(56840)

Multiculturalism and Feminism in Immigrant-Receiving Societies: the Example of Genital Surgeries in the United States

Marina Triner

Seminar Paper Submitted to the Political Science Department as Part of the Research Track Program Professor Bashir Bashir 03/10/2011

Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1: Multiculturalism and Feminism: Theoretical Battles Chapter 2: Enlarging Cultural Imagination: the Partnership of Feminism and Multiculturalism Chapter 3: Feminism and Multiculturalism: Mutual Contributions Conclusion Bibliography . 14 . 26 37 39 3 .. 6

Introduction As a feminist, I have vehemently opposed female genital mutilation (FGM)1 for quite some time. As Shweder (2002: 218-22) describes it, opposition to FGM is the cornerstone to any ideology held by a liberal-thinking, Western feminist, or even any liberal individual that aims at political correctness. In addition to biased media coverage, academics and researchers in the West have treated FGM as a barbaric and inhumane practice, and many have even advocated it being on the list of evils along with the Holocaust and other genocides. However, campaigning against FGM is not the only visible voice. Both internal and external cultural critics have provided new and fresh perspectives which have opened, I hope, many eyes. They have definitely aided my own. The first, according to Shweder, was former Kenyan president Jomo Kenyatta (1983: 132-3), when he described the women who choose to undergo cutting as educated and aware, and the practice as the women s acknowledged and welcomed transition to adulthood. Shweder highlights several accounts that break the long-held stereotypes on FGM, and explains that these alternative accounts open our eyes about the cultural distance between Western notions of beauty, sexuality, and cleanliness and non-Western beliefs on these topics. Shweder s description of the yuck response as a response to unfamiliar cultural customs is a most precise and simple description of why Westerners feel so politically-correct when they join an anti-FGM movement without a second thought. His2 most important conclusion is that

FGM is also known as female genital cutting (FGC) or female circumcision. In this paper, I use the different terminologies interchangeably in an effort to expose many different perspectives and views on female genital surgery. 2 Though Shweder s article is no doubt controversial, I highly recommend any Western and non-Western individual who aims to receive a balanced view of genital surgeries to read his fascinating anthropological account.

public policy debates must be evenhanded that we must listen to many voices on each topic to get more balanced opinions, especially with such yuck -generating customs. For me, Njambi Wairimu Ngaruiya s (2004), Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African female circumcision: A feminist critique has been the most eyeopening piece on this topic. Ngaruiya engaged, perhaps not explicitly, a multicultural discourse which argued against separating practices from their cultural context. As a feminist herself, she noted the failure of the feminist movement in understanding culture and its tendency to see western conceptions as righteous and universal. I use her piece in this paper as a starting point precisely because it highlights discourse about female genital cutting that is not in the mainstream, and recognizes that the practice cannot be understood as so radically onedimensional as many feminists have diagnosed it to be. Ngaruiya s piece opened my eyes not only to the misgivings of the feminist movement, but also to the contribution of multiculturalism to a multi-dimensional understanding of cultural practices that seem, on the surface, to harm women. The following paper is not meant to outright reject or celebrate feminist support for outlawing FGC. Rather, a culturally-aware criticism of a criticism of cultural practices helps create a more informed feminism and multiculturalism, which takes into account both culture and marginalized members of culture in creating policy. This is significant especially in immigrant-receiving countries where policy decisions about how to treat minority-group cultural practices are especially vulnerable to using Western customs as the universal standard. In this paper, I hope to create a beneficial bond between multiculturalism and feminism by drawing out the advantages and deficiencies of both. In the first chapter, I provide a brief

literature review that begins with Okin s infamous piece on multiculturalism and women and discuss relevant responses to it. This chapter provides a background on the debates within feminism about whether multicultural policies take the most disadvantaged members of minority cultural groups in Western societies into account. In the next chapter, I give an empirical account of the historical and modern presence of genital surgeries in the United States. Beyond opening the minds of readers on genital surgeries, this chapter aims to explore the American historical experience with genital surgeries to highlight that the West must grapple with its own history on the topic when forming policy. The purpose of this chapter is also to explore the many meanings of genital surgeries in their different contexts. In the third and last chapter, I develop a discussion on policy and give policy recommendations, bridging between the previous two chapters. My aim is to tackle the issue of who should be making policy on culturally-challenging practices, how should this policy be made, what is the meaning of autonomy, and how should cultures be represented when their customs are publically discussed and debated.

Chapter 1: Multiculturalism and Feminism: Theoretical Battles I. Feminism: the Dichotomy between the West and the Rest Feminism, which focuses on exploring gendered inequalities, has had a long history of white-dominance in discourse and practice, ignoring oppression motivated by race, class, ethnicity, etc. While new strands of feminism have recently begun to shed light on this problematic history, mainstream feminism still tends to make a dichotomous distinction between the enlightened liberal democracies of the first world, and the "dark continent" in their treatment of women. This kind of distinction does not recognize differences between women, but rather sees harmful differences between cultures, creating a hierarchy that finds multiculturalism in liberal democracies as being "bad for women". As Phillips (2002: 115-120) summarizes, while feminism engages a universalist discourse of rights and equality , multiculturalism engages cultural relativism , by which norms of justice are always relative to the society in which they are formed ; at the same time, feminism has always been very critical of the universal, or mainstream, finding a hidden masculine bias that is harmful to women and to society at large Universalism, according to feminism, also often neglects systematic power inequalities in its definition of equality . Some strands of feminism have even embraced the conception that while men and women really are different, this does not mean that they should be unequal. Similarly, multiculturalism recognizes the importance and value in cultural differences, and welcomes the treatment of different members of cultures differently.

Claims about the harms of multiculturalist policies have been made by Susan Moller Okin (1997) in her piece, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" In this piece, she begins by asking what liberal nations should do with demands of minority groups that clash with the norm of gender equality, describing the tension she sees between feminism and multiculturalism. She positions the claim for special group rights (as a protection of minority groups surrounded and threatened by a majority culture in losing their special way of life) against the rights of individuals in liberal societies. Assuming that most (especially non-Western) cultures engage in practices harmful to women, that liberal states do not recognize the variance within cultures and only between, and that advocates of group rights do not notice the private sphere, Okin argues that multiculturalism, the way it is practices, is bad for women. Despite acknowledging Western patriarchy, Okin still creates a hierarchy in which the non-Western world is seen as the most harmful to women. She argues that in the West, there are legal guarantees to women's freedom and equal opportunities and families "do not communicate to their daughters that they are of less value than boys". She credits feminism for these accomplishments. Giving endless examples of particular practices, including female genital cutting, Okin determines that most are meant to control various aspects of women's lives. In immigrant-receiving societies, she argues, a majority of cultural claims and their defenses concern gender inequality. Will Kymlicka3, a known defender of liberal multiculturalism, suggests that culture must be protected because is "allows for meaningful individual choice" (1991: 171-2), and thus he

