Female Genital Mutilation is a cultural practice (surgical operations) performed on young girls and women in the majority of African countries and among minorities in Asia. Female mutilation is partial or total removal of the external genitalia including clitoris, mons pubis, labia, urethral, and vagina openings. This practice is often referred to as female circumcision; however, the cutting is much more severe and extensive. The global community is divided on the issue whether genital mutilation is just a cultural tradition. It is a fact that circumcision impairs female’s sexual and reproductive function. However, female circumcision is an ancient custom with about 130 million girls around the world going through the practice. Recently, the debate surrounding genital mutilation gains new wave of scholar attention because female circumcision began to surface within immigrant communities in the United States, Europe, Canada, and other countries where it is forbidden by law.
The essence of debate rests on the lack of mutual understanding among the African women stressing the importance of preserving traditions and Western women emphasizing the right of choice. According to Abusharaf, the majority of reports discussing female circumcision treat it as violent sexual mutilation of females by male-dominated tribal societies in Africa as a tool to suppress women’s sexuality. As the result, African women are seen as passive and subservient, their genitals are mutilated in silence and without protest. However, the research supports that African women, not men, insist on circumcising their daughters through ritual performance. Even though the article by Abusharaf is published in the United States, the author highlights female circumcision from the standpoint of African women. The arguments are empirically proved and supported with numerous sayings of experts in the field, including scholars and prominent feministic leaders. Moreover, the article is filled with references to historical events and influential individuals.
Abusharaf builds argumentation on the testimonies of individual African women. In particular, the author quotes direct speech at length to highlight the ideological complexity within which decision to engage in genital mutilation is undertaken. One of the notable results of Abusharaf’s fieldwork is the finding that the status of women in African communities is not low, as many scholars suggest. Moreover, women have the upper hand in determining, how, when, and where a girl is excised. Circumcision is defended by its practitioners as an act of virtue; it is viewed as belonging to the domain of African indigenous personality known as “Africanity”.
However, feminists and other human rights activists consider circumcision a form of violence against women, indistinguishable from murder, forced prostitution, rape, and physical abuse. As Abusharaf points out, the ritual itself is a source of joyful celebration and elaborates festivals for males, while for females it is concealed in secrecy. One of the cultural justifications for circumcision is the belief that female genitalia are ugly and the clitoris is the cause of sexual desire. For African women, genital circumcision is the machinery that liberates the female body from its masculine properties. Moreover, women believe that the virtue of purity is best achieved through circumcision. Genital circumcision is important because it gives voice to gender and collective ethnic identity.
The same results are supported in the report by Ahmadu, a female anthropologist who has personally experienced the ritual of genital circumcision. The report is a detailed account of the personal experience supported with references to reliable resources. The narrative language of the report appeals to the reader. The purpose of the writing is to inform the general audience about the practice of female genital circumcision and to undermine the negative attitude toward it. Ahmadu explores the social, ideological, religious, and symbolic dimensions of there rituals from indigenous perspective. The author attempts to reconcile insider representations with outsider perspectives. In particular, the author points out that the main quarrel with most studies on genital cutting relates to the continued insistence that it is necessary harmful. This assertion is based on the physical, psychological, and sexual effects of the cutting. Ahmadu argues that there is no cultural obsession with feminine chastity, virginity, or sexual fidelity in African countries. Unlike Western cultures dividing human bodies into sex categories, African culture promotes a different understanding of bodies: only children are conceived of as natural.
Ahmadu provides strong support to the argument for importance of genital cutting for African communities. The author argues that women want their daughters to enjoy the same legal rights as other women and they want them to fit into African society, to be respected among their peers. Ahmady spoke with women in the African city Kono and none of them reported that the practice had adversely affected fertility or given the types of gynecological or obstetrical problems associated with the operation. In addition, Ahmady’s research and experience contradicts the knowledge regarding the supposedly negative impact of removing the clitoris on women’s sexuality. The physical pain and risk of infection can be reduced and even eliminated through medicalization and education.
