The Last Of The Classic Shona Warriors!

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu 

I am planning to run the 42.2 Kilometre Athens Classic Marathon this year dressed the way Shona Warriors of the 5th Century would have dressed. I will also carry mock Shona weapons of the period: I envisage a Shield of some sort and a Battle Axe (Gano). Incidentally, the Battle Axe would have been my weapon of choice had I existed in that period.

MISSING PIECES:

The Athens Classic Marathon re-enacts the events of 2 500 years ago, when a Greek Soldier, Pheidippides, ran the 42.2 Kilometres from Marathon to Athens to announce to the Athenians, that they had won a brilliant victory against the invading Persians in the "Battle of Marathon." But do you doubt for a moment that these same exploits and feats were also happening, at the same time, far far away in Southern Africa? I don't doubt it for a moment, that's why I will introduce that previously untold story to the corpus this year.

AUTHENTIC OR SYNTHETIC?

Now, running a Marathon is hard on its own, it is even worse if you are carrying props and paraphernalia, this is why my props will have to be of the most lightweight materials possible. Perhaps reinforced Kaylite painted to look the real thing.

Also, because of animal rights activists, I suspect I will not be able to wear my Lion Skins (as brave warriors of that period would have done), so even my "Mhapa" and "Shashiko" will be synthetic. I may just get away with the Ostrich feathers in my Head Dress being authentic, because you do not need to have killed one to use the feathers. 

BUT...

Here is where you come in, as the expert of Zimbabwean History, you must answer me this: what did the Shona Warrior look like 2 500 years ago? What weapons did he carry? Did he have a Battle Cry? Belong to a military unit? Rank? Insignia?

Your failure to answer these questions will introduce the most wild distortions to world history. For if you do not reign in my imagination thus, expect to see poetic licence gone insane! I am just a patriot, and as we all know, Patriotism ruins history!

The "Structure - Agency Debate" In The Simplest Possible Terms.

“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother” – (Apocryphally) attributed to Albert Einstein.

Just think of "Structure" (material wealth, society’s rules and norms) as a building, such as a library, which allows one activity to be done, such as studying for an exam, but prevents another from taking place (e.g. a full-fledged football match). While "Agency" is a reference to the agent/person who wants to carry out the activity.

One of the ideas that is fundamental to analysis in the social sciences, is the so-called “Structure – Agency Debate.” “Structure” simply means all the constraints there are that influence and limit the capacity of individuals to act autonomously. Acting autonomously is the “Agency” side of the debate. It is a “Debate” because one set of thinkers assert that structures are more important in shaping human behaviour, while the other set argues that agency trumps structures, as actors can always find ways around the limits imposed on them by the structures. The structures in question then are society’s rules and norms and, material wealth for example. Poverty, insofar as it can prevent one from travelling to the city centre though there is no rule against this, is a structural constraint for the poor individual.

The “Structure – Agency Debate” is so important to the social sciences that it’s one of those concepts that has to be mastered in the first semester by the politics, sociology, law, history or international relations undergraduate, and it stays with them. When you see the most decorated academic on TV, answering questions about the endless war in Syria, the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of ISIS or even on Climate Change, you can be assured that his point of reference is the “Structure – Agency Debate.” However, he assumes that everyone knows that he has already factored in the Structure – Agency considerations in his answers, so does not explicitly mention this. 

The easiest way to think of the “Structure – Agency Debate” is as illustrated in the pictures included in this blog entry. Just think of "Structure" (material wealth, society’s rules and norms) as a building, such as a library, which allows one activity to be done, such as studying for an exam, but prevents another from taking place (e.g. a full-fledged football match). While "Agency" is a reference to the agent/person who wants to carry out the activity. But the debate is not resolved that easily. As human beings (agents) built that library (structure) in the first place, it follows that “Agency” influences “Structure” as well. This is where we enter the “Chicken – Egg Dilemma” territory at full speed. The contemporary sociologist, Anthony Giddens, has sought to rescue us from this dilemma by proposing a “Structuration Theory,” whereby “Structure” and “Agency” are to be seen as two sides of the same coin and not necessarily opposite elements.

Just think of "Structure" (material wealth, society’s rules and norms) as a building, such as a library, which allows one activity to be done, such as studying for an exam, but prevents another from taking place (e.g. a full-fledged football match). While "Agency" is a reference to the agent/person who wants to carry out the activity.