Kymlicka responds to Okin by accepting that it is important to pay attention to the 'internal restrictions' that group members place on other members, especially when it comes to gender issues, as these can be hidden away

argues that fundamentalist groups that oppress group members will not be given the same rights as liberal groups, for this would undermine the idea of increased choice and freedom. Despite agreeing with this qualification, Okin finds that a majority of customs, which she lists throughout her article, will not receive protection under the liberal prerequisite, because the majority of cultures are formed on a patriarchal basis, especially in the private sphere. Okin suggests that it is equally important to examine the coercive power of culture on women. Thus, it is critically important to examine "within-group inequalities", particularly the hidden gender inequalities, just as it is important to examine inequalities between cultures. As such, policies must be aware of the rights of the least powerful members of groups, and take account of the fact that group elders do not always represent them. Thus, Okin (1998) sees the happiness of the individual in the minority culture to be just as important as the existence and continuation of the life of the group itself. Phillips (2007: 26) summarizes various criticisms put forth about Okin's account. From the multicultural perspective, there is a clear Western bias in her words4, where she depicts a sharp divide between the enlightened West and the illiberal, patriarchal East. Non-Western cultures are seen as unchanging and static, undermining the possibility that their customs could evolve, while simultaneously claiming that Western customs already have. From the feminist perspective, women from minority cultures are accorded victim status in Okin's work, ignoring the powerful changes made in many societies by non-Western feminists, while Western

in the private sphere. These internal restrictions cannot be justified by the rights accorded to minority groups by the liberal state. 4 As Azizah Y. Al-Hibri (1999) argues, Okin uses a universal conception of Western principles when she enforces arguments onto the non-Western world. Similarly, Sander Gilman (1999) argues that Okin is selective about the kinds of practices she disapproves of precisely because of her particular background, creating a bias in her theory.

feminists are given full credit for changes made over time in the West regarding gender inequalities. Some of the critics5 went a step forward, actually envisioning a relationship and a connection between feminism and multiculturalism that is different from Okin s almost outright condemnation. II. Multiculturalism and Feminism: is it Possible from the Feminist Perspective? Several authors discuss cultural reform, and the importance of both multiculturalists and feminists in acknowledging that cultures are constantly changing. These writers create a richer and more complex picture of cultures, noting both the benefits and deficiencies that cultures pose to women. As Narayan (2004) warns, feminism must be weary of replacing the essentialist depictions of gender with essentialist representations of cultures, such as the dichotomy between 'Western culture' and 'non-Western culture'. This colonially-based dichotomy functioned while Western nations, glorifying freedom and equality at home, were practicing the taking away of freedom abroad. At the same time, the colonized embraced their 'otherness' to argue against imperialism, continuing this essentializing process. Narayan terms this problem the 'package' of cultures, where cultures are viewed as packages that are distinctly defined and separate from one another. As Benhabib (1999) reminds us, in the contemporary world, cultures are not and could not possibly be so neatly insulated from one another. This package, argues Narayan, also neatly assigns individuals to different cultures, without considering that they may often belong to more than one culture. Under this 'package', changes that cultures undergo are invisible, and the positive progress

The volume "Is Multiculturalism bad for women?" (1999) is a collection of direct responses to Okin's original piece. Several of the authors agree with Okin. Relevant works criticizing Okin are discussed here, including others from outside the volume.

regarding gender rights is especially ignored by the West. Thus, practices that oppress women are viewed as central to non-Western cultures and to their existence. Yael Tamir (1999) builds on this discussion by warning against the issue of group survival, which is so often emphasized by group leaders who choose it over the flourishing and rights of individual group members. She advocates a multiculturalism, which she claims is friendly to feminism, that favors the protection of individuals who want to reform and change their cultures just as much as the protection of those who want to keep their cultures static. Similarly, Shachar (2001: 65-7) claims that Okin ignores the malleability of culture, which impacts the status of women. In addition, she finds that Okin presents women who adhere to their religious or cultural traditions as victims who are completely unable to recognize their oppression. Perhaps, Shachar finds, women who adhere to cultural norms find value, and not only oppression, in their faithfulness. This value includes the power they derive from their culture when faced with the local majority culture. Okin simplifies cultural membership, says Shachar, as it can be both bad and good all at once. Despite this criticism, Shachar (2000: 65, 79-81) clearly recognizes that multicultural accommodation, defined as "a wide range of state measures designed to facilitate identity groups' practices and norms", may harm women, who often times have the least negotiation power within the group. She calls this the paradox of multicultural vulnerability (3). This policy of accommodation and non-intervention in group affairs is often justified by the state, claiming that women always have an exit option from their groups. However, there exists no coherent

10

policy or aid with regards to this exit option, and the state often fails to recognize the power struggles that women must face in order to exit6. Shachar argues that a new multiculturalism, which accounts for these struggles, must emerge, allowing cultural diversity and empowering the at-risk individuals within groups at the same time. The key to this approach is recognizing that individual "group members always are caught at the intersection of multiple affiliations" as members of cultures and citizens of states. So far, the state has forced members to pick between the two. Women should not be forced out of their cultures to receive rights. As a solution, she proposes an original framework of joint governance , or governance where groups receive benefits from enhanced external protections, but at the same time, lower internal restrictions, protecting the most marginalized members of minority groups (8). Unlike other authors, Shachar claims that she focuses on power structures and authority structures, which she sees as central in guiding and defining minority groups. Volpp (2001: 1181) partially agrees with Shachar, stating that seeing multiculturalism and feminism as opposites means seeing minority women as victims of their cultures. This claim is built up by feminists like Okin by positioning minority and Third World cultures as more subordinated than the West, something which can be traced back to colonialism. Using this dichotomy hides the depth of women's cultural experiences and minority women's lives, which are impacted by much more than just their cultures, demonstrating agency and the ability to change structures around them. At the same time, this strategy also masks patriarchal regimes in the West.
Shachar explains that women who stay are seen as giving "implied consent" for their situation, much as implied consent was seen to be given by women in nineteenth century America who stayed in their marriages.
6

11

Volpp's (1214-8) most important point is that the concerns of Third World women may impact the identities of Western women7; thus recognizing these concerns as equal to their own is such an obstacle. She creates a picture of subordination that is complex and multifaceted, where women are dominant and subordinate in different spheres all at once. Relations between women are also subject to subordination and domination. She finds that pitting multiculturalism against feminism restricts dialogue between Western and non-Western women. Instead, they should "learn to see and challenge the multiple, overlapping, and discrete oppressions that occur both within and across white/Western and Third World/nonwhite communities". Should the question 'is multiculturalism bad for women?' even be examined, asks Anne Norton (2001: 741-5) in her review essay on Okin's work. Don't all women come from a culture? Okin's title separates women into two dichotomous categories, a universal and a certain 'otherness'. There is an incorrect separation between principles and practices, where Western liberalism is aligned with practices, while non-Western acts are aligned with principles. A "properly-guided" gendered liberal act is seen to reflect liberal principles, while a wrongful act by a non-Western man is seen as guided by the twisted logic of non-liberal principles common in third world cultures. Norton asks of Okin, and other respondents to her essay, to look deeper into the context and historical development of the practices which they discuss. She finds an asymmetry, not only in how these practices are judged and viewed, but even in the sources (in liberal cases, academic, in non-Western cases, from the popular press) used in explicating the

Bhabha (1999) similarly asks whether Western practices are truly more gender-equal than non-Western ones.

