University of Venda Discourses on Difference and Oppression

INTRODUCTION

Given the imperative to address the spread of HIV/AIDS, together with the increasing focus on sexual violence against women, research on (hetero)sexuality has been boosted internationally and locally. In South Africa, studies carried out over the last five to ten years highlight the violent nature of heterosexual relationships and the enmeshment of heterosexual sexuality (heterosex) with gender inequality (National Progressive Primary Health Care Network 1995, Buga, Amoko and Ncayiyana 1996, Richter 1996, Shefer 1999, Varga and Makubalo 1996, Wood, Maforah and Jewkes 1996, Wood and Jewkes 1998, Wood, Maforah and Jewkes 1998). Interestingly, much of this research mirrors findings about the construction of hetersexuality and gender in international studies, including western, northern countries, such as the United Kingdom (see for example the work of the WRAP project in the U.K., Holland, Ramazanoglu and Scott 1990a, Holland, Ramazanoglu, Scott, Sharpe and Thomson 1990b, Holland, Ramazanoglu, Scott, Sharpe and Thomson 1991, Thomson and Scott 1990, Thomson and Scott 1991)

With the contemporary move to postmodernity, a number of recent South African studies have explored discourses of sexuality within different contexts, such as understanding barriers to ‘safe sex’ practice (Miles 1992, Strebel 1993, 1997, Wood and Foster 1995), advice columns (Wilbraham 1994), and studies on masculinities (Kaminer 1993, Harris, Lea and Foster 1995). All of these studies highlight a range of discourses that continue to reproduce gender power dynamics and traditional constructions of masculinity and femininity. Again central discourses, such as the 'male sexual drive' (first coined by Hollway 1989), which have emerged in studies in the northern and western countries seem to be similarly present in South Africa. Given the postmodern critique of 'grand theory' and the centrality of locality and context in the construction of knowledge, questions about the similarities in sexualities across global settings begins to emerge. Is it possibly a universalising lens, imported from the north, that reads a similar outcome in local contexts? Are the local textures lost by the a restrictive discursive framework? One needs to be constantly vigilant in resisting the ‘natural’ scientific urge to globalise, universalise and establish as fact. Clearly there are threads of commonality, for patriarchal discourses appear to be global, but the fabrics are surely varied. Standing and Kisekka (1989), for example, in their bibliography of sexuality studies in sub-Saharan Africa remind us of the importance of the multiple meanings of sexuality in different local contexts. Their review of studies highlights how some African cultures recognise women’s desire and sexuality, while others stress female resistance and male aggression.

Theorising about heterosexuality, given the centrality of gender power, necessarily needs to be contextualised within broader debates within feminist theorising of gender and sexuality. In the nineties the debate about 'difference' has been central to any feminist theorising in South Africa. It has been powerfully affirmed by South African feminists that one cannot ignore differences between women given the complex interactions of ‘race’, gender, culture, sexual orientation and other forms of social identity and power inequalities (De la Rey 1997, Hendricks and Lewis 1994, Holland-Muter 1995, Kemp, Madlala, Moodley and Salo 1995). Different forms of oppression are viewed as interconnected in complex ways, as articulated by Cheryl de la Rey (1997: 7):

These debates have had an important impact on feminism more broadly, but also on feminist theorising of the construction of gender and sexuality. The recognition of difference in terms of sexual orientation, for example, emerges in an ongoing debate between lesbian and heterosexual women (see for example, (Kitzinger and Wilkinson 1993, Rich 1981, Richardson 1996, Segal 1983, Smart 1996, Vance 1984).

