DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
Empowerment and knowledge
Examining discourses of female genital cutting in a London
NGO
Mary-Anne Decatur (PhD candidate, SOAS)
[email protected]
http://www.dur.ac.uk/anthropology.journal/vol19/iss1/decatur2013.pdf
Abstract
In the summer of 2010, I conducted fieldwork at a London-based NGO dedicated to eradicating female
genital cutting. In this paper, I argue that the NGO EMPOWER’s discourses of female genital cutting,
knowledge and empowerment are complex and structured differently for youths from practising communities
than for older women. Both younger and older women from female genital cutting practising communities
were assumed to lack accurate knowledge of the practice, but training exercises for young women focused on
rhetoric and building self-esteem, while older women were given educational sessions. These differing
strategies encouraged youths to engage actively with the NGO but positioned older women as passive.
Keywords
Female genital cutting, knowledge, power, gender, discourse
Introduction
Female genital cutting is prevalent across East and West Sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia,
Malaysia, parts of the Arab peninsula, and among immigrant communities worldwide
(Momoh 2010:11). It is performed for a variety of reasons including societal initiation,
sexual differentiation, conferring marriageability, socially legitimising reproduction and
maintaining tradition (Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:21). It is both difficult and
problematic to make absolute statements about the exact anatomical nature, geographic
distribution, prevalence of or motivations for female genital cutting as a global practice
since these factors are neither static nor necessarily generalisable. Cultures are not bounded
Mary-Anne Decatur
25
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
local entities, but rather mobile hybrids and this is reflected in the transnational nature of
female genital cutting.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that approximately 140 million women
worldwide have undergone female genital cutting (FGC). The WHO favours female genital
mutilation (FGM) as an umbrella term and classifies the practice into four main types. Type
I, also called clitoridectomy, is the partial or total removal of the clitoris or prepuce of the
clitoris. Type II, also referred to as excision, is the partial or total removal of the clitoris,
labia minora and in some cases labia majora. Type III, also called infibulation, is the
narrowing of the vaginal opening through cutting and sewing the labia minora or majora
with or without cutting the clitoris. Type IV includes all other procedures deemed harmful
to the female genitalia including, piercing, pricking or scraping the genital area (WHO
2013). This internationally used classification system is based on physical degree of cutting
and does not necessarily map well onto local classifications of the practice.
Recent migration patterns have led to an increase in the number of women from countries
where female genital cutting is frequently practised living in Western Europe, North
America and Australia (Allotey et al. 2001:191; Gruenbaum 2006:122; Wuest et al.
2009:1204). Immigrants to these countries have reported, in some cases, a transformation
in their beliefs about the practice that has led to its discontinuation (cf. Johnsdotter et al.
2009:114), while in other instances beliefs about the practice remain largely unchanged (cf.
Upvall et al. 2008:364). In a 1996 study of Somali youths aged 16 to 22 living in London,
18% of the young women and 43% of the young men reported an intention to perform
FGC on their future daughters (Morison et al. 2004:75). Similarly, in a 2001 study of adult
women living in London who had undergone FGC, 20% of them stated that they were
seriously considering or planned to perform the practice on their daughters (Momoh et al.
2001:190). Rahma Abdi found in her research among Somali women in London that
younger women’s recollected pain of FGC became more intense as their perception of the
practice transformed from fundamentally positive to negative (Abdi 2012:143–144). It is
estimated that approximately 66,000 women living in England and Wales have undergone
female genital cutting. London is believed to host the highest percentage of women who
26
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
have undergone FGC of any city in England and in 2004, an estimated 6.3% of pregnant
women in Inner London and 4.6% of pregnant women in Outer London had undergone
female genital cutting (Dorkenoo et al. 2007:20–27). !
How do NGOs dedicated to eradicating female genital cutting in England attempt to reach
immigrant women from communities that have historically performed the practice?
Moreover, how are these women conceptualised by NGOs and how are discourses of the
practice constructed and shaped? This article will examine the ways in which a Londonbased NGO, called EMPOWER,1 constructs discourses surrounding the practice of female
genital cutting. The study is based on the fieldwork I conducted as part of my master’s
degree in Medical Anthropology at University College London during the summer of
2010. EMPOWER organises projects in both the UK and throughout East and West SubSaharan Africa to eradicate female genital cutting. EMPOWER’s preferred term for the
practice is female genital mutilation, in alignment with the WHO, and all of the
organisation’s publications use this terminology. The primary mission of EMPOWER is to
protect the human rights of African women and to end gender-based violence. This
research does not show a comprehensive portrayal of EMPOWER as an organisation in its
entirety, but rather focuses specifically on the NGO’s involvement with youths under
twenty-five and older women from FGC practising communities in the London area at a
particular point in time.
