Female Genital Mutilation as a Social Norm
Exploring Whether the Practise of Female Genital Mutilation
can be Considered a Social Norm
Astrid Noresson
Human Rights Bachelor Thesis 12 credits
Spring semester 2020
Abstract
A considerable amount of scholars, researchers and international actors have labeled the practise of female genital mutilation (FGM) a social norm, a large majority of these have failed to consider why they have made such a classification. This thesis investigates whether considering FGM a social norm is justifiable. This is done by applying the practise to Cristina Bicchieri’s model for diagnosing collective behaviour. The material which is used include quantitative data derived from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), as well as qualitative data in the form of previously conducted interviews. The social norms theory, and secondary analysis as a method, are used. Applying the practise of FGM to Bicchieri’s model showed that FGM fulfills the criteria suggested by the model which indicates that a collective practise is a social norm, which led to the conclusion that FGM can be justifiably considered a social norm.
Keywords: Human Rights, Social Norms, Female Genital Mutilation, Cristina Bicchieri Word Count: 13 301
Table of Content
List of Abbreviations 3
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Aim and Research Question 4
1.2 Relevance to Human Rights and the Research Field 5
1.3 Delimitations 7
1.4 Methodology 8
1.5 Material 9
1.6 Disposition 11
2. Background 12
2.1 Female Genital Mutilation 12
2.1.2 Reasons Behind FGM as Expressed by International Actors 13
2.2 Terminological Considerations 14
2.3 Previous Research on Social Norms 15
3. Theoretical Framework 18
3.1 Social norms theory 18
3.1.1 Bicchieri’s Model for Diagnosing Collective Behaviours 18
3.1.1.1 Conditional Preferences 20
3.1.1.2 Empirical and Normative Expectations 20
3.1.2 Different Kinds of Collective Behaviour 21
3.1.3 Pluralistic Ignorance 22
3.1.4 Responses to Deviating from Social Norms 23
3.2 How the Theory will be Applied 23
4. Analysis 24
4.1 Considerations Prior to Theory Application 24
4.2 Theory application 25
4.2.1 Conditional Preferences 26
4.2.2 Empirical and Normative Expectations 27
5. Conclusion 31
5.1 Discussion and Concluding Remarks 31
5.2 Significance of the Result 34
5.3 Further Research 34
List of Abbreviations
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination against Women
DHS Demographic and Health Surveys
FGM Female Genital Mutilation
FGM/C Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
ICCPR Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR Covenant on Economic, social and
Cultural rights
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International
Development
WHO World Health Organisation
1. Introduction
All people are members part of a social group, and within each of these groups there are certain standards, expectations and rules which the members have to abide by (Stok and de Ridder 2019:1). These mainly take form of either customs, descriptive norms, or social norms (Bicchieri 2017:4). There are different kinds of consequences for a member of a collective group who does not conform to these collective behaviours, at times insignificant, and other times grave. The depth of these consequences depend on the type of collective behaviour it is attached to. While the consequences of not conforming to a custom might be lenient, not conforming to a social norm might result in much graver sanctions (Cislaghi and Heise 2018:2). In psychology, it is generally considered that social norms are one of the essential drivers of human behaviour. People may be influenced by others because the behaviour of those around provides information about the normal, usual, or correct way to behave in a given situation. This affect how people behave since humans are generally motivated to be accurate (Stok and de Ridder 2019:2-4). Whenever individuals enter any environment, they have to decide how to behave, and most people look for what others consider normal in said environment (Bicchieri 2006:16). Defining what type of collective behaviour a certain practise is can be of great importance, partly for attempting to understand how a behaviour is built up, how it functions and why there are people conforming to it, and partly for contributing to the shaping of the most appropriate approaches to them. This is the case especially if the collective behaviour is damaging to individuals, and if it is a violation of human rights (Bicchieri 2017:37).
1.1 Aim and Research Question
The topic of this thesis concerns how the practise of female genital mutilation (FGM) as a collective behaviour is viewed and approached. The idea for this thesis sprung while reading material on approaches to end the practise. Many of the writers and researchers, there among Mackie and LeJeune (2009), Gillespie and Melching (2010), and Easton et al. (2003), started off with the assumption of FGM being a social norm, and many also discussed what this classification meant for the approaches aimed to abolish the practise. This was the case despite nearly all of the writers and researchers failing to discuss why they classify FGM a social norm. Additionally, some of the largest international organisations working with FGM,
including the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World Health Organisation (WHO), have also characterised FGM a social norm (UNFPA and UNICEF 2017, WHO 2019). Thus began the idea for this research, namely exploring the inbetween of FGM as a collective practise, and FGM being approached as a social norm. In other words, looking into this why.