Furthermore, the debate about difference between women has facilitated an understanding of the complexity and locatedness of the construction of genders and sexualities. The discourses on women and men’s sexuality are infused with overlapping discourses on colour, class, culture as has been illustrated by literature, predominantly produced in the North American and European context (for example, Davis 1982, Frankenberg 1993, Gilman 1985, hooks 1981, 1990, Marshall 1994, 1996, Spillers 1984), exploring the intersection of ‘race’, gender, culture and sexuality. It has been argued that feminist discussions on sexuality have predominantly drawn on the experiences of a very particular group of women, white, western, middle class women, thus historically silencing voices of ‘other’ women’s sexuality:

In the South African context, it is ironic to note that there is little research exploring the intersection of sexuality and racism, in spite of the way in which apartheid was sexualised, and sexuality racialised (Abrahams 1997). Yvette Abrahams (1997) has begun some important work in this respect by charting the preoccupation of white male scientists with Khoisan women’s genitalia. She argues that this preoccupation ‘was a discursive weapon in the colonial struggle’ (Abrahams 1997: 46) in which Khoisan people, like other indigenous peoples were effectively dispossessed of their land, community, culture and history, in an intensely brutal colonisation. Such work draws necessary attention to the way in which heterosexuality is mediated by racism, classism and other cultural forms of social identity and power inequality. This acknowledgement also adds further weight to the importance of speaking of heterosexualities, rather than a unitary heterosexuality, as suggested by postmodern theory.

Notwithstanding the importance of the ‘difference debate’, it has also opened up a deep philosophical problem for feminism: if there is no common gender experience, if there is no voice that can speak for all women, is there anything that can be said about women or gender that is not universalising? Feminist philosophers remind us that while it is important to challenge feminism’s own ‘grand narrative’, we should also remember the history of our present categories of difference (Lennon and Whitford 1994). These authors maintain that the insistence on difference, such as that between men and women, or black and white people, is not something that originated in critiques of universalising theories, but was already embedded in the dominant discourses which rely on binary oppositions where one term is always more privileged, more valued than the other. They present a clear articulation of the dilemma:

The paper emerges out of a discourse analytic study carried out with black men and women students at the University of the Western Cape in the late 1990's. The study aimed to explore how a group of young people construct their (hetero)sexual identities and relationships. In particular the study was concerned to gain a deeper understanding of how these discourses and construction of identities impact on and frame the way in which they practise their heterosex.

The study is qualitative and embedded in a feminist discourse analytic framework. The data reported on is based on 17 focus groups held with psychology third year students. 10 of the groups included both men and women, while 7 were single sex groups. A convenient sample of small groups of students (between 6 - 10 participants) in a Gender Course were used for the study. The sample of 133 participants included predominantly young students, all of whom were black, with almost equal proportions of Coloured and African students, but fewer men that women given the demographics of psychology students at UWC (67% women, 33% men).

Students were fully informed of the aims and process of the research project and participation was voluntary. Some of the focus groups were guided by a semi-structured interview schedule with open-ended questions, asking broad questions about the way in which men and women engage in sexual intimacy, while others were structured by vignettes drawn out of the first few focus groups. Focus groups were held in English, given a diversity of first languages, even though the majority of participants were not first language English speakers. This should be borne in mind in reading the excerpts from the focus groups, as I have not changed the language, except where an obvious mistake interfered with the readability of the quote.

The focus groups were transcribed and a discourse analysis was carried out on the texts. The discourse analytic framework utilised draws on central works within feminism discourse analysis and social psychology, including Potter and Wetherell (1987), Hollway (1989), Parker (1992), Wetherell and Potter (1992) and Burman and Parker (1993).

The central findings of the study reflected those found internationally and locally, highlighting the way in which traditional gender identities of male activity and female passivity and 'double standards' for sexual practice reproduced through heterosex. Furthermore, central to students' talks were discourses of male power and violence, in which it was evident that for these participants, especially the women, heterosex is viewed as bound up with coercion, male power over women and violence. One of the significant findings of the study was the lack of a voice on positive female sexuality, and the denial of women's sexuality and desires by especially women participants. It has been argued internationally and locally that a positive language on women’s sexuality and desires is central in challenging hegemonic male-defined heterosex and women’s lack of negotiation (Holland et al 1990b, 1991, Kippax, Crawford, Waldby & Benton 1990, Segal 1994, Hollway 1995, 1996, Wood and Foster 1995). On the other hand, it was encouraging that there was evidence of resistance, expressed mostly through a feminist discourse challenging the status quo, especially from women participants.

