People from the Western culture have a tendency to firmly believe in being the ones who got it right, the ones who know wrong from right and good from bad. As a result of such a high opinion of one's own qualities, the West often takes on the role of the disciplining policeman of the world. While the “weak”, “needy” and “helpless” are guided towards a “better”, more “moral” way of life, mishaps in one's own back yard are often unseen.
Female genital mutilation/cutting1 has been a controversial issue among authors from various disciplines for a number of decades, the main friction being caused between the ideas of cultural relativity and universal human rights. In this essay I will discuss the FGM/C controversy by comparing it with fundamentally similar practices in the Western cultural context. I will reach a conclusion that FGM/C is inherently no different from many permanent body modification practices in the Western world and it should be treated thusly.
Firstly I will explain what FGM/C is, based on researches done by major organizations. Secondly I will discuss the opposition between cultural relativism and human rights. Thirdly I will demonstrate a double standard present in the Western body modification discourse. Fourthly I will propose an approach towards FGM/C that potentially could address the most negative aspects of the practice while not being culturally insensitive.
Female genital mutilation / cutting - A short overview
FGM/C is the “partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons” (World Health Organization, The United Nations Children's Fund and United Nations Populations Fund2 1997:3). According to WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA (1997) the procedure is divided into four groups based on severity, all of which are permanent and have lifelong effects on the quality of life. Type I is the removal of the prepuce, sometimes including the partial or total removal of the clitoris. Type II, which is the most common version of FGM/C, is the removal of the clitoris and the total or partial removal of the labia minora. Type III is considered to be the most extreme version of FGM/C, during which some or all of the external genitalia is removed and infibulation - the stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening – is performed. Type IV is also referred to as the unclassified FGM/C and it includes all other options for mutilating female genitalia. All types of FGM/C yield to health-complications of some kind, which vary from simple scarring to death.
FGM/C is usually practiced by a medically untrained persons, without the use of anesthetic, in a non-sterile environment, while using coarse instruments. FGM/C is carried out on females of various ages, anywhere between infant- to adulthood. Reasons for FGM/C can be divided into four groups: psychosexual reasons, sociological reasons, hygiene and aesthetic reasons, myths, religious reasons. The original motivations for beginning the tradition 2000 years ago have long been forgotten. According to WHO (1998) FGM/C is practiced in 28 African countries3 , some parts of the Arabian peninsula4 , some parts of South and South-East Asia5 , some parts of Latin America6 and among refugee and immigrant populations all over the world7 .
Cultural relativism versus morality and human rights
My initial instinct was to be passionately negative towards FGM/C. But after a relatively brief thought process I realized that the matter at hand is not so simple. One of the basic principles in anthropology is cultural relativism which basically means that the actions, customs and beliefs of a person should be fathomed in terms of their cultural context. No culture or an expression of that culture can be viewed in terms of good or bad, right or wrong.
This is where my personal conflict with the issue begins and luckily I am not alone. A number of anthropologists and social scientists have battled with this problem. Althaus (1997) for example shows that in FGM/C-practicing communities it is viewed as an important part of their cultural, religious and ethnic identity. At the same time she is leaning strongly towards interpreting FGM/C as a grave example of the violation of human rights. Banda (2002) on the other hand suggests moving away from the idea of human rights being a “one size fits all” case in order to prevent it from simply being a soft law with not enough influence.
This suggestion ties in with the cultural relativity issue, as in various cultural contexts human rights can also be viewed as relative. Macklin (1999) strongly objects such assumptions and claims that cultural relativism does not imply ethical relativism and that a universal understanding of ethics can and should be advocated for. I disagree with Macklin and am firmly against all claims towards a universal interpretation of any principle. Our understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, and morals in general, is rooted in our cultural context, upbringing, religious beliefs, social encounters and many more various factors. Thus, one cannot claim the universality of morals without discarding the idea of cultural relativity. I find the practice of FGM/C morally and ethically wrong but I do not expect people from other cultural contexts to do the same. I am also convinced that many of my habits and beliefs will be seen as immoral by people of foreign and domestic cultural background.