12

meaning of the practices. Similarly, Honig (1999) urges Okin to look deeper into liberal practices and their origins, before looking at foreign practices and passing judgment on them. Both authors demand contextualization, asking which cultures are good for women, under which circumstances, and for which women. This question can also be asked about liberalism. A significant point these authors highlight is the importance of critiquing all cultures, including Western liberal culture, on equal terms. III. The Empirical Example of Genital Surgeries Okin s piece, as well as the debate it promoted, are important for reforming both multiculturalism and feminism. A culturally-aware feminism, and a marginalization-aware multiculturalism is especially important for policy-makers in immigrant-receiving societies. There, the West comes face to face with culturally-challenging practices , and policymakers must find a way to handle them in a culturally sensitive way that respects Western norms as well as marginalized members of these minority groups. This policymaking exercise is so challenging to Western professionals that it is surely beneficial for a reconceptualization of Western practices, as well as for a renewed outlook on non-Western practices. In the following chapter, I will discuss genital surgeries in the United States as an example for culturallychallenging practices in Western society, demonstrating how the American experience with these surgeries can draw much from its non-Western versions, and vice versa, and how policymakers can reform their biased conceptions of this practice.

13

Chapter 2: Enlarging Cultural Imagination: the Partnership of Feminism and Multiculturalism

The non-Western practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) has often been condemned by the West as an evil in need of eradication. It has been portrayed, in many articles, in popular and academic spheres, as a practice that has no comparison in the Western world. Out of this conception, many organizations and initiatives have risen in the West in an effort to eradicate the damaging surgeries that are being forced upon young African women. Despite this, a variety of scholars have linked the barbaric practice with other customs that, to Western feminists and multiculturalists, are closer to home. Germaine Greer (1999) links FGM to procedures like operations on intersex babies, male circumcision, body piercing, cutting, and others. Gilman (1999) and Gollaher (2000) link it to male circumcision, while Sheldon and Wilkinson (1998) to cosmetic surgery practices in the Western world. These initiatives, of course, have not developed without criticism. When Western customs, such as male circumcision, are discussed alongside nonWestern customs, such as female genital surgeries, the response is hostility and shock. Such was the response when Margaret Somerville published her book The Ethical Canary (2000). Feminists attacked her for detracting from the horrors of female genital mutilation 8. Despite this, authors like Hellsten (2004) have seen both FGM and male circumcision as a violation of human rights because of the involvement of children and the violent nature of the practices.

Darby and Svoboda (2007: 302).

14

Bell (2005) similarly argues that understanding female genital surgery requires discussing it side by side with male genital surgeries. She notes that international health organizations condemn female surgeries on grounds which could also be used to condemn male surgeries. Carpenter (2004) notes the paradox of UN stance on children, protecting young girls and women and ignoring boys. When looking at the historical context of the development of genital surgeries in the United States, it is also easy to link both circumcision and clitoridectomy with similar roots: they both developed to prevent masturbation, meaning that both aimed at decreasing sexual pleasure in men and women9. While these are important comparisons, my focus here is to create a framework within which third-world practices can be understood in the same context as Western practices, using the example of genital surgeries in the United States. Thus, my analysis does not focus on comparison, but rather on creating a common thread. In the following chapter, I will put together a short history of female genital surgeries, as practiced in the United States. Such a background, I hope, encourages a more comprehensive approach to understanding this particular custom, bridging between the Western and non-Western world in thought and activism. Complex debates in both feminism and multiculturalism about who should be involved in eradicating which practice, and how imperialism factors into such activism have much to gain from such a literary exercise as I perform here. Reading this short historical overview all at once puts FGM in perspective. It also discusses the practices as they developed and were forced upon their recipients by custom, the medical profession, and other institutional bodies, shedding new light on the issue of autonomy and agency.

Ibid, 309.

15

The purpose of creating such an exercise is twofold. First, it allows a new conception of female genital surgery as practiced by non-Western communities in the West, moving policymakers and even Western society away from seeing non-Western practices and nonWestern cultures as foreign and barbaric. While there is a component of empathy that is present in such an analysis, something that has been important and written about extensively in feminist literature on the ethics of caring in policy-making10, there is another contribution that this analysis delivers which is associated with a more balanced multicultural policy. My purpose is to allow policymakers to change policies about Western and non-Western customs, and to promote new thinking and dialogue about and between both worlds on more egalitarian grounds. Secondly, reading a history where force was enacted on communities and individuals in order to participate in a particular practice allows a more nuanced and intricate understanding of force, coercion, and autonomy, which is necessary for policy on non-Western practices. Thus, I hope to create a relationship between feminist and multicultural analysis which is beneficial to reforming both, and which derives important and useful components from both. By presenting matters in this way, I do not mean to say that female genital surgeries should or should not be permitted by law, but simply to widen the discussion about them in the Western world, and to allow a broader vision. Reading this allows changing Western perspectives on the barbaric , illiberal , Other. In addition, my analysis aims to create a more multifaceted and comprehensive picture of genital surgeries, rather than presenting them as

10

See, for example, Kittay (1999) and Harrington (1999).

16

single-dimensionally as many anti-FGM organizations tend to do11. In the third and last chapter, I aim to widen the theoretical implications of policies on non-Westerns living in the West, and the multicultural and feminist interaction on the matter. I. Genital Surgeries in the United States: Historical Overview There are several forms of FGM, as practiced by non-Westerners today12. The first, a removal or nicking of a small portion of the clitoris, was performed in the United States until the 1950s for the improvement of mental health, discouragement of lesbianism, and reduction of instances of masturbation13. Because American criminal law did not concern itself with sexual immorality and its prohibition, the medical profession took upon itself to act as the enforcer of virtuous conduct through making the connection between mental disease and sexual behavior14. As Duffy (1963: 246-248) points out, nineteenth century discourse on sexuality in the United States posited that American women were much more moral than women in other countries, and that masturbation was injurious to the health of both women and men in America. Some have even written about masturbation as the destroying element of civilized society , conceptualizing it as the greatest evil to attack American society. Around this time, the operation of clitoridectomy came into central discourse. It was performed by British physician Isaac Baker Brown in 1858 for the first time15. Brown used the procedure to cure masturbation, which he believed was responsible for a variety of diseases in
A similar exercise of retelling is done by Charles Piot (2007: 231-2). Though short, his description is powerful in evoking a different image of FGM from how the media presented in writing about the story of a girl who fled to the United States to escape it.
While it seems easy to categories FGM, efforts to do so for circumcision have not been made in mainstream discourse. Despite this, Darby and Svoboda (2007: 306-7; 308) provide an interesting and useful list that illustrates how easy to is to categorize this surgery and highlights the reasons this has not yet been done. For a reference list on the different types of FGM according to the medical profession, see Toubia 1994. 13 Maguigan (2002: 242).
14 15
12

11

Hamowy (1977: 229). ibid, 239.