Although there was much that was similar to international studies, there were also discourses that were particularly local. One of the central discourses emerging in this respect, was one in which culture was seen to prescribe male dominance, making it very difficult for men to resist their roles, given the significance of culture. This use of notions of culture and tradition in legitimating or explaining gender power relations has been found fairly frequently in other local studies (for example, Ramphele 1988, Shefer, Potgieter and Strebel 1999, Strebel 1993, Van der Vliet 1991). In the context of this study, the 'culture discourse' is used primarily to legitimate and rationalise male power in heterosex, for example:

Women, in line with their male colleagues, similarly set up culture as a monolithic force prescribing their life options, investing men with inevitable powers through culture and tradition:

The discourse of culture is not left unchallenged however, particularly by women who are aware of how it is being used by men to legitimate the reproduction of male domination and excuse their problematic behaviour:

It is not surprising that a discourse of culture should emerge within a South African local context, given that culture has historically been racialised through apartheid, with African and other indigenous cultures devalued and overwhelmed by the dominant white cultures (Afrikaner, European). In the present context of the ‘new South Africa’, culture is central in discourses of change (‘rainbow nation’, ‘multiculturalism’), suggesting the emergence of ‘new racism’ or ‘modern racism’ as identified globally and in South Africa (for example, Miles 1989, Carrim & Mkwanazi 1993, Skutnabb-Kangas 1990, Wetherell & Potter 1992). The shift from ‘"old-fashioned" biological racism’ to the enmeshment of racism with ethnicity, nation and culture has been well recorded (Wetherell & Potter 1992: 175). The discourse of culture emerging here has also been shown to serve as a way of undermining and resisting challenges to gender inequality in local contexts (Shefer et al 1999).

While I have shared but a few examples here, it should be noted that this discourse emerged frequently and was one of the more significant explanatory discourses of gender power in heterosex. It is important that such a discourse be taken very seriously when it comes to challenging unsafe sex practices and gender inequality in heterosex more broadly in South African interventions.

Conclusions

A central question that emerges from this study is that other than the cultural discourse outlined, it appears that most of the findings of this study, carried out in a local South African context, reflect studies carried out elsewhere – Britain, the United States of America, other countries in Africa, South America, Central America and Asia. Theoretically, universalised truths have been deconstructed and I have argued that local context is central in the construction and understanding of meaning, subjectivities and discourses. I have highlighted the complex intersection of ‘race’, class, language and other social identities and power positions, with gender and difference between gendered experiences and heterosexual experiences, such that to even speak of women and men is problematic. Nonetheless, there is not a huge amount that emerges from this study that differentiates it from findings of other contemporary studies using similar methodologies and with a similar focus.

One area of identifiable difference is that, in comparing this study with research like the WRAP study in Britain, there appeared to be more adherence to traditional versions of masculinity and femininity and less dominance of the feminist resistance to male power in the present study. This needs to be viewed within the history of the country and the national democratic struggle against apartheid, in which discourses on gender equality were fairly marginalised. Historically, patriarchal culture is deeply embedded in South African communities, across lines of class and ‘race’, and it is only more recently, following the 1994 elections that the struggle against gender inequality has been popularised and legitimated. While women were active in the struggle against apartheid and there was some organisation around gender issues, given the intensity of class and colour oppression in South Africa, the space for a clear feminist agenda has only been opened up by the contemporary period of transition (Shefer & Friedman, 1998). It is not surprising then that feminist discourses, and the very use of the word ‘feminist’, are still fairly marginal, especially given historical derogatory connotations of ‘feminism’ as foreign, western and white (Klugman 1993, Levett and Kottler 1997, Shefer et al 1999). On the other hand, one would have expected more reflection of South African political changes and a stronger voice drawing on discourses of equality, given the national context of transformation with emphasis on human rights and equality.

