Eritrea bans Female Circumcision, Anthropologists say...?
Guardian Unlimited's Breaking News section informs us that Eritrea has banned female circumcision. The process of female circumcision, for those of you who may not be familiar, comes in many different forms, ranging from the removal of the clitoris to sewing the labia majora together, only leaving a small opening for urination and menstrauation, and is primarily practiced in Central and Eastern Africa.
Most of us are probably familiar with female circumcision as it is the classic, scientifically unsolvable ethical dilemma in anthropology. As anyone who has taken an anthropology course knows, one of the key tenets of the field is cultural relativism, a very sound principle that has gone far in purging biases in ethnographic accounts. However, most anthropologists acknowledge that there is a boundary between cultural relativism and ethical relativism, although this boundary sometimes gets perilously blurry as is the case with most people's perceptions of female circumcision. On one hand, the concept is so brutal, so painful, and such a blatant form of gender control that most people, anthropologists included, can't help but immediately condemn the practice as reprehensible. On the other hand, some academics who seek to maintain the integrity of cultural relativism have questioned the the relative lack of furor over male circumcision (granted, the two are drastically different in terms of scale and purpose, but the question being raised is "when do we draw the line when it comes to a cultural practice incorporating scarification"), and have pointed out studies that show the most zealous advocates of female circumcision in cultures where it is practiced to be the female elders, not males.
Anthropologists have been divided over whether or not they should take an activist stance regarding female circumcision. Is this the "white man's burden" repackaged, or is there an ethical line where anthropologists must condemn a cultural practice as harmful? I think this new news story throws a new element into this ongoing ethics issue by illustrating the government's role both in this specific issue and in its ability to police culture overall. What do you guys think?
Most of us are probably familiar with female circumcision as it is the classic, scientifically unsolvable ethical dilemma in anthropology. As anyone who has taken an anthropology course knows, one of the key tenets of the field is cultural relativism, a very sound principle that has gone far in purging biases in ethnographic accounts. However, most anthropologists acknowledge that there is a boundary between cultural relativism and ethical relativism, although this boundary sometimes gets perilously blurry as is the case with most people's perceptions of female circumcision. On one hand, the concept is so brutal, so painful, and such a blatant form of gender control that most people, anthropologists included, can't help but immediately condemn the practice as reprehensible. On the other hand, some academics who seek to maintain the integrity of cultural relativism have questioned the the relative lack of furor over male circumcision (granted, the two are drastically different in terms of scale and purpose, but the question being raised is "when do we draw the line when it comes to a cultural practice incorporating scarification"), and have pointed out studies that show the most zealous advocates of female circumcision in cultures where it is practiced to be the female elders, not males.
Anthropologists have been divided over whether or not they should take an activist stance regarding female circumcision. Is this the "white man's burden" repackaged, or is there an ethical line where anthropologists must condemn a cultural practice as harmful? I think this new news story throws a new element into this ongoing ethics issue by illustrating the government's role both in this specific issue and in its ability to police culture overall. What do you guys think?