Cristina Bicchieri, social scientist who has focused most of her career developing a theory of social norms, wrote that “understanding the nature of collective behaviours and why people engage in them is critical for the design of appropriate interventions aimed at social change” (2017:1). Meaning, while claiming that FGM is a social norm for the purpose of designing approaches to end the practise might be of importance, it might be even more important to understand the reasons as to why a collective practise is considered a social norm in the first place. The research presented in this thesis will attempt to navigate among different types of collective behaviours, primarily looking into social norms and their characteristics, and conclusively determine whether FGM is to be considered a social norm, as so many scholars and organisations claim it is. Bicchieri’s development of the social norms theory, and a model for diagnosing collective behaviours, will be the primary tools for determining whether FGM is a social norm, or not. The research question for this thesis has been framed in the following way:
Can Female Genital Mutilation be considered a social norm?
Throughout the thesis, the method and theoretical framework, along with the chosen material, will attempt to answer this question A model on diagnosing collective behaviour, just mentioned, will be the primary tool for this, and will be presented under the section on theoretical framework.
1.2 Relevance to Human Rights and the Research Field
FGM of any type is internationally recognised as a harmful practise and a violation of the human rights of girls and women (UNFPA 2019). The practise gained international attention following the creation of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and was soon thereafter labeled as a form of violence against women (McChesney 2015:10). While there is currently no human rights instrument which directly concerns FGM, strong support for the protection of the rights of girls and women to
abandon FGM is found in both international and regional human rights treaties. International treaties include, among others, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), CEDAW, as well the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Among the regional treaties we find the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Banjul Charter) and its Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (WHO 2008). The practise of FGM violates a series of well-established human rights principles, norms and standards, including the right to health, to life and physical integrity, to non discrimination, and to be free from violence, and from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (UNFPA 2019).
Since FGM generally concerns children, there are certain areas of controversy involved surrounding its occuring. One such is the principle of the ‘best interest of the child’ as presented in article 3(1) of the UNCRC which suggests that whoever is in the care of a child should ensure what is in the child's best interest. The controversy of this principle is that there is nothing which shows what is meant by best interest, and who has the right to determine this (Archard 2004:62). Parents who decide to subject their daughters to FGM perceive that the benefits of the practise outweigh the risks involved. However, this perception does not justify the interference with and removal of healthy genital tissue which may have life-changing and life-threatening consequences. Another controversy surrounding the practise is that supporters of FGM may refer to the fact that the right to participate in cultural life and freedom of religion are protected under international law (WHO 2008). Despite this being the case, international law also stipulates that freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief might be subject to limitations necessary to protect the fundamental rights and freedom of others (ICCPR art 18.3). Therefore, such claims cannot justify FGM.
When it comes to the relevance to human rights to this specific research, this stretches beyond the practise of FGM simply being considered as a violation of human rights. There have been many approaches to abolish the practise in the past, some more and some less successful than others. For instance, following the rise of international attention towards FGM, and the many expressions of organisations and states of their dismissal of the practise, many of the practising countries implemented national legislation against FGM in order to
match these expressions (McChesney 2015:11). In 1996, for instance, the United States claimed that they would cut funding for any country practising FGM that did not implement national legislation, leading to even the most reluctant states banning the practise (Boyle et al. 2002:19). Several years later, the WHO (1999) reported that despite national legislation in place, the prevalence of FGM remained unchanged to a large extent. Many scholars, among them McChesney (2015), Boyle et al. (2002), Shell-Duncan (2008), and Cislaghi and Heise (2018), have expressed the importance of seeking an understanding of the reasons, or rather factors, behind the occurrence of FGM in order to implement approaches for its abolishment that will have an actual effect. If no attempt of understanding is made, approaches to end the practice will, to a large extent, be unsuccessful (McChesney 2015:20).
Understanding FGM as a social norm will affect how the practise is approached, and will ultimately affect the work towards abolishing a practise which is internationally recognised as a human rights violation. While this research will not concern which approach or approaches that are most appropriate to abolish this human rights violation, investigating whether it is in fact a social norm will determine if it should be approached as such, or not. By investigating what kind of collective behaviour FGM is, it is hoped that this research will contribute to decisions of how to best approach the practise in the future.
1.3 Delimitations
The following research will concern FGM as a phenomenon in general . Here, general is referred to an overarching view of the practise in countries where FGM is most commonly practise, and not further limited to a certain geographical area. When the work was initiated, it was found that a large majority of authors and researches of material on FGM labeled the practise as a social norm, an assumption they made without making any considerations as to why they recognised FGM as a social norm. These statements, and the attached work, were all made about FGM in general, claiming that FGM, as a phenomenon in whole, is a social norm. Examples of such statements are as follows, “Female genital mutilations as a social norm…” (Mackie and LeJeune 2009:3), “...FGM/C, and other social norms…” (Gillespie and Melching 2010:478), and “The practise [of FGM] seen as a social norm…” (Easton et al. 2003:456). For this reason, the research presented in this paper will also consider the practise in its general terms. It is understood, and considered, that the reasoning behind FGM will look vastly different from individual to individual and from community to community, and
that there is no single group of factors contributing to the occurrence. With that said, material which will be used for the purpose of analysis are bound to provide an overarching view of the practise, and any conclusion will be drawn from this material. The material and its origin will be discussed further below.
