Where Do We Draw The Line? Cultural Relativism and Female Genital Mutilation

How are we to judge the ethical standards and actions of other people who do not share our cultural background? Since the 1970’s, there was a serious debate in the fields of international public health and human rights about whether FGM/C is an issue of cultural relativism or human rights. In this post I will examine the issue of cultural relativism versus universalism (human rights) in regards to justifying or disapproving FGM/C.

Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism in regards to FGM/C

Due to globalization, we came in contact with many indigenous groups. So, what happens when people from one society with its own moral code encounter another society that practices a strange and terrible custom that goes against their moral code? FGM/C is one of the most widely sighted tradition that conflicts with the universal moral standard. When it comes to judging this practice, most people fall into one of the two categories. Either they are universalists who believe that this tradition needs to be eradicated because it's against the universal moral system or they are cultural relativists who accept the existence of multiple moral systems and accept this tradition as a valid ritual. The conflict between these two ideologies always occur when universalists encounter people whose practices are in their views unacceptable. Universalists for decades have been working hard to eradicate harmful traditional practices with little to no change (ex: Sudan and Somalia). For those who believe in universalism, try to understand why some societies reject universal laws... Laws that have been devised by a world body that includes members that often appear to have little in common with them.

The universalist approach got popular after WWII. The horrific consequences of WWII led to the adoption of a Universal Declaration of Human rights. This declaration notes that having one country/culture determine its own values, regardless of human life, can have horrendous results. This universalism approach led to the creation of the United Nations. Therefore, they are trying to say that-if we believe in multiple moral systems, we will be divided and fragmented and we wouldn't be able work together to obtain success in creating a better world. Cultural relativism’s approach was created as a means to counter colonialism. Universalism shares some ideologies with coloniasm, where there is an underlying notion that one set of standards/culture is superior to another.

The anthropological response to FGM/C is a widely cited example of cultural relativism. Some western anthropologists who believe in cultural relativism even went to the extent of equating FGM with Western practices such as breast augmentation and tattooing. This argument is invalid for several reasons: (1) FGM is predominantly practiced on children (2) The vast majority of these children are forced into this practice (it's against their will). Ingold, a professor of social anthropology, said that “anthropologists stress that there are as many standards of humanity as there are different ways of being human, and that there are no grounds – apart from sheer prejudice – for investing any one set of standards with universal authority”. A medical anthropologist, Melvin Konner, criticized cultural relativist ethnographers as soft on FGM/C. Konner claims that “cultural relativism has limits, and this [FGM/C] is one place where we ought to draw the line”. This argument between the cultural relativists and universalists reveals an old tension between the tolerance of different cultures and the activist intolerance of repressive or violent cultural traditions. So, where do we draw the line? How much is it possible to accept other cultural realities and traditions? Despite the fact that most anthropologists may consider the FGM/C practice to be unethical (considering that it is done to children), they still have not adopted a strong position and advocated against the practice. Most anthropologist are careful when they discuss the issue of FGM because they fear being labeled racist or cultural imperialist.
Relativists are noted to be too soft on the issue of FGM/C. Their detached observer approach asserts that people outside FGM/C cultures do not have a right to impose change and that is should be left to people within these societies to discuss and change on their own actions. This approach contrasts the Universalist approach, where FGM/C is clearly an act of violence against women. In the case of FGM/C, sometimes we should consider the fact that “morality transcends national boundaries and cultural beliefs”.

In my view, cultural relativism is not claiming that there is no right or wrong, or that we should get rid of ethical standards. Instead, cultural relativism is a way for us to account for and deal with various moral systems in the world. The success of any FGM/C educational program must be grounded in cultural relativism. When we understand that there are multiple moral systems, we are less likely to judge and we might even understand where they are coming from. We will not view them as inferior, diseased and savage; Instead, we will view them as our partners in this FGM/C eradication journey. We should provide them with education and leave it up to them to discuss and advocate. Most African mothers do not circumcising their daughters to torture them, in fact, most mothers say that they do that because they love their daughters and they want the best for them. Instead of condemning these mothers and treating them like criminals, we should understand where they are coming from, educate them, and open dialogue without ordering them to stop their deeply rooted traditional practice.

Arguments against FGM based on health risks and the negative medical consequences, in 1990, were being replaced with challenges to the practice on the basis of universal human rights. The mobilization of universal rights-based arguments (instead of the negative medical consequences) against FGM/C has resulted in a different sort of backlash, where Africans felt like this is a targeted ethnocentric racism. Therefore, the universalist human rights approach of eradicating FGM/C made the situation worse in some places. Some societies held on to the traditions even more than before to preserve their culture which has been under attack and viewed as inferior by these outsiders.

I came to a conclusion that FGM/C would not have been such a hot debate if it was done by adults on their own will. Therefore, regardless of my agreement with some of the cultural relativist philosophy, I would argue that FGM/C is clearly a violation of children’s human rights since most genitally mutilated girls were forced into it and got circumcised without their consent. In my eyes, forcing a three year old to get cut without anesthesia is a form of gender based abuse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out …. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would … be a very bad thing”. From Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural relativists are reluctant to “interfere with other cultures”, voice concern or take a stand. This is simply putting millions more innocent girls around the world at risk for death and reproductive system complications. Therefore, I must identify my own position in the debate as being a Universalist-> when it comes to children and leaning towards being a cultural relativist-> when it comes to adults who willingly decided to get circumcised. That is where I draw my line.

Unfortunately, not to undermine this big problem, but even if we eradicated FGM/C in all 28 African countries we will still have hundreds of thousands of children dieing each year from preventable infectious diseases. In countries were FGM/C is prevalent, the overall health risk of dieing from circumcision is lower than the risk of dieing from diarrhea, malaria or tuberculosis. Unfortunately, this is the African Reality today. We don't even know where to start.