80 likes | 187 Views
Framing FGC: Health and Human Rights Approaches Bettina Shell-Duncan, Ph.D. Department of Anthropology University of Washington. What are the ramifications of framing FGC as a human rights violation? What perils and pitfalls potentially arise from a rights-based framework?.
E N D
Framing FGC: Health and Human Rights ApproachesBettina Shell-Duncan, Ph.D.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Washington
What are the ramifications of framing FGC as a human rights violation? • What perils and pitfalls potentially arise from a rights-based framework?
Previous Frameworks for Justifying Intervention • Health Framework “Genital mutilation should be treated as a public health problem and recognized as an impediment to development that can be prevented and eradicated much like any disease.” -Fran Hosken (1978: 151)
“Problems” Emanating from the Health Framework • Failed to motivate behavior change • Credibility gap • Difficulty in establishing the “medical facts” • Encouragement of medicalization
Human Rights Framework 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights 1) FGC classified as a form of violence against women (VAW) 2) VAW recognized a a human rights violation
Doctrinist Claims to Define FGC as a Human Rights Violation • 1) Rights of the child • 2) Rights of women • 3) Freedom from torture • 4) The right to health and bodily integrity
Perils and Pitfalls of the Human Rights Framework • 1) Can view the problems and solutions too narrowly • 2) Imposition of a Western human rights culture • 3) Undermine women’s agency • 4) Unresolved questions concerning consent
Recommendations • Assess, anticipate and attempt to avert pitfalls • Conduct research on how legislative measures contribute to changes in FGC • Seek to understand how legal measures interact with other change efforts