Ironically, it is mainly within the discourses of culture themselves, a central discourse that intersects at multiple points with other central discourses, that one experiences South African ‘flavour’. As mentioned, this discourse has been highlighted in other South African studies (cf. Ramphele 1988, Shefer et al 1999, Strebel 1993, Van der Vliet 1991) and studies in other parts of Africa and other ‘Third World’ countries (for example, Du Guerny and Sjoberg 1993, Hamblin and Reid 1991, Salt, Bor and Palmer 1995, Schoepf 1988, 1992, Strebel 1993, WHO 1995). It is interesting that discourses of culture do not emerge in studies in ‘First World’ countries, in spite of the fact that the discourses that emerge are obviously ‘cultural’ ones. The discourse on cultures in countries and ‘cultures’ that have been historically ‘othered’ and marginalised may therefore be understood as part of that ‘othering process’ itself. For example, the majority of times that the terms ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ are used in this study they refer to African culture. ‘Culture’ becomes conflated with African culture, so that other (coloured, white, etc.) ‘cultural’ experiences of heterosex are explained in different terms, and not within the culture discourses. There is of course the sticky question that perhaps some ‘cultures’ are more rigid than others in respect of sexual difference and power relations. Certainly this appears to be the belief of these South African participants and is a significant part of the discourse on culture itself. This proposition is however problematic in the light of the postmodern understanding of the shifting, fluid nature of ‘culture’ itself and the lack of unitary, seamless, ahistorical cultural practices or cultural groupings.

Reflecting again on the similarities within this study to others in the global context, I do not think it is surprising that there is so much overlap. In spite of geographical differences and the multiplicity of contextual differences that go with that, there is also the context of globalisation and the commonality of temporal location. Furthermore, while there are similarities in discourses emerging, there are also multiple illustrations of local language and local stories which are only understandable within the South African context, such as the use of metaphors deriving from the South African struggle and context of negotiation and unity, and will form the material for interventions that will differentiate them from interventions in other countries.

Significantly, the debate about difference in local contexts and global commonalities mirrors a far broader debate within feminism and other oppositional theories/practices. In this context it raises questions about strategies for struggle against hierarchical, exclusionary, oppressive practices related to heterosexuality which take on particular local meanings and yet still appear to have much in common with experiences globally. While there is clearly a tension here and a danger of reverting to ‘the old pretensions’ of universality (Phillips 1992: 27), there is also significance in the linking of the multiple forms of gender oppression. Phillips (1992: 27-28) goes on to argue that feminism cannot ‘afford to situate itself for difference and against universality’ and cannot therefore do without ‘some notion of stretching ourselves outside of ourselves, some capacity for self-reflection and self-distance, some imaginative – and more importantly, some practical – movement toward linking up with those who have seemed different’.. In terms of making strategic interventions locally or globally, there are moments when it is important to highlight the commonalities, to make alliances, while at the same time recognising the partial, momentary nature of such an alliance. Achieving such a position is not easy and highly contested within feminist theories at present, with the proliferation of terms, such as ‘nomads’ (Braidotti 1994, 1997) and ‘hybrids’ (Felski 1997), that point to the multiple differences within and between women but also acknowledge the possibilities for moments of alliance. The significance of negotiation is highlighted here for, as Ien Ang (1997: 62) suggests, it ‘is the central term for what politics is about’ which means that ‘we need to elaborate with much greater sophistication what negotiation can mean in our efforts to create conditions in which we can learn to live with the apparently impossible simultaneity of incommensurable realities’.

