An Analysis Of Women’s Rights Through A Case Study Of Female Genital Mutilation
In ‘Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Re-Vision of Human Rights’, Charlotte Bunch argues that achieving women’s human rights is a necessity in order to combat and aid violations against females globally. However, this argument is clearly limited in practice when analysing the violation of African women’s human rights, specifically of female genital mutilation (FGM). Bunch emphasises the need for women’s rights in African countries through a White Feminist approach, but this case study more importantly raises a different perspective when viewed from a Black African Feminist approach, that considers African culture and traditions an important factor when practicing these acts. These two perspectives alone lack crucial components for a deeper understanding of FGM, however, when brought together, can create a more holistic understanding of FGM in relation to women’s rights.
Introduction
The modern concept of human rights originated from an ethnocentric European context to achieve nation building. However, this individualised male-centric concept fails to recognise the importance of women’s rights. In ‘Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Re-Vision of Human Rights’, Charlotte Bunch questions and critiques the problematic denial of women’s rights as human rights. She further argues that achieving women’s human rights is a necessity in order to combat and aid violations against females globally. By first deconstructing the connection between women’s rights and human rights, an evaluation of the necessity of women’s rights can be achieved.
However, this White Feminist argument is clearly limited in practice when analysing the violation of African women’s human rights, specifically of female genital mutilation (FGM). Western Feminists view the practices as a reinforcement of men’s domination over women, thus condemning FGM as a violation of women’s rights, but this case study more importantly raises a different perspective when viewed from a Black African Feminist approach. This perspective considers African culture and traditions an important factor when practicing these acts, thus, presenting a view on FGM that may be overlooked by White Feminism.
A comparison of these two cross culture clashes regarding FGM portrays the complexity of this matter, as each approach lacks crucial components for a deeper understanding of FGM. Therefore, a study of both frameworks is necessary in order to allow a more holistic understanding of FGM and its relation to women’s rights.
Reference to Reading
Adopted in 1948, Article 2 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights entitles all rights and freedoms without distinction of race, colour, sex, or other status. This global promotion of human rights is a widely accepted norm that “speaks to the need for transnational activism and concern about the lives of people”. However, the continuous interpretations of human rights in response to global developments exclude the discussion of gender, especially of women’s experiences. Bunch’s ‘Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Re-Vision of Human Rights’ argues the necessity of achieving the recognition of women’s rights as human rights, proposing that a Feminist transformation of human rights can be more responsive to the violations of women.
Though this argument makes sense from a Western Feminist perspective, it is clearly limited in practice when providing a holistic understanding of the violation of human rights faced by African women. This further raises questions about the validity of practicing FGM through the viewpoint of Black African Feminists. These two perspectives alone lack crucial components for a deeper understanding of FGM, however, a merging of these two perspectives, can create a more holistic understanding of FGM in relation to women’s rights.
Definitions
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the cultural practice in which the total or partial cutting, removal, or alteration of the female genitalia is performed for social or cultural, rather than medical reasons (Rigmore & Denison, 2012). Almroth & Elmusharaf (2007), as well as the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2019) categorise FGM into four main groups: Clitoridectomy (Type I), the excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris, Excision (Type II), the excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora, Infibulation (Type III), the excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening, and Other (Type IV), which refers to all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia.
Studies indicate that FGM creates significant negative physical, psychological, and sexual complications for women and girls (Rigmore & Denison, 2012), prompting FGM to be the subject of numerous discussions across academic disciplines. This debate, however, lacks the contextualised understanding of both White and Black African Feminism, and so a more holistic and culturally relevant framework of each perspective is necessary in order to gain a deeper understanding of FGM regarding women’s rights.
White Feminism
Feminist theory is the “most significant theory used for analysing the status of women and men in society while trying to bring a change to women’s subordination caused and reinforced by gender inequalities in patriarchal societies”. In the context of FGM, White Feminists condemn this practice as a violation of women’s rights due to its reinforcement of male domination to control female sexuality (Hosken, 1979; Rigmore & Denison, 2012). This perspective argues that FGM must be handled as a universal women’s rights case and claims that the cultural practices must be outlawed as this violation is a “clear act of misogyny”.
Through an analysis of the Kikuyu tribe of Kenya and their practice of FGM, Western Feminists believe that the practice is transmitted from generation to generation with reasons other than the preservation of tribe identity (James, 1998). However, since the Kikuyu are polygamous, FGM then becomes a means for husbands to facilitate surveillance and control over their wives’ faithfulness. This supports the common belief among Western Feminists that FGM is a procedure that maintains male dominance among tribes since it gives men the power and right to control female sexuality, thus condemning FGM as a violation of women’s human rights.
