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.

Abortion and Low-Income Women

Abortion, a controversial medical procedure, was once declared a criminal offense in the United States (During the mid 1800’s-early 1900’s). Women during that time were conflicted between their own individual decisions and societal norms. Therefore, many of them sought ways to break this law to cover up an initial transgression (fornication) by having illegal and unsafe abortions by untrained practitioners. The rise of abortion related morbidity and mortality made this issue a moral imperative for many people in the medical, legal, and religious field. The collective effort of these different stakeholders in society pressured policymakers to take up the cause. This effort led to the creation of one of the most controversial health policy laws in the history of the United States (Roe vs. Wade).

After the decrimalization of abortion, federal funding was used to cover poor women for abortion just as they were covered for any other medical care service. Three years later, in 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) proposed an amendment to ban the federal government’s funding (Medicaid) for abortion. This provision (effective in 1977), now known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies circumstances where abortion should be covered by Medicaid.

The current restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment does not provide coverage for abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities, or health exceptions apart from life-threatening conditions.

Over the past few years the Bush administration has become more conservative, supporting their limitations and bans on abortion procedures with moral and spiritual arguments. In his speech regarding the ban on partial-birth abortions in 2003, President George W. Bush stated, “For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (The White House Press, 2003) President Bush further supports the decision of his administration by asserting, “This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.”

In December 2005, President George W. Bush signed a massive federal spending bill in which a “pro-life” provision was contained. The controversial Weldon Amendment (also known as the Women’s Health Care Denial Law), signed by President Bush, would allow virtually any healthcare institution (or entity) to deny to pay for, cover, provide, or even refer patients for abortions even when such actions are otherwise legally mandated (such as cases of rape or incest). While democrat’s control of the senate heightens the threat to restrictive Medicaid policies, years of debate and advocacy for the right to choose is already an empty promise for many women and girls in America. Instead of indicating how banning abortion may affect society, the government’s sole concern is that of the unborn child, a being who arguably has no rights because its life is dependent on the mother. Furthermore, it seems that the administration is relying too much on spiritual beliefs and religion rather than grounded concern in regards to their servitude to American society. This causes us to dismiss our ideals of the separation of the church and state.

Moreover, 2008 Republican presidential candidates have already signaled at their intention to work towards overturning Roe vs. Wade. Let us imagine that the government overturned Roe vs. Wade…Abortion would be outlawed in many states, and as a result of that the greatest financial burden will be on poor women who would not afford medical tourism or traveling to other states where abortion remains legal. In addition, overturning Roe would mean that we will have more unwanted children who would be brought into this life by young mothers, thus increasing the amount of federal funds (tax money) to help pay for public assistance, healthcare, and foster care.

Poor women, teenagers, women of color, and rural women will be the most who would suffer from this law. Annually, there are tens of thousands of low-income women and teenagers who against their will carry their pregnancy to term because they cannot afford to pay for an abortion. Many thousands more would be denied this constitutional right if these restrictions are not removed. The effort to overturn Roe (and the Hyde-Weldon Amendments) marginalizes and stigmatizes abortion care rather than recognizing that “sometimes” it is an essential component of women’s health. These laws bleakly target the voiceless low-income women by denying them reproductive care. ***Low-income women sometimes must use money appropriated for food, rent, or utilities to raise the necessary funds. ***In many cases, these poor women face an ever-spiraling cost that they are not able to afford. As a result, these poor women often are not able to complete their education, escape domestic violence, or climb out of poverty.

As a matter of social justice, American women (regardless of their economic or racial background) must have equality when it comes to accessing reproductive healthcare. The legal right to choose had been effective for more than thirty years, but barriers such as the Hyde Amendment must be removed in order for these low-income women practice their rights. Restricting Medicaid funding for abortion services caused an economic disparity since economically disadvantaged women will be less likely to afford the costs of terminating unwanted pregnancies. Barriers to accessing abortion services, such as the Hyde Amendment, fall disproportionately on low-income women who have limited resources with which to overcome these obstacles.

In a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, 20-35% of Medicaid eligible women who choose abortion end up carrying their pregnancies to term due to the lack of public funds. This lack of public funding also results in low-income women delaying their abortion so that they can raise funds. Postponing abortions raises the cost (of the procedure) and risks. The legal right to have an abortion does not much when women (who do not have insurance that covers abortion) are not guaranteed access or at least affordability. It is not clear how many low-income women are blocked from obtaining an abortion solely due to the Medicaid restrictions. However, what is clear is that the Medicaid restrictions causes abortion care to be more costly in terms of health and safety as the delay of women having the procedure is more dangerous.

Abortion will always be an emotionally charged and politically divisive issue. This divisiveness in perspectives and beliefs is the core problem that warrants attention in itself. This debate will never be resolved (given the demographics of the United States). One obvious path for the two sides to work together toward is supporting policies and programs that enhance women’s ability to avoid or postpone having a child by helping her do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies. Roe vs. Wade (for now) remains the law of the land, but its meaning for women in the future is still vague. For the future we have nothing to fear, but our fear of our own diversity.

Domestic Abuse

How reliable is statistical data? What do they mean by statistically significant and what is their criteria? These are questions that we should ask when we read research studies and articles about domestic abuse. It is really interesting how statistics seems to always measure the same factors: race, education, and socioeconomic status to be able to analyze most health and/or social issues. There are many confounding variables in these studies. For example, did they account for false accusations of domestic violence in the context of child custody or divorce? Is it true that because you happen to be racially black you are more abusive? Is poverty really a direct factor in causing physical abuse? Because more people think so, to date, there has been more data collected on abuse from low-income than middle and upper class families, and the correlation is still ambiguous.

There are many kinds of intimate partner abuse; in fact, last week I was researching about spiritual abuse. This is when the intimate partner uses his/her religious or spiritual beliefs to manipulate their partner, or the intimate partner reticulates and prevents the other partner from practicing their religious or spiritual beliefs. Other more severe kinds of abuse range from emotional/psychological all the way to homicide. In most of these cases I think not race or poverty; it is the need for power and control as a form of self satisfaction. The abuser’s effort to dominate is NOT due to his skin color, it might be attributed to low self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, stress, misogyny, misandry, or mental disorders such as the bipolar illness. These factors would be a BETTER assessment indicators for the causes of domestic abuse in comparison to the factors used in the articles assigned. The forms of abuse seems to be slightly gendered since females tend to lean more towards psychological abuse and men use more physical forms.

In the U.S., between 3 and 5 billion dollars are spent annually for medical expenses related to domestic violence. In addition, 100 million dollars is lost by businesses annually though lost productivity, sick leave and absenteeism due to domestic violence. It is a domestic and an international problem that needs to be tackled. It does not know race, nationality, socioeconomic status, or religion. This problem only knows how to get in the way of many women’s lives and destroy them; in some instances… take away their right to live.