Is Anti-FGM Legislation Cultural Imperialism? Interrogating Kenya's Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act
| Published date | 01 June 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/09646639221118862 |
| Author | Hannelore Van Bavel |
| Date | 01 June 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Is Anti-FGM Legislation
Cultural Imperialism?
Interrogating Kenya’s
Prohibition of Female
Genital Mutilation Act
Hannelore Van Bavel
School of Sociology, Politics, and International
Studies, University of Bristol, UK
Abstract
Postcolonial feminists and anthropologists have criticised anti-female genital mutilation
(FGM) efforts for being ethnocentric and for imposing ‘Western’values onto African
communities. Recently, a Kenyan medical doctor has petitioned against Kenya’s
Prohibition of FGM Act, arguing that the Act is unconstitutional and the entrenchment
of Western values. This article critically interrogates the allegation that African legisla-
tion against ‘FGM’(FGM) embodies the culturally-imperialist imposition of Western
values by empirically examining how Kenya’s anti-FGM Act was produced and became
contested. The findings show that international power hierarchies influence who can
speak and what can be said about FGM. However, the findings simultaneously challenge
the Africa/West and cultural relativism/imperialism divide present in some of the cri-
tiques of anti-FGM legislation and interventions. I argue that the notion of ‘imposit ion’
does not adequately capture the African agency and the transnational collaborations that
went into both producing and contesting the Act.
Keywords
Female circumcision, female genital mutilation/cutting, cultural imperialism, cultural
relativism, Kenya
Corresponding author:
Hannelore Van Bavel,School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies, University of Bristol, 1 Priory Rd,
Bristol BS8 1TU, UK.
Email: hannelore.vanbavel@bristol.ac.uk
Article
Social & Legal Studies
2023, Vol. 32(3) 378–398
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09646639221118862
journals.sagepub.com/home/sls
Introduction
In July 2017, female medical doctor Tatu Kamau filed a petition to overturn Kenya’s
Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act of 2011 (‘the Anti-FGM Act’or
‘the Act’). The Act is a federal law and criminalises all forms of FGM regardless of
the age or consent of the girl or woman (Kenya, 2011). The Act is much more far-
reaching than most national laws on FGM and criminalises not only the performance
of FGM, but also procuring, aiding and abetting the practice of FGM; procuring a
person to perform FGM in another country; allowing the use of premises for FGM; the
possession of tools and equipment for the purposes of FGM; failure to report awareness
of FGM to a law enforcement officer, whether the procedure is in progress, has already
occurred or is planned; and the use of derogatory or abusive language against a woman
for having not undergone FGM or against a man for marrying or supporting that woman
(articles 19 to 25). Penalties include imprisonment for a minimum of three years and/or a
fine of at least 200,000 Kenyan shilling (close to US $1800). The Act also established the
‘Anti-FGM Board’, a semi-autonomous government agency with a mandate to
co-ordinate anti-FGM efforts in Kenya and advise the government on all matters concern-
ing FGM.
Dr Kamau does not necessarily support FGM, but she believes that the practice should
be discouraged through awareness raising rather than legislation and prosecution. In her
petition, she wrote that Kenya’s Prohibition of FGM Act infringes on women’s rights to
culture, the best attainable health, and gender equality. The anti-FGM Act explicitly pro-
hibits medically trained professionals from performing surgeries on female genitalia for
non-medical reasons and prescribes imprisonment for life for a medically trained person
who causes the death of another person through an act of FGM. According to Kamau, the
criminalisation of medicalised FGM denies ‘willing adult women’access to safe and
hygienic circumcisions and therefore infringes on their right to ‘the highest attainable
standard of health including the right to health care’(Kamau, 2017: 3). Anti-FGM acti-
vists oppose ‘medicalised’FGM because it is assumed to undermine efforts to end FGM.
Male circumcision and its medicalisation are not only legal but actively promoted by the
Kenyan government in a campaign that links ‘voluntary medical male circumcision’to
reduced risk of HIV infection (Gilbertson et al., 2019). In criminalising female but not
male circumcision, Kamau argues, the Act also discriminates against women. Most
importantly, Kamau believes that the Act infringes on women’s right to participate in
the cultural life of their choice. In her petition, she makes a cultural relativist argument:
14. It is the petitioner’s belief, which belief is widely shared among communities, that no
particular culture is superior to another and when examining issues of ethics, morality,
law or politics, all cultural beliefs are equally valid and the truth itself is relative, depending
on the cultural environment.
15. That each community has the liberty to practice any culture that is native and relevant to
that society without the imperialist imposition from another culture that holds a different set
of beliefs and/or norms. (Kamau, 2017, author’s emphasis)
Van Bavel 379
To continue reading
Request your trial