Black African Feminism
Historically, within pre-colonial African societies, women’s status was respected for their ability to create new life through childbirth, and were known for their matrilineal systems (Segueda, 2015). This is evident through a study of the Senegalese society which show that women, particularly of Wolof and Serer ethnicities, had a tradition of high social status and social participation. However, colonial rule with a focus on patriarchal ideologies changed the gender dynamic found in African societies, stripping women of their prior important roles and social status. This led to Black African Feminism, a framework addressing the rights and concerns of African women.
Also referred to as Third World Feminism, Black African Feminism is very distinct from the Western Feminist perspective, and is a term used to “embody the collective nature of African scholar’s specific representation of their challenges within their own contexts” (Diop et al., 2017). Most African Feminists focus on the collectivistic nature of their societies, thus creating a definite separation from the perspective of Western Feminism, which cannot fully comprehend the complexities of African culture, and in this case, the practice of FGM. Not only does this lack of knowledge cause a separation between these two approaches, it also catalyses a poor representation of African women and FGM.
Critiques
The main critique of White Feminism is the sensationalism of FGM through their construction of a monolithic identity for African and other Third World women. This is essentially a blatant act of patriarchy and colonialism, which eventually silences their authentic issue of concern. Though White Feminism has influential powers in the global discourse on women’s issues, this influence “remains to be questioned as Western Feminists perpetrate similar aspects of silencing and remain blind to the lives of women who work from the margin” (Gordon, 1997). This categorising of all African women in a homogenous group prevents the acknowledgement of the multitudes of intersectionality that they experience through their culture and traditions. The limitation of research into African traditions provide no cultural understanding of these practices, hence raising questions as to “why foreigners are so obsessed with African women’s genitals, especially when African women themselves do not see this tradition as the most pressing problem they face” (Antonazzo 2003). Instead, Black African Feminists regard this practice as a coming of age ritual or to participate in one’s society on an equal footing with men, further showing the importance of tradition. Thus, this lack of knowledge raises questions as to the validity of the White Feminist approach in the context of FGM and women’s rights.
However, not all African Feminists defend the harmful practice, and some are vocal in denouncing the patriarchal endorsement of FGM in relation to their rights. Similar to Western Feminism, they have similar ideas of condemning the practice, yet, this perspective of Black Feminists also raises critiques against White Feminism and their use of colonialist stereotypes. Western culture has the tendency to describe these acts as primitive and barbaric, while the women who undergo these procedures are “prisoners of their culture, ignorant of the dangers and drawbacks of the practice” (Davis, 2004). This assumption of help from White Feminists not only robs African women of all agency, but also brings up the idea of white saviour complex, regarding the “confluence of practices, processes, and institutions that reify historical inequities to ultimately validate white privilege”. By having this notion of a mission to save African women from the oppression of FGM, it develops the idea of Africa as the ‘Land of Torture’, while the west is the ‘Land of Freedom and Liberty’ (Davis, 2004). Thus, a critical examination of the imperialism of White Feminism needs to be addressed when analysing the rights of African women in the context of FGM.
A critique for the Black African Feminist perspective is that it holds too much value on the power relations of culture and tradition. Culture is “constantly changing and evolving a it comes into contact with other cultures” (Davis, 2004) and is able to generate new experiences and change the meaning and form of traditional practices. When describing her own experience with FGM in Kenya, Njambi notes that the meaning of female genital excision has already been changing and holds a less positive valence. Since culture is highly influenced by power relations, conflicting political interests of FGM in Africa are ignored, leading to the silencing of opponents within the culture. This needs to be addressed when examining the rights of African women who undergo the FGM procedure.
Conclusion
Though they have differing views supported, the aforementioned Feminist frameworks need to be considered together in order to derive a better understanding of FGM and women’s rights.
The Western Feminist perspectives demonstrates how FGM enforces gender discrimination and women’s oppression, however, it did very little in addressing the cultural background of African women who have to go through this procedure, failing to consider the possibilities of women’s autonomy and diversity. This is due to their grouping of African women into a monolithic identity, which prevents the acknowledgement of the intersectionality that African women experience.
On the other hand, the African Feminist perspective was able to highlight issues of their context that have a great influence on their collective nature and relationship in African societies. However, their response holds too much value on the power relations of their culture and fails to integrate the idea of changing perspectives of those within the culture.
Ultimately, in order to allow for a holistic understanding of FGM in relation to women’s rights, both perspectives need to adapt from the other approach as each approach separately is limited in the context of FGM. After an analysis of both Feminist perspectives, I believe it demands a sympathetic reaction and engagement to this issue which deserves serious attention, since this practice is a definite violation of women’s rights, no matter what cultural implications exist. This is not the time for Feminists to focus on their own parochial concerns, rather, it is time to “build coalitions around issues which are of concern to us all” (Davis, 2004).