17

women; however, a majority of American and English doctors were against the procedure. In 1867, however, another doctor began advocating this procedure, only under his supervision, for curing masturbation. As the century came to a close, more and more doctors began endorsing using clitoridectomy on very young girls to cure them of insanity driven by masturbation, finding that excision of their clitoris led to healing of the mental condition. With the arrival of the twentieth century, the procedure slowly disappeared, together with the moral and health arguments against masturbation. Arguments supporting the universalization of male genital cutting appeared in the United States as early as 1914 surrounding similar arguments to those used for clitoridectomy: prevention of masturbation and mental and physical disease16. At this point, both female and male genital surgeries were viewed very similarly17. Gradually, by the 1930s, gynecologists and obstetricians began to encourage the procedure so much so that it begun to be seen as a natural part of the birthing process. During the First World War, thousands of men were forced to be circumcised by the military in their 20s, due to the belief that this would prevent venereal diseases. After the Second World War the United States began to flourish, and private health insurance companies were used so that the government had no incentive in establishing national public healthcare. A majority of these private companies included male circumcision in health packages, considering it a progressive procedure. As most women delivered babies at hospitals, the rate of circumcisions in the 1950s exploded to 90%. This prominence of male circumcision in the United States continues, despite statements from several health organizations in the 1990s, including the American Academy of
16

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73

17

Gilman (1993: 65).

18

Pediatrics (AAP), who do not recommend the procedure being done to male babies. Despite this, in a 1998 statement, the AAP claimed that it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions when deciding about circumcision. Interestingly, circumcision for females did not receive the same considerations. One reason which has been suggested for the widespread performance of male circumcision is the interest of the American medical profession in the performance of surgeries for payment, thus suggesting new conditions and diseases that require these surgeries. Perhaps recommending female genital surgeries only for cosmetic purposes, rather than for barbaric , cultural reasons, sets the West and the Western medical institution apart from the cruel African continent. As I will show in the next section, however, there isn t such a sharp difference between the two. II. Genital Surgeries in Recent Times While male genital cutting continues in the United States since its inception (not without critics, albeit), female genital cutting has only recently reappeared. There are debates about the health risks and benefits of both female genital surgery and male genital surgery, while the risks associated with female surgeries usually wins center-stage, as in the United Nations-sponsored publication Broken Bodies Broken Dreams (2006: 51-4). The publication states that while health risks and benefits of male circumcision are still under debate, the health and psychological impacts and risks of FGM are clear, both long and short term. The publication also declares that custom, religiousity, and the desire to control women s sexuality are at the heart of the practice. Despite this, alternative reports do exist. For example, Obermeyer (1999) published a comprehensive report in which she concludes that claims of the anti-FGM movement about the health risks of the practice are exaggerated. Although no accurate

19

numbers exist, governmental reports suggest that around 168,000 girls undergo the procedure each year18. A majority of female genital cutting procedures are done on immigrants or children of immigrants in the United States. Davis (2002: 21-3) explains that among the motivations for this surgery are beautification and the wish to conform. The UN (2006: 54) reports that the practice is done for purposes of cleanliness, attractiveness and good health. FGM also reinforces membership and belonging in particular ethnic groups19. As a response, since 1996, the U.S. government and fifteen states have passed mostly criminal laws against the practice. These laws specifically ban the African communities in the United States from performing the custom20. As Guine and Fuentes (2007: 224) describe, immigrant receiving-states are faced with a tough situation when it comes to immigrant practices which they are unfamiliar with: they must protect the rights of all inhabitants in their country, but not alienate the immigrants at the same time. In the United States, the federal Female Genital Mutilation Act mandates education about the procedure done on women by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but does not provide any funding for this purpose. At the same time, it threatens to withhold disaster and humanitarian aid to countries who have not implemented education programs about FGM. Following this, when many African countries began passing statues criminalizing FGM, critics have stated that this was done in order to please American requests, rather than to eradicate the practice.

18

Maguigan 2002: 241

19 20

Guine and Fuentes (2007: 225). Thus, cosmetic surgeries remain legal under the law.

20

Maguigan argues that criminalizing, rather than offering education about FGM, reflects a failure of U.S. policy in learning from the failures of other Western countries that have criminalized FGM. In these countries, criminalization has driven FGM underground. In the United States, learning about the existence of the Act occurred through the media, healthcare professionals, and INS agents, who are required to warn immigrants of the ban. These sources discuss prohibition as a punishment using coercive terms, instead of engaging the community it involves. During trials related to FGM, cultural evidence is excluded as legitimate reasoning for the performance of the procedure (unlike the aforementioned AAP policy on male circumcision, which legitimizes cultural reasoning). The convicted, most of whom are also migrants, will face the possibility of incarceration by INS officials during trial. Medical involvement in reaching a compromise (a less intensive procedure performed instead of the original) is also prohibited. These provisions may certainly incite anger and fear, rather than encourage change, if change is what is desirable. Like Mackalin (2007: 212) illustrates using the Canadian example, criminalization incites nothing but stigma for the population practicing FGM. Another common procedure is intersex surgeries on newborns, using very similar reasoning to FGM, clitoridectomy, and male circumcision. Ehrenreich and Barr (2005:97-10) discuss intersex surgeries in the Western world and the harm they cause to their victims. Intersex babies include babies born with mixed sexual anatomical characters, internal or external. While intersex babies have existed since ancient times, it has only recently become possible to fix them, sparking debate over what is normal female or male genitalia, especially in terms of its appearance. Such alterations, according to the Intersex Society of North America, occur in at least one or two of every 1000 births in the United States.