The option of choosing one country, or a few, was also considered, though deemed not feasible. It would have been difficult to carry out the purpose of the research while limiting the analysis to this scope. This is the case mainly because similar prevalence levels of FGM extend across national borders, meaning the prevalence does not alternate depending on boundaries between countries but rather by regions which overlap borders (DHS, MICS and SHHS, 1997-2011, through UNICEF 2013:32). For this reason, analysing one country, or a few, would not have been logically coherent seeing as it would not give a picture which would justify the purpose of the research. Choosing to look into only one country, for instance Senegal, and framing the research question as “Is the practise of FGM in Senegal a social norm” would defy the aim of the research, and not contribute as much to the research field as the research which will focus on FGM in general. Lastly, it was determined that the analysis will only consider factors behind the occurrence of FGM which are of relevance to the actual research. Meaning, factors which will be relevant to analysing the practise through the chosen theoretical model, presented further on. These include factors which determine whether there are normative and empirical motivators behind people conforming to FGM. Other factors will thereby not be looked at as closely.
1.4 Methodology
The method which will be used for the purpose of this research is a secondary analysis. Secondary analysis is the empirical analysis of data which has already been collected in some form in a previously conducted study by a different researcher. The purpose of a secondary analysis is to yield further information than what was presented in the initial research, normally wishing to address a new research question. Data used for a secondary analysis can either be derived from a single dataset, a single dataset complemented with data from other sources, of from multiple datasets which may be analysed in combination (Bulmer et al. 2013:16-19). Material used for the purpose of this research will be derived from multiple datasets, which will be of a quantitative kind, as well as material from other more qualitative sources, such as previously conducted interviews. Considerations of material will be
presented in the upcoming section. One of the risks of analysing collective behaviour, especially when it is done by analysing material which has not been collected first-hand, is that the material might be misinterpreted by the researcher (Bicchieri 2017:45). Further considerations of the data will be presented in the following section, which discusses the material that will be used for the purpose of the research. Additionally, the writings of Mackie et al. (2015), on how to interpret data, specifically the section “Simple Indicators on DHS or MICS Suggesting the Presence of a Social Norm”, will be used throughout the analysis while discussing the implications of the analysed material.
A secondary analysis for the purpose of the research was chosen because it is believed to be the method which will give the most clear view of FGM in general, by that enabling a conclusion of the research question which cover the practise in general. The material used, presented shortly, will give an extensive view of FGM in the countries where it is practised, as well as the attitudes of those who conform to it. Considering the reliability of the research for the purpose of the research question, the conclusions derived from this work would have been strengthened in their trustworthiness had this been a primary data-driven research as opposed to a secondary analysis. The limitations of both time and space of this research prevents this. For that reason, the conclusions will have to rely on the method and material as it is, and possibly give way for a more intricate and thorough study sometime in the future. Further research will be considered in the very end of this thesis.
1.5 Material
Material that will be used throughout this research was chosen because it provides a clear and general view of the practise of FGM in countries where it is most commonly practised. The material is both quantitative and qualitative, as well as from a macro perspective and a micro perspective. The main source of quantitative material on figures of prevalence of FGM, and attitudes towards the practise, has been derived from UNICEF’s official data website (www.data.unicef.org). On said website, documents on prevalence and support of the practise, by girls and women as well as boys and men, were found. These documents were comprised by UNICEF based on data collected by Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), supported by UNICEF. The DHS Program has been active since 1984, with the financial support of the USAID. Since then, the program has
assisted more than 400 surveys in over 90 countries, and focus most their work on what they call “major household surveys”, which are surveys conducted in individuals’ households in widespread areas (DHS 2019). MICS, in turn, is the largest source of statistically sound and internationally comparable data on women and children worldwide. Since their first survey in 1995, more than 300 MICS have been carried out in more than 100 countries (MICS 2019). All data derived from DHS and MICS and used throughout the research are nationally representative. Meaning the data derived represents a picture of the state of things on a national level. In addition to the material derived from the official data website, UNICEF’s report “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Overview and Exploration of the Dynamics of Change” (2013) will also be used. While this source does not give the most recent statistical information and overview of FGM, it is the most recent such comprehensive report on FGM. It was based on data, conducted by DHS and MICS, from more than 70 nationally representative surveys over a 20-year period, prior to 2013 (UNICEF 2013). From the report, methods of interpreting and analysing data is what will be primarily used in the analysis, as well as comprehensive summaries of data prior to 2013. These sets of material, provided by DHS and MICS is what will, eventually, provide a view of FGM, in general terms, from a macro perspective.
When it comes to the micro perspective, material will be derived from previously conducted interviews with individuals, in groups or on their own, who have experience with the practise of FGM, as well as persons who have in some way worked with FGM closely, through organisations that work with the practise. These interviews have been conducted either in the individuals’ home country, or somewhere else. The birthplaces of the participants, where they have experienced FGM, varies. One source of material included semi-structured interviews conducted in Canada of 14 women from Somalia (Jacobson et al. 2018), while another included 18 in-depth interviews and 12 focus group discussions with women and men in the Pusiga District of Ghana (Sakeah et al. 2019). These specific studies were chosen primarily because of the professionalism of the individuals behind the research. Each of the studies presented sections on thorough ethical considerations, and made note of the importance of interpretive prerogative of the participants.
