Copyright © The authors, 2020 Cover by Nille Leander and Sara Johnsdotter ISBN 978-91-7877-123-3 (print) ISBN 978-91-7877-124-0 (pdf) DOI 10.24834/isbn.9789178771240 Published by the Centre for Sexology and Sexuality Studies, Malmö University Printed at Holmbergs, Malmö 2020 FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING The Global North and South Edited by Sara Johnsdotter The publication can be accessed at mau.diva-portal.org (PDF) Contents Sara Johnsdotter & R. Elise B. Johansen Introduction 7 Ellen Gruenbaum Tensions and Movements: Female Genital Cutting in the Global North and South, Then and Now 23 Lisen Dellenborg The Significance of Engagement — Challenges for Ethnographers and Healthcare Givers in Understanding Human Vulnerability 59 Emmaleena Käkelä Rethinking Female Genital Cutting: From Culturalist to Structuralist Framework for Challenging Violence Against Women 79 Maria Väkiparta Young Men Against FGM/C in Somaliland: Discursively Negotiating Violence, Gender Norms, and Gender Order 103 Inger-Lise Lien Is the Ritual of Female Genital Mutilation an Event that Will Generate a Traumatic Stress Reaction for Cut Children? Cases from The Gambia, Eritrea and Somalia 131 Lisen Dellenborg & Maria Frederika Malmström Listening to the Real Agents of Change: Female Circumcision/Cutting, Female Genital Mutilation and Human Rights 159 R. Elise B. Johansen, in collaboration with Amira Jama Mohammed Ibrahim, Naeema Saeed Sheekh Mohammed, Khadra Yasien Ahmed, Abdirizak Mohamud, Ibrahim Sheick Mohammed Ahmed, & Omar Nur Gaal Methodological Reflections on the Engagement of Cultural Insiders: A Study on Female Genital Cutting Among Somali Migrants in Norway 185 Mimmi Koukkula, Natalia Skogberg, Hannamaria Kuusio, Satu Jokela, Eero Lilja, & Reija Klemetti Improving Data Collection on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in Finland 217 Sara Johnsdotter The Bike Accident and the Canon Portrayal of FGM 239 Birgitta Essén One Genital, Two Judgments: Why Do “Expert Witnesses” Draw Different Conclusions in Suspected Cases of Illegal Cutting of Girls’ Genitals? 259 About the Authors 289 Sara Johnsdotter & R. Elise B. Johansen Introduction The papers in this volume build upon oral presentations at the 9th conference for the Nordic Network for Research on FGC (FOKO), Female Genital Cutting: The Global North & South, which was arranged in Höör, Sweden, on 26-28 October 2018. The anthology can simultaneously be seen as a celebration and as marking of twenty years since the establishment of the FOKO network in 2001 and of the 10th FOKO anniversary conference scheduled for 2021, back in Oslo, Norway. In this introductory chapter, we will start by discussing terminology. How to name this practice has been, and continues to be, a contested issue, and the various terms commonly used are associated with differences in understanding and modes of relating to the practices and the people affected. Already in the titles of the various papers published here, different approaches to terminology are displayed. We hope that our summary can be helpful to readers who are not familiar with the now half-century-long debate about terminology. The discussion about terminology and issues of definitions and delimitations, is followed by a discussion of the current state when it comes to the practice in the Nordic countries. Finally, we end the introductory chapter with a description of the history of FOKO and its activities since this Nordic multidisciplinary research network was formed. Many of the original participants of the FOKO network are still active, but every year there are new researchers joining. Hopefully, the recol- lection of past conferences can give recent and future participants a glimpse of how the network operates. This introductory chapter was written by Sara Johnsdotter and R. Elise B. Johansen, together, because we, as doctoral students in Sweden and Norway twenty years ago, initiated the FOKO network. This anthology is not a cohesive publication in the sense that the chapters have been edited to fit into one single discussion or theme; it is a series of contri- butions displaying what different researchers in the Nordic countries are engaged in at the moment. Some chapters are addressing the general public while other 7 7 chapters are written as to take part in the ongoing discussion among researchers in the field. The diversity of the chapters regarding theme, focus, terminology, and presumptive audience is emblematic of the FOKO network: this is an arena that welcomes Nordic researchers to discuss what they currently want and need to dis- cuss about their research process; they can share data and findings from ongoing projects while they concurrently are offered input from colleagues from a range of disciplines. Next chapter is the keynote lecture at the conference, by the American anthropologist Professor Ellen Gruenbaum. She was given the title of what we wished her to talk about, and during the lecture she shared her knowledge and experiences from decades in the research field of female genital cutting. Terminology In early descriptions of these practices, they were⁠—in