The Practice of Female Circumcision - Essay Example

Write a critique of the practice of female circumcision, drawing on the work of any two of the following Njambi, Butler, Davies, Halliday and Stearns Female circumcision is a controversial practice that acts as a nexus for a number of different cultural, political and religious influences, making it difficult to examine and even more difficult to change and/or curtail. As Njambi (2004) suggests, female circumcision "brings together women's health, activism, media, and national and international policy-making in pursuit of the common goal of eradicating such practices." At the same time, there are perhaps wider cultural contexts regarding a leftover from the tendency of Europeans/Americans to regard Africa (where most circumcisions occur) as a 'dark' and 'barbaric' place. So attempts to save the women from the practice may in fact reflect a longer-lived prejudice against all things 'African'. Njambi suggests that the current campaign against "female genital mutilation" (or FGM) in fact suggests that the human body can be separated from its cultural context, and that those who are so against the practice are perpetuating a "culture/nature dualism" that has been "roundly questioned by feminists in science studies". As a woman who has actually had female circumcision done to her, Njambi offers a unique perspective upon the practice, and she is particularly compelling in regards to the fact that the anti-FGM campaign perpetuates a "colonialist assumption by universalizing a particular western image of a 'normal' body and sexuality in its quest to liberate women and girls." (Njambi, 2004). Njambi presents an interesting paradox. It might be expected that a feminist scholar would be vehemently opposed to a practice that, on face value at least, seems to embody the male oppression of women over the millennia. Yet this is complicated by the fact that she is putting an anti-colonialist overlay onto her normal feminist analysis. Uses of the word "barbaric" by anti-FGM activists suggest the dehumanization of the cultures that are practicing the tradition. In her response to Njambi's article, Davies suggests that a number of questions are raised by female circumcision that make the subject far from the easy condemnation that it would appear to provoke. Davies raises the question of whether "moral outrage" is really appropriate and whether it actually is ever pristine in nature or whether is always reflects a deeper bias against the culture. In other words, can female circumcision be taken out of the wider cultural context within which it is being seen One might ask the question of whether Njambi's own personal experience of circumcision and the culture that it places her within makes her an unlikely source for objective wisdom on the subject. The question raised is an interesting one. A sensible question arising from the points offered by Njambi and Davies is, if female circumcision is not to be condemned, what practice would be condemned Perhaps a supreme kind of cultural relativism should be maintained in which no practice belonging to another culture should be fought against for fear of appearing biased or prejudiced. If, for example, a culture had a practice of marrying five year old girls to grown men, and this included sexual relations between them - should that be condemned Does an attempt at being culturally sensitive leave people completely powerless to comment upon let alone change practices that they regards as repellant Perhaps some light can be shed on the situation by scholars within a discipline that revolves around the analysis of culture and the problems that come with the nature cultural biases of the researcher: anthropology. Ellen Gruenbaum (2000) suggests that female circumcision is a more complex subject than both supporters and detractors suggest, not only because of the moral uncertainties involved, but also due to the fact that "the practices themselves vary: what is removed at surgery, at what age it occurs" (Gruenbaum, 2000). Arguments regarding female circumcision tend to revolve around the idea that it is a single, homogenous practice whose moral value can be debated without regard to the actual details of what occurs. Greenbaum suggests otherwise, showing the female circumcision has occurred over several millennia among many different cultures and for a multitude of different reasons. Greenbaum gives some facts regarding female circumcision that many might find surprising, including the author of this paper. First, the practice is not just confined to Africa - it has occurred in Asia, the Middle East and even occasionally in Europe. While it mostly occurs within Islamic villages, many Christian Africans also continue with the practice - seeing it as a part of a much older cultural tradition that needs to be preserved. Bringing the unique perspective of the anthropologist who has actually lived within the cultures in which it is done, Greenbaum shows that many girls actually volunteer to have it done: they are not forced. Also, parents within villages may feel enormous cultural pressures to have the operation performed on their daughters in order to make them socially acceptable. If they do not undergo female circumcision they will be social outcasts, unable to marry. However, Greenbaum gives some excruciating (and difficult to read) details upon what actually occurs during circumcision and the long-term effects upon the girl. Unlike male circumcision, which has few long-term effects beyond a lessening of penile sensitivity, female circumcision often results in painful urination for life, difficulty with menstrual periods, incredibly painful sexual relations and often a long healing process that may involve multiple infections. This leads Greenbaum to the question of how precisely the practice should be challenged and (hopefully) eventually eradicated. She suggests that the approach of "lecturing" (Greenbaum, 2000) does not work, but rather that a dialogue should occur between cultures regarding the practice. This might seem a sensible way to go, although at some point the anti-FGM lobby needs to state the direct facts as to why they regard it as wrong and why the practice should be stopped. Is there anything that can be found as redeeming within the practice, and if not, can a genuine dialogue really occur. A recent dilemma that has placed female circumcision at the forefront of controversy is the practice of Islamic families living in Western countries (particularly England and France) sending their daughters abroad for what are termed "female circumcision holidays". David Blunkett, the British Home Secretary in 2003, explained legislation that would increase the penalty for parents sending their daughter away for this practice from 5 to 14 years, stated that "it cannot be justified on cultural, medical or any other grounds" (guardian, 2003). Of course the fact of the matter is that some cultures do find a cultural justification for it. Some Muslim parents appealed (and lost) the law on the grounds that it imposed on their religious freedoms; and on the fact that they were not having the procedure performed in England (where it has been illegal for decades), but rather in a foreign country. Here one culture comes up against another in a very direct manner, as the report estimated that "74,000 first generation African immigrant women in Britain have undergone female circumcision . . . " (guardian, 2003). The words used to describe the practice by British politicians show that condemnation of the procedure often expands to a more general unease with the culture from which it comes. Thus phrases such as "vile practice", "barbaric", and "abhorrent" were common. It was often seen as a symptom of a much wider problem involving the lack of integration by Muslim groups within British society. FGM was just one of the most visible signs of this problem. To conclude, if any practice is to be condemned, then that of female circumcision should surely be condemned. The evidence that it causes extreme pain and suffering on a long-term basis is unavoidable, and it may also lead to far more birth complications and still-births for the women involved. The best way to tackle the problem is not to assume a position of cultural superiority, but rather to discuss the practice with those who still indulge in it. Discussions with the often Western-educated politicians in African countries may result in the practice being condemned and eventually banned at this domestic level. ______________________________________ Works Cited Davies, Kathy. "Responses to W Njambi's Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African female circumcision: a feminist critique. Between moral outrage and cultural relativism." Feminist Theory, vol. 5, No. 3, 305-311 (2004) Gruenbaum, Ellen. The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective. Johns Hopkins University Press, New York: 2000. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story0,11026,919245,00.html Njambi, Wairmu. "Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African female circumcision". Feminist Theory, vol. 5, No. 3, 281-303 (2004) Read More