| dc.description.abstract | Recent criticism has claimed Marechera's unconventionality represents an anomaly in
Zimbabwean literature. Problematically, this implies a fundamental separation of the
author from the concerns, styles and strategies of other writers. In this thesis I argue, on
the contrary, that Marechera demonstrates a propensity for dialogue with other
Zimbabwean writers. Moreover, such a dialogue is crucial to the development of a
critical discourse capable of addressing elements of contradiction.
Returning Marechera to the heart of debate in Zimbabwean literature, the thesis focuses
on the meaning of his transgressions, alongside selected texts by other Zimbabwean
authors. These include Doris Lessing, Charles Mungoshi, Shimmer Chinodya, Yvonne
Vera, Tsitsi Dangarembga, Nevanji Madanhire, Chenjerai Hove, and Stanley
Nyamfukudza. I also consider the relevance of lesser-known women's writing and queer
narratives, and Marechera's meaning to anti-racist, feminist, and gay liberation
initiatives.
As a background to my analysis, I ascertain discursive links in an historical sequence of
sexual regulation. I argue that the 'black peril' panics in settler society (fear of
interracial sex), the rounding-up of single women deemed to be prostitutes in the 1980s,
and the anti-gay campaigns of the mid-1990s are all underpinned by a moral discourse
which continuously reproduces an ideology of racial, social and sexual hygiene.
Marechera's writing refuses this ideology, I claim, but his transgressions are rarely
straightforward and frequently misunderstood. His treatment of interracial sexuality
deeply problematises conventional concepts and representations of racial identity: his
controversial characterisations of women subvert traditional patriarchalist iconographies
of womanhood; and his treatment of queer issues (unprecedented in Zimbabwean
literature) destabilises assumptions of heteronormativity.
Despite such radicalism, however, Marechera's writing, moving beyond transgression.
remains notoriously inconsistent and therefore resistant, I argue, to assimilation by
progressive political projects. Although Marechera complicates debates, dialogue with
the author is crucial, I nevertheless maintain, precisely for this reason. | en_US |
