In 1994, a US immigration judge lifted an order to deport a woman named Lydia Oluloro. Deportation would have forced her to either leave her five- and six-year-old children in America with an abusive father or take them with her to Nigeria. There, they would have been at risk of a genital cutting practice called infibulation, in which the labia majora and minora are trimmed and fused, leaving a small opening for urination and menstruation.
Many Americans will agree that the judge made a good decision, as children shouldn’t be separated from their mothers, left with dangerous family members, or subjected to an unnecessary and irreversible operation that they do not understand. I am among these Americans. However, I am also of the view that Americans who oppose unfamiliar genital cutting practices should think long and hard about how they articulate their opposition.
The judge in the Oluloro case, Kendall Warren, articulated his opposition like this:
This court attempts to respect traditional cultures … but [infibulation] is cruel and serves no known medical purpose. It’s obviously a deeply ingrained cultural tradition going back 1,000 years at least.
Let’s consider the judge’s logic carefully. First, by contrasting the “court” (by which he means America)with “traditional cultures”, the judge is contrasting us (America) with a them (Nigeria). He’s implying that only places like Nigeria are “traditional” — a euphemism for states seen as backward, regressive, and uncivilised — while the US is “modern,” a state conflated with progressiveness and enlightenment.
When he says that the court “attempts to respect traditional cultures,” but cannot in this case, the judge is suggesting that the reason for the disrespect is the fault of the culture itself. In other words, he’s saying “we do our best to respect traditional cultures, but you have pushed us too far.” The reason for this, the judge implies, is that the practices in question have no redeeming value. It “serves no known medical purpose,” and societies which practice it are thus “up to no good” or are not engaging in “rational” action.
The only remaining explanation for the continuation of the practice, the judge concludes, is cruelty. If the practice is cruel the people who practice it must necessarily also be cruel; capriciously, pointlessly, even frivolously cruel.
To make matters worse, in the eyes of the judge, such cruelty can’t be helped because its perpetrators don’t have free will. The practice, he says, is “deeply ingrained” and has been so for at least 1,000 years. Such cultures cannot be expected to see reason. This is the reason why the court — or America — can and should be compelled to intervene.
In sum, the judge might well have said: “we are a modern, rational, free, good society, and you who practice female genital cutting—you are the opposite of this.”
**********
I’ve published extensively on the ways in which Americans talk about the female genital cutting practices (FGCs) that are common in parts of Africa and elsewhere, focusing on the different ways opposition can be articulated and the consequence of those choices. There are many grounds upon which to oppose FGCs: the oppression of women, the repression of sexuality, human rights abuse, child abuse, a violation of bodily integrity, harm to health, and psychological harm, to name just a few. Nevertheless, Judge Warren, chose to use one of the most common and counterproductive frames available: cultural depravity.
The main source of this frame has been the mass media, which began covering FGCs in the early 1990s. At the time anti-FGC activists were largely using the child abuse frame in their campaigns, yet journalists decided to frame the issue in terms of cultural depravity. This narrative mixed with American ethnocentrism, an obsession with fragile female sexualities, a fear of black men, and a longstanding portrayal of Africa as dark, irrational, and barbaric to make a virulent cocktail of the “African Other.”
The more common word used to describe FGCs — mutilation — is a symbol of this discourse. It perfectly captures Judge Warren’s comment. Mutilation is, perhaps by definition, the opposite of healing and of what physicians are called to do. Defining FGCs this way allows, and even demands, that we wholly condemn the practices, take a zero tolerance stance, and refuse to entertain any other point of view.
Paradoxically, this has been devastating for efforts to reduce genital cutting. People who support genital cutting typically believe that a cut body is more aesthetically pleasing. They largely find the term “mutilation” confusing or offensive. They, like anyone, generally do not appreciate being told that they are barbaric, ignorant of their own bodies, or cruel to their children.