Certainly it may be argued that in South Africa there are gains to be made through negotiating alliances within the country and globally, in the struggle against sexual inequalities. Such alliances however need always to remember, recognise and confront the ‘incommensurable realities’ of different subjectivities across ‘race’, culture, language, and other lines of social identity. At the same time, they may overcome ‘political paralysis’ by serving as ‘the starting point for common political pursuits if we accept that politics does not have to be premised on the construction of a solid, unified "we" – ... – but on the very fragility, delicacy, and uncertainty of any "we" we forge’ (Ang 1997: 61).

REFERENCES

Abrahams, Y. (1997) The great long insult: ‘science’, sexuality and the Khoisan in the 18th and early 19th century. Agenda, 32, 34-48.

Ang, I. (1997) Comment on Felski’s ‘The doxa of difference’: The uses of incommensurability. Signs, 23(1), 57-64.

Braidotti, R. (1994) Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Braidotti, R. (1997) Comment on Felski’s ‘The doxa of difference’: Working through sexual difference. Signs, 23(1), 23-40.

Buga, G., Amoko, D. and Ncayiyana, D. (1996) Sexual behaviour, contraceptive practice and reproductive health among school adolescents in rural Transkei. South African Medical Journal, 86(5), 523-527.

Burman, E. and Parker, I. (eds) (1993) Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and reading of texts in action. London: Routledge.

Davis, A. (1982) Women, race and class. London: Women’s Press.

De la Rey, C. (1997) South African feminism, race and racism. Agenda, 32, 6-10.

Du Guerny, J. and Sjoberg, E. (1993) Inter-relationship between gender relations and the HIV/AIDS epidemic: Some possible considerations for policies and programmes. AIDS, 7, 1027-1034.

Felski, R. (1997) The doxa of difference. Signs, 23(1), 1-21.

Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: the social construction of whiteness. London: Routledge.

Gardner, T.A. (1980) Racism in pornography and the women’s movement. In L. Lederer (Ed.), Take back the night. Women on pornography (pp. 105-114). New York: William Morrow and Company.

Gilman, S. (1985) Difference and pathology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hamblin, J. & Reid, E. (May, 1991) Women, the HIV epidemic and human rights: a tragic imperative. Paper presented at International Workshop on ‘AIDS: a question of rights and humanity’ of International Court of Justice (The Hague).

Harris, E., Lea, S. and Foster, D. (1995) The construction of gender: an analysis of men’s talk on gender. South African Journal of Psychology, 25(3), 175-183.

Hendricks, C. & Lewis, D. (1994) Voices from the margins. Agenda, 20, 61-75.

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C. & Scott, S. (1990a). Sex, risk, danger: AIDS education policy and young women’s sexuality. Women Risk and Aids Project (WRAP). Paper 1. London: Tufnell Press.

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Scott, S., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1990b) ‘"Don’t die of ignorance" - I nearly died of embarrasment’: condoms in context. Women Risk and Aids Project (WRAP) Paper 2 (London: Tufnell Press).

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Scott, S., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1991) Pressure, resistance, empowerment: young women and the negotiation of safer sex. Women Risk and Aids Project (WRAP) Paper 6 (London: Tufnell Press).

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C. and Thomson, R. (1996) In the same boat? The gendered (in)experience of first heterosex. In D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising heterosexuality (Milton Keynes: Open University Press,143-160).

Hollway, W. (1989). Subjectivity and method in psychology: gender, meaning and science (London: Sage).

Holland-Muter, S. (1995) Opening Pandora’s box: reflections on ‘whiteness’ in the South African women’s movement. Agenda, 25, 55-62.

Hollway, W. (1995) Feminist discourses and women’s heterosexual desire. In S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds) Feminism and discourse: psychological perspectives (London: Sage, 86-105).

