Cultural diplomacy tutorial case study Part 1

I was listening to a talk show, and there was, by one of the guests, a mention of what he thought was an ironic contrast. The commentator was annoyed that some people make "value judgments" regarding "gay marriage" while the "same people" are "silent" about issues such as "female genital mutilation." Whoa, that really got my attention, since he did a bit of a rant about female genital mutilation (also incorrectly called female circumcision), accusing liberals of being soft on horrors such as this that he says they rationalize by calling it a "cultural" context. So I realized here is a great case study about cultural diplomacy.

Let me start by saying that female genital mutilation is never right, it is an abomination, it is not rationalized at all in the Qur'an, and it sprang up as a local cult belief among some tribal regions in Africa. I do not agree that either side, liberals or conservatives, are ignoring this issue or giving it a cultural "free pass." I do not agree AT ALL. I've seen great work and education by both "sides" of the western political persuasions. But here is what is missing. Both sides lack tools, understanding and adeptness at how to conduct cultural diplomacy.

Once a practice has taken root over hundreds of years, one cannot go in and argue that it had no legitimate foundation since unfortunately, there it is, and often large parts of the ethnic society are now structured around this belief. So even if you bring in Muslim scholars and elders to dispute the practice, that often is not a help except to guide when a decision has been made to actually stop the practice. In other words, religious leaders and elders from other villages or tribes can help facilitate the change and problem solve the process once agreement is made to abandon the practice. So how does one get a village, just to use an example, to abandon the practice?

The most common error by Westerners is to not 1) identify what cultural value the village is attempting to protect through the practice and then 2) propose an alternative activity or solution that protects the value without continuing the practice. Westerners often let themselves be blinded by the horror of what is being done, without considering what "horror" the traditionalists are seeking to avoid. Here is what I would do.

First of all, I would identify what cultural value they believe female circumcision is promoting or protecting. It is obvious that dialogue would reveal that the value they are attempting to protect is a girl or young woman's virtue. Many of these customs developed because they believe that 1) if sexual delight is destroyed in a girl that she will not have extra-marital sex and thus 2) in the marriage contract men can be assured she is a virgin and that she will not stray in marriage. As a result they do draconian things such as not only removing the clitoris, but they also actually sew up the vaginal openings of girls, barely allowing urine or menstrual blood to pass through. Needless to say childbirth and all natural functions become painful, infected and life endangering.

Arguing that this is unhealthy, painful, cruel and not a guarantee of virtue is mostly futile, since all the elders have to reply is "Well, we are still here, are we not?" So long as the population thrive, they will be fearful to remove even the most draconian practice. Westerners have no valid answer to the argument that their population is thriving (even with misery). Thus, what I would recommend is to agree that virtue is a valued and prized objective, and propose alternative ways to achieve it than female circumcision. Rarely do you get anywhere by jerking the rug out from under them, convincing them that it is "wrong," but then not replacing it with a new and powerful cultural practice that is consistent with their beliefs.

An example of an alternative is to propose that they create a system of "virtue chaperons" that girls can join at the age when circumcision would have been performed. Women, such as teachers or elders, could have a responsibility for monitoring the virtue of young girls who are joined with them in such a relationship. For example, a girl could be offered the alternative, circumcision or joining this kind of virtue guardianship. So while a girl might give up some privacy (perhaps agreeing to forgo some activities that circumcised girls could attend), she can avoid being circumcised. When the village has had a chance to see side by side girls who opt traditional and those who opt for the new virtue guardianship, and see that it works, they will not fear putting circumcision aside. Remember, those cultures have different views of privacy than westerners. Young girls would not mind an "auntie" kind of "virtue guardianship," even after they are married. Good health practices can also be taught, but be careful not to dive into western birth control and other ideas if they are not welcomed yet at that time. But what I am saying is that the virtue guardians can have a warm role, such as helping with a young girl's health questions, helping with babies when she is first married, that is more than a compensation for the "lack" of privacy, that is questionable in its cultural context anyway.

Young men, potential suitors, would be more likely to value a young girl with a certification of virtue guardianship than one that is suffering and mutilated. Once trust is established that virtue is being monitored (and the virtue guardians provide genuine helping hands to the young couple and family), it becomes win-win for all, while still preserving the cultural imperative to protect virtue.

I hope that you have found this case study of cultural diplomacy to be useful.