21

The protocol for dealing with intersex babies via surgery developed in the late 1050s and 1960s. Firstly, doctors assigned a sex, and following they modified the child s genitalia after birth to conform to anatomical standards. An especially interesting example strongly related to FGM, which Ehrenreich and Barr bring up, is a clitoroplasty , where the clitoris is removed or altered to conform to the standard. This initial surgery is generally followed by several other surgeries. Parents are also encouraged to raise the child within the reassigned gender role, and to keep surgeries a secret. Fausto-Sterling (2000) points out that these surgeries and all that they entail are often done not for life-saving purposes, or even to assure quality of life later, but simply in conformance with very average gender stereotypes held by doctors. Like FGM, this procedure is often simply, but not only, for beautification. The heterosexual stereotype of a dichotomy dividing humans neatly into two genders also appears in the Western world in the form of genital modification surgeries for cosmetic purposes. Like the desire of non-Western women to fit their own standard of beauty, American women follow the media, pornography, and the norms set by the medical profession in order to be beautiful . While clitoridectomy for the purpose of removing insanity disappeared in the early 20th century, as late as the 1970s, excision of the clitoral hood was recommended as an augmentation by medical journals and popular magazines21. Judith Butler articulates this idea in Gender Trouble (1990), arguing that gender stereotypes create physical bodies, which is most definitely the case both for surgeries on intersexual babies and cosmetic surgeries. MacNamara (2006) articulates several explanations for cosmetic surgeries. One is a push by cosmetic surgeons to pathologize even normal bodies, so that surgery could be performed

21

Darby and Svoboda (2007: 312).

22

on anyone who does not fit their prescribed norm. Vaginoplasty, a procedure which makes the vaginal opening tighter, and labiaplasty, which reshapes the labia, are two examples of procedures which have been brought to life by the medical profession, in an attempt to create a very specific description of the normal vagina . While surgeries on intersexual individuals are done at a young age (though for quite similar reasons), cosmetic surgeries highlight much more strongly the coercive force of a strict definition of the norm, both by popular media, including the pornographic industry, and by medical associations. Such a coercive force is exemplified by a woman interviewed in a New York Times article about her labiaplasty, saying, Now I feel free. I just feel normal . Along with a discourse on the normal , notes MacNamara, there is a clear discourse on the natural , while surgeons claim that they aim to make women look as natural as possible. These discourses taken together imprint themselves on women s bodies, converting words into physical form. The United States policy on FGM highlights an inconsistency in dealing with multicultural practices in the Western world. As Bibbings (1996: 188) argues, policies on body alterations should be consistent. When prohibiting FGM as a specifically African-immigrant practice, policy-makers do not consider cosmetic surgeries as harmful cultural practices, thus delivering culturally-selective, incoherent policy. Sheldon and Wilkinson (1998), who discuss FGM and cosmetic surgeries in English law, remind us that special care must be taken especially by multicultural societies when outlawing a cultural practice. Male circumcision is also impacted by notions of beauty and the body, as well as by notions of what is culturally acceptable and moral. Fox and Thomson (2005: 464) have argued that circumcision was defined, in the medical world, always in contrast with FGM, which was

23

seen a standard and benign medical procedure against a barbaric and unacceptable practice. This was a historical process in which both surgeries were sanctioned for the managing of sexuality, but while clirotidectomy declined, male circumcision became the routine. They find that because male bodies have always been constructed as resistant and able to handle violence and harm, and female bodies have always been discussed under the discourse of gentleness and the need to be protected, circumcision remained legal while female genital surgeries did not. III. Bringing Together Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Genital Surgeries By putting genital surgeries back into their cultural context, both for the West and the non-Western world, feminists can promote greater gender equity. While any alteration, even the slightest, with female genitalia is seen as unthinkable in Western policies, carving up male genitalia is accepted and welcomed22. The male body is constructed as susceptible to injury, and the penis is seen as the strongest of all. As Darby and Svoboda have shown, medical reasoning for approving circumcision, finding benefits for the procedure, has occurred out of a Western cultural need, while because the same need did not exist in Western culture regarding FGM, the same scientific operation was not delivered. So is the case with standards of beauty that shape cosmetic surgeries in the West. In the following chapter, I will discuss more elaborately the theoretical implications of a relationship between multiculturalism and feminism, using the example of genital surgeries presented here. I will present a list of guidelines useful to policymakers, both for legal statues and for educational purposes, as well as for the medical profession in dealing with genital

22

Ibid, 311.

24

modification surgeries in a more coherent way. My aspiration is that the above discussion has helped reshape single-minded views on FGM, and has highlighted the complexity of Western forms of the practice. These complexities will now be used in creating a more beneficial alliance between feminism and multiculturalism.

25

Chapter 3: Feminism and Multiculturalism: Mutual Contributions Phillips (2007) reminds us of a very important similarity between feminism and multiculturalism. While feminists have tirelessly campaigned against gender stereotypes, they have tended to highlight the real-life experiences of women through women's eyes, thus simultaneously campaigning as a group, "women", conjuring up those same stereotypes about this group which they try to campaign against. A similar phenomenon occurs with multiculturalism, where cultural group rights' campaigns may bring back the stereotypes held by the majority culture about minority cultural groups. Instead of a celebration of culture, liberal multiculturalism tends to promote the protection of minority cultures, which does not allow majority cultures to borrow from and to appreciate the richness of cultural diversity. Both multiculturalism and feminism recognize that cultures and genders exist, but it seems that feminism can inform multiculturalism s unaccomplished understanding of the hierarchies created within cultures, just like multiculturalism may inform feminism s reformation of Western universalisms and cultural blindness. Creating policy that is informed by both strands of thought, such as policy about genital surgeries in immigrant-receiving societies, can not only contribute to understanding immigrants better, but it can also contribute to creating well-needed reform of local Western practices. In this chapter, I will dissect two central questions about policies on immigrant practices: who should be involved in the policy process on the practices? And how should the practices (ideally) be represented to wider society when legislated upon? My discussion will center on the two major themes of choice and autonomy as they relate to culture and

26

multiculturalism, and will give policy recommendations that take these concepts into account. I will also address polyglot multiculturalism as an alternative to protective multiculturalism, and examine its benefits. The discussion will also relate to the previous chapter, where I discussed the example of genital surgeries in the United States. I. Culture and Choice Kymlicka (1996: 83-101) argues that the virtue of liberal multicultural policy is its ability to support individual identities and expand the range of choices given to these autonomous individuals. Thus, Kymlicka proposes that democratic societies must protect cultures in order to maintain choice. Diversity is not celebrate for its own sake, but only because it provides choice. By suggesting this, Kymlicka makes a distinction between liberal and distinctly illiberal cultures, seeing liberal cultures as superior due to their ability to provide freedom of choice. Kymlicka answers Okin s argument about the inability of cultures to fulfill the freedom of rights for women by stating that cultures are always changing, and thus are always liberalizable. Such a hierarchical conception of cultures, despite its recognition of the importance of providing choice, distinguishes some cultures as superior to others, encouraging the elitist, even imperialist, thinking that Okin engages in her piece on multiculturalism and women. Furthermore, liberal multiculturalism also tends to confuse between protecting the autonomy of individuals, versus protecting the autonomy of cultural groups. In The Rights of Minority Cultures (1995) the confusion between protecting the rights of individuals versus protecting the rights of cultural groups becomes even more evident, a fact which is observable from the title alone. Discussing autonomy of cultures conceals the importance of protecting the autonomy of individuals within the groups, particularly marginalized individuals who do not

