Thanks for the mail, Abdoukarim. Again, though, I have to stress that in this case I am merely the 
messenger, forwarding an item from a colleague who IS a Gambia-l member, but for some reason is 
having technical difficulties posting to this forum. Dr. Ahmadu lists her e-mail at the end of her post 
and encourages comments directly addressed to her. Any of you are also encouraged to post to 
the New York Times blog (at http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/), which has received an amazing 
amount of attention in the last few days (some of it rather disturbing, in my humble opinion....).

It is correct that I was a research associate at the University of Washington (I no longer am) and did 
research on Gambian reactions to campaigns against the practice. You should be able to access on the 
internet my dissertation (the abstract to which I include below, as requested) and/or information on 
the two volumes I have co-edited on the topic. But those who have been on Gambia-l for a long time 
know that this debate has flared up many a times, and I have personally spent many an hour 
responding to often extremely emotional mails on this, which i am simply not able to do again at this 
time. Respectfully yours, Ylva 

Winnowing Culture:  Negotiating Female “Circumcision” in The Gambia (2003)

This dissertation examines the changing nature of the practice of female genital cutting, FGC (also 
known as female “circumcision” or female genital mutilation, FGM) and its surrounding discourses, in 
The Gambia, West Africa.  It discusses reactions to campaigns aimed at the elimination of the practice 
and builds on ethnographic fieldwork with two NGOs involved in such initiatives, focusing in particular 
on “alternative rituals” that seek to revive girls’ initiation rites while eliminating genital cutting.
	Ethnographic attention to the decision making process surrounding FGC in the Gambian context 
reveals something far more complex than a “debate” between “supporters” and “opponents” of the 
practice.  Instead, this dissertation illustrates, based on extensive in-depth interviews with a wide 
range of individuals, the contingent nature of how Gambians currently negotiate FGC and attempts at 
its eradication.  It argues that individuals, families, and communities are actively engaged in a process 
of evaluating a multitude of cultural narratives around what FGC means, and negotiating what – if 
anything – should be done about it, by selecting from a shifting cultural repertoire of possible actions, 
what was sometimes referred to as “winnowing culture.” 
This dissertation argues that, although stakeholders on all “sides” of this contentious issue often 
resort to arguments of cultural essentializing (“people practice FGC because it is their culture”), the 
Gambian example illustrates the fluid nature of these practices and the dynamic ways in which 
“tradition” is constructed, contested, and negotiated.




On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, ABDOUKARIM SANNEH wrote:

> Ylva
>  Thanks for the forward. Recently I learned that you a research fellow at 
> University of Washington 
Seatle. I learned you Doctoral research was on the issue of Female 
circumcision. Can you please forward the abstract to enhance the debate about 
the issue especially in relation to the right of the girl child. With my ethnic 
background having known about the health implication even having a wife from my 
ethnic background, If I have a girl child is a life principle to know that 
female circumcision is a violation the right of girl children. It will be great 
to know abot the themetic issue of your resaerach about such a social 
anthropological issue which our politicans did not want to debate about because 
of fear for majority vote. Ylva as from now I don,t know any policy 
intervention about the issue.
> 
> Ylva Hernlund <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  Dr. Ahmadu asked me to forward this (she is a member of Gambia-l but for 
> some reason her posts 
are
> rejected). Ylva
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> 
> For those of you who are following or have had a chance to glance at the
> NY Times debate on female circumcision (see John Tierney or Tierneylab),
> which preceded the American Anthropological Association Public Policy
> Forum on Female Genital Cutting last Saturday in DC, I am forwarding the
> most recent contribution by Rick Shweder, from the University of
> Chicago. Many of you expressed concerns about the health implications of
> various forms of FGC; Shweder's article is a very important critical
> analysis of current research on the medical evidence that few of us
> Africans can afford to ignore -- given the exaggerated and
> sensationalized claims that are often made in the media. In exposing and
> challenging much of the hyperbole, I do not wish to minimize
> the experiences and rights of women (and yes, men), however rare these
> cases may be, who have been traumatized physically or psychologically by
> their experiences of genital cutting - whether in the "bush" or in
> clinical settings (as in some cases of male circumcision
> gone awry). One of my intentions as an anthropologist as well as an
> African from an ethnic group that practices both male and female
> initiation is to promote policies that respect both cultural and
> individual rights, dignity and autonomy. So, I hope of some of you,
> especially women, will weigh in on these very significant discussions on
> John Tierney's blog and contribute your own thoughts, ideas, suggestions
> or experiences whether for or against, good or bad or none of the above.
> I'd also welcome talking to anyone of you either through leonenet
> discussions or by direct email ([log in to unmask]) on this topic.
> 
> 
> From The TierneyLab (New York Times):
> 
> My post about a debate over a female initiation rite in Africa prompted
> lots of angry reactions, some quite thoughtful ones, much misinformation
> and one entirely reasonable request from Charles:
> 
> Having read dozens of passionate comments, are there any
> dispassionate factual examinations of the subject addressing
> (a) the health risks, (b) the health benefits, and (c) the
> actual effect of the procedure on the lives of those subject
> to it, all categorizing by the varieties of practice? It
> would be nice to have some granular facts rather than summary
> conclusions.
> 
> I’m not sure it’s possible to find anyone dispassionate on this subject.
> The experts, like Lab readers, can’t even even agree on what to call this
> procedure. (In my post I used several of the terms: circumcision, female
> genital mutilation, female genital cutting, genital modification.) But I
> would like to give Lab readers a sense of the research results and range
> of expert opinion. I’ve asked several researchers to respond to Charles’
> question and to other concerns raised by Lab readers. The first response
> (others will follow) is from Richard Shweder, a cultural anthropologist
> at the University of Chicago and one of the organizers of Saturday’s
> debate on this topic at the American Anthropological Association’s annual
> meeting. Here’s Dr. Shweder’s response:
> 
> “Female genital mutilation” is an invidious and essentially
> debate-subverting label. The preemptive use of that
> expression is just as invidious as starting a conversation
> about a women’s right to choose by describing abortion as the
> “murder of innocent life.” Pro-choice advocates rightly
> object to the presumptive disparagement implied by that
> label; many African women similarly object to naming a
> practice which they describe in local terms as “the
> celebration” or the “purification” or the “cleansing” or the
> “beautification” as “the mutilation”. Notably in most ethnic
> groups where female genital surgeries are customary, male
> genital surgeries are customary as well and are named with
> the same terms.
> 
> Charles calls for a dispassionate factual examination of the
> risks and consequences of female genital surgeries. Fact
> checking has not been the strong suit of anti-“FGM” advocacy
> groups or of the American press. Indeed, the press in general
> has served as an effective outlet for the advocacy groups and
> has kept itself innocent of available sources of information
> that run counter to the received horror arousing story-line
> about barbaric or ignorant or victimized Africans who maim,
> murder, and disfigure their daughters and deprive them of a
> capacity to experience sexual pleasure. With rare exceptions,
> the only African women who have been given a direct voice and
> allowed to speak for themselves in our media are those who
> oppose the practice.
> 
> For example, in recent years there have been two major
> scientific reviews of the medical literature and an exemplary
> Gambia-based research study, which have raised serious doubts
> about the supposed effects on mortality, morbidity and
> sexuality that are so often attributed to these customary
> surgeries; yet, as far as I know, there has been absolutely
> no mention of these reviews and studies in any American
> newspaper or on NPR, although one might have thought they
> were sufficiently eye-opening and significant to warrant
> media coverage.
> 
> Any reasonably objective assessment of the risks and
> consequences of female genital surgeries should begin with
> the epidemiologist and medical anthropologist Carla
> Obermeyer’s comprehensive and critical reviews of the medical
> and demographic evidence on the topic (published in the
> journal Medical Anthropology Quarterly). Her first
> publication reviews and critiques the available literature on
> female genital surgeries through 1996; her second publication
> reviews the subsequent literature from 1997-2002. The third
> key source is a research report by Linda Morison and her
> Medical Research Council team published in 2001 in the
> journal Tropical Medicine and International Health. That
> research, conducted in the Gambia, is the most systematic,
> comprehensive and controlled investigation of the health
> consequences of female genital modifications yet to be
> conducted.
> 
> This is what Carla Obermeyer says in her first comprehensive
> review. “On the basis of the vast literature on the harmful
> effects of genital surgeries, one might have anticipated
> finding a wealth of studies that document considerable
> increases in mortality and morbidity. This review could find
> no incontrovertible evidence on mortality, and the rate of
> medical complications suggest that they are the exception
> rather than the rule.” …“In fact, studies that systematically
> investigate the sexual feelings of women and men in societies
> where genital surgeries are found are rare, and the scant
> information that is available calls into question the
> assertion that female genital surgeries are fundamentally
> antithetical to women’s sexuality and incompatible with
> sexual enjoyment.”
