To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The contentious debate surrounding female circumcision encapsulates a complex interplay of cultural relativism, human rights, and ethical considerations. In the "Taking Sides" article, Professors Merrilee H. Salmon and Elliot P. Skinner present divergent perspectives on whether anthropologists should actively work to eliminate this practice, sparking a profound discussion on the ethical dimensions of cultural traditions.
Professor Merrilee H. Salmon fervently argues for the eradication of female circumcision, asserting that practices like clitoridectomy infringe upon the inherent rights of women undergoing these procedures.
Central to her argument is the assertion that genital mutilation may serve as a tool for male dominance, perpetuating gender inequality within specific societies. Salmon contends that anthropologists bear a moral obligation to actively contribute to the elimination of such practices, championing gender equality and safeguarding the fundamental rights of women.
In stark contrast, Professor Elliot P. Skinner adopts a cultural relativist stance, cautioning against the ethnocentrism embedded in efforts to abolish female circumcision.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Philosophy
5 (204)
“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”
Accusing feminists advocating for eradication of cultural insensitivity, Skinner underscores the importance of understanding these practices within their cultural contexts. Skinner delves into the cultural significance of female circumcision, portraying it as a voluntary initiation process for African women, symbolizing the transition from girlhood to womanhood and playing a pivotal role in later marital relationships. His perspective challenges the imposition of external values on deeply ingrained cultural practices.
Further examination of the cultural context necessitates drawing parallels with the construct of religious justifications for violence, as discussed in the textbook.
Skinner's argument aligns with instances where violence is culturally justified, offering insights into the intricate relationship between cultural practices and their societal justifications. An ethnographic example from the article underscores the cultural significance of female circumcision within the Kikuyu Tribe in Kenya, where marriage to an uncircumcised woman is deemed inconceivable for a "proper Kikuyu." This example highlights the deeply rooted nature of such practices within specific cultural settings.
While acknowledging the cultural roots of female circumcision, a critical examination prompts skepticism regarding the uncritical acceptance of such practices. The inherent medical dangers and inhumane nature of the procedure cannot be dismissed. Deception and physical suffering inflicted upon young girls during these rituals raise ethical concerns that transcend cultural relativism. Instead of advocating for an outright ban, a more constructive approach involves exploring modifications to the process, ensuring medical correctness while prioritizing the well-being of women undergoing such procedures.
This critical stance urges anthropologists to navigate the intricate balance between cultural sensitivity and ethical responsibility. Striking this delicate equilibrium requires a nuanced understanding of cultural diversity, coupled with a commitment to upholding universal principles of human rights and well-being.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding female circumcision transcends simplistic binaries, demanding a comprehensive exploration of cultural practices, ethical considerations, and human rights implications. While Professor Salmon advocates for the abolition of such practices, emphasizing the need to protect women's rights, Professor Skinner underscores the importance of cultural relativism in interpreting these rituals. A holistic approach involves acknowledging the cultural context while addressing the ethical implications and medical risks associated with female circumcision.
As anthropologists navigate this complex terrain, they must strive to find solutions that respect cultural diversity while upholding the universal principles of human rights and well-being. The ethical quandary surrounding female circumcision serves as a poignant reminder of the intricate challenges inherent in the intersection of cultural practices and human rights, prompting ongoing discourse and reflection within the field of anthropology.
The Ethical Quandary: Female Circumcision in Cultural Crossroads. (2016, Sep 14). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/should-female-circumcision-be-banned-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
