Judging the other. Responding to traditional female genital surgeries.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

80 Scopus citations

Abstract

Traditional female genital circumcision, or female genital mutilation, performed upon women in some non-Western cultures has provoked considerable international controversy since the late 1970s. Western feminists, physicians, and ethicists condemn such practice. Having made moral judgement against female genital mutilation, however, what is the next step? There is clearly an impasse between cultural relativism on the one hand and universalism on the other. Those at the forefront of the debate on female genital mutilation must learn to work respectfully with, instead of independently of, local resources for cultural self-examination and change. The authors discuss cultural relativism and moral universalism; female circumcision in sections on epidemiology, health effects, and culture, religion, and social change; the debate historically; the response of Arab and African women; and moving beyond the impasse.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Hastings Center report
Pages31-40
Number of pages10
DOIs
StatePublished - 1996

Publication series

NameThe Hastings Center report
Volume26

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Female Genital Mutilation
  • Health Care and Public Health
  • Literature Review
  • Twentieth Century

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Judging the other. Responding to traditional female genital surgeries.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Lane, S. D., & Rubinstein, R. A. (1996). Judging the other. Responding to traditional female genital surgeries. In The Hastings Center report (pp. 31-40). (The Hastings Center report; Vol. 26). https://doi.org/10.2307/3527930