce its continuity, regardless of what will happen to the hegemonic gender ideology. By the end of 2003, a Maputo friend invited me to take part in his lobolo, as one of his family representatives. I mean in his marriage, because lobolo is the name given in Mozambique and South Africa to that institution which anthropology usually calls “bridewealth”. Of course, I considered this participation an honour and a rare opportunity to understand a little better the local conceptions and ways of living; but, since my studies use to focus in the domestication of aleatory and danger, I assumed that the occasion wouldn’t have much to do with my research interests. I was wrong. As for most of us, I got the habitude to think about bridewealth just as an abstract matter of descent regulation, “wives exchange” and gendered power relations. Even if, by that time, I already heard that ancestors are the ultimate lobolo receivers and notaries, and even if I knew that Mozambican women organizations discovered, by the middle 1980s, that the State struggle against “traditional marriages” was weakening the wives’ actual rights (Arnfred, 2001), I wasn’t indeed aware of the real importance those matters represent to real people. However, I was lucky enough to take part in a lobolo crossed by several visible tensions and opposed interests, and to discuss with the involved people their motivations and the reasons for the details which called for my attention. The ceremony become thus, to me, an enlightening example of what Max Gluckman (1987 [1958]) called a “social situation”. Both the detailed description of that lobolo and its complete analyse as a social situation are available elsewhere (Granjo, 2005). Here, I would rather like to present you the various meanings, aims and instrumental potentialities assumed by this institution, together with the motivations of the people involved in the case I took part. By doing so and by taking into account relevant historical changes and variations of lobolo, I’ll try to show that this is a polysemic and very plastic institution, which can easily change its form according to people’s needs and social constraints, and is able to answer to very different motivations and 1 I will use here, instead, the less ideological local expression and the verb “to lobolate”, a straight translation from the current Portuguese spoken in Mozambique. “Lobolo” means, simultaneously, this kind of matrimonial institution, the ceremony itself and the goods that are paid there. 2 Attribution of sense and causality to aleatory and uncertainty that make them be seen as cognoscible, regulated, explainable or even dominated by human beings (Granjo, 2004). Wining back our good luck: bridewealth in nowadays Maputo – Paulo Granjo 2 expectations. By considering an issue that is often underestimated – the role of ancestors’ spirits on lobolo and daily life – we’ll see that it is even able to provide solutions to new problems and worries, arisen from innovative and “modern” ways of living the conjugality. Lobolo will therefore appear as an institution that supplies unique answers to specific needs of urban population from both genders (besides those also given by other kinds of marriage), and isn’t jeopardised by “modernisation” processes and values.
Read full abstract