27

enjoy the benefits allotted to the group by the state. By discussing choice in terms of group rights, individual choice, particularly of marginalized individuals within the group, is restricted. In sum, the discussion on choice within the liberal multicultural framework brings up two problematic issues: (1) The conception of Western, liberal cultures as superior to other cultures, and the derivative property of Western cultures not being able to learn from other cultures to reform their own imperfections, and (2) The inability to deal with the rights and freedoms of highly marginalized individuals within minority cultures. When looking at the empirical example of United States policy on genital surgeries, these issues become especially evident. The criminalization of female genital mutilation portrays cultures practicing female genital surgeries as backward and barbaric. Criminalizing the practice makes the assumption that women (and mothers who choose it for their daughters) who undergo genital surgeries do not choose them. This assumption follows along with Okin s conclusions about the need to protect women in illiberal cultures, as unlike women in liberal societies, they are helpless and cannot change their condition. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the possibility that culture can be a coercive force upon women s lives, both consciously and unconsciously, and both in Western and non-Western cultures. These issues suggest a few policy recommendations that could be useful in developing policy that is accommodating of the most marginalized members of minority cultures.

28

II.

Minority Cultures Contribution to the West Goodin (2006) distinguishes between two types of multiculturalism: polyglot and

protective. He establishes that Kymlicka argues for protective multiculturalism, which aims to protect minority cultures from the coercive powers of majority cultures in democracies. While recognizing the intrinsic value of having a variety of minority cultures, Kymlicka s theory does not aim to celebrate them, but rather to take the more practical first step of protecting them. This type of multiculturalism endorses protecting minority cultures because they are the reality, not because they are normatively desirable. On the other hand, polyglot multiculturalism is a variety of liberal multiculturalism which aims to celebrate cultures and allow different groups to borrow from one another s culture without living in that culture. Polyglot multiculturalism still hinges on the idea of a wider context of choice the fact that individuals can borrow from options from all cultures around them. While it is easier to borrow from choices present nearby, in a globalizing world, borrowing from cultures far away is an open possibility. While polyglot multiculturalism does not work in every society, it is practical for policymaking concerning immigrant-receiving countries, where unfamiliar practices enter Western societies. In such a meeting between Western culture and non-Western practices, there are two recommendations that could be useful for a balanced exchange and dialogue between cultures: (1) In the process of debating over non-Western practices, minority cultures should not be portrayed as backward and foreign, and

29

(2) Debate on such practices should promote a dialogue in which both the majority culture and the minority culture re-examine their customs and have the chance to reform on equal terms. As has already been discussed, Narayan reminds us that the package of cultures essentializes cultures and conceptualizes them as separate from one another. She asks to see cultures as dynamic, changing, and inseparable for one another. In the example of FGM, it was argued that criminalizing the practice in the United States would make it harder for individuals to step forward and engage in dialogue about the practice, because this would cause their culture to seem primitive. Thus, developing policies that do not essentialize cultures or label them as primitive allows for open debate about cultural practices, both Western and nonWestern. In addition, a non-essentialist reading of cultures also requires societies to see Western cultures as a culture. Though this may seem obvious, in many texts, such as Okin s piece and Kymlicka s theory mentioned above, the West is written about as a dynamic, developed sphere that has the power to teach the world the path to progress, while the rest of the world is treated in terms of culture , which is associated with exoticism, lack of change, and even eroticism. In this kind of framework, practical policy discussions are not done on equal terms: the West could never develop because it is already perfect, and most importantly, it could never learn from non-Western examples because they are much less progressive. This kind of inequality could be balanced out by, as Norton argues in the first chapter, looking deeper into the context and historical development of practices, contextualizing the particular practices, circumstances, and even particular women that react to these. The same

30

contextualization must be done about Western liberalism and Western practices, leading to a renewed reading of Western and non-Western cultures, their historical development and modern status. It is evident that the United States has had a very surprising experience with genital surgery, yet this history is not often brought up in public and even academic discourse. There are still mainstream forms of genital surgeries practiced in the United States today. Despite this, the legal framework specifically relates to female genital surgeries as practiced in African cultures. Many notable articles and broadcasts in the popular media, as well as works by renowned researchers, like Fran Hosken s (1981) review of genital mutilation globally, ignores the history of genital surgeries within Western societies and acknowledges the emergence of these practices by the arrival of immigrants only, further deepening the fault-lines between West and East. Several researchers discuss empathy and introspection as tools to equalize the ground for evaluating culturally-challenging practices. Gunning (1991: 205) offers a very similar exercise to the one performed in the previous chapter: examining one s own cultural context to find very similar culturally challenging practices to FGM in order to understand the experience of African women who practice genital surgeries. Similarly, Meyers (2002: 486) also suggests introspection for the development of empathy towards practices by outsiders. Though both authors suggest that these strategies also aid Westerners to better know their own cultures, their emphasis is more on the understanding of non-Western practices, rather than the development of a deeper Western sense of self. This kind of emphasis once again creates an unleveled playing field: it advocates that the West should be the active, changing entity.

31

While Western involvement is necessary to promote new thinking about cultural practices, non-Western cultural impact is also important in demonstrating paths for change in the West. As Tamir (1996) puts it, it is thus time to approach multicultural exchanges with a sharper vision of our own vices, and see the multicultural debate less as a way to understand them and correct their ways than as a way to understand and improve our own culture [emphasis in original]. Pedwell (2007: 64) criticizes approaches of transnational and cross-cultural empathy, like the ones used by Gunning and Meyers, by arguing that this approach may divert Westerners from their own historical context and privilege. Her comment is important in that, like my approach, she asks to remember Western history not for the goal of equating Western and non-Western practices, but for the goal of contextualizing and situating each culture correctly, and analyzing each culture in its own unique setting. Part of the blindness to local Western practices in the Western culture is the fear of internal criticism. As Tamir (1996) summarizes, referring to clitoridectomy, and emphasizing the distance of the practice from our own conventions, allows us to condemn them for what they do to their women, support the struggle of their women against their primitive, inhuman culture, and remain silent on the status of women in our society [emphasis in original]. As Volpp argues, by focusing on patriarchy outside the West, Westerners are blinded from seeing their own faults. While women in both Western and non-Western cultures could choose to see genital surgeries as barbaric and patriarchal in their cultures and fight it together, they could also choose to see that genital surgeries are a source of agency and strength for them and their daughters. Regardless, restricting dialogue between women and men of different cultures

