Framing Male Circumcision as a Human Rights Issue? Contributions to the Debate Over the Universality of Human Rights

Abstract

The international community has not framed male circumcision as a violation of human rights in the same way that it has condemned female genital mutilation. Although this article acknowledges sharp differences between the most extreme forms of female genital mutilation and male circumcision as it is most widely practiced, this article concludes that the most common forms of male and female circumcision are not sufficiently divergent practices to warrant a differential response from the international community and that there are more similarities between the two practices than is typically acknowledged. The article seeks to illuminate cultural and ideological tensions that are at stake in any effort to develop and apply universal norms in a world of difference. The comparison of global responses to male and female circumcision in this article sheds light on the cultural obstacles to global consensus on human rights as universal principles and underscores the difficulty of adopting “neutral” universalist rights claims devoid of cultural and ideological content.

Debra L. DeLaet is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa where she teaches courses on human rights, global public health, the United Nations, international law, and gender & world politics. Her major research interests have been in the area of human rights, gender issues in world politics, and international migration. She has published two books: U.S. Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights (Praeger 2000) and The Global Struggle for Human Rights (Wadsworth, 2006). She also co-edited, with Gregory Kelson, Gender and Immigration (Macmillan 1999). In addition to these books, she has published several articles and book chapters on a variety of topics, including gay marriage as a religious right, gender and justice in war-torn societies, justice for children born of war, and sexual orientation discrimination in international human rights law.

Notes

1. Abu-Salieh (2001: 293–299) provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the international condemnation of female circumcision that has taken place largely within the UN system.

2. Notably, these laws are not vigorously prosecuted in most places where FGM has been criminalized. Even in France, where anti-FGM legislation has been prosecuted, few convicted individuals have actually been imprisoned for these crimes (Davis 2001: 500–503). Furthermore, it should be noted that national efforts to criminalize female circumcision may lead to unintended harms to girl children. For example, in the United States, some physicians have sought to offer minor, medically safe genital circumcision procedures to immigrant parents of girl children who might otherwise send their daughters back to their home countries for more invasive procedures. State and national legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation has defined these procedures so broadly that these physicians risk criminal prosecution for their efforts. As a result, these laws make it more likely that at least some of these girl children will be subjected to more harsh variants of FGM (Davis 2001: 487–489). In general, legal prohibitions against FGM risk creating a backlash, especially in previously colonized countries where female circumcision was historically embraced as a way to express nationalist pride in the face of oppressive colonialism (Davis 2001: 490–498).

3. Historically, bills were introduced in several state legislatures in the United States that would have banned ritual Jewish circumcision by mohels, but these bills were defeated and probably reflected anti-Semitism and the economic interests of physicians more than a rights-based opposition to genital mutilation (Davis 2001: 518–519).

4. It is important to note that even within cultures where male circumcision is the norm, there are individuals and groups who question whether or not the procedure is culturally or religiously mandated. For example, there is a small but increasingly vocal contingent in the Jewish community that challenge the “myth” that all Jewish men are or must be circumcised. (Ronald Goldman, Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective [Vanguard Publications, 1997]). See also Abu-Salieh 2001: 41, 72–73. In Islam, as well, there is a disagreement about whether male circumcision is a religious requirement or is merely a recommended practice.

5. I am grateful to R. Charli Carpenter for this insight.