Hollway, W. (1996) Recognition and heterosexual desire. In D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising heterosexuality) (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 91-108).

hooks, b. (1981) Ain’t I a woman: black women and feminism. Boston: South End Press.

hooks, b. (1990) Yearning: race, gender and cultural politics. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Kaminer, D. (1993) The construction of masculinity: A discourse analysis of drinking talk. Unpublished honours thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

Kemp, A., Madlala, N., Moodley, A. & Salo, E. (1995) The dawn of a new day: redefining South African feminism. In A. Basu (Ed.), The challenge of local feminisms: women’s movements in global perspective (pp. 131-162). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Kippax, S., Crawford, J., Waldby, C. and Benton, P. (1990). Women negotiating heterosex: Implications for AIDS prevention. Women’s Studies International Forum, 13(6), 533-542.

Kitzinger, C. and Wilkinson, S. (1993) Theorizing heterosexuality. In S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds), Heterosexuality: A feminism and psychology reader (London: Sage,1-32).

Klugman, B. (1993) Feminist methodology in relation to the Women’s Health Project. In P. Wijeyaratne, L.J. Arsenault, J.H. Roberts & J. Kitts (Eds), Gender, health and sustainable development: proceedings of a workshop held in Nairobi, Kenya, 5-8 October 1993 (pp. 187-204). Ottawa: IDRC.

Lennon, K. & Whitford, M. (1994). Introduction. In K. Lennon & M. Whitford (Eds), Knowing the difference: feminist perspectives in epistemology (pp. 1-14). London and New York: Routledge.

Levett, A. & Kottler, A. (1997) ‘Through a lens, darkly’, in E. Burman (Ed.), Deconstructing feminist psychology (pp. 184-205). London: Sage.

Marshall, A. (1994) Sensuous sapphires: a study of the social construction of Black female sexuality. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 106-124). London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Marshall, A. (1996). From sexual denigration to self-respect: resisting images of Black female sexuality. In D. Jarrett-Macauley (Ed.), Reconstructing womanhood: reconstructing feminism: writings on Black women (pp. 5-35). London and New York: Routledge.

Miles, L. (1992) Women, AIDS, power and heterosexual negotiation: A discourse analysis. Agenda, 15, 14-27.

Miles, R. (1989). Racism. London: Routledge.

National Progressive Primary Health Care Network (NPPHCN) (1995) Youth speak out for a healthy future: a study on youth sexuality (Braamfontein: NPPHCN/UNICEF).

Parker, I. (1992) Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology (London: Routledge).

Phillips, A. (1992) Universal pretensions in political thought. In M. Barrett and A. Phillips (eds) Destabilizing theory: contemporary feminist debates (Cambridge: Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers, 10-30).

Potgieter, C. (1997) Black, South African, lesbian: Discourses of invisible lives. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.

Potgieter, C. & de la Rey, C. (1997). Gender and race: whereto psychology in South Africa? Feminism and Psychology, 7(1), 138-142.

Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour (London: Sage).

Ramphele, M. (1989) The dynamics of gender politics in the hostels of Cape Town: Another legacy of the South African migrant labour system. Journal of Southern African Studies, 15(3), 393-414.

Rich, A. (1981) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence (London: Onlywomen Press).

Richardson, D. (1996) Heterosexuality and social theory. In D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising heterosexuality (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1-20).

Richter, L. (1996) A survey of reproductive health issues among urban Black youth in South Africa. Unpublished final grant report for Society for Family Health.

Salt, H., Bor, R. and Palmer, R. (1995) Dangerous liasons: Issues of gender and power relationships in HIV prevention and care. In C. Burck and B. Speed (eds) Gender, power and relationships (London and New York: Routledge, 101-108).

Schoepf, B.G. (1988) Women, AIDS and economic crisis in Central Africa. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 22(3), 625-644.

Schoepf, B.G. (1992) Sex, gender and society in Zaire. In T. Dyson (ed.), Sexual behaviour and networking: Anthropological and socio-cultural studies on the transmission of HIV (Liege, Belgium: Derouax-Ordina, 353-375).

Seedat, M. (1992). Topics, trends and silences in South African Psychology 1948-1988. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of the Western Cape.