32

restricts the possibility of mutual learning, dialogue, and reformation. Cultural uniqueness provides the opportunity for everyone to learn from one another. To accomplish an equal platform for cultural dialogue, it is first important to make lawmakers aware of their own (and their nation s) local history with particular practices before they learn about practices of immigrants. Other professionals who are impacted by these practices should similarly learn this history. For example, in documents intended for health care professionals, training them on how to handle cases of genital surgeries, information on the history of the practice should be included, detailing how the practice was used in their own society in the past. An example for this is the 2002 article, Female genital mutilation: cultural and psychological implications , which appeared in Sexual and Relationship Therapy. The article specifically addresses the migration of populations that practice female genital cutting into Western countries, and the ways clinicians must deal with the phenomenon, highlighting the cultural aspects at play. III. Autonomy and Coercion It is easy for outsider critics to drop out of critiquing a practice because they don t understand it, and it is easy for insiders to claim that they alone can critique their own practice because they understand it best23. However, the reality is that insiders may often be too submerged in their own cultural biases so that they are unable to see the troubling aspects of their own cultures (thus, lacking agency). Phillips concludes that the more critics who are engaged in dialogue with one another, the better. Phillips point engages with two important

23

Phillips (2002: 128-9)

33

questions: who is allowed to critique practices? What is autonomy, and how far can the agency argument, and the idea that agency is the exit option, protect liberalism? Receiving state support to address intragroup inequalities, such as state outlawing of female genital mutilation in the United States, causes groups to be pushed further to the margins in society as a whole, creating a theoretical and practical dilemma24. On the other hand, without state intervention, women in most cultures may have trouble escaping particular customs which they are against, especially if this entails exiting their culture as a whole. As mentioned in the first chapter, Shachar correctly points out that women are benefited and harmed by culture at the same time, but it is the responsibility of the state to set up proper exit options for women who need them. Tamir has also argued that multiculturalism must protect women (or individuals) who seek to reform their cultures. Many feminist researchers have discussed autonomy in the context of culture and cultural norms. While Okin lacks an analysis of Western culture as oppressive to women and of non-Western women as willing and able to reform their cultures, an analysis of cultural practices both in the West and non-West must draw from feminist analysis that treats liberal accounts of autonomy with suspicion. Tamir s (1996) response to Okin engages in a superb account of the coercive power of culture, which she sees as no less damaging than clitoridectomy. Tamir describes both Western and non-Western cultural norms as coercive on women equally.

24

Macklin (2007: 220)

34

Similarly, many feminists25 have been known to recognize Western (and non-Western) cultural norms as coercive, arguing that culture is imbued with patriarchy and male-dominance, and seeing women as unable to break through these dominant conceptions and practice agency. These accounts have been vigorously problematized for not giving enough space to female agency, portraying women as lacking the ability to promote change. As a result, it seemed that these researchers saw only themselves as able to recognize the blindness of western and third world women living under the tight grip of cultural norms. Their accounts thus came out as elitist, and even imperialist. Unlike these accounts, Meyers (2000: 470, 484-9), who writes about female genital cutting in particular, finds that women who accommodate and women who resist cutting can be autonomous, and culture has nothing to do with defining autonomy. Nonetheless, certain social contexts can be more conducive to autonomy than others. Meyers suggests that the issue of autonomy, and in turn, the idea of the evolution of cultures and their reform, can be promoted through education towards autonomy. She suggests that educational programs must conceptualize autonomy as a part of culture, rather than outside of it, must couple autonomy with self-discovery and transformation, and must conceptualize autonomy as a set of skills that could be gained, skills which, when exercised, reveal a woman s true inner characters and values. These autonomyenhancing educational workshops recognize that women (and their daughters) may or may not choose to go through genital cutting. The workshops are meant to develop revolutionary thinking on culture and choice, rather than to guide women for or against particular practices.

25

See Cudd (2006) and MacKinnon (1991)

35

On the topic of the autonomy of marginalized members of minority groups, policymakers should concern themselves with: (3) Creating workshops to empower the marginalized members of minority groups and their autonomy (rather than education for or against particular cultural customs), and (4) Personal learning about the concept of autonomy, coercion, and norms as a way of creating a more complex and multi-dimensional understanding of these ideas.

36

Conclusion Meyers discusses a very important and necessary addition to any Western policymaking on culturally-challenging practices. I would also add that the workshops she discusses should include a variety of participants from a variety of cultures, including Western and non-Western women. While United States laws on female genital cutting do promote educational programs specifically on cutting, they do not provide monetary funding for these programs, nor do they promote programs that focus on increasing autonomy and choice. Such policymaking does not lead to supporting cultures and their transformation, but to creating antagonism and resistance on the part of traditional culture-group members. As Meyers suggests, cultures are always evolving, and cultural leaders would be wise to embrace this change and support those who promote it. Embracing cultural change preserves cultures, because change is inevitable, and those who promote it may exit the culture under heavy burden if not supported. While Western states could not force cultural leaders to support change and cultural reformers, they could support those who promote cultural change themselves. The best way to do this is to develop and sponsor workshops that promote women s (and other marginalized members ) agency and choice, to educate policymakers and health professionals on practices by contextualizing them in Western and non-Western histories, and by inviting as many critics as possible, internal and external, when engaging in policymaking and cultural reform from the outside. When marginalized members of cultures are empowered to speak out and act against aspects of their culture, these members would also be more likely to engage in such a policymaking procedure, contributing to the revolution of their own culture without having to be under the heavy burden of exiting it.

37

The example of genital cutting in the United States has served as a powerful case-study for understanding how cultures conceptualize themselves and their outsiders. While Western researchers engage in debates about who should create policy on culturally-challenging practices, and how this policy should be created, they often times forget how this policymaking process can impact their own cultures. I hope that this paper has been instrumental in bringing up this point, as well as highlighting how a bond between feminism and multiculturalism helps highlight it. This bond also sheds light on the importance of heeding attention to disadvantaged members of minority groups, and using the point of view of these members as a starting-point for revolutionizing culture. Cultural change and transformation both help to reform parts of cultures that are harmful to particular members, and yet still succeed in preserving the rich diversity of cultures which our globalizing community can gain so much from.

38

Bibliography Al-Hibri, Azizah Y. "Is Western Patriarchal Feminism Good for Third World/Minority Women?" Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? By Susan Moller Okin and Joshua Cohen. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. 41-46. Bell, Kirsten. "Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 19.2 (2005): 125-48. Benhabib, Seyla. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2002. Bhabha, Homi K. "Liberalism's Sacred Cow." Boston Review. Boston Review, 1999. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/bhabha.html>. Bibbings, Lois. "Touch: Socio-Cultural Attitudes and Legal Responses to Body Alteration."Law and the Senses: Sensational Jurisprudence. By Lionel Bently and Leo Flynn. London: Pluto, 1996. 151-70. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. Carpenter, R. Charli. A Response to Bronwyn Winter, Denise Thompson and Sheila Jeffreys, The UN Approach to Harmful Traditional Practices: Some Conceptual Problems : Some Other Conceptual Problems. International Feminist Journal of Politics 6.2 (2004): 308 313. "Circumcision in the United States of America." History of Circumcision. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content>. Cudd, Ann E. Analysing Oppression. New York: Oxford UP, 2006.

