West Should Modify Approach to Building Gender Equality, Fighting FGM

As we wrapped up our conversation about female genital mutilation (FGM), we discussed the Seattle compromise and the ways in which the West has been working to do away with FGM practices in the world. It seems virtually impossible – and really would be outrageous – to seek a compelling argument in support of FGM the way it continues to be performed around the world; and I wouldn't attempt that. Where I see the lapse is in the Western universalist mindset applied to the discourse regarding the tactics of handling this problem as one of the battles against female oppression in the "third world."

In an earlier blog post, Alex DeBrie briefly outlined the schism between opposing FGM because of its inexorably violent nature and because it is interpreted as a manifestation of a social and cultural message of male domination. Undoubtedly, genital mutilation per se is appalling to those of us who grew up in the Western world and can quite naturally fathom all of its psychological and physiological ramifications. Also, oppression of women and their freedoms, even subliminal or hidden behind a religious smokescreen, definitely appears not only unfair or unjust to a Westerner but is also a human rights violation. And yet, I will argue, Western attempts to solve the issue of FGM – just like the West's efforts to eradicate burqas, which they see as another manifestation of female inferiority – will continue to be extremely limited until (1) these countries recognize the power of a cultural relativist approach and (2) deal with their own problems of gender disparities.

Let's consider the two cultural practices of FGM and the Muslim head-to-toe-covering garment with a face-veil, burqa. Going beyond the physical implications of FGM, the commonly listed reasons for the procedure all point to the underlying tradition of suppression of female freedom of choice: The process is rarely voluntary, limits sexual life choices and physical abilities, and effectively is meant to make a woman submissive and suited for a man to marry (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, 13-14). Although quite a bit less intrusive, the burqa worn by Muslim women ultimately seems to the West to send the same fundamental message of female subjugation by forcing women into an outfit that limits physical abilities, immediately establishes status and rids a woman of any visible unique features. Of course, women who wear burqas or take their daughters in for FGM have better reasons to offer, including the fact that both actually empower women by protecting them from the sexual objectification and the materialistic values of the Western culture. According to some, even a hijab (Muslim head scarf) elicits more respectful treatment of women by men, who "did not try to flirt with them or make 'leering' comments, and treating them as 'persons,' not 'sex-objects.'" In the same vein, a Seattle Somali woman juxtaposed her people’s FGM custom that "calms down' girls' sexual desires with the "American disease" of corrupting sexuality that has become a norm (Coleman, 742).

Until Western Europe, Canada and the U.S. can dispel those stabs at the Western culture, they won’t have enough authority to successfully condemn either FGM or "oppressive outfits" as simply wrong or savage. We talked a bit in class about the way the Western world conceives of Africa, which is similar to the common view of the Islamic countries of the Middle East: as dark, unintelligible, uneducated, poor, prone to extremist views and violence; the West, in turn, is an educator, the world of a more enlightened people, who know better. Well, yes, higher education is easier to achieve; science and technology are on a level completely incomparable with that in small African village. But is the West really more enlightened? As far as Africans and Middle Easterners are concerned – especially those who live in the Western countries – morally, it's not at all. Virtually never can women escape the ubiquitous "male gaze" of the Western culture that sets the stage for low self-esteem, body image issues, sexual objectification and materialistic evaluation of one's self-worth. Besides, a growing number of women in the West is choosing to have female genital plastic surgery; and who is one to argue that their reasons (fitting the mold of what a 'normal' person's genitals would look like? being attractive to a male?) are better or more enlightened than those of an African girl undergoing some level of FGM (fitting in with everyone else, being an attractive partner for a male)? Certainly, the issues of voluntary choice and the differing health risks separate the two examples, but if we focus on the underlying message, are the two procedures really that different?

Having considered that, I would argue that a universalist approach to the eradication of FGM – or burqas, for that matter – only adds to the understanding barriers between the West and the Global South. With the Muslim female dress, Belgium keeps moving closer to banning it, while some observers point out the growing bitterness of the Muslims, including women, who say the Westerners have got it all wrong in their (mis)understanding of the issue at question. With FGM, misunderstanding is what Somalis may say leads anti-FGM activists to adopt a principled position that recognizes no possibility of compromise. As The Seattle Compromise shows, anti-FGMers say any version of the traditional practice, even as non-intrusive as a symbolic cutting, legitimizes the general goal of FGM, which is to "disempower women" and in this case to "them out of American mainstream" (Coleman, 747).

What did that position achieve? There are a number of much more severely injured girls than they would have been with a compromise, more bitterness in the relationship with the Somalis, perhaps less respect for the authority of the U.S. in this question. The pressure applied on the African governments by the West to legally criminalize FGM in African countries has yielded uncertain results and possibly hasn’t really decreased the number of mutilation cases in Africa (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, 12). What is more, in the Western countries themselves, especially in the U.S. and the UK, immigrants have found ways to continue the technically illegal practice (Coleman; Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, 35-36).

Maybe cultural relativism is the better paradigm for building a strategy for FGM eradication. In The Seattle Compromise, what gets me most is the false dichotomy offered by Meserak "Mimi" Ramsey of an international anti-FGM group: "What the Somalis, what the immigrants like me need," she said, "is an education, not sensitivity to culture"(Coleman, 746). To that my question is: Does the choice truly have to lie between one and the other? Isn’t the best education one that is built around sensitive understanding of the culture? Dawit and Mekuria seem to agree: "Superior Western attitudes do not enhance dialogue or equal exchange of ideas," while that cross-cultural dialogue that spurs an internal discourse (An-Na‘im, 39) may be the necessary driving force. As we see outsider pressure clash with traditional habits and deeply-rooted beliefs, the local groups in some regions have successfully developed non-violent alternatives to FGM with those habits and beliefs in mind (Mwaura; Reaves). As An-Naim (27) underscores,

Change is induced by internal adjustments as well as external influences. Both types of change, however, must be justified through culturally approved mechanisms and adapted to preexisting norms and institutions. Otherwise, the culture would lose the coherence and stability that are vital for its socializing and other functions.

The 'alternativists' are also by no means blind to the underlying message of gender disparities, remaining aware of the fact that FGM "does not exist in a vacuum but as a part of the social fabric" (Dawit and Mekuria). So, instead of blanketing the entire symbolism of FGM and any of its alternatives as simply wrong, reproachable and despicable, perhaps instead a more effective way to battle this violent practice and inch toward gender equality in the affected areas would be to build trust by understanding the culture and support alternatives that would, working from the inside, bring about internal changes.