Segal, L. (1983) Sensual uncertainty, or why the clitoris is not enough. In S. Cartledge and J. Ryan (eds) Sex and love: new thoughts on old contradictions (London: The Women’s Press, 30-47).

Segal, L. (1994) Straight sex: Rethinking heterosexuality and the politics of pleasure (London: Virago).

Shefer, T. (1999) Discourses of heterosexual negotiaton and relation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.

Shefer, T., Van Niekerk, A., Duncan, N. and De la Rey, C. (1997) Authorship and authority in psychology: a publishing initiative. Psychology in Society, 22, 37-46.

Shefer, T. and Friedman, M. (1998) National Case Study: South Africa. In S. Cummings, H. van Dam and M. Valk (eds), Gender training: The source book (Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute KIT Press/Oxfam Publishing, 75-100).

Shefer, T., Potgieter, C. and Strebel, A. (1999) Teaching gender in psychology at a South African university. Feminism and Psychology, 9(2), 127-133.

Shefer, T., Foster, D. and Strebel, A. (2000) 'So women have to submit to that': Discourses of power and violence in students’ talk on heterosexual negotiation. South African Journal of Psychology, 30(2), 28-36.

Smart, C. (1996) Collusion, collaboration and confession: on moving beyond the heterosexuality debate. In D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising heterosexuality (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 161-195).

Spillers, H.J. (1984). Interstices: a small drama of words. In C.S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: exploring female sexuality (pp. 73-100). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Standing, H. and Kisekka, M. (1989) Sexual behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa: a review and annotated bibliography (London: Overseas Development Administration).

Strebel, A. (1993) Women and Aids: A study of issues in the prevention of HIV infection. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

Strebel, A. (1997) Putting discourse analysis to work in AIDS prevention. In A. Levett, A. Kottler, E. Burman and I. Parker (eds) Culture, power and difference: Discourse analysis in South Africa (London: Zed Books, 109-121).

Thomson, R. and Scott, S. (1990) Researching sexuality in the light of AIDS: historical and methodological issues. WRAP Paper 5 (London: Tufnell Press).

Thomson, R. & Scott, S. (1991). Learning about sex: young women and the social construction of sexual identity. WRAP Paper 4. London: Tufnell Press.

Van der Vliet, V. (1991) Traditional husbands, modern wives? Constructing marriages in a South African township. In A. Spiegel and P. McAllister (eds) Festchrift for Philip and Iona Mayer: African Studies Fiftieth Anniversary (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 219-241).

Vance, C.S. (1984) Pleasure and danger: Toward a politics of sexuality. In C.S. Vance (ed.) Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul,1-27).

Varga, C. and Makubalo, L. (1996) Sexual non-negotiation. Agenda, 28, 31-38.

Weiss, E., Whelan, D. and Gupta, G. R. (1996) Vulnerability and opportunity: Adolescents and HIV/AIDS in the developing world (Washington, D.C.: International Center for Research on Women).

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the language of racism: discourse and the legitimation of exploitation (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf).

Wilbraham, L. (1994) Confession, surveillance and subjectivity: a discourse analytic approach to advice columns. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

Wood, K. and Foster, D. (1995) ‘Being the type of lover...’: Gender-differentiated reasons for non-use of condoms by sexually active heterosexual students. Psychology in Society, 20, 13-35.

Wood, K., Maforah, F. and Jewkes, R. (1996) Sex, violence and constructions of love among Xhosa adolescents: putting violence on the sexuality education agenda (Tygerberg: Medical Research Council).

Wood, K., Maforah, F. and Jewkes, R. (1998) 'He forced me to love him: putting violence on adolescent sexual health agendas. Social Science and Medicine, 47 (2), 233-242.

Wood, K. and Jewkes, R. (1998) ‘Love is a dangerous thing’: micro-dynamics of violence in sexual relationships of young people in Umtata (Tygerberg: Medical Research Council).

World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Programme on AIDS (1994) Women and AIDS: agenda for action (Geneva: WHO).