Concepto y estructura de la secuencia didáctica

At an ideological level the household is bound together by kinship that defines norms, values, obligations, roles of living and relating. Central to this is setting parameters for marriage and parenthood, both of which are key relational processes in households. Marriage defines the relationship between husband and wife, and also between them, relatives and the community. Parenthood defines predominantly relations between mothers, fathers, daughters and sons. Of course parenthood also defines relations between husband and wife. Both marriage and parenthood are important in conferring and defining one’s own identity in the household.

Nhlapo notes: "In African customary law the family is confined in terms of a relationship that arises from marriage" (Nhlapho, 1991:112). Furthermore, marriage is a non- individualistic relationship. Its important aspects are procreation and survival; hence

women are not seen just as individuals but as adjuncts to the family, which itself is part of a clan.

The major contribution of feminist scholarship to the ideological debate has been to qualify the inequality in relations between men and women as “patriarchal”. Meena asserts that it is important "to appreciate the patriarchal ideology which provides the context upon which women play and accept a subordinate role" (Meena, 1992:11). The fact that gender is reinforced by patriarchy rather than just customs and norms means that women's subordination can persist despite the dynamism of culture on which it is supposed to be based.

The patriarchal framework also encapsulates relations between young and old, that is, inter-generation relations. These relations are also not equal. Adulthood and parenthood confer authority to set parameters and behavioural norms for daughters and sons. These are socially defined. But the young operate within the gender framework as well.

Therefore, my point of departure is that there are gender and generation relations within the household that are socio-culturally defined. These give meaning to being an adult male, adult female, young male and young female. But through affinity and filiation these broad categories are further translated into specific social categories in a household setting. It is within this context that I understand social labels and identities of husband, father, household head, wife, mother, daughter and son. Each one of these is a socially defined identity with roles, obligations, behavioural norms and rules about relating to each other.

A number of writers have defined the concept of identity, but I draw from those that I consider appropriate for my research (Campbell, 1993; Connel, 1995; Sen, 1990; Ihinger-Tallman et.al., 1995). Identity refers to self meaning and cognition that people attach to their status and role in society in a particular context. So each individual may have many, and sometimes conflicting, identities. People draw on specific identities depending on the context. Therefore, identity is not rigid or static. It is constantly being renegotiated and also maintained. "The context-dependent nature of social identity can be accommodated by conceptualising identity as an adaptive resource drawn on by subjects in tackling the social and material conditions of daily existence" (Campbell, 1993:53).

Ihinger-Tallman et al. (1995) bring additional useful concepts into the discussion. They point out that people will draw on a particular identity in a particular context based on their perception of the "saliency" of that identity for them. They also note the importance of "significant others" in people's perception and daily living, that is, how they perceive they are seen by others. That is because perception of identity is heavily influenced by assumptions about what is appropriate behaviour. Therefore, "(o)n the whole, the process of social identity formation is structured in such a way that identity tends to contribute to the reproduction of existing power relations" (Campbell, 1993:57). Social identity itself is embedded in socialisation and conscientisation about what is acceptable male and female, and young and old behaviour. Therefore, even where women have gone through feminist conscientisation, depending on the context, they might consciously reproduce certain gender power relations as a mechanism for managing household relations. Similarly, women are more likely to use influence than authority. Jonasdottir (1991)makes a useful distinction between influence and authority. The latter is legitimised power and the former is un-legitimised, subtle and hidden power. Authority “belongs” to men and influence to women. Under what conditions is the latter internalised oppression or “power within”?

Also, as discussed earlier, a household is the actual way of living in relation to norms, but influenced by the macro context within which the specific household finds itself. That is why "household composition alters authority patterns as well as the division of labour” (Safa, 1995:181). I therefore support Connel (1987) who warns against ideological determinism and reductionism. He suggests that "(r)eductionism could be avoided, not by claims of autonomy of ideological practice, but by consistently seeing it as practice, ontologically on a par with any other practice and equally involved in the constitution of social interests" (ibid.:245). Kandiyoti makes a similar point when she warns against concealed ideological hegemony in gender analysis (Kandiyoti,

1998:147).

But the basis of inequality in households goes beyond just gender, and includes race, class and ethnicity. These are also ideological in form and critical for understanding when analysing gender relations in households, especially in a South African context. The intersection of gender with race, class and ethnicity provides context and specificity to relations within households, which are usually ignored. Mcllwaine (1995) highlights conceptual shifts in the literature in the treatment of the relationship between these categories, from reductionism, to additive models and parallelism. She emphasises the need to view these as interrelated in any analytical meaning (ibid.:238).

That is why the material dimension is important in my understanding of household dynamics. It provides the concrete reality of day-to-day living within the ideological framework.