The Female Circumcision Controversy. Ellen Gruenbaum
Читать онлайн книгу.
is too simple an explanation. Understanding the historical, sociocultural, and economic context is vital to the analysis, and of course this book cannot provide an analysis of all contexts in which forms of these practices occur. It is an exciting development, however, that more scholars are now addressing these issues in their research (see contributors to Shell-Duncan and Hernlund, 2000), offering deeper understandings than have been presented in the activist literature that too often unfortunately seems to denounce the women and men of poor countries as unreflective and cruel parents.
The themes that are developed in the chapters that follow are intended to provide a fuller and more well-rounded consideration of the factors at work and the challenges that lie ahead.
1 This was prior to the enforcement of the Shari‘a law and the prohibition of alcohol under the government of Jaafar Nimeiri in 1983.
2 Sudanese anthropologist El Wathig Kameir noted a marked increase in “conspicuous consumption” at such urban parties in the 1970s.
3 This can also help to account for the anger some young men in my university classes in the United States have expressed when confronted by accounts of women’s disadvantages. They often do not feel any more advantaged than young women and conclude that feminism is unfair, blaming men for something they are not doing. In fact, young men experience their own sort of social disadvantage, based on their youth and the inadequacy of social opportunities for all those who are talented. It is difficult especially for white, working-class young men, who indeed do not have an easy time of it either. Hence the affirmative action backlash—it does not seem fair to these men that society and employers make space for women and minorities when they do not have enough opportunities themselves.
Chapter 2
Ritual and Meaning
The most common question on the subject of female circumcision is “Why do they do it?” In asking the question, we are trying to understand how anyone could submit their child to a painful and harmful practice that seems to offer nothing positive. It is a question about manifest functions, what people believe to be their reasons, and what they hope female circumcision will accomplish for them and their daughters. But analysts often also rely on the effects (or latent functions) as explanation, even if these are not consciously intended.
The result is a confusing mixture of explanations. For example, one of the fairly common ideas is that female circumcision plays a role in establishing gender identity and symbolically marking the difference between the sexes. Also, the operations often define or enhance ethnic identity. In some cases it is said to reinforce aesthetic preferences. The rituals associated with the operations sometimes mark status transitions and constitute rites of passage. Their goal may be enforcement of religious expectations or socially defined moral behavior. Or the operations may be intended to suppress sexuality.
Writers using the theoretical perspective of functionalism in anthropology routinely offered such resulting functions as explanation for social practice. But that perspective has been critiqued for its tendency to presume that cultures are essentially stable and unchanging and for its failure to account for the differences within a cultural system that contribute to the dynamics of sociocultural change. Contemporary anthropologists have actively critiqued that theoretical perspective, and yet functionalism continues to permeate much writing on “the other.” Peoples and cultures are seen as static, except as a result of outside influences. In the writings on female circumcision, the functionalist perspective has contributed to the view that it is ancient and unchanging, serving purposes such as those mentioned above (maintenance of ethnic identity and gender roles, etc.), which cannot change without fundamental disruption in the social fabric. Cultural relativist perspectives are often assumed to adhere to this static perspective.
The general and various interpretations of the latent functions do not completely answer the human question of what motivates a parent or family to carry out the practice, allowing them to cause or witness a daughter’s pain. Nor do these interpretations clarify the sociocultural obstacles to discontinuance that might be found in the different situations. “Why do they do it?” remains a key question.
To thoroughly answer the question would require examination of scores of cultural beliefs and value systems because there are different primary reasons given in different cultures. Indeed, each region or culturally identified group is likely to have more than one explanation for any practice. Thus within groups that share a culture or religious tradition, a parent deciding on an operation for his or her daughter or a woman choosing to have herself reinfibulated may select reasons from among those available that make the most sense in that situation. Because of this individual variation in meaning assigned, there can be no simple catalog of reasons given by separate groups.
A good example of this variation is found in the survey research done by Rushwan and colleagues in Sudan. Reporting on a sample of 1,804 female and 1,787 male respondents, the authors found that answers to the question of why female circumcision was practiced (where more than one reason could be given) varied a great deal. The majority of men (59 percent) said it was because of “religious demand,” but only 14 percent of women gave that reason. The most frequent reason women gave was that it was a “good tradition” (42 percent), but only 28 percent of men gave that reason. Substantial numbers of men (28 percent) and women (19 percent) said it promoted cleanliness, while relatively few thought it promoted fertility (1 percent of women and 2 percent of men). Surprisingly, only about one-tenth explicitly mentioned protecting virginity and preventing immorality (10 percent of women, 11 percent of men), and even fewer said it “increases chances of marriage” (9 percent of women and 4 percent of men). Quite a few (13 percent of women and 21 percent of men) mentioned the increase in the pleasure of the husband as a reason (Rushwan et al. 1983:92–93).
Data like these are difficult to interpret because those who did not mention a particular reason as their first or second reason nevertheless may have agreed with that reason as well. Most respondents just mentioned their first choice reason. That there were so many different first choices is instructive: The why of female circumcision is not a simple matter, even in a single society. As Rushwan and colleagues have noted, “Respondents hard put to clarify their support for a practice so obviously ‘right’ as FC often resorted to some vague reference to tradition.” When asked about pharaonic circumcision, “tradition” was even more likely to be their response: 64 percent of women and 69 percent of men (Rushwan et al. 1983:93).
Similar results are reported for Somalia in a study by Dirie and Lind-mark (1991), with religion playing a major role in people’s justifications for female circumcision. Allowing respondents just one choice of reason to justify female circumcision, they found that of the 290 female interviewees in their survey (of medium to high socioeconomic status), 70 percent stated “religion,” 20 percent said “to remain virgin in order to get married,” and 10 percent said “tradition” (Dirie and Lindmark 1991:583). The three reasons are not fundamentally different, however, as infibulation creates a barrier that preserves virginity, which Muslims consider the will of God and therefore religious.
Yet the belief that God demands circumcision is quite different in consequence from a belief that it merely enhances cleanliness. Quite different discussions would need to take place for change to be considered.
It is not very helpful merely to invoke tradition as the reason, even if that is what respondents to a survey might tell you. It makes it sound as if people are unthinkingly succumbing to some generalized tradition or custom without reflection. I would contend that such is seldom the case. I challenge the notion that practitioners are “prisoners of ritual,” as Lightfoot-Klein’s book title suggested. A more nuanced understanding is needed to understand how families use female circumcision to achieve more complex ends.
A Morning in Abdal Galil
“Get away! What’s the matter with you? You’re like a bunch of animals!” One of the older women slapped the wire netting that formed the window screen, then stomped outside to continue to chase the small throng of laughing, curious children away from where they were trying to get a peek inside.
She rounded the corner of the rather