FGM: CULTURAL RITE, TORTURE - OR BOTH? PART I

“What should we in the U.S. be doing to stop horrible practices against women in other countries?”

That provocative question was posed at my recent reading from Seeing for Myself: A Political Traveler’s Memoir. I had talked about Female Genital Mutilation, or FGM, the ritual cutting of a woman’s for girl’s labia or clitoris. Most westerners find it abhorrent but the practice is defended by women as well as men in many cultures. It’s not easy to see what we in the West should do about it – if anything. Before my trips to Africa, I supported the United Nations label of FGM as “torture.” But as I interacted with the Maasai people in their Kenyan village, I began to identify with their problems, and unexpectedly asked myself, “Is FGM a core Maasai tradition that is none of the United Nations’ business?” “Or is it a violation of internationally recognized Human Rights?” http://www.wunrn.com/news/2011/06_11/06_06/060611_un.htm.  

The quick answer to my question was “both.” The U.N. was certainly right to identify the practice as a form of torture. And, like the scarring of men in coming of age rites, FGM did appear to be an important traditional Maasai ritual. But my next argument with myself was that my phrase “Maasai tradition” is inaccurate. Created and enforced by Maasai leaders who are males, the ritual can only be accurately labeled a “male tradition.” No one knows what a traditional women’s culture would look like. These contradictory concerns of mine were not new when I landed in Africa. But, when I personally met Maasai women and their male leader my feelings deepened, and my appreciation of the complexities of the question grew.

As a child I had identified with the call of a missionary who enchanted me and my classmates with tales of baptizing African babies to save them from an eternity in Limbo. Inspired by the priest, and already incensed at the unfairness of life, a desire to put the world to rights took hold of me. However absurd my self-assigned task appears now, my self-righteous anger at unfairness later morphed into fighting for social justice. So it’s not surprising that I’ve continued to wrestle with the rights and wrongs of questions about human rights. Is it ever justifiable to impose western values on people of other cultures? What should the United Nations role be? What is the obligation of the U.S., for instance, especially in countries where we have wreaked havoc? Can NGOs help without hindering?

I’m still mulling over that question asked at my reading. At the time, I said we should not impose our ideas about what people in other countries need. We should find out what kind of support, if any, they would like that might help them achieve what they believe they need. This approach to foreign aid should apply to reducing poverty, furthering human rights, or other forms of aid, as well as dealing with FGM. But what if half the population wanted to be freed from unjust tribal or cultural mandates? I give myself an incomplete for that answer. It more or less deals with the what, but the how is much more complex. What exactly should our standards be for giving aid? How can we know whether programs are free of corruption?

I looked for answers in several books I’ve reviewed on this blog, and found more questions, which I’ll write about here next time. Meanwhile, I’m interested in seeing readers’ responses to questions I’ve posed so far.