A note on terminology
In the 1970s, the activist Fran Hosken coined the term female genital mutilation, stemming
from male genital mutilation, to describe all traditional genital operation performed on
women and girls (Merli 2010:728; Njambi 2009:172). In 1996, the Ugandan Reproductive,
Educative, And Community Health program (REACH) proposed female genital cutting as
an alternative terminology (Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:6-7). Throughout this
article, I will use the term female genital cutting as a ‘value-neutral’ descriptor of the
practice. I will also use the terms female genital mutilation and female circumcision when
1 EMPOWER is a pseudonym, as are all participants’ names used here.
Mary-Anne Decatur
27
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
describing contexts where participants themselves use these terms in order to further
elucidate when, why and by whom different terminologies of the practice are utilised.
EMPOWER primarily conducts London area community outreach in English. Employees
and volunteers noted that community members generally preferred the term female
circumcision when speaking to NGO members in English, rather than FGM, and many felt
more comfortable when NGO members also used the term female circumcision. A primary
objective of EMPOWER’s community outreach is to transform community members’
terminology use from female circumcision to female genital mutilation.
Creating self-esteem, creating knowledge, creating power
Programmes aimed at increasing women’s empowerment are frequently suggested as an
effective strategy to eradicate female genital cutting and reciprocally the eradication of
female genital cutting has been suggested as a means to increase women’s empowerment
(cf. Dalal et al. 2010:46; Diop and Askew 2009:307). This emphasis on women’s
empowerment, however, implies that women from practising communities currently have
an insufficient level of power and so are incapable of ending the practice independently.
Indeed, women are often described as ‘powerless’ to stop female genital cutting in
development literature (e.g., Broussard 2008:22; Touray 2006:77). This frequent
oversimplification of the social and cultural context surrounding female genital cutting in
activist and developmental writings is one of the most commonly raised issues in
anthropological literature on the practice.
It has been noted that the most popular representations of female genital cutting in
Western media are polemical, preachy, endlessly self-referential and lacking in reflexivity
(Boddy 2007:32–33). Further, Njambi argues that Western female genital cutting
eradication efforts are deeply rooted in Western Christian and scientific conceptualisations
of nature, bodies and natural bodies and she further posits that these discourses of
eradication attempt to manage African female genital practices through the elimination of
difference and complexity (Njambi 2009:172). Grewal and Kaplan argue that the popular
anti-FGC film Warrior Marks and similar documentaries, although made with the best
28
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
intentions, construct an overly simplistic narrative of liberation that assumes an essentialist
identity of what it means to be a woman (Grewal and Kaplan 1996:6). Wade asserts that
female genital cutting has become a banal exemplarism of women’s oppression and
underdevelopment in the developing world (Wade 2009:303), while Obiora argues that
overly simplistic representations of women in female genital cutting practising cultures
make invisible these women’s own acts of resistance against the practice (Obiora 2007:71).
It has also been pointed out that these critiques raise serious questions for the human rights
movement, and the impact of human rights approaches for women’s agency (Shell-Duncan
2008:229).
This narrative of powerless women in need of outside intervention is evident in the
London-based NGO EMPOWER’s programmes and community outreach strategies. One
of EMPOWER’s primary community outreach activities is a youth volunteer program
focused on young women under twenty-five from practising communities living in the
London area. The youth programme aims to provide culturally sensitive training that
empowers young members of these communities to work toward the eradication of female
genital mutilation. The thirteen volunteers I met were all women aged nineteen to twentyfive and the majority had migrated to England from Sudan, Somalia or Nigeria as children.
Some of the volunteers had undergone female genital cutting while others had not. I
interviewed five of the volunteers and the employee youth volunteer leader in-depth. The
employee, twenty-six year old Laura, is white British and joined the NGO with a strong
background in youth empowerment programmes. She first learned of female genital
mutilation while studying at university. The volunteers Anisah and Areebah came to
England from Sudan and have not undergone female genital cutting, but Anisah’s mother
and Areebah’s grandmother underwent the practice. The volunteers Fathia and Nadifa are
Somali and were subjected to excision before migrating to England. The volunteer Jenela is
Mary-Anne Decatur
29
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
originally from Nigeria but does not come from a community within Nigeria which
practices female genital cutting2. None of these volunteers were married or had children.
The youth volunteers described being aware of female genital cutting while growing up,
but not openly speaking about the practice in public. Female genital mutilation as a ‘human
rights issue’ was primarily learned about through the news, documentaries, NGO events
and in the classroom, rather than within local practising communities or family settings.
To be fair, like my upbringing, I was aware of it. Obviously it happens. But,
I would say I actually didn’t know it was wrong, to say—maybe that’s a bit
ignorant, but I didn’t know that it was illegal or wrong. I didn’t necessarily
think that it was right, but it was just something that happened. So I never
really questioned, I think, until maybe a couple years ago when I got to a
certain age where I, you know, hearing in the news and heard a bit more
and heard, you know, that people are advocating against it and so… yeah.
(Fathia, 25 year old EMPOWER volunteer from Somalia)
For these young women, organisations such as EMPOWER became resources of
information about female genital cutting and also spaces where concerns over the practice
could be voiced openly.
