Bereavement is a very difficult time for most people as dealing with loss involves intense emotions. Particularly if the death is sudden, those closest to the deceased can experience trauma and shock. In Malawi, there may also be severe financial implications for widows through being dispossessed of her property. This practice is known as ‘property grabbing’.
The potential conflict between the discourses of lineage responsibilities and nuclear family living does not usually surface until after the death of the husband. Whilst he is still alive he can keep relatives happy through contributions from his new-found wealth, in addition to providing security for his wife, but on his death, his wife is at “the mercy of his kin” (Power, 1995, p. 100) who often strip the widow of all the nuclear family’s assets. This practice of ‘property grabbing’ is becoming more common and is experienced by both patrilineal and matrilineal widows, particularly when the couple lived with their children as a nuclear family in urban areas, away from both extended families.
Property grabbing is less likely to occur in matrilineal groups where the couple were living matrilocally, as living among her own kin offers the widow some security (White, Kamanga, Kachika, Chiweza, & Chidyaonga, 2002). Although Chapoto , Jayne and Mason (2011), in their Zambian study, were surprised to find that matrilineal widows were “equally at risk of losing their rights to land”(2011, p. 542), their findings can be explained in terms of most Zambian rural marriages, both matrilineal and patrilineal tending to “follow virilocal/patrilocal residence patterns” (2011, p. 514) where the wife settles in the husband’s village. They acknowledge that in “matrilocal marriages … women are perceived to have generally more secure land rights” (2011, p. 514). Similarly, White et al (2002) report that in matrilocal marriages in Malawi, access to the land will not be challenged but will remain under the widow’s family’s control and usually the widow and her children will remain living in the house built by her husband. In such circumstances, other items of property
127
are usually divided into masculine and feminine with items, such as bicycles and radios, being regarded as masculine and claimed by the husband’s family (White, et al., 2002, p. 57).
Conversely, in patrilineal societies where the couple live patrilocally, the widow traditionally would be invited to stay living there to continue cultivating the land in her role of guardian to her children, as long as bridewealth had been paid (Izumi, 2007, p. 14; Kishindo, 2004, p. 216). Previously, in many African societies, she would have been ‘inherited’ by one of her deceased husband’s kinsmen as (an additional) wife and they would have continued to produce children in the deceased man’s name, but this custom is becoming rare now, mainly due to the fear that the widow may be HIV positive (Munthali, 2002). If the widow chooses to leave her deceased husband’s village, she is not allowed to take any property with her. The payment of bridewealth by her husband’s kinsmen at the time of her marriage usually renders her ineligible to inherit property, regardless of whether or not it was acquired during their marriage (Ewelukwa, 2002, pp. 434-435).
Patrilineal families of deceased male kin tend to claim that through the customary bridewealth payment, full responsibility for the woman, who was often regarded as a permanent minor, was transferred to her husband’s kin and so they are entitled to all the property (Cutrufelli, 1983, pp. 67-68). Ewelukwa (2002) claims that in patrilineal families the wife who was acquired by bridewealth has the status of an “unpaid servant” (2002, p. 439). Other researchers suggest, however, that social capital in terms of having strong social networks among their deceased husband’s kin can offer widows some protection against eviction (Aliber & Walker, 2006; White, et al., 2002). Nevertheless, even traditional patrilineal fathers of highly educated and high- income earning daughters often do not recognise their widowed-daughter’s rights to property as property is considered as belonging to men (White, et al., 2002, p. 76).
128
Matrilineal families, likewise, claim their right to their kinsmen’s property but they do so by conveniently fusing customary and state law. They assert that as the head of the nuclear family household, the husband exclusively owned all the property but they declare that it should be inherited by his sisters and their children to whom he has responsibility customarily. They argue that his widow and children “cannot inherit the ‘property’ of somebody who had no traditional duty to maintain them in his lifetime” (White, et al., 2002, pp. 73-74). The widow, they suggest, should turn to her brothers and uncles for support (White, et al., 2002, p. 74).