One risk of using material such as surveys and interviews, is that the participants may not have answered truthfully, as in, they may have given the answer they thought that the interviewer wanted. From this perspective, the material may appear unreliable. However,
when a large majority of participants give the same, or similar answers, one may take this as an indication of the answer having some truth to it, thereby giving a trustworthy view of reality (Mackie et al. 2015:61). The purpose of working with such different material, as in both qualitative and quantitative, is to get a view of the topic from different levels of perspective, both of FGM as an overlapping phenomenon, through the DHS and MICS data, and of FGM as something individually experienced, through the previously conducted interviews. This will ultimately provide a comprehensive understanding of the practise which extends over individuals as well as large groups of persons. While the reasons as to why people conform to the practise of FGM varies from region to region and over time, and include a mix of sociocultural factors within different families and communities (WHO 2020), the material used for this research is based on a large number of surveys and researches conducted in a wide set of communities overlapping the countries where FGM is most commonly practised. Therefore, the material used will be able to provide a reliable overview of FGM in general, as well as an insight into some individuals’ own experiences with the practise. There are evidently differences in the material, as will show, and these will be discussed and considered through the analysis.
1.6 Disposition
Following this introduction, a chapter on background will present information about FGM as a practise, reasons behind the practise as seen by international actors, as well as terminology and concept discussion. The previous research will discuss writings on social norms and social norm theory, followed by a chapter on theoretical framework which will present the theory that was used throughout this research. The theory section will include the chosen theory, and its main model that is used in the analysis, being Bicchieri’s model on diagnosing collective behaviours. This section is divided into smaller parts to easier explain the theory. Following this chapter, the analysis will be presented, where the theoretical model is applied to the practise of FGM. This chapter is divided into two main parts, with a third initial one discussing considerations prior to the theory application. The thesis will be concluded with a conclusion chapter, including discussions of significance of the findings, as well as further research. Lastly, a list of references can be found.
2. Background
2.1 Female Genital Mutilation
WHO has estimated that more than 200 million girls and women alive today have experienced FGM in countries where the practise is most common. Each year, three million girls are estimated to be subjected to the practise, most commonly in the ages between infancy and 15 years old. The practise is, by WHO, defined as an act which “comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” (WHO 2019). There are four major classifications of FGM, within these there are also sub-groups created to more easily distinguish the many different varieties of procedures. The following classifications are presented in an order ranked from the one with the least amount of direct physical damage, type I, to the type which causes most intense direct physical damage, type III. Here, direct damage is referring to damage caused during the actual procedure. A fourth classification, type IV, refers to all other harmful procedures performed to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, exclusively or in addition to any of the first three types. Examples of procedures under type IV include prickling, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing (burning ) the genital area (Ibid.).
Type I
Referred to as cliteridectomy. This type include either partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitalia), and in some rare cases only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) (WHO 2020).
Type II
Referred to as excision. Includes partial or total removal of the clitoris, as well as the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva). This type could also include excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of the vulva) (WHO 2020).
Type III
Referred to as infibulation. This is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is created by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora. This is performed with or without the removal of the clitoris (cliteridectomy) (WHO 2020).
UNICEF (2019), WHO (2020) and various other health- and human rights organisations have claimed that FGM does not have any health benefits for those who experience the practise. On the contrary, it harms girls and women in many ways, both physical and psychological. The practise involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interfere with the natural functions of girls’ and women’s bodies. The immediate consequences of FGM include severe pain and bleeding, chock, infection, and in some cases, due to severe bleeding, death. These are oftentimes experiences for the weeks following the procedure, and in addition to them there are many additional long-term effects as well. These include painful urination, menstrual problems, thick scars that may lead to severe pain (keloids), and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The practise may also lead to infections, which in turn could cause cysts in the vaginal area, chronic back- and pelvis-pain, as well as infections of the kidney. Damage to or removal of sensitive genital tissue might also affect sexual sensitivity and lead to sexual problems. Beyond the physical effects of FGM, there are high risks of the person subjected to the procedure developing severe psychological diseases, including anxiety disorders, depression, and Posttraumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). However, it has been claimed that the cultural significance of the procedure could possibly protect the persons subjected to some extent (WHO 2019).
The practise of FGM is found most commonly practised in 29 countries in Africa, with wide variations in the percentages of girls and women who have been subjected, both within and across countries. Although FGM is most concentrated in northern Africa, it is also practised in areas of the Middle East, such as Iraq and Yemen, and in some countries in Asia, as Indonesia and the Maldives. The practice is almost universal in Somalia, Guinea and Djibouti, with a prevalence of over 90 percent, while it only affects up to 1 percent of girls and women in Cameroon and Uganda (UNICEF 2019). Of the 29 countries in Africa where FGM is most commonly practised, 26 have laws prohibiting FGM. Here, penalties range from monetary fines to a minimum of three months to life in prison (WHO 2019).