During my fieldwork, EMPOWER held a youth leadership training day designed to
provide volunteers with the tools to advocate for change against female genital mutilation
and empower young women as leaders. A pamphlet was handed out that described the
WHO’s classification system by type of cutting. The potential health consequences of the
procedure were also listed, but the frequency of these complications was not noted. The
pamphlet provided arguments for the girls to use, declaring that the practice is not
comparable to male circumcision or cosmetic surgery, is medically dangerous in all forms
and should be referred to as female genital mutilation rather than as female circumcision.
2 Although Jenela’s family does not practise FGC and she does not identify as belonging to an FGC
practising community, the overall prevalence of FGC in Nigeria among women aged 15 to 49 is
approximately 27% (UNICEF 2013). Jenela first learned about FGM when Laura gave a talk at her
university. From the perspective of EMPOWER, Jenela is from a practising community in that she is British
Nigerian.
30
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
The prevalence of many complications of FGC, however, are not well understood and
discourses that present all forms of the practice as automatically causing serious physical
harm and the complete destruction of sexual pleasure are not necessarily supported by
strong evidence (see Ahmadu 2000:304–305; Catania et al. 2007; Hod"i! 2013;
Obermeyer 2005; 1999). EMPOWER treated the diverse practices that fall under the
umbrella of female genital mutilation as monolithic and the employee Laura dissuaded
volunteers from making distinctions between the different types. Laura remarked that she
sometimes struggles to make volunteers reject Type I, specifically because they regard it as
less medically dangerous than Type II or III and more akin to male circumcision. Every
volunteer I spoke with strongly rejected FGC in all forms and a popular topic of
conversation among volunteers was to roundly condemn a recent statement published by
members of the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) which argued that FGC as a
‘ritual nick’ is not physically harmful and less extensive than routine male genital cutting
(American Academy of Pediatrics 2010a:1092).3 These volunteers strongly believed that
the statement indicated support for dangerous and abusive mutilation of infant girls.
During a series of mock debates, volunteers learned to anticipate and handle arguments
that ran counter to the NGO’s position on female genital mutilation. Volunteers were
assigned to teams supporting or opposing various statements such as, ‘Why is it OK for
women to have cosmetic genital surgery, isn’t it a double standard?,’ ‘Surely, it’s only as bad
as male circumcision,’ or ‘I think it’s wrong to interfere with someone else’s culture.’ After
the debates, some volunteers expressed mixed feelings about these statements and the
training facilitator reasserted the NGO’s position that female genital mutilation is a human
rights abuse, regardless of culture, and unacceptable in all forms. The activities of the
training were thus intended to build the volunteers’ knowledge, but this knowledge was
closely tailored to the NGO’s ideology and only some opinions were regarded as correct,
while other opinions were presented as needing correction. Laura informed the volunteers
3 In response to the Committee on Bioethics’ statement, the AAP quickly issued a clarification, ‘As typically
practiced, FGC can be life-threatening. Little girls who escape death are still vulnerable to sterility, infection
and psychological trauma. The AAP does not endorse the practice of offering a “clitoral nick.” This minimal
pinprick is forbidden under federal law and the AAP does not recommend it to its members’ (American
Academy of Pediatrics 2010b).
Mary-Anne Decatur
31
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
that cosmetic surgery (including cosmetic genital surgery) and male circumcision are not
comparable to FGM and it is right to interfere when cultural practices endanger others.
Through this training, the volunteers were seen by the NGO as becoming knowledgeable
about the practice as the human rights abuse known as female genital mutilation and thus
empowered and capable of educating others in their community.!
The volunteers then filled out a five minute conflict management style survey. Each conflict
management style was categorised by an animal: The Competing Shark, The Avoiding
Turtle, The Accommodating Teddy Bear, The Compromising Fox and The Collaborating
Owl. After everyone determined their conflict management animal, Laura announced, ‘If
the question is FGM, I hope that you will all be sharks’. The printed description for sharks
read,
Sharks use forcing or competing conflict management style. Sharks are
highly goal-oriented. Relationships take on a lower priority. Sharks do not
hesitate to use aggressive behaviour to resolve conflicts. Sharks can be
autocratic, authoritative, and uncooperative; threatening and intimidating.
Sharks have a need to win; therefore others must lose, creating win-lose
situations.
Using animals to explain conflict management seems somewhat infantilising, but through
this training, the NGO designated the youth volunteers as community leaders and
representatives in a manner reminiscent of the hegemonic colonial administrative
technique of indirect rule (see Mamdani 1999). EMPOWER authorised the volunteers to
be autocratic and threatening when discussing the issue of FGM with other community
members. After a lunch break, the volunteers were shown a Power Point presentation on
advocacy and the importance of raising awareness of FGM, speaking out and inspiring
others. As the presentation came to a close, an image of two girls from an un-named
African country flickered onto the screen. Laura pointed to the picture and said, ‘You are
the voice of someone who can’t say it, you are her voice.’
