Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
International organizations, national governments, and civil society organizations have condemned female genital cutting (FGC). In doing so, campaigners and policy-makers often describe female excision as backward, barbaric, and a problem of African culture. What does widespread international condemnation of FGC as a so-called traditional practice mean for campaigns against excision ‘on the ground?’ Drawing on critical global governance scholarship, this article argues that pervasive understandings of female excision as a problem of African culture obscure the far-reaching politics of campaigns against genital cutting. Focusing on efforts to criminalize female circumcision and educational projects in Tanzania and Kenya, I illustrate ways in which campaigns against female circumcision are dynamic sites of conflict characterized by politicized negotiations and resistance. I argue that initiatives that view FGC as a cultural problem in narrow terms may have unanticipated consequences when campaigns inscribe the communities they identify with female excision as local, traditional, and marginal. Notably, campaigns against the so-called traditional culture can counterproductively politicize diverse practices of excision as reified markers of ‘insider’ cultural identity. As a result, campaigns against excision may lead to outcomes antithetical to their stated goals of reducing practices of genital cutting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonneke Koomen (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: