admin
Dr Masimba Mavaza
A lot of things do happen in the world, but what we are seeing in the diaspora beats all the fiction you might think of.
As most of you already realize, in-law relationships vary from culture to culture and even from family to family.
For example, in African countries you’ll probably find many daughters-in-law moving in with their husbands’ families.
But in England and approximately 30 percent of the other countries in the world, you probably won’t see that occurring much.
Why? Different cultures. And the differences aren’t just geographic, they highlight the two main types of cultures: Collectivism and Individualism.
Individualistic groups place emphasis on independence, self-sufficiency, and are motivated by individual desires. Collectivists, on the other hand, focus on group or family desires.
Neither approach is wrong, but mixing them together can create difficult situations.
What happens when you place a Zimbabwean son-in-law raised in an individualist culture (like United Kingdom) with parents and parent-in-laws raised in Africa, you will surely have misunderstandings.
That’s why I feel it’s so important to understand why certain cultures are different.
When you know why someone is acting the way they are, you’re naturally more inclined to head off misunderstandings before they occur.
Because we tend to use our own culture as a reference point when judging someone else’s, we can improve our relationships by understanding (or trying to understand) each others’ reference points. This concept goes hand in hand for building healthier relationships with in-laws.
Tatenda Pasenda of Luton in England brought his new wife home. She was born and bred in the United Kingdom.
As the new bride entered the house for the first time, she was met by the relatives of her husband.
She stood by the door and loudly exclaimed: “Ohh my gee, you have such a big family! Hie guys I am your daughter- in-law. I hope you all don’t stay in this house. I hate crowds.”
Of course, as many of you know, a common conflict among Zimbabweans comes from deciding whether or not to live with in-laws.
An individualistic daughter in-law may want to live independently of her in-laws, while her collectivist in-laws may want and actually expect her to live with them.
And if she and her husband agree to live with his family, they will most likely face challenges while adjusting to living in a collectivist household that places more emphasis on group goals at the expense of individual desires.
You’ll no doubt want your son and daughter-in-law to be happy and blessed in their union, and you will want her to have a sense of belonging to ensure she feels a part of the family and is happy.
Tatenda’s new wife was not having none of it. She went on to say the family must not expect anything from her as she had just come for her man.
This will not have been said in a normal Zimbabwean family. The daughter- in-law is expected to be calm down, but not the new ones now being called ama2000.
Laston Karodza said: “Now to the difference that probably causes the most conflict: communication. As many of you know, I’m a fan of direct, clear communication (but by no means am I exempt from having my occasional indirect moments), which is natural given my individualistic upbringing in the UK. That’s not to say, however, that my way is the right way; it’s just that: my way. It helps me keep my relationships less complicated.”
A father-in-law wants his son-in-law to help him assemble a desk. The father- in-law may say “This desk seems hard to build. I hope I can do this by myself,” implying that he wants his son-in-law to help.
The son-in-law raised in UK may not understand his father-in-law’s indirect request and say “well good luck with that. You’re smart, I’m sure you can do it.”
While the son-in-law is trying to be encouraging, the father-in-law’s needs are not being met. In my day, the son-in-law will have to pay a fine. A heavy dime.
Or imagine this daughter-in-law asking her Zimbabwean mother-in-law in front of a few friends directly to clean the backyard.
The mother-in-law may be offended by the bluntness and furthermore may attempt to “save face”.
Saving face is often a consideration for collectivists, which basically means preventing loss of dignity or maintaining self-worth, this sometimes means insulting or denigrating the daughter-in-law in order to restore the status in the relationship (vertical hierarchy at work, by the way).
Recently, a Zimbabwean in-law posted about her mother-in-law who expected her to put in all the effort to improve their relationship.
This didn’t surprise me much, given the vertical hierarchy in the mother in law’s collectivist culture.
Within a vertical hierarchy, “superiors” (bosses, elders, parents) deserve (and often demand) more respect, simply because of their statuses as such.
This mother-in-law was most likely expecting the daughter-in-law to put in more effort because the daughter in laws are inferior in “power”.
In contrast, in an individualistic family, the daughter-in-law would refer to her mother in law by first name, typically talk directly to her, and expect her mother-in-law to put in just as much effort as she does, naturally there will be some level of conflict.
New marriages are shortened because of the in law clashes. But as time moves we must always move with time.
Welcoming a new in law has its price.
Online Reporter