The zero tolerance demand to end the practices has also failed. Neither foreigners intervening in long-practicing communities, nor top-down laws instituted by local politicians under pressure from Western governments, nor even laws against FGCs in Western countries have successfully stopped genital cutting. They have, however, alienated the very women that activists have tried to help, made women dislike or fear the authorities who may help them, and even increased the rate of FGCs by inspiring backlashes.
In contrast, the provision of resources to communities to achieve whatever goals they desire, and then getting out of the way, has been proven to reduce the frequency of FGCs. The most effective interventions have been village development projects that have no agenda regarding cutting, yet empower women to make choices. When women in a community have the power to do so, they often autonomously decide to abandon FGCs. Who could know better, after all, the real costs of continuing the practice?
Likewise, abandonment of the practice may be typical among immigrants to non-practicing societies. This may be related to fear of prosecution under the law. However, it is more likely the result of a real desire among migrants to fit into their new societies, a lessening of the pressures and incentives to go through with cutting, and mothers’ deep and personal familiarity with the short- and long-term pain that accompanies the practices.
The American conversation about FGCs has been warped by our own biases. As a Hastings Center Report summarizes, those who adopt the cultural depravity frame misrepresent the practices, overstate the negative health consequences, misconstrue the reasons for the practice, silence the first-person accounts of women who have undergone cutting, and ignore indigenous anti-FCG organizing. And, while it has fed into American biases about “dark” Africa and its disempowered women, the discourse of cultural depravity has actually impaired efforts to reduce rates of FGCs and the harm that they can cause.
Originally posted at Open Democracy and Pacific Standard.
Lisa Wade is a professor at Occidental College and the co-author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. You can follow up on her research about female genital cutting here.
Comments 16
Christine — November 2, 2015
This raises some good points. I had never thought to look at the practice in the same lights as the niqab debate. (I'm not entirely sure that it's similar enough for tolerance to be the human-rights-respecting solution in this case too though.) I think this is the first article on the subject that I've seen that avoids the counter-productive "well, labiaplasty is essentially the same thing" argument, however.
AG — November 2, 2015
I would like to point out that you made a valid interpretation of the judges text, but it is not the only valid interpretation. I want to provide another interp to
put things in context and remove the smell of platonism from an otherwise great
post (and my bias is revealed). I want to show that a judge could say what you
quoted and been thinking something completely from the conclusion you've drawn.
The judge may have made a mistake in not considering the interpretation that
this author chose (i agree), but the author's interp is not the only valid
interp. Personally, I would see a judge that differed to the interp of this
author and consequently chose different words as a sign that "my side is
winning" b/c the judge has to tailor his words to people that share my
world view, our views must be important to the system. Also, UNLV Law prof’s Ann McGinley and Addie Rolnick are excellent resources to tap if you are interested in learning more about how like minded individuals familiar with the USA legal system feel about it. Rolnick grapples with law vis a vis American indian law and McGinley with law vis a vis feminism and comparative (particularly Italy iirc)
My major assumption/bias that makes me think an alternate interp is useful so
we don't think our perspective has some magical universal force that will
change the world absent our hard work and effort to keep our interp alive and
thriving: If we assume that the world doesn't have platonic ideals (ideas that
are universal and exist absent the humans dreaming them) - then we can't
discover justice and more that we can discover capital "T" truth, we
collectively create cultures and traditions with their own views on what
justice is. I want to show that a judge could say what you quoted and been thinking something completely from the conclusion you've drawn. It is up to us to get people to accept our ways of thinking if we want judges to start using language we prefer (again, no god, no platonic ideals to reveal to others and to do the work for us).
As humans, every human is subject to bias. This often shows up in our
inferences about other people's communications. For example, the
implications/inferences you are making about the judge's words. You are a human, therefore you have biases, and it is likely they are showing up in your
inferences regarding the text of the judge's opinion*. The judge doesn't share
our bias, booo, our side is losing.
Here is an interp of the judge's statement that relies upon a judicial
perspective. I choose this perspective b/c judges are trained to write with
this type of perspective so (1) I think it has some value in figuring out what
this particular judge may have been thinking (2) i don't want people to think
the authors interp (which i share) is the only valid interp and therefore has
some special powers that lets people sit in smug satisfaction , lazy crutch
that they know the "truth" instead of doing something.