39

Darby, Robert, and J. Steven Svoboda. "A Rose by Any Other Name? Rethinking the Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21.3 (2007): 301-23. Davis, Simone Weil. "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Feminist Studies 28.1 (2002): 7-35. Print. Duffy, John. "Clitoridectomy: A Nineteenth Century Answer to Masturbation." 1963. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://www.fgmnetwork.org/articles/duffy.htm>. Ehrenreich, Nancy, and Mark Barr. "Intersex Surgery, Female Genital Cutting, and the Selective Condemnation of Cultural Practices ." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 40 (2005): 71-140. Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic, 2000. Fox, Marie, and Michael Thomson. "Short Changed? The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision." The International Journal of Children's Rights 13.1 (2005): 161-82. Gilman, Sander L. ""Barbaric" Rituals?" Boston Review. 1999. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/gilman.html>. Gilman, Sander L. Freud, Race, and Gender. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1993. Gollaher, David. Circumcision: a History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York: Basic, 2000. Goodin, Robert E. "Liberal Multiculturalism: Protective and Polyglot." Political Theory 34.3 (2006): 289-303. Greer, Germaine. The Whole Woman. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1999.

40

Guin, Anouk, and Javier Moreno. "Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the United Kingdom: the Case of Female Genital Mutilation. Female Exiles in Twentieth and Twenty-first Century Europe. By Stanley Maureen Tobin and Gesa Zinn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 223-47. Hamowy, Ronald. "Medicine and the Crimination of Sin: Self-Abuse in 19th Century America. Journal of Libertarian Studies 1.3 (1977): 229-70. Harrington, Mona. Care and Equality: Inventing a New Family Politics. New York: Knopf, 1999. Hellsten, Sirkuu K. "Rationalising Circumcision: from Tradition to Fashion, from Public Health to Individual Freedom--critical Notes on Cultural Persistence of the Practice of Genital Mutilation." Journal of Medical Ethics 30.3 (2004): 248-53. Honig, Bonnie. "Complicating Culture." Boston Review. Boston Review, 1999. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/honig.html>. Hosken, Fran P. "Female Genital Mutilation in the World Today: A Global Review."International Journal of Health Services 11.3 (1981): 1. Kenyatta, Jomo. Facing Mount Kenya: the Tribal Life of Gikuyu. London: Secker and Warburg, 1938. Kittay, Eva Feder. Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. New York: Routledge, 1999. Kymlicka, Will. "Liberal Complacencies." Boston Review. Boston Review, Oct.-Nov. 1997. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/kymlicka.html>. Kymlicka, Will. Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

41

Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Kymlicka, Will. The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995. MacKinnon, Catharine A. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge: Harvard UP., 1991. Macklin, A. "The Double-edged Sword: Using the Criminal Law against Female Genital Mutilation in Canada." Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives. By Rogaia Mustafa. Abusharaf. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2007. 207-23. Maguigan, Holly. "U.S.Policy on "Female Genital Mutilation" Threat of Economic Pressure Internationally, Enactment of Criminal Sanctions at Home." Moral Imperialism: a Critical Anthology. By Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol. New York: New York UP, 2002. 24154. McNamara, Karen Roberts. "Pretty Woman: Genital Plastic Surgery and the Production of the Sexed Female." Gnovis (2006): 1-17. Meyers, Diana Tietjens. "Feminism and Women s Autonomy: the Challenge of Female Genital Cutting." Metaphilosophy 31.5 (2000): 469-91. Narayan, Uma. "Undoing the package Picture of Cultures." Femmes Sous Lois Musulmanes. Femmes Sous Lois Musulmanes, Oct. 2004. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://www.wluml.org/node/477>. Njambi, Wairim u Ngaruiya. "Dualisms and Female Bodies in Representations of African Female Circumcision: A Feminist Critique." Feminist Theory 5.3 (2004): 281-303. Norton, Anne. "Review Essay on Euben, Okin, and Nussbaum." Political Theory 29.5 (2001): 73649.

42

Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf. "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 13.1 (1999): 79-106. Okin, Susan M. "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" Boston Review. Boston Review, Oct.-Nov. 1997. Web. 01 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html>. Okin, Susan M. "Reflections about Feminism and Multiculturalism." Politica 1 (1998): 9-26. Pedwell, Carolyn. "Theorizing African Female Genital Cutting and Western Body Modifications: a Critique of the Continuum and Analogue Approaches." Feminist Review 86.1 (2007): 45-66. Phillips, Anne. "Multiculturalism, Universalism, and the Claims of Democracy." Gender Justice, Development, and Rights. By Maxine Molyneux and Shahrashoub Razavi. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. 115-40. Phillips, Anne. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007. Piot, Charles D. "Representing Africa in the Kasinga Asylum Case." Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives. By Rogaia Mustafa. Abusharaf. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2007. 224-33. Shachar, Ayelet. Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2001. Shachar, Ayelet. "On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability." Political Theory 28.1 (2000): 64-89. Sheldon, Sally, and Stephen Wilkinson. "Female Genital Mutilation and Cosmetic Surgery: Regulating Non-Therapeutic Body Modification." Bioethics 12.4 (1998): 263-85.

43

Shweder, Richard A. "What about Female Genital Mutilation?' and Why Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place." Engaging Cultural Differences: the Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies. By Richard A. Shweder, Martha Minow, and Hazel Markus. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002. 216-51. Somerville, Margaret A. The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Toronto: Penguin, 2000. Tamir, Yael. "Hands Off Clitoridectomy." Boston Review. Boston Review, 1996. Web. 17 Sept. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Tamir.html>. Tamir, Yael. "Siding with the Underdogs." Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? By Susan Moller Okin and Joshua Cohen. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. 7-20. Toubia, Nahid. "Female Circumcision As A Public Health Issue." New England Journal of Medicine 331.11 (1994): 712-16. Volpp, Leti. "Feminism versus Multiculturalism." Columbia Law Review 101.5 (2001): 1181-218. Ward, Jeanne, Zana Briski, and Lisa Ernst. Broken Bodies, Broken Dreams: Violence against Women Exposed. Nairobi: UN. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), 2005. Whitehorn, James, Oyedeji Ayonrinde, and Samantha Maingay. "Female Genital Mutilation: Cultural and Psychological Implications." Sexual and Relationship Therapy 17.2 (2002): 161-70.

44