Just like Kupelia, Uhunye Friends and Neigbours (UFN) had demanded to know what benefit they would gain from my coming to their organisation- even if I was a student. Needless to say, they had me give them a ‘communication score’ and a mini lecture on what I thought of their communication skills as a group.

I must say, I have not attended a louder, more vibrant meeting, where business and seeming communication disorder marry so successfully. I cringed many times, expecting even a physical expression of anger from one member to another, but it did not happen. I watched raw and hard information passed on from one member to another and expected enmity for life, but there were hugs and kisses after the meeting, and plans to meet up before the next ‘formal’ meeting. There was almost (to the outsider) insensitive, below-the- belt reference to true but (for me) very personal information laid bare in public.  Once or twice, fingers were pointed, fists were shaken, blame was exchanged, the day’s business focus was lost in fiery side exchanges, but at the end of the three and a half hour long meeting, there were solid ideas on the progress of the group.

I was mesmerized. Dazed. They had broken all the rules of holding a successful meeting.

Yes, the meeting began late; yes, there was no written agenda for that day (the secretary was out of the country); yes, there was no turn taking; yes, the listening skills and information packaging were all wanting in sizable measure, but 13 years later, they have never been stronger and they have always been this loud- and sometimes, even louder,  I am told.

During the undefined tea break (some took tea before others), there were many discussions fluidly flowing into formal business and out of it. They  found their order in the disorder.

I really thought about this Chama. How can there be so much order achieved even when there seems to be so much ‘communication disorder’? There are several possible options:

1. These people have an incredibly high level of trust in each other. Accounts full of trust. Even though a few things they discussed in the meeting were threatening huge withdrawals especially on financial commitment and accountability, they were willing to “talk it out and move on.”
2. The chairman, even though clearly out-spoken by many in the group, commands a lot of respect and has a way of calming down the discussions, asking for a wrap up from one of the members and ensuring that people take away crucial points of discussion that were raised.
3. They constantly reminded each other of who they are, that despite the challenges, they are friends and neighbours  (even though many have since moved house), and that they are a family. They carry each others burdens and have such a firm belief in everyone’s personal welfare being their collective welfare.
4. There are wives and husbands,  brothers and sisters and even cousins in the group. But there is an  interesting way in which each individual is a member in his own right and carries their own cross when they must. They familial ties are secondary to the group ties.
5.  I remember often feeling sorry for one or two members who were victims of tough talk, but then I realised this organisation, like any other, had its own language, its own way of using language, its own definitions of what was proper and appropriate. At the end of it all, there were no “hard feelings” .
6. There were very clear channels of expressing grief: through the chairman, through another member or simply stating it categorically right in front of all of them.
7. The business of the Chama goes on beyond the meeting- and perhaps what justifies it, is the friend, neighbour and family assertion. It goes on to the Whatsapp group, goes on in telephone conversations
8. They had  incredible groupstuff:  group values, group memory, group soul- and even in the absence of many written documents that would have been useful, they relied on older members to remind them of the constitution and the bylaws, they relied on members who were present to remind them of the last meeting, they relied on personal experiences to make judgments and calls to action and they relied on group good will and brotherliness (often referred to as gentleman’s gesture/agreement) to make decisions.

This was a peculiar group. They had such oneness and such a common communication thread. Two members said nothing publicly the entire meeting, but with the people seated next to them, it was easy to tell they were “with it”.

My question still stood and still stands: How is it that Communication constitutes this Chama? How is that communication creates organisation here? That if organisation is order, and communication is orderly, how is the (Chama) organisation created? Is it:

• through what they talk about? Is it what they do or do not do?
• through how they talk about? How they do what they do?
• through who talks about it?
• through where they talk about it?
• Why they talk about it?
• Is it when they talk about it?
• Is it through who they are? who they refer to themselves as? Their sense of being as a group and their belief in what they are here (in the group and in a wider sense in the world) for?
• Was it in their physical positions? Their social status?

I wondered what the place of so many things was: the food and drink, the discussions, the proverbs, the language mixture, the hearty laughter and greetings, the disagreements, the loud voices, what each individual was bringing to the table…too many things.

I have to think of my model, and see how it explains what is going on here.