(21): Socio-economics of Courtship in Northern Hausa-Muslim society.

MA Iliasu.

Abstract.

Sociology, politics, geography, psychology and culture are all functions of economics. As Karl Marx asserts, the mode of production in material life determines the general character and sociopolitical, cultural and economic behaviour of the society, in his revolutionary and prolific dissection of historical materialism. And to whichever provable historical paradigm, scientific framework and philosophical logic, Marx has not been proved wrong. Evidently because the dictates of mode of production has seen to it that all aspects of society have been relied upon it's nature. And marriage, being one of the inherent and ubiquitous bodies of culture and sociology, which is also the further level of courtship, has also been very sensitive to the mode of production. In the past, it was relatively determined by the sociocultural reciprocal altruism, effort, pursuit of experiential derivations, and the glorious feudal solidarity. But in the present, it has been reduced to the function of material, or rather monetary affordability. And rightly so, as approved by the rendition of historical materialism, due to the sensitivity the survival means have upon any respective mode of production.

This essay will attempt an observation on how the two different modes of production [feudalism and capitalism] as dictators of socioeconomic behaviour in material life, determine the dynamics of courtship in our society. It will carefully put courtship against socio-economic dynamics to analyze the dilemma our society face, and to further dissect the what, why and how from the lens of historical materialism. It's in the interest of this essay to put more emphasis on studying the engagement of common man - a serf in feudalism not an aristocrat, and a proletariat in capitalism not a bourgeoisie - which therefore allow any dissection in the essay to be, restricted on the said class, perceived and treated from it's own distinct reality. A margin of error shall be accounted for. And where that's limited, a critique would do the needful. The skeleton of the essay is built upon the traditional projection which developed the role of men as the gender responsible for women, and as the active scramblers for their hands in the courtship. A man is assumed to have the “Homo Economicus” feature – which equips him to be rational by choosing only the most efficient option, and by taking only the most reasonable decision available. 

Any other projection should be distanced, and therefore not be considered by the essay.

Introduction.

During an earlier morning conversation with my brother, which was inflicted by the necessary lockdown enforced to curve out the spread of Covid-19 pandemic, I narrated to him how majority of our uncles had most their first and second borns at the age range of  21-24, and with so much peace, comfort and stability. The youngman, who turned 18 in April, became very amused. He couldn't believe how men so young could be at liberty to get married and even bear children. Curious as I predicted he'll be, he asked me these three questions: " How was that possible?", "Why is it no longer possible?", "Were our uncles hard working while us lazy, or is there any phenomenal distinction that I don't really understand?". I smiled and acknowledged the prolific nature of my brother's questions, and said: "Surely it has to do with a distinction that you do not entirely understand; a socio-economic distinction between the mode of production that breed our uncles and the mode of production that breed us".

1.1 Feudal Solidarity.

-Courtship in a society removed from the logic of money.

In pre-civil war north, a significant phase of feudalism in the socioeconomic contest of Nigeria, the social relations were relatively relying upon the non-material factors. As an instance; it took an obedience towards the traditional authority for one to own a farm - the then industry of making a living. It took submission towards a scholar for one to get lucrative knowledge - the then extraordinary measure of excellence. It took a surplus for one to upgrade the commodious stuffs at his keep - with money as a strict function of not many commodities in the market, rendering it's relevance short in the society. It took an ability to sow a seed in tge farm for man to be ripe for marriage - that in addition to some command of religious basics and the very powerful feudal solidarity of the environment for parents to have what it takes to tie the knot. Rounding up the vcircle of food, security, education and welfare - all evidently dependent upon the logic of society with markets.

All the mentioned social relations were influenced by the inherent mutual optimism that was very drastic in the feudal society, which along the line had relatively relieved the parties involved of their fears and doubts, their personal selfishness and cunning as to call or make a bluff, or to install a trick to dishonorably leverage the party they're dealing with. Ranging from the rulers and the ruled, the teachers and the students, the sellers and the buyers, the employers and the employees, as well as the husband, the wife, and their parents; enabling the social relationships to take place without suspicion or any a rigorous behavioral investigation against any party in question, as far as it satisfies the social norm. 