There are concerns among Human Rights Activists that customary practices, which may have originally offered protection for women and children (Armstrong, 1994, p. 69) were reconstructed into customary laws by men wanting to augment their positions of power (Chanock, 1985; Ewelukwa, 2002, p. 432). The consequences of such customary laws are now causing widows to lose access to the land that they have cultivated all through their married life and on which they depend to grow food for themselves and their children. Often very poor widows, who may have had to use the last of their financial resources to pay hospital fees and funeral costs for their husbands, are evicted from their huts and land and have their few remaining possessions grabbed by “middle-class, relatively wealthy” relatives of their deceased husband (Izumi, 2007, pp. 13-14). Similarly, women who were comparatively wealthy while their husbands were alive can be left practically destitute by their in-laws.
Thus, customary practices often infringe on modern African states’ inheritance laws, which recognise the widow as a stakeholder in her husband’s estate (White, et al., 2002, pp. 56-59). However, as mentioned earlier, widows together with the majority of Malawians, are unlikely to have the means to exercise their constitutional rights even if they were cognisant of such legal protection available under national law. Both patrilineal and matrilineal families often invoke customary law in an attempt to justify practices which frequently plunge the widows into poverty (Hendricks & Meagher, 2007; Human Rights
129
Watch, 2003; White, et al., 2002). Particularly, if social relationships are not strong between the widow and her husband’s kin (which is less likely if she is very young) or if there is competition for land (particularly from widowed or divorced sisters-in-law who have themselves returned to the village empty- handed), the relatives of the husband will often make life very difficult for the widow, with the specific aim of driving her away (White, et al., 2002, p. 66). Ewelukwa (2002, p. 435) maintains that childless widows or those with only female children are particularly susceptible to eviction. Although both matrilineal and patrilineal groups justify their actions with reference to customary law, Human Rights activists proclaim that it amounts to theft as it disregards the constitutional rights of the widow.
Conclusion
Matriliny and patriliny, far from being stable structures, are clusters of flexible practices that change over time. Likewise, customary law, far from being an ancient system, is a cluster of practices selected by British Administrators in liaison with African elders and established as ‘law’ during the colonial period of indirect rule. Conversely, other transformations heralded during this era particularly in relation to the cash economy, offered opportunities for young men to gain more power and authority in relation to their elders. With the rise of nuclear family living and the colonial insistence of solely recognising the husband as head of the household, matrilineal men enjoyed privileges in terms of authority over their wives and children not traditionally available in the matrilineal subject position of husband. Furthermore, matrilineal men recognised opportunities offered through the patrilineal subject position of husband achieved by paying bridewealth to obtain perceived rights in relation to their wives and children. Thus, interlineage marriages came to be seen as advantageous for matrilineal men.
In contrast to patrilineal families’ general understanding of bridewealth which is similar to the Shona conception in terms securing identity and belonging for the children (Roalkvam, 2005, p. 216), matrilineal families who pay bridewealth
130
for their kinsmen to marry patrilineal women understand the custom in terms of providing rights to the children. These rights in genetricem were enforced by colonial authorities particularly when disputes occurred in relation to the extended families involved with interlineage marriages. If bridewealth had not been paid to secure these rights, matrilineal husbands of interlineage marriages were prevented by law from taking their patrilineal wives and children back to their home village. Thus, matrilineal men were incentivised to pay bridewealth in order to gain recognised rights to their children. Furthermore, the children were understood as legally belonging to the matrilineage, a somewhat incompatible position in terms of the traditional matrilineal discourse which positions men’s children as belonging to their mothers’ families.
The dualist legal system in place in Malawi today, another colonial legacy, often creates uncertainty and confusion with many Malawians being unaware of their constitutional rights. The two systems can be contradictory causing disjunctures which often have negative implications for women, particularly widows. Customary law is often cited against widows by relatives of their deceased husbands, in both matrilineal and patrilineal communities, to dispossess the widows of all the property they had shared with their husbands. Such practices are now regarded as gender-based violence by Human Rights groups.
Although during the colonial period social anthropology studied lineages as structural determinants of politico-jural domains, as I have demonstrated lineage discourses are also very significant in terms of elementary families and everyday relatedness practices. Indeed, understanding lineage discourses in terms of meanings and positioning is crucial to understanding children’s belongingness. In the next chapter, I discuss how since colonial times people from various tribes have gravitated toward commercial centres for job opportunities, settling in peri-urban villages that are convenient for the daily commute to work. This creates tribally diverse peri-urban settlements, such as Mapira, where inter-tribal marriages are common including interlineage marriages.
131