A Case Study of Female Circumcision in Africa

 Cultural Relativism vs Human Rights:A Case Study of Female Circumcision in Africa

     Cultural relativism is a philosophic concept which places values and practices of a particular society within the society itself (Capobianco, 22). According to Rachels, cultural relativism centers on cultural differences. Different cultures have different sets of standards of "right" and "wrong". It is hard to judge which one is superior and which one is inferior. Usually discussions about cultural relativism are related to the issue of human rights. Compared to cultural relativism which stresses diversity, human rights often place emphasis on universality. In other words, there are some globally common moral principles. The controversial between cultural relativism and universal human rights always exists. The following part would demonstrate how cultural relativism collides with human rights based on the case study of female circumcision in Africa.

     Female circumcision, also named female genital mutilation(FGM), involves the removal of clitoris which contains large amounts of sensitive nerves. It is often regarded as a ritual and performed in many African countries. In the movie Moolade, girls screamed and cried in anguish during surgeries, which lashed the hearts of audience. Undergoing such dreadful pain had become a nightmare for those young girls in the movie.

     From the perspectives of human rights experts, it is self-evident that undergoing a FGM surgery is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice. The practice is detrimental to women’s health and well-beings. It may cause permanent health problems or even death, for the practice is often performed without anesthetic by practitioners with little knowledge of human anatomy. According to the international human rights law regulated by Unite Nations, the practice of female circumcision also takes away young girls’ rights to be free from all forms of gender discrimination. It is believed that FGM can ensure premarital virginity and marital fidelity. Girls without undergoing the practice would lose their values in African marriage markets. On another level, FGM is viewed as a method for men to control women’s sexuality and weaken women’s positions in society. Hence, the practice has conflicts with the global human rights paradigm which states that women and men are equal.

     In recent years, United Nations(UN) and World Health Organization(WHO) have taken lots of actions to remove the practice of FGM, including publishing regulations to ban FGM and holding campaign for protecting women’s rights. Through the efforts of UN and WHO, the widespread silence about female circumcision in Africa has finally broken in recent years. A small number of African countries began to enact rules to ban female circumcision. However, since the practice has deeply ingrained in the African culture, completely eliminating FGM has been thrown a spanner in the works. Some supporters of FGM claim that from the perspectives of cultural relativism, female circumcision has the necessity and rights to exist. Hence, the conflicts between human rights experts and cultural relativist about the issue of FGM keep going on. Resolving the conflicts has a long way to go.

     In short, cultural relativism focuses on culture difference while human rights stress more universality. In the case of female circumcision in Africa, the conflicts between cultural relativism and human rights hasn’t been resolved yet. In addition, female genital mutilation has received an increasing public attention over years. Despite the efforts by UN and WHO, totally removing FGM to guarantee African women’s human rights still remains a difficult task.