2.1.2 Reasons Behind FGM as Expressed by International Actors
While the reasons for practising FGM are many, some of the largest international actors that are, and have been, involved in the work towards its abolishment, including WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and Plan International, have summarised what they believe are the strongest
contributing factors to people conforming to FGM. The most commonly recognised factors among these actors are: sexual suppression, as an attempt to control female sexual desires; religious beliefs, people believing that FGM is required by their religion; social expectations, FGM is considered a rite of passage for girls to enter adulthood; and feeling pressure from community and family, meaning people feel pressure to conform to the practise because it is so strongly intertwined into the traditions of communities (WHO 2020, UNICEF 2019, UNFPA 2019, Plan International 2017). WHO (2020) and UNICEF (2019) also stress how FGM in many cases ensures marriageability, which is a determining factor for ensuring financial safety for girls, and that the practise should be considered a social norm. Economic pressure is also brought forth by Plan International (2017) as well as UNFPA (2019). WHO (2020) claim that many of those who conform to FGM do so because they are copying the people around them, and Plan International (2017) express how the national laws that should protect girls and women from FGM are not properly enforced.
The purpose of presenting the reasons behind FGM as they are seen by international actors is to produce an overview of how the causes of the practise is seen by the international arena. WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and Plan International are all widely recognised as trustworthy international actors, sometimes even as the mediator between the Western world and what is sometimes viewed as the developing world (Sands and Klein 2009:18-19). Therefore, the factors behind the practise of FGM, as seen by these actors, are worth to bring forth and have in mind, despite not using these for the purpose of the research. These will not be considered further, seeing as it is preferred to use data throughout the analysis which has been derived from those who have first-hand experiences with the practice.
2.2 Terminological Considerations
In 1991, the WHO recommended that the United Nations, with its associated agencies, adopted “female genital mutilation” as the official term for the practise, which has since then been what most health and human rights organisations use. This has conjured a lot of objections because of the harshness of the word “mutilation”, which points at condemnation of what is a very old and important practice in many communities. For this purpose, the word has more and more frequently been replaced by the word “cutting”, in attempts to make the term more culturally sensitive (UNFPA 2019). When FGM first gained international attention, prior to 1991, it was generally known and referred to as “female circumcision”.
This term has been criticized seeing as it suggests that the practise can be considered similar to male circumcision even though there are clear distinctions which separate them from one another. Comparing FGM to male circumcision suggests that the physical and psychological effects of the two are similar, which is unmistakable wrong seeing as type III of FGM (see above) would equal a male’s glans and part of penis being removed (Horowitz and Jackson 1997). Throughout this paper the term, or rather the acronym, for female genital mutilation will be used seeing as is is what most international organisations have adopted and are using. The word cut, as well as the phrase subjected to, will be used to describe when persons have had experiences with the practise. For instance, “girls and women subjected to the practise”.
While these wordings might indicate some underlying attitude towards the practise, this is under no circumstance the intention.
2.3 Previous Research on Social Norms
Seeing as the writings on the connection between social norms and FGM is remarkably scarce, this section on previous research will present previous research conducted of the field of social norms, specifically the theoretical frameworks developed within this field. The purpose of this section is to provide a general overview of theories related to social norms prior to presenting the theoretical framework which will be used for the research. The theory used for the research will be presented following this section. This section will serve as a research overview of theoretical frameworks on social norms.
Theoretical and empirical literature on social norms has been developed within sociology, anthropology, social and moral psychology, economics, law, political science, and health sciences. Definitions across these disciplines vary and it is not uncommon that they contradict one another (Cislaghi and Heise 2018:2). Throughout this section, some of the most commonly recognised theoretical frameworks for social norms will be considered and summed up. A social norm is what people within a group believe to be the normal, or most appropriate, way of acting in that group. The social norm is held in place by mutual expectation of the people within the group (Mackie et al. 2015:7-8). While social norms are almost always unwritten, they tend to be deeply institutionalized in the group, and fully internalized by the members of the group (Stok and de Ridder 2019:95). There are many different reasons as to why people conform to social norms. Some of the more common ones are because people are uncertain about what is the best behaviour to achieve something in a
given situation, or because they anticipate a reward or sanctions for acting in a certain way (Cislaghi et al. 2019:6). These rewards and sanctions normally affect a person’s social status within the group they belong to by, for instance, either including them in or excluding them from social belonging (Mackie and Lejeune 2009:12). In the following paragraphs, some of the most common theoretical frameworks on social norms will be presented. The purpose of this is to present an overview of theories of social norms prior to presenting the main theory which will be used throughout this paper.
