Eritrea: Concluding Remarks On Female Circumcision
Opinion
Berhane M. Tekeste
18 April 2007
The proclamation banning female circumcision in Eritrea nearly two weeks ago, 4 Apr 07, attracted a lot of media attention and sparked and re-kindled a wide-ranging debate over the subject matter well beyond the scope and spectrum of my initial installment that led to the subsequent installment and now to this one. What started out as a mere objection to the arbitrary nature and invalid grounds given to ban female circumcision in Eritrea span out to debate over the entire gamut of pros and cons of female circumcision. That is perfectly OK.. From the feedbacks I received, I gathered that there is a lot of misconception out there about terminology, cultural ramification of female circumcision, and even human rights.
Terminology
A) Female genital circumcision - the practice (Medical aspect)
Female circumcision the practice, regardless of how it is performed, purpose and intent, is a surgical procedure. The terms used to label surgical procedures are derived from Latin and Greek and are very descriptive: They describe more or less exactly what is accomplished by the surgical intervention. The term 'circumcision" is derived from the Latin 'circum' meaning 'around' (For example, 'circumocular' means 'around the eye'; from Latin 'circum' and 'oculus' meaning eye) and '-cision' from Latin 'caedere' meaning 'to cut'. Hence, put together, the term 'circumcision' in and of itself means not 'cut' but 'cut around'. Moreover, the term 'circumcision' is gender-neutral and does not qualify the outcome one way or the other (mutilation, deformation etc), it is sensitive to local beliefs. When 'circumcision' involves 'cutting around' female genitalia it is labeled 'Female Genital Circumcision' (FGC) and when it involves male genitalia it is labeled 'Male Genital Circumcision' (MGC) regardless of how others label or perceive the outcome. Thus, from the point of view of medical terminology, the term 'Female Genital Mutilation', or "FGM" is clearly a misnomer and otherwise abusive for it implies wrongly some cruelty on the part of the practitioner and the entirety of the ethnic group and presumes sole authority over what is right or wrong to others. The term Female Genital Cutting (aka FGC) is equally a misnomer and abusive. It is not a medical terminology and implies negativity. People refer to the surgical removal of tonsils, for example, as 'tonsillectomy' not 'tonsil cutting' or 'Appendectomy' not 'appendix cutting' or 'hysterectomy' not 'womb cutting' when referring to surgical removal of part or all of the uterus.
B) Female genital circumcision - the belief (Cultural aspect)
By design or subconsciously, emphasis on the barbaric nature of and the very grave and fatal consequence associated with the medical aspects of FGC, though rightly so, have blurred the strong and deep-rooted cultural aspects, which are very significant and main driving force behind it all. Though its origin has not been conclusively established, the partial or complete removal of the external parts of female and male genital organs is an age-old belief that transcends religion and ethnicity, which the practitioners consider as an inextricable integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity and their inalienable right to develop, preserve, and bequeath to succeeding generation. Thus, while FGC the culture is the belief, FGC the practice is the way this belief has been implemented (barbaric with the associated grave morbidity and mortality rate). Hence, banning FGC the practice has deeply rooted cultural implication that is a make-or-break to cultural and ethnic identity that cannot be done away with forcibly.
UN and human rights issues
The UN is a late latecomer as far as the issue of female genital circumcision is concerned. As a matter of fact, it didn't issue any formal policy statement until 1979. Yet, they did a damn good job in exposing the barbaric nature of the procedure and the grave medical consequences associated with FGC to the extent of even coining the term "Female Genital Mutilation"(FGM), which by all standards is a misnomer and abusive, thereby creating the false impression as if there were one barbaric way of accomplishing FGC and the only solution would be eradicating it all. That is wrong. Medicine has proven indubitably that there is another sound and safe way of accomplishing the practice of FGC rendering the grave medical concerns moot. Secondly, there is a deep-rooted, age-old, and major cultural aspect to FGC the practice that cannot be dismissed cavalierly and based on mere subjective grounds.
With the first line of argument contra FGC, medical concerns, rendered moot, there is now a second line of argument based on human rights. This line of argument falters too because human rights is not an absolute concept. Though there is a universal agreement on the basic tenets of human rights, when it comes to details and in practice, cultural and ethnic diversity has it that the degree of compliance varies from place to place.
Discussion
Understandably, a lot of people took up issues with FGC one way or the other with civility and intellectual honesty. All but two of the hundreds of feedback I received came from males! Following is a generic sample of what they expressed in their feedbacks:
Feedback: "You can't be serious? Please re-evaluate your thinking concerning this barbaric practice."
Response:This is a typical reaction of people whenever the term 'female circumcision' pops up totally ignorant of the fact that it is an inextricable part of a major cultural heritage, which is the reason why it is practiced at all, knowingly or unknowingly. Male/female circumcision is an age-old cultural belief/concept and the practice is the method it is implemented. One cannot, for example, eradicate Christianity or Islam by knocking down the churches and mosques. Equally one cannot eradicate female circumcision by banning its practice. That said, my thinking about the way FGC has been performed for centuries is that it is barbaric and should have been arrested long ago and replaced by way of medicaliztion. But whether or not the age-old belief/concept about male/female circumcision as such should be abandoned, I submit that it is for the family and only the family to decide. That is where it all starts. The family being the smallest societal unit has the right, responsibility, and obligation to identify, develop, preserve cultural heritage, like religion, language - I heard people talking about 'mother language'?- and pass it on to succeeding generation.
Feedback: "By your own definition, FGC is non-therapeutic (not done for medical reasons) procedure and hence a matter of choice. Most of the FGC in Eritrea is performed on girls 2-6 years old, too young to make an informed/educated choice or decision- children are incapable of determining for themselves whether or not to undergo FGC. In the absence of informed consent, female circumcision is seen as a violation of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child."
Response: This is the 2nd most frequent feedback. Practitioners of FGC argue that the fulfillment of cultural obligation on kids neither necessitates nor requires the informed consent of kids based mainly on and influenced by their personal beliefs and feelings, which is also a logical consequence of the very fact that kids incapability to determine what is good/bad for themselves, they say. Moreover, FGC the practice is a surgical procedure no different than any other surgical procedure on kids where the informed consent of parents or legal guardian is required by law, which in the case of FGC is provide for by the parents, they say.
Feedback: FGC deprives woman of normal carnal experience
Response: Understandably, this is the most frequent feedback and in my humble opinion it is the crux of the entire debate over FGC. This begs a crucial question: What is the norm when it comes to female response to internal and external male carnal stimuli? Opponents of FGC argue that the response of the uncircumcised female to such stimuli is the normal reaction. Practitioners of FGC on the other hand counter by arguing that the response of the circumcised female to such stimuli is the norm, while that of the uncircumcised females is an overreaction (Hyperęsthesia). In fact, they argue, FGC is a protective mechanism against male abuse of this overreaction and turning females into mere objects in service of male entertainment and pleasure fantasies including sodomy in its broadest sense- the most violent and demeaning act of males against females, they say. There you have it. Each side has a firm stance in this matter based solely on its respective cosmology and worldview. As is frequently the case in such situations, like religion (Islam vs Christianity for example), there is no middle ground here. Thus, as in religion, there is no better option but to agree to disagree and be able to live with that. Absent that, trying to impose one's will upon the other cannot be in the interest of anyone?
Feedback: "FGC is not a procedure that has been medicalized in Eritrea. Research demonstrates that FGC (non-medicalized) poses considerable risks to the public health of women and their children, thus the government of Eritrea is well within its rights to address the issue as noted in article 21 (5) of the constitution of Eritrea wherein is stated "National Assembly shall enact laws that guarantee and secure the social welfare of [its] citizens".