> 
> Perhaps the most scientifically rigorous and large-scale
> study of the medical consequences of female genital surgeries
> in Africa is the Morison et al Gambia study. In the Gambia a
> customary genital surgery typically involves an excision of
> the visible or protruding part of the clitoris and either a
> partial or complete excision of the labia minora. (It is
> important to note that the visible part of the clitoris,
> which many African women view as an unbidden, unwanted, ugly
> and vestigial male-like element that should be removed for
> the sake of gender appropriate bodily integrity and a sense
> of mental well-being, is not the entire tissue structure of
> the clitoris and much of that tissue structure, a good deal
> of which is not visible and protruding but is rather
> subcutaneous, remains even after the surgery, which may
> explain why “circumcised” women remain sexual and have
> orgasms.)
> 
> The Morison et al study systematically compared “circumcised”
> with “uncircumcised” women. More than 1,100 women (ages
> fifteen to fifty-four) from three ethnic groups (Mandinka,
> Wolof, and Fula) were interviewed and also given
> gynecological examinations and laboratory tests. This is rare
> data in the annals of the literature on the consequences of
> female genital surgeries.
> 
> Overall, very few differences were discovered in the
> reproductive health status of “circumcised” versus
> “uncircumcised” women. Forty-three percent of women who were
> “uncircumcised” reported menstrual problems compared to 33%
> for “circumcised” women but the difference was not
> statistically significant. Fifty-six percent of women who
> were “uncircumcised” had a damaged perineum compared to 62%
> for “circumcised” women, but again the difference was not
> statistically significant. There were a small number of
> statistically significant differences – for example, more
> syphilis (although not a lot of syphilis) among
> “uncircumcised” women, and a higher level of herpes and one
> particular kind of bacterial infection among women who were
> “circumcised.”
> 
> But in general, from the point of view of reproductive health
> consequences there was not much to write home about. As noted
> in the research report, the supposed morbidities (such as
> infertility, painful sex, vulval tumors, menstrual problems,
> incontinence and most endogenous infections) often cited by
> anti-“fgm” advocacy groups as common long-term problems of
> “fgm” did not distinguish women who had the surgery from
> those who had not. Yes, 10% of circumcised Gambian women in
> the study were infertile, but the level of infertility was
> exactly the same for the “uncircumcised” Gambian women in the
> study. The authors caution anti-“FGM” activists against
> exaggerating the morbidity and mortality risks of the
> practice. In addition, circumcised Gambian women expressed
> high levels of support for the practice; and the authors of
> the study write: “When women in our study were asked about
> the most recent circumcision operation undergone by a
> daughter, none reported any problems.”
> 
> My conclusion from reading those three publications is that
> the harmful practice claim has been highly exaggerated and
> that many of the representations in the advocacy literature
> and the popular press are nearly as fanciful as they are
> nightmarish. A close and critical reading of the much
> publicized 2006 Lancet publication of the “WHO Study Group on
> Female Genital Mutilation,” which received widespread,
> immediate and sensationalize coverage in the press because of
> its purported claims about infant and maternal mortality
> during the hospital birth process, suggests to me that again
> there is not very much to write home about.
> 
> In that WHO study, not a single statistically significant
> difference was found between those who had a “type 1” genital
> surgery versus no surgery; no statistically significant
> differences were found between those who had no genital
> surgeries and those who had type 1, 2 or 3 genital surgeries
> for the best predictor of infant health, namely birth weight;
> the perinatal death rate for the actual women in the sample
> who had a “type 3” surgery was in fact lower (193 infant
> deaths out of 6595 births) than those who had no surgery at
> all (296 deaths out of 7171 births) and only became
> statistically significant in a negative direction through
> non-transparent statistical manipulation of the data; the
> study collected data on women across six nations but never
> displayed the within nation results; there was no direct
> control for the quality of health care available for
> “circumcised” versus “uncircumcised” women; the sample was
> unrepresentative of the whole population; and in general any
> reported increased risk for genital surgery was astonishingly
> small and hardly a mandate for an eradication rather than a
> public health program.
> 
> The best evidence available at the moment suggests to me that
> the anthropologist Robert Edgerton basically had it right
> when he wrote about the Kenyan practice in the 1920s and
> 1930s as a crucible in which it is not just the courage of
> males but also the courage of females that gets tested:
> “…most girls bore it bravely and few suffered serious
> infection or injury as a result. Circumcised women did not
> lose their ability to enjoy sexual relations, nor was their
> child-bearing capacity diminished. Nevertheless the practice
> offended Christian sensibilities”. As Charles put it in his
> comment: “Personal revulsion is not a good basis for making
> general policy.”
> 
> It is noteworthy, perhaps even astonishing, that in the
> community of typically liberal, skeptical and critical
> readers of the Times there has been such a ready acceptance
> of the anti-FGM advocacy groups’ representations of family
> and social life in Africa as dark, brutal, primitive,
> barbaric, and unquestionably beyond the pale. Many
> commentators are confident that when it comes to this topic
> no debate is necessary.
> 
> One witnesses the ready assumption that any deliberate
> modification of the female (and even the male) anatomy is an
> example of oppression or torture (as though we should begin
> describing the Jewish practice as “male genital mutilation”)
> and that these coming-of-age and gender identity or group
> identity ceremonies of African mothers should be placed on
> the list of absolute evils along with cannibalism and
> slavery. At the panel on “Zero Tolerance” policies held on
> Saturday at the American Anthropological Association meeting,
> one of the participants Zeinab Eyega, who runs an NGO
> concerned with the welfare of African immigrants in the USA,
> noted that these days in New York “the pain of hearing
> yourself described is more painful than being cut.”
> 
> The anthropologist Clifford Geertz once wrote: “Rushing to
> judgment is more than a mistake, it is a crime.” For those
> who are prepared to be slower to judge and learn more about
> the topic, have a look at my own first detailed attempt to
> come to terms with this type of cultural difference and to
> address many of the issues raised by the commentaries– an
> essay titled “What About ‘Female Genital Mutilation’: And Why
> Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place”, available
> here.
> 
> Readers can find other scholarly treatments of this topic in “Female
> ‘Circumcision’
> 
> 
> Fuambai Sia Ahmadu
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L 
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: 
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?
S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 
> 
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L 
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: 
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?
S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 
> 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