Himbacracy Philosophy and the Gendered Realities of Value, Marriage, and Silent Struggles

Himbacracy Philosophy and the Gendered Realities of Value, Marriage, and Silent Struggles

Introduction

The Himbacracy Philosophy emerges as a critical lens through which to examine social inequalities, cultural traditions, and the lived realities of men and women in contemporary society. At its core, Himbacracy is concerned with justice, dignity, and the recognition of value beyond material or superficial measures. It highlights how unfair structures have historically dictated whose voice is heard, whose struggles are acknowledged, and whose dreams are validated.

This essay explores the paradoxes of gender roles within relationships, love, and marriage, using the insights shared by Mr. Musengua Abubakar Given Tjijeura as an anchor. It reflects on how women and men are differently perceived and valued in society, how cultural traditions intersect with modern expectations of marriage, and how these realities can be understood through the guiding principles of Himbacracy.

The Unfairness of Dreams and Love

In many communities, women are encouraged to dream of princes, fairy-tale weddings, and romantic fulfillment. Yet, for some women, especially those from disadvantaged or “broken” backgrounds, life conditions deny even the possibility of dreaming about love. Poverty, social inequality, and patriarchal structures impose barriers that suffocate such aspirations. The Himbacracy Philosophy recognizes this as a fundamental injustice: the denial of the right to dream freely.

Men, on the other hand, are often excluded from sympathy. Society expects them to remain silent in their suffering, only granting recognition once they have achieved material success. Rarely does anyone ask a struggling man if he is well. Instead, men are valued for what they can provide rather than for who they are as human beings. Within the Himbacracy framework, this silence surrounding men’s struggles is understood as a destructive cultural norm, one that erases vulnerability and enforces a performance of strength at all costs.

Beauty, Value, and the Silent Hustle

A further gendered imbalance lies in the criteria by which men and women are valued. Women are often admired for their beauty, while men are measured by their value, productivity, or wealth. Such asymmetry distorts human relationships by reducing them to transactions of appearance and worth.

Himbacracy critiques this imbalance by insisting on the recognition of the soul, the inner humanity that transcends beauty and material value. Yet, the prevailing order drives men to hustle in silence, because they know that until they “win” materially, society will not care for them. The philosophy here calls for a re-evaluation: men’s silent struggles must not be ignored, and women’s dreams must not be dismissed. To live in accordance with Himbacracy is to honor both beauty and value, but more importantly, to recognize the dignity of the soul itself.

Marriage as a Site of Cultural and Economic Tension

Mr. Musengua Abubakar Given Tjijeura highlights another dimension of unfairness: the institution of marriage. In Otjihimba tradition, marriage can take a modest form, symbolized by one sheep and a crate of alcohol worth about N$1,500. This form affirms the union without excessive financial strain, prioritizing communal recognition over wealth.

By contrast, modernized marriage practices have become highly commercialized. To marry in this manner, a man may be required to provide three cattle valued at around N$40,000, along with food and celebrations costing N$30,000 for a single weekend. What was once a communal bond has become an economic burden, draining resources in pursuit of societal validation.

The Himbacracy Philosophy challenges this wastefulness. It argues that love and union should not be measured by the extravagance of the ceremony, but by the strength of the bond and the commitment between partners. In this sense, marriage becomes a lens through which cultural values are tested: do we uphold traditions that sustain community dignity, or do we embrace practices that privilege status and consumption over true partnership?

Power, Choice, and Responsibility in Men’s Hands

Mr. Tjijeura notes that marriage ultimately rests in men’s power: they choose whether to marry in a simple, traditional way or in a lavish, modern one. This power underscores the broader patriarchal structure that gives men the final say, even though the financial strain and cultural performance often overshadow the actual relationship.

From a Himbacracy perspective, this power is not neutral. It comes with responsibility. Men must exercise choice not only for personal pride or public approval but for the sustainability of families and communities. The philosophy calls for wisdom: a recognition that wasting resources to prove manhood undermines both the individual and the society. Instead, men should be guided by justice, sustainability, and respect for cultural heritage.

Himbacracy’s Call for Balance and Justice

The Himbacracy Philosophy insists that societies cannot flourish when women are denied the right to dream, when men are silenced in their pain, and when marriage is transformed into an economic contest. It advocates for:

1. Restoring dignity in human relationships – recognizing people for their inner worth rather than their external beauty or material value.
2. Validating silent struggles – acknowledging men’s vulnerabilities and creating spaces for them to be heard without stigma.
3. Protecting women’s dreams – ensuring that even the most marginalized women are free to dream of love, dignity, and self-fulfillment.
4. Redefining marriage – choosing sustainable cultural practices that affirm community bonds without depleting family resources.

In this way, Himbacracy envisions a future where fairness is not a privilege but a shared reality.

Conclusion

The reflections on love, value, and marriage shared by Mr. Musengua Abubakar Given Tjijeura reveal much about the current struggles within society. Women face limitations in their ability to dream, men are forced into silent endurance, and marriage has become a costly spectacle rather than a sacred union.

Through the Himbacracy Philosophy, these injustices are not only critiqued but reframed as opportunities for transformation. By embracing fairness, recognizing dignity, and resisting wasteful practices, societies can move toward a more balanced and humane order. In this vision, men and women alike are free to dream, to struggle openly, and to unite in marriage without the burden of unnecessary economic display.

