DOUBLE BURDEN: AFRICAN WOMEN UNDER APARTHEID* by Fassil Demissie Introduction over the last decade, one of the notable features of research on the study of the social and economic history of South Africa has been the steady emergence of a body of writing focusing on issues related to women. Much of the renewed interest owes to the critical scholarship that emerged during the late 1960s which focused on delineating the international and national structures of domination and subordination. In addition, increased interest in marxist works has added to a greater understanding of the sexual division of labor and the subordination of women. In the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State Engels sketched the development of private property, the economic unit Of Which became the family t and the transformation of the role of women to a subordinated and dependent position. Engels attempted to show how the transformation of the role of women from the position of equality to subordination brought about the "world historical defeat of the femal sex." His project, although sketchy was to draw an explicit connection between the changes in the form of the family (and women's role within it) on the one hand and changes in property and class relations on the other. In fact, the intent of The Origin of the Family is to identify the stages a.nd substages in the development of increasingly advanced labor techniques and the effect of these advances on kinship relations. Engels suggested that in "primitive societies" property was collectively owned and both sexes made equal contributions to the larger group which was identified by kinship relations and common territorial residence. The material bases of production in such societies was production for use value and the division of labor between the sexes was a "pure and simple outgrowth of nature." ... it existed only between the two sexes. The men went to war, hunted, fished, provided the raw material for food and the tools necessary for these pursuits. The women cared for the houses, and prepared food, clothing, *This is a shorter version of a long paper. 52 they cooked, weaved and sewed. Each was master in his or her own field of activity: the men in the forest, the women in the houses. Each owned tools he or she made or used; the men, the weapons and the hunting and fishing tackle; the women, the household goods and utensils. The household was communistic, comprising several, and often many families . Whatever was pro­ duced was used in common and was C£mmon property: the house, the garden, the long boat. " This equality between the sexes and the role of women underwent a fundamental transformation with the privatization and ownership of the productive forces which in its earliest form began with the domestication of animals. 2 This shift in property relations marked the development of private property and its economic unit, i.e., the family which brought about an end of woman's control over the environment and herself. Engels' analysis of the subordination of women and his emphasis on the determining character of the mode of production did not allow for a thoroughgoing analysis of the problem. To begin with, the division of labor based on sex as a process in itself coupled with patriarchal control over reproduction had no significance other than its role in the augmentation of private property. The division of labor according to Eisenstein, . .. has no specific quality of its own, and property arising from a division of labor in the act of pro­ creation is not differentiated from property arising from the relations of capital. Reproduction and production are seen as one, as they came to be anal­ ysed in rel~tion to the capitalist division of labor in society. In capitalist societies, the relationship of domination and subordination originates not only from the control of the means of production but also from the power relations prevalent in the society. One may ask then on what basis do men within the family retain control and dominate both materially or otherwise if not on the basis of power that may emanate from sexual differences between men and women in their relationship to reproduction? It is this power relation within the family arising from the sexual division of labor that Engles failed to grasp. On the basis of this logic, the abolition of private property would be a far cry for the emancipation of women as it would merely do away with the relations of production and the power relations thereof, not the relations of reproduction themselves. In recognition of this hiatus in analysis, an increasing amount of emphasis is now given to the role of patriarchy in 53 4 the domination and subordination of women. Many radical feminists argue that the patriarchal organization of society ensures male domination. Manifested through male force and control, the patriarchal system is preserved and reproduced t.hrough marriage and the family. Patriarchy then, is a sexual system of power relations in society rooted in biology, i . e., in women ' s reproductive role than in economics or history. Despite the attractiveness of this concept, much of the argument advanced by this perspective suffers from a number of problems. In explaining the domination of men over women, the position of women is reduced to that of a biological reproductive unit. Patriarchy as a system of power and control comes to be defined in terms of sexual control of women by men. Thus, instead of benefiting from and understanding the historical formation of women's oppression, we are presented with biological determinism. It is not possible to subsume a complex, socially and historically constructed phenomenon under a s imple category of biological differences. In addition, if the subordination of women is conceived as natural (biologically determined), then there is no possibility of change in relationships between men and women. Such a reductionist approach also makes men the natural enemies of women. The subordination of women, therefore, cannot entirely be explained by the problematic of patriarchy. To the extent that patriarchy intensifies subordination, understanding the material determ.ina ts of women ' s oppression requires excursion into theory and history. General and sweeping theoretical discourse often obscures the conditions and structures of their oppression. Women and Society in South Africa: The Structure of Domination The extension of critical analysis on the material determinants of women ' s oppression in South Africa is a recent origin. Much of the early pioneering works about women in South Africa concentrated on the notion that the sexual division of labor and female domestic labor was accepted to be natural, and biological rather than the result of historically developed social relations. The intellectual foundation for much of the earlier works was rooted within the modernization school. Much of the political economy of South Africa and the position of women was conceived as an outcome of cooperative/competitive group interaction among the major groups. It was also believed that as rapid industrialization of South Africa would in the long run undermine the structures of apartheid, dissolve the racial divisions of the society, 54 and accelera1? the improvement of the women 1 s position in South Africa. In response to the failure of this school to provide a coherent and systematic analysis of the dynamic of class and racial factors shaping South Africa, an alternative framework emerged in the late 1960s that emphasized historical and structuGal determinants of the political economy of South Africa. Emphasis was placed on the concept of the mode of production and the articulation of modes of production to gain an understanding of the changes and transformation of South Africa since its early incorporation in the world economy. Despite the attractiveness of this framework along with its limitations, a paucity of studies on women in the development of capitalism in South Africa continues to exist. Pre-Colonial Division of Labor The pre-colonial socio-economic structure of the African people, now circumscribed by the territorial boundaries of the colonial state were based upon an agricultural system in which the right of ownership was separated from the right of usefruct. While the right of ownership belonged to the local community as a whole, the right of usefruct was allocated on an individual basis. Under such an ownership pattern all married African women were guaranteed equal access to land. Despite regional variations, the male head of household divided the land allocated to him into small portions for each wife which they used to cultivate vegetables and grains, and keep small animals such as goats and chickens. The rest of the land was put under cultivation in family plots to which members contributed their labor. A portion was set aside for the homestead granaries, cattle and sheep grazing. The division of labor between men and women, although unequal reflected the customs of the society which engendered each role and the acco.mpanying responsibilities with respect and status. Male household members were responsible for a number of activities such as animal husbandry, clearing of land and the removal of brush and tress. In addition, they engaged in the production of agricultural and hunting tools. Women performed the greater part of agricultural production in general and provided for the family food supply in particular. Women were also involved in manufacturing activities by making household goods such as baskets, brooms, pots and mats. Although the African women were confined to a rigidly defined domestic sphere, it was a sphere that included their children 1 s as well as their own subsistence. In addition to agricultural production and the responsibility of family food 55 supply which required intensive and demanding labor, African women were also burdened with additional tasks of fetching water and firewood as well as washing, food preparation, house cleaning and childcare.