Scoop situation - Field Exchange - Emergency Nutrition Network

Field Articleing households – but it has been kinshipsupport networks and obligations that haveproved essential in safeguarding the mostvulnerable 6 .Dinka Kinship Structures: a briefoverviewFor the Dinkas of Southern Sudan, kinshipstructures have been and still remain an importantmechanism that dictates their lives. Thereare three kinship structures in the Dinka societythat regularly influence people’s lives - frommarriage, to allegiance in local conflicts to foodsharing. First, there is dieth or ‘clan’ - the largestkinship structure that an individual belongs towhich an individual belongs, membershipbeing inherited patrilineally (from one’s father).Clans tend to comprise a large number of familiesin a given area. For example, there are fivedieth (panchol, panayuel, panrec, panayik andpanakuol) amongst the Bor Dinkas of Paliau 7 .The second significant group is the paruaidie or‘in-law’, which generally includes the clan andclose relatives of one’s spouse. Thirdly, is themac thok - the smallest and closest group in thelineage with which a person identifies. It generallycomprises members of the nuclear family,parents, siblings and their nuclear families. Theboundaries of the mac thok are individuallydetermined, and do not seem to follow rigidkinship or social lines. It is from the mac thokthat the dowry (or bride wealth) generallyderives – and to which the dowry for a marriedwoman is in turn distributed.Food sharing mechanismsFood and asset sharing is a multilayeredprocess; essential to everyday life amongst theDinkas, and equally central as a coping mechanismin times of food insecurity. Not only isfood sharing widely recognised as a socialnorm but it has also been firmly imprinted onthe traditional legal system of the Dinka.Broadly speaking, food sharing relies on tworegular mechanisms; informal but regular‘meal’ sharing, and the more formalised sharingof foodstuff and assets.Informal Meal SharingInformal meal sharing is a regular practice thattakes place between different households butmostly (though not exclusively) amongstmembers of a mac thok. This communal sharingof meals is widely referred to as buro andhas traditionally been used as an informalforum to discuss community issues, retellstories and share advice from one generation(older) to another (younger). Our own fieldobservations showed that buro is conductedalong very strict gender lines. Men over the ageof eight come together in one central place(usually in one of the participants’ households)while women and children have a separate andusually distant location 8 . Another subdivision ismade where women have their own burowhereby young children are given their owndish to eat from. The Dinka often explain thisarrangement by pointing to the difficulties forchildren to eat their fill if they had to ‘compete’for food with older siblings or adults. The civilwar, and the resulting loss of resources anddisplacement of entire communities, has weakenedthis practice – but it remains an active andrelevant institution for the Dinka. From a foodsharing point of view, buro relies on individualcontributions of food according to individualcapacity – it is not imperative to contribute,thus allowing for food insecure individuals torely on the more food secure. Although theShamingAs Harrigan (1998) 12 reports, the Dinkas useshaming as a mechanism to advocate for a fairdistribution of resources amongst a largermajority of people – especially one’s mac thok.People who do not share food with members oftheir mac thok (i.e. who do not engage in pracpracticeof buro is reportedly decreasing, thereis evidence to suggest that it is still part andparcel of the Dinka culture and everydaycommunity interaction.The introduction of humanitarian foodrations into Dinka society has had mixed effectson buro. The use of Corn Soya Blend (CSB) inSFPs has introduced quantities of flour, whicheven though may not be considered sufficiently‘large’ to be shared as an asset (see below), havecertainly entered into the communal meals incooked form (e.g. porridge). Our research indicatesthat the porridge prepared by mothers oftargeted households, is openly and systematicallyshared amongst the children of all householdsparticipating in buro 9 . Whilst CSB may beshared during buro, our research found littleevidence to suggest that Ready-to-UseTherapeutic Foods (RUTFs) such asPlumpynut® undergo a similar sharingprocess. The exclusion of RUTFs from thesystematic means of food sharing such as buroare, arguably, the result of two factors; first, theindividually packaged RUTF rations are moredifficult to add to a communal meal on a regularbasis. Secondly, nutrition programmes haveconsistently presented RUTF as a ‘medicinalfood’ – a hybrid between medicine for thechild’s condition, and food to fulfil its dailynutritional requirements. As such, mothers maybe less willing (at least during the initial stagesof treatment) to allow other seemingly healthychildren to consume the product.Formal SharingThe more formalised type of sharing takes placein times of need or shortage and mainlyinvolves borrowing foodstuff and livestockduring food insecure periods or when individualsare entitled to request assistance frommembers of their mac thok. During these periods,individuals may request items such asgrains, pulses and livestock from close relativessuch as nephews, uncles, in-laws and siblings inorder to meet their food needs. Duringmarriage, an individual is also entitled to askthe members of their mac thok for assistance toraise the required dowry (mostly in the form ofcattle). In turn, the bride wealth that the bride’sfamily receives from her husband is sharedamongst members of her mac thok so that it isA group of Dinka eldersalso used as dowry contribution duringmarriages of their male children. When thedowry is to be collected, a bull is slaughteredand a meal prepared for all people from bothsides except for the groom who waits for lokthok 10 to be performed. Repayment mainlydepends on the quantities shared; no immediateor future repayment is generally expectedwhen very small quantities – such as 1 tin ofsorghum – are exchanged. Only when the quantitiesare large (over 3 tins of sorghum for example)– is repayment generally expected. There isevidence that food aid sharing is also part andparcel of the formal sharing. For example asNtata reports, “during the 1998 emergency,food, after being distributed to women, wassubsequently taken to a secondary distributionpoint where it was redistributed by the leadershipstructure based on its own definitions ofvulnerability” 11 . Our own evidence supportsNtata’s findings of ‘secondary sharing’ athousehold (or mac thok) level.Enforcing and formalising food sharingoptionsAmongst the Dinka there are a few generalrules, such as legal action, social exclusion andshaming, that govern the way sharing isconducted.7See footnote 3, p33.8See footnote 3, p21.9Guerrero, S. (2004). Socio-Cultural Assessment of FoodSourcing and Sharing in the Communities of Aweil West &Aweil North, Bar-El- Ghazal, South Sudan (Valid International& Concern Worldwide, unpublished report)10The lok thok is a traditional Dinka ritual amongst theDinkas that is performed when dowry is paid for and iscollected by the bride’s family. It literally means ‘cleansingone’s face with water’ a necessary step to allow the groom toeat together with his in-laws. Prior to the performance of lokthok, the groom is traditionally considered ‘dirty’, ‘impure’and too immature to eat together with his in-laws. For theceremony, a bull is slaughtered for the groom and he eats itwith his peers as a way of bidding farewell to them and graduatinginto adult life.11See footnote 4. p14.12See footnote 313See footnote 3N Dent, S Sudan22