A Digital Ethnography of Gendered Rationalizations in Traditional Leaders' Court Decisions in Zimbabwe

• In Event: Sources of Sentencing Disparities in Various Court Settings and Case Types

Abstract

In contemporary Zimbabwe, two distinct court systems coexist: the urban-based colonial Western-style court, handling severe cases, and the rural traditional court, rooted in pre-colonial governance and overseeing moral crimes. Predating the 1880s colonial era, the traditional court served as the sole governing body, amalgamating judicial, administrative, and political powers. Unlike its colonial counterpart, the traditional court addresses moral offenses like adultery, civil cases, and divorce. Operating in a predominantly patrilineal society, leadership assumption in the traditional court generally follows primogeniture, resulting in a predominantly male adjudication panel. Despite gender disparities, both men and women appear before this court, yet the role(s) of gender within Zimbabwe's traditional courts remain underexplored.
This digital ethnography explores how traditional court leaders' decisions intersect with femininity and masculinity. Using gender theory and (gendered) social control framing, the study analyzes decision-making's gendered nature and its impact on women and girls' compliance. Drawing on 150 hours of male-led court sessions from 10 convenient-sampled traditional chiefs archived online (2018-2023), preliminary findings reveal chiefs' discretionary power in handling uncodified moral crimes, guided by traditional gender norms. Situated at the nexus of gender, social control, and punishment scholarship, the study illuminates the complexities of penality in the Global South.

Author

• Pious Maedzenge, University of Missouri-St. Louis