Himbacracy thus stands as a philosophy of justice, reminding us that the value of life cannot be reduced to beauty, wealth, or ceremony. It is found in the soul, the dream, and the shared commitment to fairness and dignity for all.

 

Academic Argument on Husbands Using Wives’ Surnames: A Cultural, Constitutional, and Philosophical Perspective

 

Academic Argument on Husbands Using Wives’ Surnames: A Cultural, Constitutional, and Philosophical Perspective

Introduction

I, Uerimanga Tjijombo, a scholar and the Himbacracy Philosopher, write from both an academic and cultural lens to engage with the Constitutional Court ruling of South Africa which allows husbands to adopt their wives’ surnames. While this ruling is legally grounded in the principles of equality and non-discrimination under the South African Constitution, it must also be examined against the cultural, historical, and philosophical context of African societies.

This argument seeks to balance three dimensions:

1. The constitutional and legal reasoning behind the ruling.
2. The African cultural traditions concerning surnames, lineage, and ancestral identity.
3. A philosophical reflection on whether modern legal reforms can coexist with deeply rooted cultural practices without erasing indigenous ways of life.

1. The Constitutional Court Ruling and Equality

In 2024, South Africa’s Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provision in the Births and Deaths Registration Act that prevented husbands from adopting their wives’ surnames. Justice Leona Theron emphasized that this law discriminated on the grounds of gender and was a colonial import. The Court highlighted that in many African cultures, women historically retained their birth names and children often carried their mother’s clan names.

The Court’s reasoning rested on Section 9 of the South African Constitution, which guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination based on gender. The ruling restores freedom of choice, allowing couples to decide, without state interference, how to arrange their surnames. Importantly, the decision does not compel men to take their wives’ surnames but simply permits it, thereby expanding personal and marital autonomy.

2. The Cultural Significance of Surnames in African Societies

In African traditions, surnames carry meanings beyond administrative identity; they embody lineage, ancestry, and spiritual belonging. Among the Ovaherero, surnames are tied to Oruzu (clan lineage) and rituals such as Omaze wonganda, in which oils are applied to induct a person into a particular household and lineage.

For men, surnames are not just labels but sacred markers of paternal continuity. They connect the living to ancestors, regulate kinship relations, and determine rituals, taboos, and social obligations. To alter this through adopting a wife’s surname raises profound cultural questions:

• Which ancestral line does the man now belong to?
• Does the ritual transfer apply to him, as it does for women when they marry?
• What becomes of his paternal lineage obligations and prohibitions?

Thus, in African cultural logic, a surname is not only a “certificate” of identity, as in Western legal systems, but also a spiritual and cultural passport into ancestral belonging.

3. The Clash of Cultures: Western Import vs. African Tradition

The Constitutional Court itself acknowledged that the custom of women adopting their husbands’ surnames was not originally African but a Western imposition by missionaries and colonizers. This raises an irony: while the Court seeks to undo a discriminatory colonial law, it simultaneously risks unsettling African traditions that equally resist the idea of husbands taking wives’ surnames.

In reality, African societies often did not require women to abandon their surnames upon marriage. Many retained their birth names while still fulfilling their roles as wives and mothers. This demonstrates that gender identity in African culture was not historically expressed through surname changes, but through kinship rituals, clan ties, and social integration.

Therefore, allowing men to take wives’ surnames could be seen as adopting a “reversed colonial practice” rather than genuinely restoring African cultural norms.

4. Philosophical Reflection: Himbacracy and Cultural Continuity

From the perspective of Himbacracy Philosophy, the surname represents the living voice of ancestors. It is not merely a legal identity but a sacred continuity. To tamper with it without cultural legitimacy is to break a chain of belonging.

I argue that technology, modernity, and globalization may transform aspects of our lives, but not every cultural root should be uprooted. As Western societies modernized, they preserved essential cultural symbols, national days, flags, ancestral rituals. Likewise, Africans must defend the cultural essence of surnames even as they navigate constitutional reforms.

In this view, the legal permission for men to adopt their wives’ surnames should be recognized as a matter of individual choice under democracy, but it should not be normalized as a cultural expectation. Each man must weigh whether this act respects or disturbs his ancestral ties.

5. Reconciling Law and Culture

The Constitutional Court ruling opens the legal door to choice, but it does not erase the cultural debates. In African societies, law and culture must be reconciled rather than placed in opposition. A culturally sensitive approach would include:

• Respecting the right to equality while affirming that cultural heritage provides legitimate reasons for individuals to reject such a practice.
• Recognizing that surnames in Africa are not gender-neutral administrative markers, but ancestral symbols with cultural weight.
• Allowing families, clans, and communities to continue defining surname practices in line with rituals and beliefs, while safeguarding individuals who choose differently.

Conclusion

The South African Constitutional Court has advanced gender equality by permitting husbands to take their wives’ surnames, recognizing that previous restrictions were discriminatory and colonial. However, from an African cultural perspective, surnames remain sacred, binding men and women to ancestral lineages, rituals, and spiritual obligations.

As a Himbacracy Philosopher, I conclude that while the law may open the space for freedom of choice, culture and philosophy remind us that freedom without cultural consciousness risks alienating us from our roots. Men may legally take their wives’ surnames, but culturally they must ask: what becomes of their oruzu, their ancestors, and their identity?

Thus, the ruling is legally sound but culturally contested, demanding a careful balance between constitutional equality and ancestral continuity.