African-Language Literatures. Innocentia Jabulisile Mhlambi
from her son. By shifting locality from Gauteng to Bhizana Radebe symbolically recreates an island without cultural bounds for the estranged lovers to reconfigure their relationship away from the binding traditions represented by families. Radebe attempts to show that the causes of this estrangement are superficial and that it has been unnecessary because underlying the partners’ views on why their relationship failed is their undying love for each other which constantly re-surfaces and overwhelms them. Thus their interaction whenever they are alone veers towards rekindling their love. This is captured by a proverb, ‘lapho amanzi ake ema khona aphinde eme’ (a pool of water recurs where it once stood), cited by Makhaya’s lover in desperation at seeing the natural attraction between Nomvula and Makhaya (Radebe: 50).
This focus on the relationships emphasises Makhaya’s biological right to the child as opposed to a social or cultural right that could have been occasioned by his observance of inhlawulo (Radebe: 65). This reading is deduced from his retort, ‘Anginamsebenzi nomthetho […] Ungowami, uyindodana nendlalifa yami ngokwemvelo. Akukho mthetho ongangiphuca ilungelo lami lemvelo’ (I do not care about the law […] He is mine and naturally he is the one to take on my inheritance. There is no law that can deny me my natural right) (Radebe: 65). Although the cultural observance of inhlawulo is key in such cases as the narrative intimates, there is a reading that suggests that Radebe emphasises the biological claim above customary laws. Makhaya’s views regarding which claim is weightier reveal the underlying ambiguity of the narrative, where patriarchal views are allowed to be selectively applied and observed by the male members of the society. Makhaya, who espouses the patriarchal values of the author, is given greater scope in his interpretation of the social or cultural values that strengthen his case as he attempts to reclaim his son. The fact that inhlawulo, which is a necessary cultural bridge between parties and families, is downplayed is indicative of the room given to patriarchal members of the society.
The centrality of the patriarchal head in Radebe’s conception of a family unit goes against emerging truths concerning the success of single mothers. Radebe seems to imply that Nomvula’s pregnancy and the untraditional manner in which it has been handled occurs as a result of the absence of the father figure who would have ensured that proper traditional practices were followed. For Radebe the presence of the father would have been instrumental in extracting inhlawulo (payment for the damages) from the man who impregnated Nomvula. Her mother has not questioned Nomvula’s pregnancy because, it seems, she understands and knows about the probability of success in single parenting. However, single parenting as a contemporary reality in many African societies is not fully explored in the narrative because the depiction of this reality would have questioned all the proverbs on display that allude to the fact that it takes two parents to raise a child. The narrative underplays the fact that material acquisitions are equally important in raising children and instead focuses on questioning the character and intelligence, particularly of Nomvula, in her determination to be a single mother.
Proverbs and the boundaries of the family
The narrative’s exploration of the nature of relationships reveals the author’s preferred reading of the traditional knowledge around the family. By exploiting ideas about what constitutes an ideal family, Radebe has not only reconciled Nomvula and Makhaya but has also been able to discount contemporary views that families can be constituted by adults who are not the biological parents of children. This is illustrated through the impending marriage between Nomvula and Sipho. Their relationship is subjected to a series of tests through which it emerges that Sipho has always despised Nomvula’s son. Consequently Nomvula is left with no option but to terminate her engagement. The proverbs used to describe Sipho’s actions and personality illuminate his position as an intruder into Makhaya’s family unit and, significantly, show how unnatural his role as a father will be. Sipho is said to have ‘bhodlela emswaneni’ (a belated grumbling) (Radebe: 22) when hearing about the abduction and how Nomvula has gone after Makhaya to beg for the return of her child. However, even though he grumbled he saw in Makhaya’s act a solution for getting rid of Nomvula’s child. He had intended to send Sibusiso to a distant boarding school after the wedding but Makhaya’s actions create an opportunity and prompt him to negotiate for the child to be handed to his father through a legal process. Sipho’s actions point to the axiom that a man cannot raise another man’s child, a concern that led Makhaya to abduct his son from Nomvula.
