This qualitative study explores how communicative practices within intermarriages between Sabaot and Luhya

spouses in Mount Elgon shape, challenge, and in many cases erode Sabaot cultural identity. While intermarriage

is often framed as a vehicle for integration, this study demonstrates that it also becomes a subtle site of cultural

hegemony, where minority traditions are gradually muted and displaced. The research interrogates four core

domains of cultural negotiation; naming practices, initiation rites, household discourse, and ritual observances,

each of which has increasingly been mediated through Luhya norms that overshadow and marginalize Sabaot

Findings reveal four interrelated patterns: (1) identity dilution, as children are often given Luhya names

recognized by state institutions while Sabaot names are relegated to private use; (2) ritual displacement, where

initiation ceremonies and domestic rituals increasingly employ Luhya or Swahili, reducing the linguistic vitality

of Sabaot; (3) elder marginalization, with Kap-Kugo (custodial grandfathers) excluded from key household

decisions, reducing intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge; and (4) generational ambivalence,

particularly among youth who oscillate between assimilation and creative hybridity. Yet, the study also

documents resilience; families quietly maintaining Sabaot names, hybrid initiation practices, and symbolic

acknowledgment of elders, suggesting that cultural erosion is accompanied by acts of subtle resistance.

The analysis is framed by Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony and Muted Group Theory, which illuminate

how dominant cultural codes infiltrate everyday communication while muted groups innovate adaptive strategies

The Sabaot people of Mount Elgon are custodians of a rich cultural legacy within the Kalenjin community,

marked by initiation rituals, naming practices, oral traditions, and the authority of elders known as *Kap-Kugo*.

Yet in recent decades, these traditions have come under threat not through colonial suppression or globalization

alone, but through subtle, everyday practices within intermarriage and domestic life.

Mount Elgon’s ethnolinguistic diversity has made intermarriage between the Sabaot and Luhya common,

producing households where cultural practices compete, blend, or disappear. Reports suggest that naming often

follows Luhya conventions, initiation rites are mediated in Swahili or Luhya languages, and household rituals

increasingly exclude Sabaot elders. The erosion of elder authority undermines the transmission of tradition to

Globally, intermarriage often accelerates minority cultural erosion (Huntington, 1996; Berry, 2005), especially

when institutional power favors the dominant group. In Kenya, intermarriage has shaped shifting cultural

boundaries. Kioko and Bollig (2015) show how Maasai–Kikuyu intermarriages redefined land use and kinship

ties. Orera (2023) illustrates how Gusii marriage systems were transformed by colonial legacies, altering

gendered authority.

Language plays a central role in cultural survival. Kamau and Motanya (2024) argue that minority groups in

Kenya, such as the Shona, depend on language maintenance for identity preservation. Similarly, Giles, Bourhis,

and Taylor’s (1977) ethnolinguistic vitality theory explains how dominant language use in families accelerates

assimilation.

Closer to Mount Elgon, Waluke and Nyandoro (2024) highlight culture’s role in mitigating conflict between the

rituals.

This study contributes by situating intermarriage within communication studies, showing how discourse

choices—naming, ritual speech, initiation language—become sites of cultural negotiation.

This study adopted an interpretivist paradigm and relativist ontology, emphasizing lived experiences and the

constructed nature of culture. A qualitative design enabled in-depth exploration of communicative interactions

in mixed marriages.

Purposive sampling was used to select 20 participants: 10 Sabaot men married to Luhya women and 10 Luhya

Participant observation; at ceremonies (birth naming, initiation, weddings) documented communicative

practices.

Informed consent was obtained orally and in writing. Participants were assured confidentiality and the right to

withdraw. Reflexivity was practiced, acknowledging the researcher’s insider-outsider positionality.

Trustworthiness was enhanced through triangulation (interviews, observations, FGDs), member-checking, and

peer debriefing.

Birth certificates often bear Luhya names, symbolizing institutional dominance. An elder lamented: “When I see

Wanyonyi on the certificate, I know my blood is Sabaot, but the state erases me.” Yet resistance exists; many

younger couples saw symbolic value: “Even if we don’t follow everything, we want them to bless our homes.”

Younger participants embodied hybrid identities. A woman said: “I dance to Luhya songs at weddings, but when

I cook millet bread, I feel Sabaot.” Such ambivalence reflects both erosion and adaptation.

These findings show that assimilation is neither total nor uncontested. Naming practices illustrate Gramsci’s

hegemony: institutional power privileges Luhya names, yet private resistance persists. Muted Group Theory

explains how Sabaot voices are sidelined in initiation discourse, yet acts of hybridization show muted groups

adapting to preserve fragments.

Elders’ diminished authority reflects structural muting, but their symbolic importance persists, offering entry

contested landscape where cultural erosion and resilience coexist in tension. Intermarriage has moved the locus

of cultural continuity from communal to domestic spheres, leaving practices vulnerable to dominance by Luhya

norms. Yet, resistance surfaces in private naming, symbolic elder roles, and hybrid rituals.

The study shows that communication is the central arena of this negotiation. Names on birth certificates,

language choices in initiation, and who speaks during rituals all determine which cultural identity survives.

Elders feel muted, yet their blessing remains valued; youth express guilt, yet creatively mix practices; women

navigate between two cultural codes daily.

If current trends continue, the Sabaot risk their culture being reduced to symbolic memory—songs recorded but

not sung, stories remembered but not retold, rituals recalled but not practiced. However, by recognizing resilience

as well as erosion, strategies for preservation can be more effective. Heritage is not static; it adapts, negotiates,

and survives when communities actively revalue it.

This study calls for urgent but balanced interventions: not to “freeze” Sabaot culture in the past, but to re-anchor

it within modern realities of intermarriage, schooling, and media. Culture must live in everyday speech, family

practices, and youth creativity. Otherwise, the Kap-Kugo—the vanishing grandfathers of Elgon—may be

Second, schools and local media should partner in preservation. Extracurricular clubs, drama festivals, and music

competitions can integrate Sabaot folklore. Community radio and digital archives should broadcast proverbs and

songs, ensuring accessibility. Digitization would transform technology from a threat into a preservation tool.

Third, the community should embrace cultural tourism and intercultural dialogue. Heritage festivals and cultural

centers could showcase Sabaot music, rituals, and crafts, generating income and pride. Forums with Luhya

counterparts would transform intermarriage from a site of loss into negotiation.

Together, these strategies blend elder authority, youth creativity, education, media, and tourism. In doing so, they

provide a roadmap for sustaining the Sabaot legacy with resilience and dignity.