While the concept of social norms received a great amount of critique for being too vague and overgeneralized, Cialdini, Reno and Kallgren introduced a theoretical refinement of the concept, which resulted in the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct. The introduction of this theory led to a clear distinction between two different types of social norms: descriptive and injunctive (Stok and de Ridder 2019:2). Descriptive norms refer to what most people do, what the typical behaviour is, in a certain situation. In turn, injunctive norms refer to what people believe ought to be done, what is socially approved or disapproves of (Lapinski 2005:129-130). These kinds of norms may influence how people behave since the expectations of others provide information about the appropriate or desired way to behave in a certain situation. To a large extent, this is because people are generally motivated to affiliate with others (Stok and de Ridder 2019:4). While both types of norms promote behaviours by providing information about what is adaptive behaviour in a given situation, descriptive norms provide information about what is done, and injunctive about what ought to be done (Lapinski 2005:130) At times, descriptive and injunctive norms are aligned and function parallelly. In these cases, what people believe ought to be done is also what is being done (Stok and de Ridder 2019:4). However, the two types do not always overlap, as for instance when someone approves of, but does not participate in, particular behaviours (Lapinski 2005:130).
In addition to the distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms, Lapinski (2005) also favours the distinction between collective and perceived norms. Here, collective norms are those norms which exist at the collective level. They serve as prevailing codes of conduct that either prescribe or proscribe certain behaviours. Perceived norms, in turn, are people’s interpretation of collective norms. Since collective norms are not often formally codified, it is likely that these interpretations will vary from person to person. While collective norms function at the level of the social system, and are developed through shared
interaction among members of a community or social group, perceived norms exist at the individual, psychological level. Because of this, measuring these respective kinds of norms will look different. To measure collective norms, one has to look at a collection of data collected as the social level. Perceived norms are measured by looking into individuals’ personal interpretations of norms (Lapinski 2005:128-130). While this distinction per se is not a theory of social norms, it contributes to the mapping of social norms in general.
A framework which can be used to represent the essential elements of the social situation surrounding a norm is that of game theory. Although the idea of game theory first began to take form several centuries ago, modern game theory may be said to begin with the work of Zermelo, Borel, or Neumann. It can be defined as “the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers” (Myerson 1997:1). The basics of the theory is that people, seen here as players, make decisions about their actions depending on the actions of players in their vicinity. In a larger group, the choice of each depends on the choice of all. This means that the actions of each of the players in the game are interdependent - depending on actions of other players. Mackie et al. finds that game-theoretic analysis shows that under some circumstances, interacting humans find themselves in a state where they are unable to deviate from a behaviour because that behaviour is that which is practised by almost all players in the game (2015:19-22). Most who favour game theory are drawn to the position of the theory in the mathematical foundation of the social sciences (Myerson 1997:5).
Lastly, the social norms theory as developed by Berkowitz and Perkins shall also be mentioned, seeing as it was this version of the social norms theory that led to the theoretical framework which will be used throughout this research. The theory of social norms explains how people’s decisions and actions are heavily influenced by social circumstances. It is founded on that people make choices based on real, imagined, or implied behaviour of those around them. This was first coined Berkowitz and Perkins in the 1980s. At that point, the theory focused almost exclusively on people’s imagined perception of how people around them behaved (Berkowitz 2004:5-6). In this thesis, an altered version of the social norms theory will be used seeing as there are many assumptions about various social behaviours which are in fact not imagined. Thus, it appears improper to use Berkowitz and Perkins’ version of the theory since that would entail assuming that all people’s assumptions about the
practise of FGM is imagined. The following chapter will present the theory which will be used for the purpose of the research.
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1 Social norms theoryThe altered version of Berkowitz and Perkins’ social norms theory that will be used throughout this thesis is one developed by social scientist Bicchieri. Bicchieri, a professor of philosophy, has focused most of her research on how expectations affect behaviour, as well as the nature and evolution of social norms (Department of Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania 2020). Additionally, she has also been a consultant to UNICEF, where she advised various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other international actors on social norms and how to approach them (Bicchieri 2017:IX). Ever since the start of her work, Bicchieri has developed her own version of the social norms theory, continuously altering what has been brought forth by other scholars. By doing so, she has developed a set of “diagnostic tools”, or criterions, which can be used to determine whether a collective behaviour is a social norm, or not. These include conditional preferences and empirical and
normative expectations. A model for diagnosing collective behaviour has been developed, where these tools have been incorporated. Here, collective behaviour is generally identified as a mass behaviour of a group, or behavioural patterns of a group, whether organised or not (Bicchieri 2006:29). In this model, it is determined whether a collective behaviour is either a custom, moral rules or legal injunction, a descriptive norm, or a social norm. The purpose of using the social norms theory for this research is to use this model developed by Bicchieri, apply the practise of FGM to it, and ultimately determine whether the practise can be considered a social norm, thus answering the research question. The following sections will present the model, discuss different kinds of collective behaviour and the term pluralistic ignorance, and lastly consider how the theory will be applied in the research.
