Eritrea bans Female Circumcision, Anthropologists say...?

[entropy_rising]

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,

Comments

[kenosis]

While I don't want to argue that the Eritrean government is the same thing as the Eritrean people, I definitely feel better about this being done from within the geographic realm as opposed to from the outside.

[entropy_rising]

If I had the time, I'd be curious to explore the greater context of this decision. How representative is Eritrea's government, is this some sort of political gesture to another country, and if so, to whom, can this be linked with the recent conflict in Somalia which Eritrea has been obliquely participating in, etc., etc.

[kenosis]

I know the US has bases in Eritrea and probably helped fund their war of secession, but I don't know how much that matters (and, as I should be cleaning right now, I'm probably not going to start doing any research). Since coercion is continuous and not discrete, and since such a decision probably didn't exist in a vacuum, it could be seen through the context of Eritrea operating right on the transition zone between Muslim, Christian (Ethiopia), and "Other" religious practices. If I were going to wager a guess I would imagine this is a result of the significant religious (and underlying ethnic) tension and operates within the context of Eritrea marking itself.

Maybe the government got a carrot out of it, too (or avoided a stick) - like, undoubtedly, women do in a society where not undergoing such a ritual defines them as pariah.

[wagrobanite]

I think this is a good idea that the Eritrea did this. Female Genital Mutilation (or "female circumsision) is cruel and unfair. Not to mention that it is believed in some places that FGM is done to help curb HIV/AIDS (which is doesn't). Many young girls die from this procedure because of unclean razors, infection and botched procedures.

[entropy_rising]

I wrote the OP with a neutral standpoint, but personally I also have this stance in the issue.

[wagrobanite]

yah, I understand that in some groups that it's a ritual thing but I think education about how dangerous this procedure is.

[caatinga]

But isn't it interesting that Male Genital Mutilation DOES seem to curb AIDS infections?

[imsotragic]

I have no problem despising female circumcision. Cultural relativism in our work doesn't mean we have to abandon our own moral compasses. Thankfully the ban came from within their own society though.

[faisdodo]

Agreed.

[padaviya]

Agreed.

[caatinga]

Is it so simple? The people who came in and Christianized numerous people by force thought they were following their moral compass as well.

[entropy_rising]

If you guys were anthropologists in Northern Africa, how would you take an activist role regarding FC? Would your efforts focus on discussing the ramifications of female circumcision with practitioners? Or to talking with government officials with the hope that a ban like this one would come about?

It looks to me that most of us agree that it's no dilemma to see FC as a negative cultural practice, so that being established I'm interested in seeing the discussion move to the slightly more difficult question of "what precisely is the best thing to do if you're an anthropologist with moral opinions on a cultural practice among your studied culture." Such a question is pretty obvious here, but I think it's something we'll all encounter one day in our fieldwork.

[sophiedb]

Interesting question. I helped in a Kenyan school for a summer during uni (undergrad), but the trip was all about the school, not anthropology - I was concentrating on bio anth rather than social anyway

[kindaubiquitous]

Been a while since the OP, but I've been itching to put my two cents in. Cultural relativism works to a point. I think that the classic (trite?) Nazi example frames it very well. There's a line at which cultural relativism fails. FGM is harmful (even potentially fatal) and promotes an oppressive system. Of course some might argue that there are various aspects of Western culture that promote the status quo, which includes inequality, but I believe that argument is irrelevant in a case where the options are simply to condone or prohibit.

The argument of evangelical imposition of morals and values upon the Other fails to hold water, as the argument against FGM is based on scientific and medical proof, rather than religion, which is by its nature based on faith, and thus inherently relative.

[entropy_rising]

Things may be pretty clear-cut ethically regarding female circumcision, but the field of anthropology is rightly wary of the tension between maintaining scientific distance and the injection of moral convictions. After all, many history of anth theory scholars have made it part of their teaching agenda to acknowledge early anthropology's role in aiding colonial administration. This anthropologists combined scientific pursuit with their personal convictions, and most were likely very sincere and well-intentioned. They believed, though, in an evolutionary approach to culture and consequently that it was not only natural, but a "good thing to do" to supplant "primitive" ways of life with their own. In retrospect, we're not sure that was the right thing to do and the whole deal with cultural relativism is to avoid a conflation of "scientificity" and "personal conviction" that -may- turn out to be ultimately detrimental