On to the alternate interp:
1) i wouldn't consider our discussion about the jduges words to involve any
time of universal logic we can discuss fully. The fact that multiple valid yet
possibly contradictory interps exist is a sign that there is no logic here.*
2) "the court" is america's legal system. This is a judge who's
ostensible job is to decide things as a hand of "the court". Leaving
his opinions aside to decide as he thinks years of legal precedence would
conclude (agreed, this is impossible, but it is a shared fiction and one that
ANYONE trying to divine a platonic fiction, including us). So - it is not what
he thinks is right, it is what he sees the court telling him to do.*** To a
judge this could be okay b/c his job isn’t to decide like an emperor, his job
is to rep the court. Consequently, he thinks he is doing a good job.
“attempt to respect traditional” cultures. This is us v them. The judge may be okay with this b/c his job is compare behavior to rules of law of the USA. This is unlike you and I, who may have a sense of justice that is more universal in it’s
acceptance of other cultures. The judge may feel he doesn’t have this luxury,
his job is to compare behavior to American law. So, in an effort to show that
he does have a soul and in trying to respect the sovereignty of another culture
he says “attempt to respect other cultures. You and I may have mixed emotions
about what we think about respecting cultures while simultaneously wanting to
prevent harm to a little kid, the judge likely feels similar things, but his
job is to decide – judiciously as bound by the USA traditions.
Rational actions are available as tools to all cultural traditions or personal beliefs to champion their shared (or personal) story. The judge must decide based upon the culture that is the USA. The judge is correct that there is no “medical value” to many forms of genital reconfiguration. He is 100% ignoring the other traditional culture. He is valuing somethings from America , the child’s
personal choice and deference to medical knowledge over others, another culture b/c that is his job. Within American culture, it is cruel to inflict pain on
someone that doesn’t want it****.
The inference about the judge’s characterization of Nigeria seems to be the weakest interp. “Nigeria is ‘traditional’ — a euphemism for states seen as backward, regressive, and uncivilized”. I really don’t see that supported by the text and seems like a blanket critique of something you’ve smelled in the zeitgeist. You are making an assumption of his beliefs without considering him as an individual distinct from the average rich powerful white (maybe, I dunno) guy. It could be true, and I used to share a similar pre-disposition that it is true, but from what I have been given to read it is not definitive. However, smell it on the zeitgeist? Me too. So, let us do something***** and not become complacent in our smug self satisfaction, wrapped in the illusion that we know the capital “T” truth that will eventually win b/c it is True independent of it’s believers.
Okay, off the soap box, thanks for reading, and I love the site!
*and this is why people hire lawyers in the USA, a lawyer tries to write so
that there can be no inferences. This is impossible, and lawyers know that,
which is why people hire lawyers to finding multiple interpretations of a set
of words and persuade others that your set of interpretations is better than
someone else's interp. In other words, this interp is very lawyerly, and is
logically consistent, so it will also well done lawyerly work.
** the idea of judges "doing things b/c they have to" is easier to grok with
mandatory minimums. Lots of judges hate them, but are bound to sentence by
them. not all judges feel it is painfull to sentence by them, and judges do twist law to make things better or worst, but this is a clear(er) cut example than genital reconfig to try and deflect anyone trying to debate tangents unrelated to my goal of providing another interp as valid as this authors as a means of stripping away platonic thinking.
*** but we contain multitudes, we are humans not robots, it's okay.
**** yes, death penalty, solitary confinement etc, again, cultures don’t have to play by the rules of reason, just look at genital reconfig rituals.
***** providing a place like this blog for dialogue is a good start.
pduggie — November 2, 2015
Well, we do live in american where "we've done it this was for hundreds of years" never seems to carry much weight if it isn't in the written constitution.
Bill R — November 2, 2015
"People who support genital cutting typically believe that a cut body is more aesthetically pleasing. They largely find the term “mutilation” confusing or offensive. They, like anyone, generally do not appreciate being told that they are barbaric, ignorant of their own bodies, or cruel to their children."