Towards the end of the training day, volunteers discussed their future life goals, positive
aspects of themselves, what they would like to change about their personality, and why it
32
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
may sometimes be difficult to accept compliments. Each volunteer was asked to draw an
‘identity map’ meant to represent who they are through drawings that answered the
following questions:
1) How would you describe yourself in the future?
2) What would I like to be doing with my life?
3) What positive things would I like to have in my life?
4) What parts of my identity need to change?
At the end of the event, the volunteers passed around papers and each wrote something
honest and positive about everyone else in the room. These exercises were intended to
empower the volunteers by touching on issues of identity and self-esteem and so allow
them to become women leaders capable of advocating for change. Below, the volunteer
Nadifa explains the ways in which her experiences as a volunteer at the NGO have
empowered her:
It’s changed my life because it's empowered me to talk about my culture —
to love aspects of my culture and to tear aspects of practising out from other
parts of the culture. It’s made me accept me for me. This is part of my
culture, but it’s… I wouldn’t say it’s part of my identity. Some people
attribute FGM to their identity. It’s not part of my identity but it’s part of
my culture. And I see the reasoning and the wisdom behind this, but it
doesn’t make sense to me therefore I’m gonna warn others. That yeah, we
do have other aspects of our culture that we do like that we raise. But this
specific part, it's not good. Let’s eradicate it. (Nadifa, 22 year old
EMPOWER volunteer from Somalia)
These issues of self-perception and self-esteem were seen as integral to empowerment by
the volunteers and NGO staff. The activities of the training day were not focused on
building volunteers’ knowledge of the complex sociocultural debates surrounding female
genital cutting or even the relative health risks of the practice, instead the activities built
volunteers’ knowledge of how to be confident and argue assertively. This knowledge of
building confidence was presented by Laura as a necessary prerequisite for the youth
Mary-Anne Decatur
33
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
volunteers to become community advocates against female genital mutilation; a position
that could potentially mean arguing against the beliefs of elder family members and
community leaders.
Disputing knowledge, disputing power
Gayatri Spivak points out in her famous work, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ that within
global movements intended to help subjects of exploitation, the subaltern ‘other’ is often
constructed as a homogeneous mass, where the heterogeneous other becomes invisible
(Spivak 1988:288). In EMPOWER’s discourses of female genital cutting, whose voices are
heard and whose voices are not heard? How does the NGO select and use representations
of women’s voices from practising communities to further its well-intentioned goal of
eradicating female genital mutilation?
Following the training day, the youth volunteers organised a fundraiser and awarenessraising event in London designed to increase knowledge in the general British population
about health and human rights issues among African women and girls, particularly female
genital mutilation. The youth volunteers speculated that the majority of the sixty person
audience most likely had only a vague awareness of the practice. During the event, three of
the volunteers performed first person narrative monologues that presented experiences of
female genital mutilation. The audience was not told if these stories were based on real
events that happened to the speakers or if the stories were fictional accounts. The
autobiographical ambiguity of these monologues gave them an aura of authenticity that
allowed them to be very compelling. If the audience had known unequivocally that the
speakers were performing fictional narratives, would the stories have been as persuasive?
The volunteer Anisah performed a self-written monologue in which she represented a
woman who had undergone female genital mutilation and was considering having the
practice performed on her daughters. At the beginning of the performance, Anisah’s
character reveals to the audience that she underwent female genital mutilation as a child
and was subsequently married off at age sixteen. Anisah takes the perspective of a woman
contemplating continuing the practice, but uses the term female genital mutilation rather
34
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
than a specific local term and provides no regional or cultural context for her character.
She feels indignant that ‘Western’ outsiders want to force her to change a cultural practice
that worked for her mother and grandmothers. As the monologue continues, however, her
conviction suddenly wavers and she asks the audience what she can do to stop the practice.
The audience then learns that she secretly yearns to end the practice but does not know
how and needs the audience’s assistance.
Anisah noted that after her performance no one asked if her monologue reflected her
personal experience and she believed that the audience may have been under the
impression that it was autobiographical, even though that was not her intention. Were
British audience members particularly quick to assume that Anisah’s narrative was a reallife plea for their help to stop her from circumcising her own daughters? Anisah’s
monologue justified audience members’ righteous anger and desire to intervene. It is
significant that Anisah chose to perform a monologue where she took on the voice of a
woman who outwardly supports the practice but secretly wishes for Western outsiders to
free her from its continuation.
But who are the ‘Western outsiders’? Anisah, who moved to England from Sudan when she
was three, is in many ways a Westerner. Indeed, most of the youth volunteers I spoke with
at EMPOWER had spent significant portions of their lives in the West. It thus becomes
impossible to speak in a simple binary opposition of Western and non-Western (Grewal
and Kaplan 1996:4). Does Anisah’s positionality as a Sudanese British woman give her
authority to speak for women who have undergone female genital cutting even though she
has not undergone the practice? In a later conversation, Anisah mentioned to me that her
monologue would have been more powerful if it had been performed by a woman who
had actually undergone the practice and supported its continuation.