3.1.1 Bicchieri’s Model for Diagnosing Collective Behaviours
The model for diagnosing collective behaviour which Bicchieri has developed has been summarized in the following figure:
(Source: C. Bicchieri, Social Norms, Social Change. Penn-UNICEF Lecture, July 2012, through Bicchieri 2017:41, figure 1.2. ‘Diagnostic Process of Identifying Collective Behaviors’)
There are two diagnosing levels of the model. The first level determines whether a collective behaviour is carried out motivated by social expectations, or not. Here, customs, moral rules and legal injunctions are distinguished from descriptive and social norms. This level is in practise called conditional preferences. If a collective behaviour is motivated by social expectations, it moves down to the second level, empirical and normative expectations , where it is determined whether the behaviour is motivated only by empirical expectations, or normative expectations in addition to these. Thus, for a collective behaviour to be considered a social norms, the behaviour must follow the boxes on the right hand side of the model, criterion 1 and criterion 2. People have to prefer to conform to a behaviour because of social expectations, and they have to be motivated by both empirical and normative expectations-(Bicchieri 2017:41). The following two sections will present a description of what these two entail.
3.1.1.1 Conditional Preferences
The first criterion for a collective behaviour to be considered a social norm is to be motivated by social preferences. Preferences are dispositions to act in a certain way in a certain situation. Preference does not equal liking something better, it simply means choosing one thing over another in a particular situation ‘all things considered’. These may be individual, or social. Here, individual preferences entails only considering what one prefers irrespective of what others do. Social preferences, on the other hand, entail considering what others do in certain situations, and preferring to act the same way because of this. Social preferences that are based on social comparison can be unconditional , meaning one’s choice is not influenced by knowing how others act in similar situation or what they approve/disapprove of. They may also be conditional , meaning one makes choices based on expectations of what others do or believe should be done. Whether a behaviour is based on individual or conditional social preferences is what distinguishes a descriptive or social norm from a custom, shared moral rule or legal injunction. Therefore, determining whether a behaviour is based on individual or conditional, social preferences is the first step towards determining whether a collective behaviour is a social norm or not (Bicchieri 2017:6-11).
3.1.1.2 Empirical and Normative Expectations
Once the first criterion has been fulfilled, it must be considered whether a collective behaviour is motivated solely by empirical expectations, which would mean that it is a descriptive norm, or motivated by normative expectations as well, which would entail that it is a social norm. This is the second criterion. Expectations are beliefs about what is going to happen or what should happen. Social expectations are expectations (beliefs) about how other people behave and believe. Some of these beliefs are factual or empirical: beliefs about how others will act or react in certain situations. If people have reason to believe that others will continue to act as in the past, they have formed empirical expectations about those people's future behaviour. If these beliefs start to influence the decisions of a person, they have gone from non-normative non-social beliefs, to non-normative social beliefs. This is shown in the table presented below. Apart from these, there are beliefs which are normative. These can be both personal and social, just as those which are non-normative. Personal normative beliefs are people’s own ideas about what is correct/incorrect and positive/negative. Social normative expectations, in turn, are beliefs about what those around believe is the
correct/incorrect or positive/negative way of behaving - beliefs about what one ought to do in a certain situation (Bicchieri 2017:15-18). These distinctions are all important, and are showed in the following table:
Non-social beliefs Social beliefs
Non-normative beliefs Factual beliefs Empirical expectations Normative beliefs Personal normative beliefs Normative expectations
(Source: Bicchieri 2017:12, Table 1.2. ‘Classification Of Normative/Non-Normative and Social/Non-Social Beliefs’)
If someone conforms to a collective behaviour because of social normative expectations, this points at the behaviour being a social norm. Normative expectations do not necessarily trump empirical ones, and very often they coexist (Bicchieri 2006:14).
What has been presented in the previous two sections are the parts of Bicchieri’s model which FGM will be applied to in order to determine whether the practise can be considered a social norm. Both these criterions just presented needs to be fulfill in order for a collective behaviour to be considered a social norm. Prior to the start of the analysis, collective behaviours apart from social norms will be considered, along with considerations of pluralistic ignorance, and how the theory in its whole will be applied.
3.1.2 Different Kinds of Collective Behaviour
Bicchieri highlights the importance of considering the distinction between customs, descriptive norms and social norms, as these are the most common forms of collective behaviours, and are at times rather similar to one another. Seeing as the model developed by Bicchieri, which was just presented, aims at diagnosing which of these a collective behaviour is, it is therefore appropriate to consider some of the more evident differences between them. A custom is, by Bicchieri, defined as: “A pattern of behaviour such that individuals (unconditionally) prefer to conform to it because it meets their needs” (Bicchieri 2017:20) Here, the expectations people have of how others act in certain situations have little to do with how they themselves act in that very same situation. Their decisions and actions are unconditional to those around them. Not all customs are benign, and although collective
customs are independent actions, changing them introduces interdependencies. What specifically distinguished customs from social norms then is that people will conform to them regardless of what others think, and regardless of empirical and normative expectations. Descriptive norms, in turn, are what Bicchieri defines as: “A pattern of behaviour such that individuals prefer to conform to it on condition that they believe that most people in their reference network conform to it (empirical expectations)” (Ibid, 28). In the case of descriptive norms, people conform to them because of social and empirical expectations, but not because of normative ones (Ibid, 29).