Are you serious? Who cares what these creatures appreciate being told?
We can intellectualize all we want about subtle approaches to reducing the overall prevalence of such behavior but in the end we are left choosing between a relativistic approach to judging human behavior or striving to find the good. I choose the latter and condemn this practice of mutilation as barbaric without hesitation. It is an affront to human rights and, more importantly, the human condition.
Hunter — November 2, 2015
I would be interested to see a comparison with medically unnecessary procedures in the West and the way we have been socialized to find these "traditions" normal or acceptable, such as male circumcision or other plastic surgeries. Ie: How do we (or the legal system) talk about medical interventions motivated by culture rather than health?
Jaki Benson — November 3, 2015
A society that mutilates women's genitals as a cultural practice is objectively worse than those that don't. "But muh cultural relativism, muh liberal sensibilities!" No, fuck you. OBJECTIVELY WORSE.
Umlud — November 5, 2015
Wow, this assessment is just littered with logical fallacies and unsupported claims.
The court is - by necessity - required to contrast the set of laws and cultural practices of the United States of America (which the court and the judge represent) against those found in the place from where an asylum seeker would otherwise be deported back to. This is not some strange thing, but actually a required piece of assessment in a deportation hearing for someone who is seeking to stay in the US.
Furthermore, the entire assessment is based on this single quote taken from a newspaper article in which the reporter chose the line that she thought was the most telling. In other words, we know nothing about the context in which this one sentence was taken, and - as any sociologist ought to know - context is important. Therefore, the contention made here (and below) is merely projection based on nothing more than the interpretation of a single quote from a longer decision that we have no apparent way of finding through the provided link.
Again, this is projecting from a single quote chosen by the newspaper reporter and printed in the article that you linked to in the post. But let's continue.
The point, again, of the deportation hearing is to determine whether it would be unsafe for the person to be returned back to their home country. US law makes several points about how illegal it is to torture, maim, abuse, or injure other people against their consent. (Heck, it's even illegal in some cases to do it with someone's consent.) Infibulation of a child amounts to physical injury without the consent of the individual - and potentially of the parent. Therefore, if such a case comes before a US court, it would be argued on the grounds that such a practice - regardless of religious or cultural traditions - is against US laws. This ought to be the same if the question of cultural tradition is human sacrifice or cannibalism. The implications of a tradition can be measured against existing codes of law and agreed-upon moral judgements underpinning such laws, and has little need for recourse to the assessment provided above. Indeed, such contrasting statements are often made in judgements about constitutional questions, as was seen in Obergefell, which basically amounted to a comparison of traditional social norms against the rights of the individual. No need to invoke any comparison of the US vs. another country in that one.
Also, where are you pulling the "up to no good" quote from? It's a bit of an unsubstantiated claim.
What? "If the practice is cruel, the people who practice it must necessarily also be cruel?" This assessment is based neither in coherent logic or historic or social understanding. It is definitely possible that a practice can be seen as cruel and illegal by one culture and yet seen as normal, legal, and even beneficial (let alone required) by another all without casting any sort of judgement about the cruelty of those who practice it (or those who judge the practice). Cases in point: daily semen injestion by boys among the Etoro, the series of manhood trials of the Matis, or any other of a myriad of cultural practices that would be judged illegal by US legal standards as well as generally considered immoral by much of US society. It is possible to look at specific cultural practices and call them cruel while simultaneously understanding that the people who engage in them are not cruel, because it is possible (easy, even) to understand that society is not so black and white and as simple as the "If the practice is cruel, the people who practice it musxt necessarily also be cruel" line of thought makes it out to be.
