FGC: A review of the Shell Duncan article and some thoughts....

Okay, when I hear the words "female genital mutilation", my whole body grimaces. It is one of those topics that elicits a very physical response, I think, especially in a culture like ours that struggles to understand the appeal of such a practice. So, I approach articles like this with a little bit of caution. But, I also am a little bit intrigued. Intrigued because, I think it's an important place to focus my attention. While FGM is not a practice in my culture, I still feel a responsibility to open my eyes to it, to attempt to understand it, and most importantly, to wonder if there is any way to stop it from happening.


But then, am I just being an arrogant American who knows that my experience and way of life is wholly aligned with what's right and good and best for all? I feel convinced that FGM isn't the healthiest option, it isn't necessary, it isn't even neutral: it's harmful. Do I know better than the women who choose this for their daughters? Is my concept of a child's "normal" development more true, more accurate than the concept of FGM that is held and practiced on young women around the world?

The Shell-Duncan article examines this issue very carefully. The discussion is centered around how we can best attempt to protect young girls from FGM- and in so doing, protecting their rights- without imposing upon their autonomy. The article focuses primarily on the politics involved. For example, when we introduce legislation prohibiting FGM, does that help or hinder the situation? When we approach the subject as a human rights violation, does that reinforce a historical relationship marked by our "enlightened" conceptions of what is "right"?

I am glad that the textbook offered a little bit of help here. I typically enjoy the articles a little bit more than the text, because they present different angles and perspectives. However, in light of how discouraging and painful this topic is to grapple with and discuss- to say nothing of how heavy and complicated it might feel to those personally and physically affected by it- I felt so grateful to find a very simple, neutral discussion of cultural barriers to health. Skolnik's words felt almost soothing to me after reading Shell-Duncan. How complex an issue becomes when you delve into the politics of it. And how infuriating. But Skolnik reminds us that when we are dealing with another person's culture, we need to be very careful and mindful in deciding the best way to proceed.

In the case of FGM, we are not simply confronting a medical practice. As I mentioned in my response paper, I sometimes imagine our good intentions to come across as so hopelessly ignorant and self-important: "Okay, folks, listen up: this thing that you are doing is just not good at all. It probably hurts, it’s dangerous, and most of all, it just makes us feel really uncomfortable. So, you know… just stop it.” That may seem like an exaggeration or a parody. But I wonder if that's how we come across. I think our concern and our compassion is genuine. But I also think that sometimes (myself very much included!) we are too enmeshed in our own ideas about what is right and good that we don't leave any space for someone else's.

FGM is complicated. In my mind, it reflects deeper views about a woman's place in her society. As we learned in lecture today, there are parts of a body that are acceptable on a man, but considered unclean on a woman. There are potentially wonderful physiological benefits in sexual exchange that aren't given a second thought for the men involved. Yet those same benefits for the women involved are taken a step beyond shaming or unacceptable and deemed so outrageous or unthinkable that physical intervention (without even an anesthetic or the permission to respond vocally or physically to the pain!!) is warranted. 

It isn't enough to be uncomfortable or express our disapproval. Skolnik encourages us to take a more scrutinizing look at the culture and at ourselves, and evaluate some of the social systems in place. If we simply outlaw FGM, we are denying women the chance to participate in a coming-of-age ceremony. We are also challenging one place where women do exercise a great deal of control and involvement. No wonder they hold fast to this practice so adamantly. It is one of very few places that they have any power or license or autonomy to express themselves in a culturally acceptable way.

If we want to stop FGM from happening (and I sure do!!!!!), we have to be very careful. This is quite unfamiliar territory for us. It's ok to be concerned and compassionate! Those are excellent responses to this situation. But if we aspire to help at all, we need to be willing to listen. And we need to be willing to look closer and see if there are some ways that we can help shift the ideas and structures underpinning the practice of FGM so that it isn't so strongly reinforced. Perhaps we could investigate ways to work inside cultural mores to provide more opportunities for female participation, influence, and expression. Perhaps we could take a look at some of the economic factors involved.

The bottom line for me, though, is that we just cannot expect anyone to do anything just because we say so. We can't hope that the cultures sustaining this practice will forfeit their ties to it just because it makes us uncomfortable. We might do better to empower them, to encourage their capacities to make wise, healthy decisions for themselves. And perhaps, we could partner with them in order to create alternatives that still offer women a chance to participate in a coming-of-age ritual that connects them to others in their culture, and exert influence over their lives and their children's lives without mutilating girls.