I would love to meet people who genuinely believe that it's something that is
completely beneficial; that they won't change their minds…. Firstly, I don't
know anyone who is pro-FGM. Secondly, I don't know how many people
who are pro-FGM would be willing to vocalise that so readily in such an
open forum where the majority, if not all, the people around you are
Mary-Anne Decatur
35
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
completely against it, and in some respects some people would consider
themselves to be against you as someone who is pro-FGM. (Anisah, 19 year
old EMPOWER volunteer from Sudan)
Anisah’s own grandmother underwent infibulation and had clitoridectomy performed on
her mother and aunts in Sudan. Anisah justified this by explaining that her grandmother’s
husband and father passed away when her children were still very young, leaving her with
limited social protection. She feared that her daughters’ lives would be extremely difficult if
they never underwent the practice. Anisah described her grandmother as an exceptionally
forward and liberal woman, but she also stated that her grandmother is not specifically
against FGM. Anisah’s grandmother jokingly told her that infibulation made urination feel
feminine and delicate, and that she believes it controls unwanted promiscuity and should be
a family based decision. Despite this, Anisah does not label her grandmother as ‘pro-FGM,’
perhaps because her grandmother does not regard it as ‘completely beneficial’ and did not
push for Anisah to undergo the practice. A woman genuinely supportive of female genital
cutting would most likely not have a narrative as simple as the monologue presented by
Anisah, and would be unlikely to claim support for the practice while simultaneously
referring to it as mutilation and asking for the audience’s assistance. Events sponsored by
organisations such as EMPOWER can be very hostile spaces for women who support
female genital cutting. Even women who do not support the practice, but who hold views
counter to the NGO’s message, may not find a welcoming space for discussion.
EMPOWER organises an annual health promotion day for African women living in the
London area. The event is held in the early summer in order to reach women before they
go on holiday with their families back to their countries of origin where their daughters or
granddaughters may be subject to female genital cutting. The more general advertised
purpose of the event is to provide women with information about female genital
mutilation, to provide information about available specialist services for women suffering
from problems related to the practice, and to create a discussion about women’s health and
well-being. The year I attended the event, twenty-six other women were present. The
majority of these women migrated to England from Somalia and appeared to be in their
36
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
forties or fifties. The woman sitting next to me came from Sierra Leone and had performed
the practice on her now adult daughters many years ago. A woman researching a
documentary on FGM for the BBC was also present, in addition to a white European
woman who assiduously took notes throughout the event, much like me.
The event was organised and led by three facilitators, two of whom were fluent in both
Somali and English (one of these women translated everything said from Somali to English
and from English to Somali). The flyer advertising the event stated that its format was a
discussion and the three women leading the event referred to themselves as facilitators, but
in actuality the facilitators presented speeches and the women attending the event were
audience members. No group discussion pertaining to female genital cutting occurred or
was attempted. The audience was told that practising or supporting FGM is illegal with a
penalty of fourteen years in prison in the UK and that clinics specialised in handling
complications of FGM exist in London. Audience members were urged to schedule a clinic
appointment. The facilitators presented themselves as knowledgeable about the issue of
female genital mutilation, while the women attending the event were assumed to be
uneducated on the issue despite the fact that the majority of these women had presumably
undergone the practice themselves. A large portion of the event was spent describing
anatomical details of the procedure, followed by a description of potential medical
complications. The facilitators and audience members were thus in an unequal power
relationship, where the facilitators were in a position to shape the discourse on the practice
as female genital mutilation, while the audience received this discourse.
Three of the audience members, however, contested this discourse by loudly interrupting
the first speaker, a female physician in London originally from Somalia. This brief
animated discussion in Somali occurred after the physician stated that immigrant women
in London who have undergone Type III (infibulation) lose many children during childbirth
and usually require caesarean sections. The comments of the three audience members
were not translated into English and they, along with the rest of the audience, were asked
to hold all questions until the end of the speeches. It is noteworthy that the women’s
interruption, which appeared to be a disagreement regarding the physician’s assertion, was
framed as a question. This framing of the interruption as a question reasserted the event’s
Mary-Anne Decatur
37
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
established power relationships, where the facilitators rather than the audience members
were the sources of knowledge.
After the speeches were finished, a question and answer session was held. I was frustrated
that the earlier interruption had not been translated, but felt rather shy and awkward
asking for an explanation. As I contemplated what to do, the BBC researcher’s hand shot
up and she asked, ‘What are men’s reactions to changing attitudes to FGM? Does it occur
in South America?’ The physician replied that men are the head of the household, but
mothers are the leader of circumcision. Some men are against it, but feel that it is a
women’s issue and so do not come forward. She went on to say that FGM occurs in
Columbia, Peru and Mexico in ‘local tribes’ but has mostly stopped.4 The white European
woman then asked, ‘Does FGM happen in England?’ The physician responded that she did
not think FGM could happen in England. None of the audience members from practising
communities asked any questions or even seemed interested in the question and answer
session.
