Masters thesis defense

1. THESIS
DEFENSE
A critical analysis of the effects of
structural-heteropatriarchy, religion and
coloniality in espousing homophobia in
the Southern Development Community
(SADC): A case of Zimbabwe
Kudzai Maurine Munyavi

2. INTRODUCTION
• My thesis opened with REDEFINING the LGBTIQ+ movement. This is essential very early
on, for it garners undivided attention from the target audience since it offers an
opportunity to correct myths surrounding the SOGIESC rights movement because it is
these same myths that are, assuredly, reasons why many Africans remain uninterested in
engaging in the LGBTQI+ rights discourse. Thus, it is imperative to REJECT ALL THAT IS
UNTRUE in the beginning so that everybody is on the same page from the jump.
• I also harnessed the opportunity of CALLING-OUT homophobic Africans (leaders and
citizens alike) on their BANALITY OF EVIL, which makes them refuse to think and see the
coloniality in their attitudes and behaviors. And then, I CALLED-IN African feminists-
womanists to join the SOGIESC rights movement fully: to walk the talk! This is judicious
since back home, there’s an adage that goes, mwana asingacheme anofira mbereko “a
child who doesn’t cry will die of hunger,” and I, assuredly, do not want to be that child.
• I closed off my introduction by HIGHLITING OUR–QUEER BLACK BODIES GREATEST
STUMBLING BLOCKS in achieving LGBTIQ+ rights and then I OFFER WHAT APPEARS AS
FEASIBLE SOLUTIONS to achieving SOGIESC rights on the African continent and the
subsequent rejection of imperial phenomenon on the part of Africans.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
• My thesis is a BRICOLAGE of queer, decolonial, post-
structuralist, and feminist theorists. It mainly borrows from
FOUCAUDIAN PHILOSOPHIES to trace the genealogy of
homophobia through a divulging of the technicalities and
operations of homophobia in the motherland.
• Through A QUEERING of these schools of thought collectively, I
am able to analyze and paint a picture of how IMPERIAL FORCES
co-constituted and co-bulwark antipathy toward African
LGBTIQ+ bodies.

4. METHODOLOGY
• I employed a purely African queer feminist-womanist QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of literature, penal codes, and relevant data.
• My literature review at its core MAPED THE ORIGINS of homophobia in Africa, tracing
the phenomenon step by step to the earliest available African records, it goes without
mentioning that most of these available records were unsurprisingly West-phalic and
Eurocentric in their approach.
• However, this probing also mandated a look into the HISTORICITY OF WESTERN
HOMOPHOBIA which aided in depicting how the homophobic phenomenon is,
assuredly, colonial debris.
• It is through this literature review that I am able to TEASE-APART how this DISTINCTLY
WESTERN PHENOMENA at the time of colonization took shape and form in Africa
through the handmaidens of colonization and also how it is sustained by the very
powers that birthed it.

5. METHODOLOGY
• This teasing apart is divided into sections. It traces the history of Zimbabwe as well
as homophobia which employed decolonial and Western scholarship. Through a
juxtaposing of Western and African literature via a Foucauldian approach, I map
how the condition of Zimbabwe and and African LGBTQI+ bodies arrived using a
purely queer African lens that pays attention to Western misinterpretations and
and short-comings.
• My focus is not only on colonizers but also on creatures of colonization–those that
took over incumbency from colonizers, in our case the longest-serving Zimbabwean
ruler, Robert Gabriel Mugabe. Mugabe was the Thomas Aquinas of our time, very
homophobic and very influential; as such, it will be a miscarriage of justice if we are
to discuss the condition of African LGBTIQ+ bodies without discussing this late
sultan because If homophobia could be a person, Mugabe was that!

6. METHODOLOGY
• Probing Mugabe’s role aids in making sense of the contemporary Ugandan
situation and all the other African nations and people who espouse
horrendous homophobic laws and attitudes toward African and African-
diasporic queer bodies.
• The second part of this comparative analysis analyzes qualitative and
quantitative relevant data from chosen sources, among which are the United
Nations, Freedom House, and Open Democracy, to mention but a few.
• I handpicked 10 out of the 14 SADC Nations in this section of the this for the
brevity of time among other reasons mentioned in the thesis– Zimbabwe,
Botswana, the Kingdom of Lesotho, Malawi, Eswatini, Zambia,
Tanzania, Angola, Mozambique and Namibia most of which are former
British colonies.

7. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
• Most countries record a poor GII except Namibia and Botswana, which is
indicative of how the patriarchy reinforced through co-constitutive
structures, policies, and social norms enforce and reinforce
compulsory heterosexuality in the motherland.
• Colonial legacies remain ubiquitous in post-colonial Africa, i.e., in
regimes, laws, societal structures, and religions
• A lack of LGTBQI laws = compounded homophobia, and it makes
environments incubatory for antipathy toward LGBTIQ+ bodies. It goes
without mentioning that SOGIESC rights do not always entail the
opposite, especially if the rights are not backed by decolonial
pedagogy as evinced in the South African situation.

8. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
• Colonial religions made the ground fertile for the gospel of prosperity,
which is today the reason why Africa– a historically underprivileged
continent is receptive to conservative Christian ideals that maybe
marginal in the global north and thus rigid to decolonial processes that
may require scrutinizing un-African religions like Christianity.
• Homophobia in the global south appears co-constitutive of global north
homophobia, and this is why global north conservatives are heavily
invested (DARK MONEY) in funding churches and anti-democratic
movements that perpetuate ideals that may be more marginal in the
global north, ideals that promote homophobia and many isms that
anchor the system of patriarchy.

9. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
• Systems of oppression require more than just laws to dismantle,
especially since the most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of
the oppressed. The dismantling of homophobia will doubtless cost us a
lot of time and abundant willingness to learn and unlearn.
• African leaders are not the monolithic beneficiaries of the
homophobic condition in Africa, and further research could help
develop and affirm this standpoint.
• Africans are, indeed, partly responsible for the African homophobic
condition, particularly “educated” African leaders.

10. CONCLUSION
• Homophobia in Africa is doubtless a relic of colonial rule that remains
co-bulwarked by the very powers that birthed it.
• Africans must reject imperialism, whatever face it manifests in; they must
be willing to cross paths with hard truths, including a lot of religious
cognitive dissonance if they are to decolonize truly. They must be
willing to let go of WANTING TO BE BOUGOUISIE. WE MUST REJECT
THE IMPERIAL NOTION OF UBUNTU: “Ubuntu means we must not
stupidly adhere to Western ideologies till death do us part, even if other
African bodies must die in that process.”
• There is an urgent need for curating more decolonial scholarship
and for decolonial pedagogy.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Africa must repeal all colonial laws as the first step towards liberation from
coloniality.
• Perhaps if Michel Foucault’s claim– that there is no outside of power is valid,
which I believe it is: further research might tease apart whether a natural, un-
homophobic African “state-of-mind” can be uncovered once coloniality is
dismantled and if coloniality can, even be easily dismantled.