Written by Emily Cranston
February 7, 2022
Female genital cutting/excision (FGC/E), non-medical procedures that alter female genital organs, is a practice which many international bodies have sought to end. This practice has decidedly become a human rights violation since 1993, at the World Conference on Human Rights, as it falls under a women’s right to health (Demir et al., 2020). However, regardless of the good intent of those trying to end the practise, human rights efforts have largely relied on Western conceptualizations of FGC/E and thus, policies and advocacy have failed to adequate address the health concern. Primarily, these policies, such as legislation to prohibit FGC/E, lack the socio-cultural and gender insight to be effective. This showcases the disconnect between what those that stand to benefit from health policies and interventions need and what the groups in power think will solve the problem. Makau Mutua explains this metaphorical “Savage-Victim-Saviour” (SVS) tendency of Western countries to distinguish themselves as the “saviours” intervening against “the “evil” of “savage” cultural practices” (Demir et al., 2020). This harmful perspective leads to the “mutilation” term, in the frequently used “female genital mutilation”, that constructs an image of violence, barbarism, and savagery. It is because of this depiction that “it becomes difficult for these communities to trust a narrative, which alienates their culture by defining it in, what they perceive as, a derogatory and offensive” (Demir et al., 2020).
More specifically, in some Latina American countries, the culture of machismo and marianismo which refer the gender roles of men as “strong, active, and independent actors” and women as the embodiment of “modesty, chastity, and the willingness to serve men” promote a gendered hierarchy granting freedom to men and passivity to women (Demir et al., 2020). As Demir et al. details, Western perspectives uphold the viewpoint that the erosion of machismo/marianismo cultures will help end FGC/E practices. However, this view doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of upholding these cultural values in a way that co-exists with women’s empowerment rather than perpetuating a detrimental dichotomy between the genders. Demir et al. goes on to say that the reality of the situation is that despite the legislation and many other top-down interventions, FGC/E practices are still ongoing for a myriad of reasons, some of which include upholding pre-marital virgin status, promoting acceptance and validation of one’s identity in the community and household, and symbolizing a girl’s passage into womanhood. The cultural nuances of the practice are often overlooked and “the ‘solutions’ proposed by human rights advocates – most of them centered on the abandonment of these practices and value systems - therefore become inefficient and harmful, perpetuating a de-legitimization of already marginalized cultures, fostering a growing distrust in human rights discourse, and leading to the further victimization of girls and women.” (Demir et al., 2020). It is acknowledged that there are instances in which women are unable to act in their best interests, however the extent to which this victimization is effective in creating change and improving the lives of women who are at risk of FGC/E are limited (Demir et al., 2020).
What I love about this article written by Demir et al. is that it so clearly depicts the discrepancies between current and past human rights action and the reality of FGC/E as it intertwines with socio-cultural and gender issues of individual countries, and then goes one step further. That is, this article suggests that community-based approaches directly aimed at increasing women’s self-sufficiency is what is so dearly needed to address FGC/E in the context of women’s rights and pervasive cultural norms. That is not to say that the policies are never effective, rather that they are likely to only be effective if they are reflective of the cultural values of the communities they are hoping to affect. However, as Amartya Sen and Marth Nussbaum first championed, a capabilities approach focusing on a women’s potential and actual abilities while acknowledging cultural pluralism stands to best promote gender equality (Demir et al., 2020). Specifically, it suggests that “where culture acts as a barrier to the realization of this potential, we suggest that the best way of expanding women’s capabilities is not by abandoning the dominant cultural discourse entirely, but rather, in promoting its modification in a way which leaves room for women’s talents and resources to be made explicit and brought to the forefront.” As such, the reframing of the machismo culture as one that could be used to emphasize a man as a protector in ways that allow women to make their own healthcare decisions and advocate for themselves may be more successful than top-down approaches. Community-based approaches to FGC/E have shown success when including multiple viewpoints in their construction, such as the father, religious leaders, mediators, and community values (Demir et al., 2020). It is the emphasis and value placed in the knowledge that only community members have that make community-based approaches the most effective method for decreasing FGC/E practices and women’s health overall.
As a public health student, I have had the privilege to be taught by professors who center equity and culturally sensitive approaches in all aspects of their courses. Demir et al. detail just one example of how centering Wester ideologies and perspectives does not allow for substantial health improvements worldwide, and in order to truly make a difference in women’s health globally, “culturally sensitive approaches to strengthen girls’ and women’s health need to reflect the spirit of community engagement and cultural pluralism that our global society should be committed to in a sustainable manner.” (Demir et al., 2020).
Sources:
Demir, M., Vissandjee, B., Jacobson, D., & Einstein, G. (2020). Where boys don’t dance, but women still thrive: using a development approach as a means of reconciling the right to health with the legitimization of cultural practices. BMC Intl Health Hum Rights, 20(14). https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12914-020-00230-2
Comments