We cannot continue to assume that individuals are a homogeneous group. Being born in a certain community has a major impact on a person's character but it does not solely make them who they are. Human rights, ethics, morals and of course culture itself is not only culturally specific but personally specific. Grunebaum (1982; 1996) makes a valid suggestion of not automatically dismissing FGM/C as backward and barbaric, along with the societies where it is practiced in. One must attempt to understand the reasoning behind any cultural behavior in order to move towards a constructive dialogue. Especially if the cultural behavior at hand is not so different from behaviors widely accepted in our own society. This issue will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraph.
Body modification and western double standards
Grunebaum (1982) says that strategies against FGM/C do not bring significant results because the importance of preserving the marriageability of daughters is overlooked. On the other hand the WHO (1998) research has shown that many men in FGM/C-practicing communities do not find pleasure in having intercourse with infibulated women and will often resort to taking on uncircumcised mistresses or wives (in polygamous societies).
Parallels can be drawn here with many “beautification” customs and rituals that are practiced by women in the Western cultural context, which men often dislike. Women regularly attempt to enhance their so-called marriageability by resorting to various body modification practices. Boddy (1991) for example compares FGM/C to body modification practices that are popular and even considered crucial to one's womanhood in the Western society – dieting, hair plucking, hair dyeing, ear piercing, tanning etc. Each of these could be viewed as barbaric, dangerous, morally unacceptable and inhuman by people from other cultures. Yet if they attempted to convince us to discard such practices most us us would probably find it ridiculous.
One of the main criticisms against FGM/C is that it has no medical necessity. Breast implants have no medical necessity either but it is not considered a violation of human rights to have them placed on one's chest. Instead it is seen as a normal way of enhancing one's attractiveness. Grunebaum (2006) demonstrates that Sudanese women undergo FGM/C for similar reasons. Saharso (2008) criticizes the one-sidedness of the anti-FGM/C discourse for it's tendency to paint this diverse practice with the same condoning brush. She suggests that genital surgery is considered immoral only if it is practiced among the non-Western minority. By demonstrating the popularity of the 'designer vagina' and genital 'trimming' in the United States and Europe, she effectively manages to unveil a double-standard. Weil Davis (2002) describes how clitoridectomies and female castrations were performed in the Western society as late as the 1970s in order to cure “hysteria” and “excessive” masturbation. She also criticizes the way ambiguously gendered babies are surgically changed either into a male or a female, without the consent of the child. Male circumcision is another example of genital cutting performed on minors in the Western society. It is a permanent procedure with no medical necessity, yet it is not considered mutilation or a violation of human rights. Darby and Svoboda (2007) approach this issue and propose a gender neutrality when speaking of, against or for such matters.
As I have demonstrated, there is a double-standard prevalent in issues concerning body-modification. James (1998) sees the debate over FGM/C as a way of 'othering' African women and making them appear as helpless victims, in need of rescuing by the strong and independent Western woman. I am not a religious person but I believe that a famous quote by Jesus is quite suitable here: “/.../ He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone /.../” (Holy Bible, The 1982:1041).
The question of choice
One might claim that the main difference between FGM/C and Western body-related rituals is the question of choice. However Hayford (2006) for example has demonstrated that women themselves often advocate in favor of FGM/C. Of course one must be careful when interpreting what can and cannot be considered free choice. On matters as serious and permanent as body-modification free choice can only be made by independent adults without outside pressure. Such conditions are hard to come by in any society. A person in a “highly developed” Western nation could be perceived as having a free choice. However Featherstone (1991) has demonstrated that stereotypes that are produced in the mass-media have an enormous impact on the way people see and act towards their bodies. For children, in any nation, a free choice must include the right to wait until adulthood before having to make irrevocable decisions.
