By Takura Zhangazha*
In a recent conversation with a longstanding colleague from our college and university days we laughed at how different things now are about what is
considered entertainment or celebrities in contemporary Zimbabwe. The conversation took a number of turns. With the most obvious being on the fact of
the passage of time and its introduction of new technologies for communication for
entertainment.
The second angle we took in the casual conversation examined a little bit of the political economy of what
remains of Zimbabwe’s entertainment industry and its artistic independence. In this we asked ourselves a number of added
questions. These included the fact that
entertainment is also fundamentally about making some sort of living. And that back in our younger days it was much
more straightforward how this could be done.
If you were a musician in the 90s, you could easily create even a one hit wonder of
a song and the record sales would be enough to get you to the then and still
now envied leafier suburbs of your city.
At least until your next hit song.
If you were an author/writer and you produced a bestseller
the publishing houses back then such as the Zimbabwe Publishing House or Baobab
books would have to ensure your royalties are paid depending on sales. And you would be all over the school
curriculum meaning that the print run of your book(s) barring piracy would
always be a steady source of income.
Though it was least likely you would live the life of a platinum album musician
since reading is always going to be harder than listening and dancing.
We then turned, in the conversation, to the reality of what
is obtaining. And in doing so we
remembered a little bit how we used to argue about the dual nature of our cultural
and even celebrity experiences.
From
wanting to watch what turned out to be not so real American or British
wrestling, or taking in copious amounts of American Rhythm and Blues (R+B) music
and television culture that it was in part clear where we would eventually be
headed. At least culturally.
And this was a place where an intrinsic and
organic value of our own cultural appreciation would be lost to what would be
global trends. Not just because of
technology (including radios, colour TVs and mobile telephony/music). But also because
we would with hindsight arrive at a place where we lose our own intrinsic understanding
of a specific cultural identity. And
become more global than we reflect our local realities. Based on the desires to
be as fashionable as it would have arguably been at the establishment of the then Rhodesian settler colony to be religious within the ambit of Christianity.
As our access in part via either high school or ending up at
college or university expanded our view of the world there are certain things that
we desired. And primary among them was
recognition at reaching specific societal and urban success heights. Whether be it in a career or the cultural
products that were more fashionable to consume (including music, movies, sport, food or beverages).
What my colleague and I realized is that we have now come
full circle to looking at contemporary cultural developments from not just an
understanding of for example what is ‘hegemony’ in neoliberalism. But more significantly from the perspective
of young Zimbabweans through related comparative analysis based on our own experiences.
The young Zimbabwean of today consumes cultural products in
at least two respects. Almost in a
fashion that would be similar to how those of us growing up in urban or rural
areas did in the late 90s.
Initially with desire for differentiation
(especially by way of individualism, economic class and geographical location). How many contemporary songs claim that the
singer rose from the dusts of the ghetto?
And you have to ask the question, “To go where?”
In most cases as of old to be where all the
rich people now live. And this is most likely to be in the suburbs. Except with the rider that they did not have
to pursue education as much as my age group did.
Which is all fair and fine if only just to be analyzed.
And this brings me to the key point of what this cultural
framework constructs in reality. It
constructs as it has done elsewhere a specific celebrity politics and activism
that looks for ephemeral and materialist attention before it acquires default substance. It is our new reality. In this we have to return to a firm understanding that the mediation of our national politics, economics and social
wellbeing is now done via a relatively ubiquitous cultural base that admires
the global north. Not only for its
lifestyle but also its politics as supported by its individualism, materialism
and class differentiation(s).
So it becomes understandable that our politics and political
economy may come to accept the most exploitative among us as those that should
lead us because they are millionaires as approved by global capital. Or those that sing the most popular songs on
social media even if they do not sell records or get income from that popularity which in most cases is based on what is referred to as a youth dividend.
And in other instances the most prayerful and miracle-creating pastors/religious
persons as those that hold the key to a new national material success.
Whichever way we want to look at it we probably need to become more realistic.
Or we will repeat history.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his own personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
Leave a Reply