The NGO facilitators expected the women to act as passive audience members.
Knowledge was to be absorbed, neither discussed nor contested. It is not clear how the
basic information imparted, such as the WHO’s classification system for FGM, was
intended to empower the audience members, most of whom were already intimately
familiar with the practice through personal experience. Nonetheless, many of the audience
members regularly attended EMPOWER’s functions year after year, so what value were
women gaining from their attendance? After the speeches were finished, a television was
rolled out in front of the audience and a series of short documentaries dealing with female
genital cutting were played. As the first film began, audience members scurried from their
seats to put out food they had prepared for the day. Everyone lined up to grab paper plates,
4 Little to no research has been conducted on FGC among indigenous peoples in the Americas. The 2008
WHO interagency statement ‘Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation’ notes that some forms of FGM have
been reported in ethnic groups in Central and South America, but does not mention any specific countries or
groups (WHO 2008:4). The newspaper El Espectador reported three cases of clitoridectomy among the
Embera-Chami in Risaralda, Colombia practised based on the belief that the clitoris would develop into a
male sex organ (El Espectador 2008). An infant Embera-Chami girl from Valle del Cauca, Colombia died in
2012 after undergoing clitoridectomy (Ultimas Noticias 2012).
38
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
plastic forks and a share in the lunch. The women chatted animatedly and shifted the
carefully organised rows of chairs to better engage in conversation as children flitted about
the room, overseen by a few women. At one point, a scene of female initiation and genital
cutting flashed across the television screen and a group of women began to joke about the
film and debate which ethnic group the girl must be from to perform the initiation
ceremony in the manner depicted. In the end, the women were able to use the
EMPOWER event to amiably discuss the practice amongst themselves and as a space and
excuse for socialising and so shape it to fit their own goals and desires.
Conclusions
Ratna Kapur argues that, within the international women’s rights movement, women in
the ‘Third World’ are often cast in a simplified manner as victim subjects and treated as
minors in need of guidance (Kapur 2002:19). Do women have a right to alter their own
bodies in ways that risk physical harm? In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a woman of
any age to undergo female genital cutting, which Sheldon and Wilkinson argue is deeply
problematic in light of the UK’s permissive attitude toward cosmetic surgery (Sheldon and
Wilkinson 1998:263). Kennedy argues that this prohibition of female genital cutting for
consenting adult women depicts women from FGC practising cultures as lacking agency
and autonomy. In contrast, legal justifications for Western-style cosmetic surgery are based
on discourses of psychological benefit, where patients reclaim their identity and self-esteem
by surgically shaping the body. Kennedy goes on to argue that non-normative body
practices are seen to subvert ideals of beauty. The law regulates social inscription of the
body and valorises ideals of individualism and personal identity (Kennedy 2009:211, 226).
Furthermore, Green writes that Western ‘designer vaginas’ and vaginal tightening link
women's sexual pleasure to penile penetration and are not without their own potential for
serious medical complications (Green 2005:171, 175).
In these legal discourses, Western women are presented as empowered and beyond the
influence of culture (Braun 2009:235; Sullivan 2007:403–404). Female genital cutting,
however, may actually be experienced as empowering in some contexts, despite the risk of
Mary-Anne Decatur
39
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
physical harm. Historically in East and West Africa, female genital cutting has been seen as
‘women’s business’ and not under the jurisdiction of men, just as male circumcision has not
traditionally been under the control of women (Ahmadu 2000:306–307; Mackie
2000:279). In this framework, elder women exert power over younger women when
deciding issues related to female genital cutting, rather than men exerting power over
women. Female genital cutting is often an integral component of rituals that establish the
authority of elder women over younger women (Abusharaf 2001:122). These organisations
place women in control of highly valued rituals thus creating a counterbalance to men’s
social dominance. The Sande female ‘secret society’ prevalent across West Africa, for
example, has been known to use this power to discipline even chiefs (Obiora 1997:11).
Women who practice female genital cutting are thus not necessarily powerless victims
lacking control or agency.
One of EMPOWER’s main assumptions as an organisation is that African women need
empowerment. A direct link is made between knowledge building and the empowerment to
end female genital mutilation. As shown, however, the realities of EMPOWER’s discourses
of knowledge and power are complex and are structured differently for youth volunteers
than older women from practising communities. Both youth volunteers and older women
are viewed by the NGO as lacking accurate or sufficient knowledge of FGM and
EMPOWER’s outreach events aim to teach community members about issues such as, the
practice’s potential medical complications. Training exercises for youth volunteers,
however, focus on building knowledge of self-esteem and debate skills rather than expert
knowledge of the practice they aim to eradicate. This knowledge of building confidence is
seen by the NGO as essential for preparing youth volunteers as community advocates
against female genital mutilation. Indeed, EMPOWER creates a space for girls to openly
and freely discuss the practice. Henrietta Moore contends that any program of eradication
must reify female genital cutting as an aspect of ‘culture’ that is an object of knowledge
and mutable through new forms of agency and governance. This intellectual
transformation of female genital cutting into a discrete cultural practice allows women to
value it as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and so choose to uphold it or stop its continuation (Moore
2009:213–215).