Nomvula’s entrapment between Sipho, who she has realised harbours a deep-seated hatred for her child, and Makhaya’s chauvinistic demands, makes her desire to escape. When the three of them are supposed to discuss the status of the child she disappears and the proverb ‘usele nesisila sehobe’ (he was left behind holding a feather of a wild dove) (Radebe: 79, 82) is cited. This saying predicts that Sipho will be jilted in favour of the biological father of the child. This proverb also describes Sipho’s destitution after he has been deserted by the woman he loves; he feels as though Nomvula has dumped him like ‘inyongo yenyathi’ (the gall bladder of a deer). Thus axioms deduced from these proverbs foreground Sipho’s deceptiveness, warn against raising another man’s child while that father remains alive and emphasise the sanctity of the family. Makhaya’s re-appearance in Nomvuyo’s life helps her to see Sipho for who he really is. Sipho is found to be morally repulsive as she is drawn back to Makhaya. The union between herself and Makhaya occurs despite Nomvula’s earlier protestations of ‘lingawa licoshwe zinkukhu’ (it [the sun] will fall and be eaten by the chickens) (Radebe: 28) meaning she will never be involved with Makhaya again. However, this union has been predicted through numerous proverbs strategically located in the narrative.
In the application of the above proverb as associated with Nomvula, there is an implied understanding that the father acted within his rights to take the child because Nomvula’s family had warned her that getting the child back might not be as easy as she thinks, saying ‘uyodela uMakhasana7 oyozibona zingqubuzana’ (It is well with Makhasana who will see them fight) (Radebe: 19). The truth of the proverb works in tandem with the pressure that her family exerts on her that questions her decisions about single parenting. These decisions are made to appear thoughtless and egocentric. This causes her to lose confidence in her convictions and to see the need for dual parenting (Radebe: 10, 53). Equally, the events of the narrative are structured in such a way that all her attempts to get her child back fail and the proverb ‘ufe olwembiza’ (breaking up to little pieces like a clay pot) (Radebe: 80) describes her state of ‘speechlessness’ after all her attempts have failed.
Regarding Thembisile’s involvement with Makhaya, there is a proverb in the text that indicates that Makhaya will be compelled to choose between Thembisile and Nomvula. When the narrator says, ‘akukho zinkunzi zimbili zakhonya sibayeni sinye’ (two bulls will never stay in the same kraal) (Radebe: 96) this introduces the author’s perspective on the sanctity of family. Even though the proverb creates suspense, it is anticipated that Makhaya will opt for Nomvula since it has been prefigured in the use of the proverb ‘ubucwibi obuhle ngobuhamba ngabubili’ as discussed earlier on.
A number of other structural devices have been employed by the author to channel the interpretation of the narrative. These are the dream artifice, ancestral intervention and nature as reflected in the ecosystem. The dream artifice has been structured in such a way that in all three instances Nomvula is saved by Makhaya (Radebe: 36, 64), prefiguring their reunion at the end of the narrative. In the second technique, the author has drawn on the traditional belief system, in which the ancestors are supposed to intervene in human destinies (Radebe: 52). The last strategy makes use of natural phenomena. For example, the author dramatises the capture of a frog by a snake (Radebe: 92). This occurs in a scene where Nomvula has failed for the third time to take her son back from Makhaya. Conveniently, it occurs at Makhaya’s place in the Eastern Cape, where the belief in inkwankwa (a snake believed to be representative of the ancestors) takes precedence in matters relating to the ancestral acknowledgement of children. Both on the literal and symbolic levels, the natural relationship between the prey and the predator is unavoidable. Thus there is a reading of the narrative in which the matrimonial bond between Nomvula and Makhaya is an inevitable occurrence in which Nomvula’s individuality will be swallowed by the greater demands of social expectations.
Proverbs and the moral lessons of post-apartheid