iLobolo: My Thoughts & Findings

I recently completed my research project which centerd around the impact of African Culture on the marriage experience of Christian Africans. A number of studies have revealed that there is a decline in marriage rate and an increase of age at first marriage amongst black South Africans. This means they are not getting married as much as they used to and that they are older when they marry than before. A contributing factor to this has been identified as the payment of ‘bridewealth’, popularly known as ‘ilobolo’. So I thought I’d share my thoughts and findings on the subject with you guys and by so doing provide answers to a few questions that many tend to have.

Research done among contemporary Zulu society1 unearthed that 60% of men regarded ilobolo as an impediment to marriage. This meant they couldn’t marry when they wanted as a result of high ilobolo costs, which explains the increase of age at first marriage. Some, especially in urban areas, resort to cohabitation, which explains the decline in marriage rate. The research also found that ilobolo remains highly esteemed and is an integral and defining feature of an African marriage. The findings of my small-scale research are in agreement. The requirement for the payment of ilobolo has prolonged and delayed marriage for some, while for others it has landed them in debt. The common domain of ilobolo of the couples I interviewed was between R26 000 and R40 000. Mail and Guardian on the other hand found that the average amount paid for ilobolo by South African men is R61 540 with the smallest amount paid being R10 000 and the largest R100 000 (Mail and Guardian online 2017).

The purpose of ilobolo and common misconceptions

I don’t have enough time to discuss the history of ilobolo, but I will try though to throw in a little of it here and there. The term ‘bride-wealth’ suggests that ilobolo is a token of gratitude on the part of the bridegroom’s people to those of the bride, a practice that seeks to transfer wealth between the two families. It can also be understood as compensation for the transfer of the bride’s reproductive and labour power. This compensation was not intended to profit the bride’s family financially but was rather embedded in the relations of reciprocity between the two families2.

Ilobolo was paid out in the form of cattle (symbolic of wealth) before colonization and apartheid policies pushed men into mining and other industrial employment. These changes and changes in currency affect ilobolo payments because the change of the payment medium from cattle to money, from a thing to use to a thing to buy, commercialized African marriage. Whereas ilobolo was originally valued as a token of appreciation to the bride’s family, it is now easily seen as an economical transaction

Ilobolo is reflective of communalism that exists in African societies. Since Africans are communal, marriage is not just a matter between a man and a woman, but between their families as well. This is why one of the purposes of ilobolo is to establish fellowship between the two families, termed as ‘ukwakha ubuhlobo’. Historically, there is a spiritual insinuation to it, that the ancestors of each family will be informed of and therefore bless the marriage through the payment of ilobolo. This acceptance and blessing of the marriage will be seen through the bearing of children, hence the common African saying, "cattle beget children". This explains the shedding of animal blood involved during the process of ilobolo.
As much as marriage is also a family affair in Christian Scripture, Christians take a different stance concerning the blessing of a marriage and child bearing. Parental approval is required, but it is God that blesses a marriage. The blessing is pronounced by whoever presides over the marriage, appealing to God to release a blessing over it (see Ruth 4:11-12). This is why it is common for the presiding pastor to pray for the couple after the marriage has been solemnized during a Christian wedding. Biblically, children are viewed as a gift that comes from God (see Psalm 127:3) which, as discussed in my post Mother's Day...The Other Side, are in no way a sign of whether the marriage is blessed or not.

Responsibility and accountability is another reason why ilobolo is paid. Ilobolo demonstrates the husband’s ability to take care of his wife financially. The fact that in days of old young men took from their father’s herd in order to pay ilobolo doesn’t take away from this purpose but it only emphasizes how dependent Africans were on their family system and how marriage was not an individual affair but involved the whole family and clan. Payment of ilobolo also proves the young man’s seriousness about marriage and causes him to be accountable to both families for their marriage.

The price of ilobolo is not fixed and is dependent on factors such as the girl’s character and social status, this being the root of the misconception that ilobolo gives value to the woman3. I’m in disagreement with this stance. Yes, ilobolo does dignify the woman by honouring her parents, but it is in no way a determining factor of her worth. This again will lead to unreasonable amounts of money being requested and ultimately will mean a man can’t marry a woman who is outside of his social class.  This is why I’m not in support of ilobolo being translated as ‘bride price’ which perpetuates the common misconception that ilobolo is for purchasing the bride. This misconception is one that results in the commercialization of ilobolo as well as the abuse of the woman in marriage. By definition, ilobolo is a token, a symbol of a fact, not the fact itself, when we keep that in mind, unnecessary strife is easily avoided.

Interactions between Christianity and ilobolo

Despite the spiritual aspect of ilobolo, I have found no other dissimilarity between Christian beliefs and ilobolo. In fact, the Bible has its own form of bride-wealth, the ‘mohar’. Mohar refers to the compensation a husband pays to the bride’s family, i.e. the sum given to the father of the bride for her economic loss to the family4. Shechem offered to pay whatever price and offer whatever gift Jacob would require for Dinah his daughter (Genesis 34:11-12). Jacob’s service of seven years served as payment for Rachel (Genesis 29:18) while David submitted two hundred Philistine foreskins which was more than what was requested by Saul (1 Samuel 18:25).
Why do we have so little to refer to in the New Testament when it comes to such? My pastor recently correctly pointed out that the New Testament doesn’t present any new marriage procedures since it was working on the foundation of the Old Testament, which was the only Scripture of the New Testament church.

Okay, I could go on for days, so I’ll just park here. You’re welcome to share your own thoughts in the comments section, I’d love to hear your views. Blessings!

PS: I got 90% for  this particular post grad research report so you can trust me 😉

1 Marriage and Bridewealth (ilobolo) in Contemporary Zulu society by Ponstel and Rudwich in African Studies Review
2 The Changing Urban Bantu Family by Steyn and Rip in ‘The Journal of Marriage and Family 30 (3)
3 Christian Ethics in African Context by Haselbarth
4 Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2011