This therefore has consequently defies the basics of neo-Keynesian assumption which predicts the birth of instability as a result of rational agents responding to the incentives of the economy as they observe them - because the rational agents choose not to be selfish - which reduced the marginal tendency for economic instability, while also improving the tendency for Pareto optimality - in the way the better off compensate the worse off - through feudal solidarity.

To be candid, when a man meets a woman of his liking in feudal society, the first thing that comes to his mind was the number of grain bags he had been able to cultivate in the past rainy season and the number he'll be able to cultivate in the coming rainy season. That alone would qualify him for a space in his house's backyard by his parents to build a room - which would be constructed by the sheer physical efforts of his age mates [an example of solidarity], and from then, an offer of marriage would be taken to the lassie's house. Who on their part would also study his abilities based on the outputs he consistently cultivate, before accepting the offer, most of the times dependent on the respect his house exuded. All things being equal.

In short, the totality of feudal courtship lies in the optimism the society has upon the unlimited, infinite supply and the free-gift nature of farmland, the mutual trust amongst the individuals, and the ability of man to make his efforts vivid to the society when he steps upon his farmland, which would then signify his need for solidarity. And if man utilize those three feudal determinants adequately, he would have the power to court and marry, while ruling out the threat of any other man that may later comes with a bag of gold to seek for the woman's hand - literally a competitor who may attempt using money -  for that may even be perceived as an insult towards the honor of the woman's house. The woman on her part hardly had any choice - parents call was the right call. Which most of the times proved to be correct due to the relative shortage of factors that would enable it to be otherwise such as redundancy, which usually results to social, economic and behavioral corruption, which also manifest greatly on the success or otherwise of many relationship like marriage. 

It would be very important to acknowledge that in feudal society, money was indeed present and relevant, but it's presence and relevance didn't deprive people of their feudal pursuit of experiential value in whichever socioeconomic relation they get involved with rather than the exchange value. And so, the cost of courtship was more experiential than exchange - and human being is endowed with ability to offer experiential effort quicker, more convenient and more adequately than exchange. Pleasure, respect, heroism, honor, piety, legacy, inner-glow and self-fulfillment were considered first and therefore sat at the very helm of any socioeconomic affair. Most of the times they serve as the ultimate price. Many men owned and controlled many things without owning a dime. Many endeavors were brokered without a dime been involved. Men and women courted each other irrespective of who can afford what, for the feudal determinants, such as solidarity were too powerful and deeply rooted in the society as to allow any man or woman get ruined by the absence of monetary affordability. Feudalism encompasses the totality of Wilfredo Pareto's optimality principle in the way the worse off was culturally obliged to be made better off through solidarity and experiential pursuit of goals. But then feudalism would not last forever. Surely the mode of production would change, which would bring an inevitable change in other endeavors of life, as it's the case since the emergence of society. 

Keywords: [Courtship. Feudalism. Culture. Optimism. Solidarity]

1.2 Capitalist reality.

-Courtship in a society installed on the logic of money.

At the dawn of the second decade in 21st century, a northern commoner wakes up to a reality way more intriguing than anything he has ever seen before - the infiltration of materiality in every social relation. The environment has successfully been transited to a market society [capitalism] from the former glorious society with market [feudalism] which champions the monetary reward, therefore needing affordability of every social relations ahead of any other socioeconomic determinant of ownership and relation. And such dynamics groomed a reality very high in respect for money, which should rightly be termed a reality removed from the logic of anything that gives people the reason they do what they do, apart from money. 

In short, in this type of society, service has replaced pleasure; investment has replaced respect, honor and piety; saving has replaced heroism, inner-glow and self-fulfillment;

 while reciprocal egoism has replaced solidarity. And all are very sensitive to reward, which comes in form of money.