40
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
In contrast, EMPOWER’s community outreach for older women focuses on basic
education about the practice. Rahma Abdi, an educated Somali woman living in England
from an FGC practising family, views this ‘lack of education’ approach as ethnocentric in
its assumption that practising communities are oblivious to FGC’s adverse health effects
(Abdi 2012:116). EMPOWER uses the ‘lack of education’ approach at community
education events in the hopes of transforming the practice in the minds of community
members from ‘female circumcision’ into the more politically and morally charged ‘female
genital mutilation.’ This transformation in terminology is seen by the NGO as key to
empowering women and ending the practice. This strategy, however, potentially
disenfranchises women who have undergone the procedure by situating them as passive
recipients of the NGO’s knowledge.
References
Abdi, Rahma. 2012. Carving culture: Creating identity through female genital cutting. Durham
Anthropology Journal, 18(1): 115–153. http://www.dur.ac.uk/anthropology.journal/vol18/iss1/
abdi2012.pdf (accessed December 15, 2013)
Abusharaf, Rogaia Mustafa. 2001. Virtuous cuts: Female genital circumcision in an African
ontology. Differences: A Journal of Feminist cultural Studies, 12(1): 12–140.
Ahmadu, Fuambai. 2000. Rites and wrongs: An insider/outsider reflects on power and excision.
Bettina Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund (eds), Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy and
change. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 283–312.
Allotey, Pascale, Lenore Manderson, and Sonia Grover. 2001. The politics of female genital surgery
in displaced communities. Critical Public Health, 11(3): 189–201.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 2010a. Committee on Bioethics: Policy StatementRitual Genital
Cutting of Female Minors. Pediatrics, 125(5): 1088–1093.
———. 2010b. Position clarified: AAP opposed to all forms of female genital cutting. AAP News,
31(7): 33.
Boddy, Janice. 2007. Gender crusades: The female circumcision controversy in Cultural
perspective. Cultural practices in exile? Discourses on female circumcision among and about
Swedish Somalis. Ylva Hernlund and Bettina Shell-Duncan (eds), Transcultural bodies: Female genital
cutting in global context. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press, pp. 46–66.
Mary-Anne Decatur
41
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
Braun, Virginia. 2009. The Women are doing it for themselves. Australian Feminist Studies, 24(60):
233–249.
Broussard, Patricia A. 2008. Female genital mutilation: Exploring strategies for ending ritualized
torture. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 15(19): 19–47.
Catania, Lucrezia, Omar Abdulcadir, Vincenzo Puppo, Jole Baldaro Verde, Jasmine Abdulcadir,
and Dalmar Abdulcadir. 2007. Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/
Cutting (FGM/C). Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4: 1666–1678.
Dalal, Koustuv, Stephen Lawoko, and Bjarne Jansson. 2010. Women’s attitudes towards
discontinuation of female genital mutilation in Egypt. Journal of Injury and Violence Research, 2(1): 41–
47.
Diop, Nafissatou J., and Ian Askew. 2009. The effectiveness of a community-based education
program on abandoning female genital mutilation/cutting in Senegal. Studies in Family Planning,
40(4): 307–318.
Dorkenoo, Efua, Linda Morison, and Alison Macfarlane. 2007. A statistical study to estimate the
prevalence of female genital mutilation in England and Wales. http://eige.europa.eu/content/
statistical-study-to-estimate-the-prevalence-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-england-and-wal
(accessed November 5, 2013)
El Espectador. (29 July, 2008). ‘Piden abolir extirpación de clítoris a indígenas Embera Chamí’. El
Espectador. http://www.elespectador.com/articulo-piden-abolir-extirpacion-de-clitoris-indigenasembera-chami (accessed November 5, 2013)
Green, Fiona J. 2005. From clitoridectomies to ‘designer vaginas’: The medical construction of
heteronormative female bodies and sexuality through female genital cutting. Sexualities, Evolution &
Gender, 7(2): 153–187.
Grewal, Inderpal, and Caren Kaplan. 1996. Warrior marks: Global womanism’s neo- colonial
discourse in a multicultural context. Camera Obscura, 12(3 39): 4–33.
Gruenbaum, Ellen. 2006. Sexuality issues in the movement to abolish female genital cutting in
Sudan. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 20(1): 121–138.
Hod"i!, Saida. 2013. Ascertaining deadly harms: Aesthetics and Politics of Global Evidence.
Cultural Anthropology, 28(1): 86–109.
Johnsdotter, Sara, Kontie Moussa, Aje Carlbom, Rishan Aregai, and Birgitta Essén. 2009. “Never
my daughters”: A qualitative study regarding attitude change toward female genital cutting among
Ethiopian and Eritrean families in Sweden. Health Care for Women International, 30(1): 114–133.