Response: While public health concerns stemming from FGC are valid, the answer to a medical problem is a medical solution not arbitrary legal measure. Adverse medical complications following FGC are obsolete because medicalization has rendered them moot. It is about time or even long overdue that FGC becomes medicalized in Eritrea. By that I mean educating and encouraging people to go to their nearest health center. This is no different than mothers going to the nearest health center, if they so choose, to deliver their babies. If they so wish, families can make arrangements for FGC right there and then? How about that?
As far as article 21(5) is concerned, whatever law a legislative body enacts cannot override or undo constitutionally guaranteed rights or any other such provisions, for example article21 (4). Should any part of the constitution pose a problem in legislating and enacting a necessary law, then the constitution must first be amended. The constitution has not been amended. Hence, FC ban in Eritrea is illegal and unconstitutional. You may say "who cares about the constitution"?
Feedback: "Change, while not always wanted, is sometimes needed."
Response: Well said. Only thing is that the change that is needed here is of purely medical nature not legal, for what necessitated change is a medical concern.
Conclusion
Let me reiterate one more time that this is neither an endorsement nor opposition to FGC. I submit that FGC is not a cultural heritage gone wrong. It is a case of surgical implementation of a cultural heritage gone terribly and horribly wrong, which has found sound and safe solution in medicalization. I also submit that the mother of any and every cultural heritage like religion, language, ethnic music and dance including male/female circumcision, is the family, and that the family has the last word over the fate of any given cultural heritage. Although we all have a lot more in common than differences, cultural and ethnic diversity has it that we do not all share one and the same personal belief, feelings, and lifetime experience. Hence, decisions we make and actions we take influenced by and based on that are certainly not going to enjoy universal acceptability or applicability and may or may not even be necessarily in conformity with one or the other universally valid norms and standards in all details. Cultural and ethnic diversity has it too that there is no such thing as right/wrong cultural heritage just like there is no right or wrong religion. We need to be able to live with our differences without necessarily accepting them for nature has it that not homogeneity but diversity is the norm. The call for cultural heritage to adapt to societal dynamics is valid but it cannot mean undermining or eroding the integrity and essence of one cultural heritage in favor of another one. That is all what I am advocating here.
What started all the debate over FGC were legitimate, real, and grave health concerns. All subsequent arguments contra FGC are arguably of pure subjective nature. And unless there is a desire to engage in academic exercise or force people to abandon their age-old and hence deep-rooted cultural heritage and adopt a homogenous cultural identity, there is no real reason, recorded or documented, to eradicate FGC as a cultural heritage. Medicalization is the answer for the barbaric way FGC has been performed hitherto.
The banning of female circumcision in Eritrea is arbitrary and a blatant violation of constitutionally guaranteed right to cultural heritage (Article21 (4). The government in Eritrea doesn't have the right or any reason to ban an age-old cultural heritage that is practiced by 94% of the population. But it has the might and did what it did simply because it can. Democracy/rule of law in Eritrea has been declared quasi a luxury as recently as last month. There is neither right nor mechanism to appeal. It is the sheer rule of might.
"whosoever, knowing that female circumcision to take place or has taken place, fails without good cause to warn or inform the proper authorities promptly, shall be punishable with a fine and imprisonment." With that, Eritrea has now been turned into a nation where people are forced to spy and eavesdrop on each other 24x7 for fear of self-incrimination. Sorry, you can't take 'the 5th' or the right to remain silent here!
PS:
Article 21 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
Responsibilities
(4) The State and society shall have the responsibility of identifying, preserving, developing, when necessary, and bequeathing to succeeding generation historical and cultural heritage; (The National Constitution of Eritrea, adopted July 1996 and ratified in 1997)
Related Stories:
Eritrea: Is Female Circumcision Necessary? Q &A
ERITREA: Might is right, govt. bans female circumcision
Author can be reached at bmtekeste@yahoo.com
|
| |