Again, all this is based on a single quote from a decision that a reporter chose to use in her piece. And the assessment of cruelty is completely unfounded and based on faulty logic. And the assessment also doesn't take into account the context in which the decision is being made (which is a courtroom that must respond to US laws and not to sociological analysis). But besides all these problems inherited from faulty logic of the previous paragraphs, this conclusion makes another logical misstep by conflating the individual deportation decision in front of the judge of an actual person who would be returning to specific circumstances with the author's ideas of a whether a population as a whole can exercise free will in the face of an old tradition. See, the problem here is not that the judge is saying that the population is incapable of seeing the light; there were - undoubtedly - groups of people and places in Nigeria in 1994 where infibulation was not a common practice. If the judge had adequate enough information on the practice, he likely knew that infibulation was not happening to every single girl in the entirety of Nigeria. However, the question in front of the judge is whether the person in question would be returning to a place in Nigeria where those practices - which would be illegal if they were done in the US - were commonplace and expected and whether that practice was a major reason why the person was not wishing to be deported back to Nigeria.
In other words, it's not about a question of whether Nigerians - in general or in totality - have the free will to change their beliefs about infibulation. It's not a question about whether Nigerians are - in general or in totality - cruel. It's not a question about whether Nigerians - in general or intotality - are part of a traditional culture. The question before the judge is whether the person in question would be effectively be returned to a condition that would lead to infibulation against the person's will - a practice that would be against US law and which is a factor that a judge must include in their assessment for determining deportation.
In sum, this is a really bad assessment for multiple reasons.
1. It relies entirely upon a single quote from a judgement that a reporter chose (for her own unstated reasons) to present.
2. It fails to recognize the context of the judgement from which that single statement was taken.
3. It makes several poor logical arguments and bases subsequent arguments (some of which are also based on poor logic) on these unfounded conclusions.
4. It conflates population-level and individual-level implications.
5. It seems to presume that there is something special about infibulation and judgement about this practice that do not equally pertain to other practices that would be as illegal and as morally revolting in the US.
One can have an academic discussion about whether the framing of cultural depravity (or other frames that rely on moral suasion) are actually good. I personally agree with the author that such frames are not always the best ones to make. However, it doesn't help one's argument against the use of such framing if one's assessment of a potential case of its use is so riddled with problems that it itself becomes unreliable. Also, remember that this is an argument made in a court, and the judicial system is where the arguments from morality are often made; by all sides. Given this, it seems also a bit odd to use a single, decontextualized quote from a court decision on a potential deportation as the key example of the problem with using cultural depravity as a framing device.
Just sayin.
The Dude-bro Consortium — November 7, 2015
Its also hypocritical. The U.S. allows the circumcision of its boys! Since, when is it ok to treat one gender so unfairly?
Veiled_In_Dance — December 19, 2015
The thing is, though, it's true that genital mutilation stems from ignorance of the human body. It's true that this practice is barbaric, and when a child is going through it, undoubtedly it feels terribly cruel. I think the idea here is to be careful to discuss it tactfully and not in such a way that the person you're trying to reach will tune you out. But you have to balance that with not whitewashing this practice or pretending that it's not as terrible as it really is.
shannon cochran — June 27, 2023
There are surgeries common in the United States like vaginoplasty, labiaplasty or vaginal rejeuventation which are solely for aesthetic reasons and come with, in some cases, severe risks. And there are many types of practices that would be called "Female Genital Mutilation", including many that are simply aesthetic/cutting external labia. You can argue that those surgeries are elected by the person having them, but you might also find that those receiving vaginal modifications as a part of a cultural practice elect to have them too.
Let's look at our own history of female genital mutilation in the United States, starting with unnecessary episiotomies during birth that are solely for the ease of the doctor (this now being a practice that happens rarely these days) and unnescesary stitching postpartum. See information on "The Husband Stitch", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husband_stitch, once seen as an urban legend until those who had experienced it during their birth started coming forward to talk ab out it.
exceptcloud — April 26, 2024
@happy wheels, A few valid points are brought up here. I never considered the practice in the same context as the discussion over the niqab. (I'm not positive that it's comparable enough to respect human rights in this situation as well, though.) Yet, I believe this is the only post I've seen on the topic that stays away from the unhelpful "well, labiaplasty is basically the same thing" criticism.