Procedimientos para la solución de conflictos colectivos de trabajo

As discussed above, the family plays a very central role in the sexual morals and development of its individuals. Hence, changes in the family precipitated either by internal factors or influenced by external processes of social change have serious ramifications for a society and its people. Traditionally, the nuclear family was incorporated into the all- embracing extended family. However, with urbanisation, a new ideology seems to have arisen that, to some extent, emphasises the independence of the individual as opposed to the extended family role.

To a certain extent, urbanisation seems to have brought with it some factors that gave rise to power for individuals. Consequently, the family experienced massive changes, to the extent that in recent years traditional marriage, family, and kinship systems in Shona societies have

171 _{M.F.C. Bourdillon, The Shona Peoples: An Ethnography of the Contemporary Shona, with Special Reference}

been the subject of intensive scrutiny and analysis. Bourdillon in his book, The Shona

Peoples: An Ethnography of the Contemporary Shona, with Special Reference to their Religion explains that the introduction of money into Shona marriage payments reduced the

group aspect of marriage and made young men more independent of their families.172 I would like to argue here that urbanisation did not bring about the practice of homosexuality but the relaxed social grip on individual members paved the way for some degree of independence for people to go on with their business and be answerable to themselves.

Because of urbanisation, the complexity of attitudes and practices which made up the institution of Shona marriages still existed but was a little relaxed. Some practices were abandoned altogether. Others, though still regarded as essential, were made more difficult to carry out by modern conditions.173 Besides, in modern conditions their consequences are sometimes very different from those they had in the traditional environment. Thus, certain effects follow wherever a money economy is substituted for a subsistence economy.

So with urbanisation, money took the place of goods in all kinds of exchange, thus in the case of marriage up until now, money has now replaced cows in payment for roora. Furthermore, the payment of roora is less community based or paid by joint effort; it is now mainly an individual effort. The transactions which money entered took on a more and more commercial character. Since there was no limit to the amount of desirable goods which could be obtained by money, persons whose position entitles them to demand gifts (vana tezvara / father in-law) tend to raise their demands higher and higher. The range of possessions regarded as necessities constantly increased to include things like shopping for suits for all of

172 _{Ibid., 335-336.}

173 _{The idea of maintaining kinship ties, though it seems to be very appealing, became very difficult because of}

distance and the travelling expenses involved if one has to get in touch with relatives. As a result people were forced to make do with what they could afford. This same approach is still maintained even up to this day.

the in-laws!174 On this note then one can argue that a scenario had presented itself that provides some degree of refuge for gays using the ever-increasing cost of bride-prices as an excuse for not marrying. So, it in other words, increased bride-prices have provided an extra protective cushion or a refuge for homosexuals. While it is a realistic situation that bride prices have rocketed, it also gives an authentic reason for a man to stay well clear out of marriage with not so much push from the family, because the families can no longer afford to assist in bride-wealth payments. Such a scenario provides a good excuse for remaining single. My argument here is not that someone chooses to be homosexual because they are running away from an expensive bride-price, but I am suggesting that the increase in bride-price must have been received as a blessing in disguise by homosexuals because to a certain extent it provides a reason for not getting married traditionally given the attitude of the people in this context to homosexuality. Even though the family may still mount pressure, they can no longer arrange a marriage if they are not paying. Thus, the family‟s authority over the individual has been relaxed.

Commenting in his book, The Death of the Family, David Cooper presents an impassioned denunciation of the family institution.175 He maintains that this institution is stultifying and sometimes lethal for its members, because families tend to glue people together too much. He also claims that families instil social controls, which are too stringent and perpetuate an outmoded and elaborate set of taboos, which in reality are chains that prevent one from reaching one‟s true potential. If Cooper‟s argument is right, one could say that, the aspect of

174 _{It is startling how the money economy has brought a whole new meaning to roora payment. Every now and}

then you hear families asking for items that were never part of the traditional roora payments. There are some cases of the families of educated daughters demanding roora to be paid in foreign currency and demanding exorbitant items ranging from „shopping‟ to quality head to toe wardrobes which include suits, hats and shoes for the in-laws,. Some would go to the extend of demanding the receipt for the shopping, and if it cost less than what they expected then a top-up fee would be charged.

weakened family authority and increased bride-price due to the money economy come in handy for homosexuals.