42
Mary-Anne Decatur
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
Kapur, Ratna. 2002. The tragedy of victimization rhetoric: Resurrecting the “native” subject in
international/post-colonial feminist legal politics. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 15: 1–37.
Kennedy, Aileen. 2009. Mutilation and beautification. Australian Feminist Studies, 24(60): 211–231.
Mackie, Gerry. 2000. Female genital cutting: The beginning of the end. In Bettina Shell-Duncan
and Ylva Hernlund (eds), Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy and change. London: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, pp. 253–282.
Mamdani, Mahmood. 1999. Historicizing power and responses to power: Indirect rule and its
reform. Social Research, 66(3): 859–886.
Merli, Claudia. 2010. Male and female genital cutting among Thailand’s Muslims: Ritual,
biomedical practice and local discourses. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 12(7): 725–738.
Momoh, Comfort. 2010. Female genital mutilation. Trends in Urology, Gynaecology & Sexual Health,
15(3): 11–14.
Momoh, Comfort, Shamez Ladhani, Denise P. Lochrie, and Janice Rymer. 2001. Female genital
mutilation: Analysis of the first twelve months of a southeast London specialist clinic. British Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 108: 186–191.
Moore, Henrietta. 2009. Epistemology and ethics: Perspectives from Africa. Social Analysis, 53(2):
207–218.
Morison, Linda A., Ahmed Dirir, Sada Elmi, Jama Warsame, and Shamis Dirir. 2004. How
experiences and attitudes relating to female circumcision vary according to age on arrival in
Britain: A study among young Somalis in London. Ethnicity & Health, 9(1): 75–100.
Njambi, Wairimu. 2009. ‘One vagina to go’: Eve Ensler’s universal vagina and its implications for
African women. Australian Feminist Studies, 24(60):167–180.
Obermeyer, Carla. 1999. Female genital surgeries: The known, the unknown, and the unknowable.
Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 13(1): 79–106.
———. 2005. The consequences of female circumcision for health and! sexuality: An update on
the evidence. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7(5): 443–461.
Obiora, L. Amede. 1997. Bridges and barricades: Rethinking polemics and intransigence in the
Campaign against female circumcision. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 47(2): 275–378.
———. 2007. A refuge from tradition and the refuge of tradition: On anticircumcision paradigms.
Ylva Hernlund and Bettina Shell-Duncan (eds), Transcultural bodies: Female genital cutting in global
context. New Brunswick,NJ and London: Rutgers University Press, pp. 67–90.
Mary-Anne Decatur
43
DAJ
DAJ 19(1) 2013: 25–44
Copyright © 2013 Mary-Anne Decatur
Durham
Anthropology Journal
ISSN 1742-2930
Sheldon. Sally, and Stephen Wilkinson. 1998. Female genital mutilation and cosmetic surgery:
Regulating non-therapeutic body modification. Bioethics, 12(4): 263–285.
Shell-Duncan, Bettina. 2008. From health to human rights: Female genital cutting and the politics
of intervention. American Anthropologist, 110(2): 225–236.
Shell-Duncan, Bettina, and Ylva Hernlund. 2000. Dimensions of the practice and debates. Bettina
Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund (eds), Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy and change.
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 1–40.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. Can the Subaltern Speak? Cary Nelson and Lawrence
Grossberg (eds), Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp.
271–313.
Sullivan, Nikki. 2007. “The price to pay for our common good”: Genital modification and the
somatechnologies of cultural (in)difference. Social Semiotics, 7(3): 395–409.
Touray, Isatou. 2006. Sexuality and women’s sexual rights in the Gambia. IDS Bulletin, 37(5): 77–83.
Ultimas Noticias. 2012. Muere una bebé por extirpación de clítoris en Colombia. Ultimas Noticias,
5th May. http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/actualidad/muere-una-bebe-porextirpacion-de-clitoris-en-colo.aspx (accessed November 5, 2013)
UNICEF. 2013. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the
dynamics of change. http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/female-genital-mutilation-cuttingreport/ (accessed November 5, 2013)
Upvall, Michele J., Khadra Mohammed, and Pamela D. Dodge. 2009. Perspectives of Somali
Bantu refugee women living with circumcision in the United States: A focus group approach.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46: 360–368.
Wade, Lucy. 2009. Defining gendered oppression in U.S. newspapers: The strategic value of
“female genital mutilation”. Gender & Society, 23(3): 293–314.
WHO. 2008. Eliminating female genital mutilation: An interagency statement - OHCHR,
UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. http://
www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/ (accessed November 5,
2013)
WHO. 2013. Female Genital Mutilation: Key Facts. World Health Organization. http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ (accessed November 5, 2013)
Wuest, S., L. Raio, D. Wyssmueller, M. D. Mueller, W. Stadlmayr, D. V. Surbek, and A. Kuhn.
2009. Effects of female genital mutilation on birth outcomes in Switzerland. BJOG: An International
Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 116: 1204–1209
44
Mary-Anne Decatur