The article titled “What’s Culture Got to Do With It?” (1993) deals with the traditional practice of female circumcision as not treated seriously by African local governments. The author argues that policymakers remain indifferent to this practice even though the side effects and complications are severe enough to merit government intervention. The report is published in the United States with the objective to attract attention of general public as well as policymakers to the genital circumcision practices in African countries. Similar to the report prepared by Abusharaf, article “What’s Culture Got to Do With It?” includes testimonies of women in African country reporting the devastating health consequences of female circumcision. However, the validity of the arguments is questioned – the author failed to support examples with empirically proved references. The issue of genital circumcision is presented only from the perspective of promoting and protecting universal human rights. For example, it is noted that the operations are performed without anesthesia and under conditions that are not sterile; the incision is treated with kerosene and engine oil. None of these examples is supported with factual information from reliable sources.
According to the article “What’s Culture Got to Do With It?”, for many women the genital cutting results in reproductive tract infection, infertility, urinary tract infections, cysts, and the formation of obstructive genital scar tissue. Genital cutting is psychologically wounding. In the opinion of the author, proponents of female circumcision offer the following reasons for the continuation of the practice: maintenance of tradition, the promotion of political and social cohesion, the enhancement of fertility, the fulfillment of religious requirements, the preservation of virginity, the prevention of promiscuity, the pursuit of aesthetics, and the maintenance of feminine hygiene.
As Harriet Lyons notes in the article “Genital Cutting: The Past and Present of a Polythetic Category”, genital cutting should be analyzed both in its sexual and nonsexual meanings, both positive and negative effects. Lyons has managed to build strong argumentation based on the references to scholars in the field supporting opposite sides of debate. In other words, this article is a review of the available literature on the topic of female genital cutting. However, the language is rather simple and an average reader will find the presented information interesting as well as useful. All of the comments are supported with reliable examples from primary and secondary sources. Unlike other authors, Lyons criticizes the vision of Western women who “seem to lack a place in their imaginary for identification with an aspect of painful initiation rituals” (2007, p. 6). African women gain social status by demonstrating courage and endurance in the face of physical suffering.
Similar conclusion is reached by Carla Obermeyer, Department of Population and International Health, Harvard University. Even though her article “Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable” is written for the audience of scholars, the author makes references to numerous sources, articles, reviews, books, and reports that can be used for further research on the topic. Obermeyer points out that the current debate on female cutting lacks any factual background – there is no statistics on harmful effects of this practice. Extensive research was conducted to estimate the prevalence of female genital surgeries in the African countries, however, lack of information about the practice made it impossible to assess the situation.
Some of the scholars argue in the need to preserve the tradition of genital cutting as part of the African culture. Others argue against female circumcision practices because of the negative effects on girls’ life, heath, and psyche. Trueblood (2000), for example, considers all sides of the debate, however, emphasizes the need to ban this cultural practice. Article titled “Female Genital Mutilation: A Discussion of International Human Rights Instruments, Cultural Sovereignty and Dominance Theory” by Trueblood is devoted to the analysis of the current legislature related to female circumcision. Nevertheless, the arguments are extremely one-sided because the author argues that all females share the “universal” rights, needs, and desires. It does not correspond to the real situation.
In conclusion, the debate over the legitimacy and morality of female genital cutting is the result of cultural clash. Western scholars and feminists view female circumcision as humiliation. Heath care representatives point out to the health-related consequences of the practice. Mental health professionals assume that painful procedure impacts the psyche of the young girls. Sociologists believe that the genital cutting is welcomed by African women who think of themselves purified in the result of the ritual. The views are opposing and it is impossible to say why the genital cutting practice is widely practiced by immigrant communities living in Europe and the United States.
Works Cited
Abusharaf, Rogaia Mustafa. “Virtual Cuts: Female Genital Circumcision in an African Ontology.” Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 12.1 (2001): 112-140.
Ahmadu, Fuambai. Rites and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on Power and Excision. The United States of America: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2000.
“What’s Culture Got to Do With It? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision.” The Harvard Law Review Association (1993): 1944-1961.
Lyons, Harriet. “Genital Cutting: The Past and Present of a Polythetic Category.” Africa Today (2007): 3-17.
Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf. “Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 13.1. (March 1999): 79-106.
Trueblood, Leigh. “Female Genital Mutilation: A Discussion of International Human Rights Instruments, Cultural Sovereignty and Dominance Theory.” Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 28.4 (2000): 437-467.