As expected just as in the feudal case, the impact of society installed on the logic of money goes beyond the economic relations, with even the sociocultural aspects that had been very slow in the journey like courtship, marriage, family, kinship, scholarship, neighborhood, and other traditional and cultural relationships, have caught up with the rendition. Today, it cost a thing to exist - as little as for one to be who he's - let alone to attempt owning or bringing something or someone under the sphere of one's control. Or, get involved in any social relation; be it neighborhood, brotherhood, courtship and kinship. And though the reality has always been taking that effect - costing a thing [if we translate effort as a cost] - it has never given so much relevance to commodious affordability over experiential pursuit as it's today. It has always taken effort to control, own or relate - just like in the feudal society. But now effort is converted into monetary affordability, even where and when only the affordability exists without the effort (which is very possible, in fact, popular) allowing the social relations to ignore effort when it doesn't come with it a monetary guard to back it up with. The absolute effect of society installed on the logic of materiality. And consequently when effort - as the currency of common man - is discriminated or ignored, a commoner, especially the masculine as the active scrambler, is presented with a dilemma.

1.3 The masculine dilemma.

-The conversion of effort currency into powerless commodity; Why has it gone right for a commoner in feudal Courtship, yet wrong for him in the Capitalist despite maintaining the same attitude towards effort. 

As an instance, in the capitalist society, when a rational man sees a woman of his liking, the first thing that'll come to his mind is the cost of retaining the services of their courtship, which he'll put against his financial position, to observe if he's financially at the position to go into that relationship. Not only the cost of the courtship, the chances of marrying the woman - which is largely dependent on his financial position [remember the psyche is monetized due to the monetary sensitivity of human relation] would have to be accessed - all other factors being equal not for the clarity of empirical analysis but because they're literally and practically held constant for any person engaging in that social relation due to the commodification of solidarity and any other feudal experiential efforts. Unlike during the feudal time, it takes more than ability to cultivate land for one to be qualified as a suitor for marriage. In fact, there are only handful of people who are into agriculture. Today, it takes capital reserve and the rate of economic return on the person's investment. For it's a capitalist age; when trading and marketing of goods and services are as phenomenally popular as subsistence farming during feudalism if not more. And unlike the subsistence economy which gives farmland [as free-gift of nature] and labor [as owner occupier] to everyone monetarily for free, monetary economy gives capital and services for a cost, and only to the few who can afford.

The shift from a diversified agrarian economy to a mono-cultured oil dependent economy should account some of the blame, due to the number of employment it killed, the nature of exorbitant lifestyle it taught and the level of redundancy it gave birth to. 

It's important to acknowledge that in feudal society, survival depends upon the willingness of man to put effort. Unlike in capitalist age when survival discriminate upon many popular efforts which would have been enough for one to survive in the preceding mode of production. It was made possible by overemphasizing on some selected efforts that fit the capitalist survival, which are also politically and sociologically rigged in favor of some selected individuals. It's also important to note that the democratic nature of economic survival in feudal society due to solidarity, free-gift nature of agricultural industry among others, eliminates the chance of missing out on any serious courtship or marriage as a result of economic factors. As totally oppose to the capitalist society whose economic survival is dependent upon market, which isn't free, and very selective due to the sensitivity of affordability, which is also sensitive to income inequality among others. Such inflate the chance of missing out on courtship or marriage not only as a result of economic factor but because the economic factor is the de-facto reason in it's absolute totality. In short, survival being distributed democratically in feudalism means everyone could efficiently engage into courtship and marriage. But survival being selectively distributed in capitalist society means only the person who can afford can efficiently engage into courtship and marriage.

And that would breed a gap. and it's the gap that breed in the society as a result of the difference between the feudal democracy of courtship and it's capitalist selectivity counterpart that gives birth to the next important phenomenon in modern courtship; the theory of latecomer.

Keywords: [Courtship. Capitalism. Money. Masculinitƴ. Egoism].

1.4 The Theory of latecomer.

-The impact luck and the dictatorship of Income inequality.