analogy with non-medically motivated procedures that involve boys’ genitals—called “circumcision.” For ex- ample, there is a papyrus from 163 BCE in Egypt, in which it is said that since a girl is now circumcised, it is time to arrange for her dowry (Kenyon, 1893). Trav- elers and explorers in the 19th century repeatedly reported customs which they called “female circumcision.”1 This is not surprising, given that local names of these practices tend to be the same for girls and boys, often with an extra word to clarify whether the procedure regards a girl or a boy. For instance, in Somali, gudniinka refers to both sexes, and gender is specified in the expressions gudniinka dumarka (girls and women) and gudniinka wiilasha (boys and men). The term “cir- cumcision,” literally meaning “cutting around,” is known from the Latin transla- tion of the Old Testament, and was first translated into English in the 1500s. Local terms for male and female genital cutting, however, often have a more symbolic meaning, referring to the process or purpose of the procedure. For example, So- malis also use the term halalays which, like the Arabic term khitan, means “cleans- ing,” commonly used in a religious more than hygienic sense. The Malian term bolokoli literally means “washing one’s hands.” Other terms can refer to the overall framework, for example of “going to the bush,” or the context such as the Bondo secret society in Sierra Leone in which the procedure of FGC is essential for initi- ation (Ahmadu, 2010). 1 For a detailed survey of early sources, see Johnsdotter (2012). 8 8 In pre-1980s scholarly work, the international community did not see any of the practices as particularly problematic (Andro & Lesclingand, 2016; Johnsdotter, 2018; Johnsdotter & Mestre i Mestre, 2017); neither the practices nor how they were named (Johansen 2015). The “mutilation” label was coined and promoted by the American journalist and activist Fran Hosken. She published The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females in 1979, which she presented at the Women’s Conference in Copenhagen in 1980. Her perspective and tone reso- nated with other radical feminists of the period, such as Mary Daly (1979), Tobe Levin (1980), and Awa Thiam (1978). “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) as a denomination of these practices gained ground from then on, particularly within international organizations and those targeting the practice. The World Health Organization adopted the term “female genital mutilation” in the mid-1990s (UNICEF 2005) and governments in Europe followed, for example in laws banning the practice. Within academic re- search there was a divide between social science that abided by the established term “circumcision” and most medical researchers who adopted “FGM.” Inter- estingly, it was a local UN-supported organization in Uganda, REACH, which first highlighted major drawbacks of the “mutilation” terminology: REACH seeks to avoid fuelling unnecessary sensitivity about the issue. Thus, for exam- ple, participants coined a new phrase for FGM: “female genital cutting.” The term “fe- male circumcision” was rejected as a misleading euphemism, but “female genital muti- lation” was thought to imply excessive judgement by outsiders as well as insensitivity toward individuals who have undergone excision [UNFPA, 1996]. This compromise term, “female genital cutting,” has since gained ground among both scholars and professional organizations (such as FIGO, the International Fed- eration of Gynecology and Obstetrics). In contrast, practically all activist and cam- paigning organizations prefer “FGM,” as do supra-state players such as the World Health Organization and the European Union. Yet another compromise is the acronym FGM/C [female genital mutila- tion/cutting]. The merging of the two terms can be seen as an attempt to indicate that “mutilation” is what these practices are about, while at the same time the speaker or writer admits its shortcomings in preventive work with affected people. 9 9 Both UNFPA and UNICEF used this double term, “female genital mutilation/cut- ting,” for more than a decade, until 2016, when they changed back to the use of “FGM” only. Today, many scholars explain their choice of terminology when they publish their research. As noted by Sundby et al.: “Each term carries a certain value” (2013, p. 1). There are pros and cons to each way of naming these practices. Here is a summary of some of the justifications and renunciations: • female circumcision/circumcision of girls Proponents: It is often closest to local perceptions of the practice, as it is perceived to mirror rituals for boys [Connolly, 2018; Gruenbaum, 2001; Johnsdotter, 2018]. Opponents: The term gives the impression that circumcision of girls is no more harmful than circumcision of boys.1 Thus, the term is “misleading” [Andro & Lesclingand, 2016; Brady et al., 2019; Connolly, 2019; Hamid, Grace & Warren, 2018]. • female genital mutilation Proponents: The term establishes that these practices constitute a form of violence against women and a violation of women’s rights to bodily integrity and health [WHO, 2008].