To Caldwell et al. presumably a custom like this would be just another case of ‘extra-marital relations’, and thus ‘permissiveness’. “What the Caldwell’s model really fails to do” Heald says, “is to grasp the essential sacredness of sex in Africa” (Heald 1995:497).
So far so good: Ahlberg’s points that Christianity altered sexual mores and previous restrictions; Heald’s points that sexuality is seen as powerful, sacred and dangerous. What intrigues me about the Caldwell paper however is the way that it may be read ‘against the grain’. Even if I find the paper abominable, and even if I agree with both of the critics, I still want to give it a second reading, from a feminist point of view. The authors think persistently from an all-male perspective. As also demonstrated by the critics, their viewpoint is—in spite of certain attempts to pretend something else—part and parcel of the Christian ‘Eurasian’ perspective. This also implies a firm male point of view: Men are subjects, women objects. But what if this perspective is subverted? What happens if the author’s impressive array of anthropological data (more than 200 works in the reference list) are read from a feminist perspective? If ‘sexuality’ is seen not as risk and danger, and ‘chastity’ not as inherent virtue—what then will emerge from their data?