Imagine the scene when a football coach, who has in his squad a group of 22 players, has to select only 11 players to start a match. The other 11 players who were left out - due to possibly being unfit to start in consequence to their fitness level or quality - would have to sit on the bench and wait for their chance to play. Some of the left out players would be selected when they're ready, possibly when they recover their fitness. While some may have to wait further, due to being unlucky with injuries, or until smaller games pop-up on the schedule in which playing low quality players would not matter much. Some will leave for a chance elsewhere while some will stay and be serving as squad players their entire football careers. Interestingly to the players who will insist on staying put to await for their chances, when other players elsewhere of superior quality become available, they'll be signed and selected ahead of them, in fact, with them staying in the pecking order for a foreseeable future. Until their quality improve, or until they found their level. 

The above analogy take the same effect of luck and income inequality on marriage and courtship in capitalist society, in the way the 22 players in a squad signify too much excess for a game that requires only 11 individuals to play. Capitalism too, being a mode of distribution that favor few in a society of many, signify too much excess for individuals who are all expected to engage with courtship. And like some players with lack of luck with injuries, Some individuals are real hard workers who are unlucky to have their efforts disrecognized by the favor of wealth creation process, while some are hit by heavy responsibility [like Black Tax], the same way some players are hit by lack of talent. The unlucky people would retreat to where affordability is less sensitive - which is rare, just like many players leave in search for their level. Some of them will keep waiting for when their chance will come, possibly when their financial fitness would render them fit to come up with a proposal, just like some stubborn players would rather sit on the bench amidst not being good enough. While the possibility of someone financially capable, who can afford the expenses of marriage and courtship coming up isn't entirely ruled out. The same way a more talented player from other team becoming available would possibly be signed to further send the bench sitter to the pecking order. In fact, the probability of such occurrence is very high. And that person, is what the modern courtship appreciates as latecomer.

In a wider scope, the term latecomer is more an economic condition than a person, in the rationale that it produce both the people that are monetarily lucky to own the favor of the distribution mode to usurp other people of their claim in the courtship endeavor or having their own usurped. But in smaller scope, latecomer is a person who has been relatively lucky to have his own kind of effort selected or recognized to enjoy proper economic return that'll warrant efficient survival by the dictates of capitalist mode of production, which will then put him ahead of other men in the pursuit of courtship. A latecomer can also possibly be a victim of unequal distribution mode, a person who had initially registered interest in another courtship who had also waited long for his chance to arrive, but when it does after possibly being lucky to get engaged with an effort that was befitting of favor from the capitalist mode, the woman he liked was no longer available. So he looks elsewhere as a ready-made to finally have a taste of a successful courtship - along the line usurping another unlucky person of his claim. A latecomer in other instances could simply mean any person aspiring for courtship who is ready. And as a cold practice that usually takes place at the expense of someone, late-coming usually breed disappointment in the individuals that aren't favored by the capitalist mode; it ruins their long term economic and romantic fantasy, it give them emotional pain while also forcing them to restart from square one whenever it's their turn to be favored.

Luck, income inequality and unequal distribution are the major determinants of late-coming. 

And while on one hand a latecomer breed disappointment to the men who are unlucky, on the other hand the men are not the only party that gets caught in the dilemma. Late-coming cause a dilemma to both the women and their parents alike. Which would also help explain another important topic in modern courtship; The feminine and parenthood dilemma.

1.5 The feminine dilemma.

-The fallacy of love and the cogency of money; women's dilemma in choosing between who they love and who is ready.

In a capitalist courtship, if man's success is determined by income, woman's own is determined by choice. Oftentimes, women get caught in a triangle of love, pressure and despair. Which therefore push them to evaluate their feelings, their parents' own and society's feelings, on top of the urge to get married, before coming up with a suitable decision. First of all, the mode of distribution favoring few means only few would be ready to ask for their hands. Meanwhile the men they often interact with, most of the times love, are usually not amongst the few. Second of all, their parents have the tendency to give-in to societal pressure, which force their hand to pressure the women when they intend on waiting for when their lovers would get their own share from the mode, which usually destabilize their intentions and therefore favor the uprising of late-coming. Third of all, the fact that not everyone is promised a share from the mode amidst his efforts, while age - which is an important factor in our society when evaluating courtship - isn't growing any younger, is another stumbling block that pressures the thoughts of women. They're also very conscious of the fact that they may resist all the pressure and temptation in their effort to wait for their lover, only for him to end up not being ready forever. Not only that, that man's taste naturally change with his income, may cause a shift away from them to another woman, rendering their wait not only irrelevant but indecisive.