Having a free choice is the most important of human rights, laying a basis for all the rest. The West should not preach and wag it's finger against FGM/C, especially when similar practices prevail and thrive here too. By adopting a more positive approach, one of support and encouragement, actual results might be achieved. Saharso (2008) proposes putting aside the strategy of simply issuing a ban on FGM/C and instead promoting a dialogue between and with the women from FGM/C-practicing communities. Just as people in the Western culture have a right to choose to scar, tattoo, pierce, implant or modify themselves in any other way, so should people in other cultures. All we can and have a right to do is spread information about alternative ways of living and being, ways which include a free choice for every member of a society. Whether or not an adult decides to agree with, accept and live according to these alternatives is fully up to them.
Conclusion
FGM/C is not inherently bad and as a firm believer in cultural relativity I oppose it's condemnation. Instead, people in the Western society should have an exhaustive conversation among and with themselves about which everyday practices should be condemned here. Whether or not an adult will have permanent body modification practices performed on them is solely a matter of personal decision. As this essay has demonstrated bodily practices that could be considered harmful, immoral and inhuman can be found all around the world. All cultures evolve and change, go through periods of decline and rise.
We must cherish the idea of cultural relativity and take each culture as it is, without criticizing it for it's customs, beliefs and actions. We should also keep in mind that a culture is never homogeneous as it consists of individuals with different motivations, personalities and experiences. The West is not the ruler of the world, the disciplining father or the knowledgeable godlike entity. We're just as flawed as any other culture and that's what makes us inherently human.
Endnotes
1 From here on referred to as FGM/C.
2 From here on referred to as WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA.
3 Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania
4 Localized to a few ethnic groups. Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have been listed in some publications.
5 Localized to a few ethnic and/or religious groups. India, Indonesia and Malaysia have been mentioned in some publications.
6 Localized to indigenous people. Columbia, Mexico and Peru have been mentioned in some publications.
7 Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, France, Italy, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, The United States of America, Israel
References
Althaus, Frances A. 1997. “Female Circumcision: Rite of Passage Or Violation of Rights?” International Family Planning Perspectives 23:130-133.
Banda, Fareda. 2002. “Going It Alone? SADC Declarations and the Gender Debate.” Journal of African Law 2:259-264.
Boddy, Janice. “Body Politics: Continuing the Anticircumcision Crusade.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 5:15-17.
Darby, Robert and J. Steven Svoboda, 2007. “A Rose by Any Other Name? Rethinking the Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21:301-323.
Featherstone, Mike. 1991. “The body in consumer culture.” Pp. 170-196 in The Body: Social process and cultural theory, edited by M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth & B. S. Turner. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Grunebaum, Ellen. 1982. “The movement against Clitoridectomy and Infibulation in Sudan: Public Health Policy and the Women's Movement.” Medical Anthropology Newsletter 13:4-12.
Grunebaum, Ellen. 1996. “The Cultural Debate over Female Circumcision: The Sudanese Are Arguing This One out for Themselves.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10:455-475.
Grunebaum, Ellen (2006). “Sexuality Issues in the Movement to Abolish Female Genital Cutting in Sudan.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 20:121-138.
Hayford, Sarah R. “Conformity and Change: Community Effects on Female Genital Cutting in Kenya.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46:121-140.
Holy Bible, The. 1982. London: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
James, Stanlie M. 1998. “Shades of Othering: Reflections on Female Circumcision/Genital Mutilation.” Signs 23:1031-1048.
Macklin, Ruth. 1999. Against Relativism: Cultural Diversity and the Search for Ethical Universals in Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saharso, Sawitri. 2008. Multicultural Feminism: Finding Our Way Between Universalism and Anti-Essentialism. Wien: Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Wien.
Weil Davis, Simone. 2002. “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” Feminist Studies 28:7-35.
World Health Organization. 1998. Female genital mutilation: An Overview. Geneva: WHO.
World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund and United Nations Population Fund. 1997. Female genital mutilation: A joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement. Geneva: WHO.
