When we want to discourage or condemn something, we will give it a bad name. Hence the saying, ‘give a dog a bad name, and hang him’. Some things and people ‘suffer’ simply because they were given bad names, or because their names acquired unfavourable meanings. Ask the snake and the hyena.
On the other hand, when we want to promote and protect something, we sanitise it with good names. That way, we make it easier to associate with or practice it without any burden of guilt. What some will call corruption or, specifically, bribery, will go by other names among those who practice it.
It becomes soda, chai, akantu (something), bread (omugaati gwa boss), facilitation, weekend, or commission (kamisoni). Certainly, chai is as innocent as a baby. So is soda, and our dear ‘weekend’. The list of things cleansed by naming is long. By all intents, enjawulo is theft. If a thing costs Shs 50,000, but I tell the one for whom I am procuring it that it is Shs 100,000, I have effectively stolen Shs 50,000 from them.
It is blatant dishonesty, deceit, and exploitative manipulation. But when we call such an exercise ‘okuyiriba’ (hustling) or okuyiiya (innovating), we wash it clean in our minds, so that it is easier to indulge in. This way, even a very pious person may not find sin in it that is worth avoidance or repentance.
When it comes to relationships, it gets more interesting. We shall shake our heads in wonder when we walk past street prostitutes. We ask how one’s daughter can in their right mind wake up every day to stand on the street, waiting for someone to buy the service of their sexual organs.
How can someone commercialise their body, especially something as ‘sacred’ and special as sexual intercourse? We announce the trade to be immoral, and find our pronouncement to be self-evident. At the same time, another person expects to be given money on dates, yet perfectly convinced that their expectation does not characterise prostitution!
Some will even boldly argue that they have invested a lot in themselves. That their hair, makeup and clothes go for so much and therefore, they expect commensurate offers. Dear lady, did the man come naked? Why is it the lady’s investment in herself that should be paid for, as if all else in the relationship exclusively benefits the man?
In effect, this is prostitution that goes by other names. We may call it ‘transport’ money, but we know what is being commodified. We know that it is monetary negotiation, just as would happen at an auction – where the highest bidder takes the item. The irony of it all, is that those who defend such transactional relationships so vigorously until their armpits go wet are at the same time opposed to objectification of women.
Well, maybe it is not objectification when the price is set by the object. Some sellers are quite shrewd. They put no price tag (as prostitutes do). Never know, for an item of Shs 30,000, someone could offer Shs 200,000. The difference then is that the street prostitute is more straightforward and honest in their trade.
Objectors will ask, ‘isn’t it the men that give, even without solicitation’? Yes, but, would there be a giver if there was no receiver to accept?
Second, wouldn’t this mean acceptance to be commodified? Is it necessary to ask: ‘When this man is giving me money on a date, what exactly is it communicating?’ No; since it is beneficial, it can pass. The same way we rise up in arms against patriarchy, but still expect that the man is supposed to pick the bill on any outing with a woman.
Any man detesting this arrangement is simply a miser that should be avoided. It is another example of giving something a bad name so that people avoid it. Of course, against commodification, we are all agreed that selling human beings is unacceptable. Perhaps it could be understood when one human being autonomously decides to sell their labour, or even themselves.
In one way or the other, we sell ourselves to our employers. Some defenders of prostitution have as well argued that it is a service like any other. That is how the name changes from the soiled one of ‘prostitutes’ to ‘sex workers’ or ‘ladies of the night’. The morality of prostitution is a debate for another day.
But I hope it is evident how many engage in it without wanting to be called so. Hence devising supportive nomenclature. When it comes to bride price and all the paraphernalia that happens at ‘Introduction’ ceremonies, let us call it Introduction, not commodification of women. All the stuff (cows) we ask the man to pay, let us call it a ‘token of appreciation’.
Never mind that there is actual bargaining that takes place, where the parents of the girl will set their definite price; we are not selling our daughter. Never mind that in some cultures girls are called ‘ka sukaali’ (sugar to come). With such logic, we may as well insist that, although the sun produces heat, it is actually cold.
Sure, this one-way and required (set) token of appreciation is not a price tag. I hate the German philosopher Hegel for insinuating that an African mind can comfortably accommodate a contradiction. I imagine myself on that day, seated in front of my house.
Visitors have spread items all over my courtyard, which they introduce on loudspeakers one after the other, requesting me to give them my daughter for marriage. ‘Father-in-law, we have brought for you all the cows you asked for, including the omutwalo (bride price) of a refrigerator’. Someone get me a good name for that purchase ceremony, so that I whitewash my future guilt.
The author is a teacher of philosophy
inarticle} inarticle}