The above three phenomenal cases influence the decisions of women greatly while going into any serious courtship. In the end, even though there is an exception to every situation, women end up choosing who is ready ahead of who they love. Because in opting for that option, they'll suppress the traditional pressure facing both them and their parents, they'll neutralize the asymmetry of clue between them and fate on whether the men they love would be ready or not, while also satisfying their natural despair to get married on time and choosing the best possible economic environment for their survival - which is very important in capitalist society - by choosing a man that's economically viable [The latecomer].

Keywords: [Money. Love. Latecomer. Parent. Society. Despair]

1.6 Parenthood dilemma.

-The moral fallacy of culture and the unwavering cogency of money; choosing between moral value or economic value.

Unlike in the western societies where moral values are almost compromised into an existential irrelevance, our society still hold immense respect and therefore provides massive space for moral values. The cultural practice and principles are religiously sensitive. And as Mahatma Gandhi would say, religion is the basics of morality. Morality being the scale of behavioral corruption or otherwise is subject to overrun even in the societies very strict in it's interpretation and execution like ours. And so, such attempts towards overrunning the moral values are highly despised and accounted for. Which provides parents, as major brokers of courtship, with a moral dilemma by making them choose between their moral values - which may be subject of overrun by the economically viable suitors - or giving-in to the pressure to give their daughter's hand up to whoever man that's economically viable, regardless of his moral upbringing. This has indeed being a dilemma for parents. Firstly, it'll be too costly to overlook a suitor that's willing to provide comfort for their daughter. Secondly however, they'll be betraying their honor and conscience if they give her up to someone that's morally unworthy of her. And that has been giving parenthood decision a very hard time. In the end, many parents give-in to the dictates of economic conditions by giving up their daughter to anyone that can afford her, with few keeping their stand on anyone urging to court their daughter must satisfy their moral demands. Hundreds of such cases could be observed with immense easiness.

Keywords: [Culture. Morality. Money. Society]

Conclusion:

In the end, judging from the insights this essay has observed from the feudal and capitalist modes of courtship, it could be understood that the endeavor was relatively easy, doable and more simple in the former mode of production. And evidently so due to the preferential treatment the feudal society has upon experiential rewards of social relations ahead of exchange rewards. Meanwhile, it can also be understood that courtship in capitalist mode has relatively became more difficult, less doable and highly unbearable. Reasonably due to the sensitivity of income inequality and monetization of everything including survival, which consequently force the society to relegate experiential rewards in an effort to gain exchange rewards. And such socio-economic impact reflect greatly upon the lesser number of bachelors in feudal society, and the record-breaking large number of bachelors amongst both men and women folks in capitalist society - who are trying very hard to engage with successful courtships but keep failing. Surely culture, effort and any determinant of experiential derivation of value have never suffered greater threat as in the hands of capitalism. Which hs seen to it that Parents and their children alike, or any other individual member of the society can never afford not to be rich. And while the democracy of wealth accumulation is historically impossible, the problems would become more sophisticated as better ways of exploiting societal norms through capitalist wealth creation would keep resurfacing.

To reverse the impact of some of them, surely our society must try going back to basics; by restoring the idea of subsistence agriculture which will allow the efforts of the individuals to secure them; by sowing as much food crops as cash crops; by glorifying experiential value of social relation by equating them with monetary or exchange value which will discourage the ridiculous respects towards money; by discouraging societal pressure for early marriage against women which will significantly allow them to choose who they love and wait for him rather than the ready-made latecomer; among many others. Discussing these solutions in wider scope calls for another long essay in itself.

MA Iliasu is economics, history and culture enthusiast student who writes from Kano State, Nigeria.