Bicchieri described social norms as behaviours which are not only driven by a desire of people to imitate or coordinate with others, but motivated by approval, disapproval and the risk of sanctions. Social norms tell people how they ought to act. They are always (socially)
conditional in the sense that people’s preference for obeying them depend upon their expectation of collective compliance. It is a rule of behaviour based on that people follow it on the condition that they believe that (a) most people around them conform to it (empirical
expectation), and (b) that most people around them believe they ought to conform to it (normative expectation). Social norms are not always ‘all or nothing,’ meaning sometimes there is a leeway of what is acceptable. This mainly depends on the level of seriousness and importance of the norm. The existence of sanctions and rewards are important to social norms as they might push someone who does not generally support a social norm to follow it, especially if the norm is onerous (Bicchieri 2017:34-39).
3.1.3 Pluralistic Ignorance
Sometimes, discrepancies can be found between action and belief or preferences, as in people’s actions and beliefs or preferences do not correspond to one another. Persons might not agree with something and still conform to it. These discrepancies may be explained through pluralistic ignorance. Bicchieri defines pluralistic ignorance as: “a cognitive state in which each member of a group believes her personal normative beliefs and preferences are different from those of similarly situated others, even if public behaviour is identical” (2017:42). In relation to the discrepancies, this definition would entail that the reason a person conforms to behaviour despite not agreeing with it is because they believe that they are the only one who does not agree with said behaviour. The person may believe that all those around agrees with the behaviour, and out of fear of standing out they choose to
conform with the behaviour as well. This is based on people’s assumption that the beliefs and preferences of those around are consistent with their behaviours, even if this is not true for the individual themself. Bicchieri describes this as getting caught in a “belief trap” (2017:39- 42). Pluralistic ignorance is important to consider while analysing collective behaviour seeing as there are many routes of social behaviour which do not make sense at first sight, and need more consideration. Discrepancies between belief and behaviour is one such.
3.1.4 Responses to Deviating from Social Norms
Persons may contribute to the emergence and persistence of a norm even when they do not agree with it and know it to be damaging, something which Bicchieri claims is completely rational. In the case of social norms, they guide not only whether to conform to certain actions, but also how to act in relation to others who choose not to conform to the same behaviour. Bicchieri explains this as engaging in social comparison (2006:177-179). “If the behaviour that an individual observes does not reflect the true preferences of society (or any other relevant reference group), he may be influences to choose an action that is dispreferred both by himself and by those around” (Ibid,180). If all people in a reference group conform to a behaviour for the purpose of greater social status, and none of them believe in said behaviour, the continuation of the action might result in the general belief that the group endorses and supports the norm of the behaviour, leading to its continuation. Bicchieri claims this works the same way with responses to those who choose not to conform to social norms, those who deviate. When a social norm has been established, there are expectations of people conforming to the behaviour that the social norm entails. If someone chooses not to conform, there are in turn guidelines of how to respond to these deviant behaviours, oftentimes in the form of negative sanctions. Since these are, just as social norms, deeply embedded in social behaviour, people might endorse these responses towards deviants despite not actually supporting the social norm. This contributes to the explanation of how a norm may persist even when a significant amount of persons do not agree with the norm (Ibid, 177-181).
3.2 How the Theory will be Applied
In the following chapter, the analysis, FGM will be applied to Bicchieri’s model of diagnosing collective behaviour. Factors which are of importance to determine whether FGM is a social norm or not will be considered and analysed. The analysis will be split up into two
main parts, with a third initial part of considerations prior to the actual theory application. Following the considerations prior to the theory application, FGM will be applied to Bicchieri’s model for the purpose of investigating whether the practise is in fact a social norm. First, by determining whether those who conform to FGM do so because of social preferences. If this is the case, it will be determined whether people conform to the practise because of purely empirical expectations, or normative expectations in addition.
4. Analysis
4.1 Considerations Prior to Theory Application
When it comes to reference groups, it should be noted that social norms exist with respect to specific behaviours and specific reference groups. Therefore, FGM may exist as one type of collective behaviour within one group, and a different one within another. For obvious reasons, it is impossible to know what each individual who conforms to FGM think about it, and why they decided to conform to the practise. The research, and any conclusions drawn from it, will have to rely on data collected as it is. As stated previously, the material used for this research is based on a large number of surveys conducted in a wide set of communities in countries where FGM is most commonly practised. In addition to this sort of macro level perspective, material derived from previously conducted interviews will also be considered to show attitudes towards FGM from a micro level perspective. Thus, despite any possible inconclusivities in the conclusion, the material will give a reliable overview of FGM in general and contribute to the ability to answer the research question.
Prior to the theory application, some comment on the factors which will be analysed should be made. As previously mentioned, the reasons behind FGM are many, and vary from one region to another, and between and within different families and communities. For that reason, not all of these factors behind the practise of FGM will be considered through Bicchieri’s model in this analysis, there is simply not enough space and time for that. Consequently, the reasons that will be looked at are those which correspond to most of those practising FGM, as presented by the material that is used. One such reason that will not be looked at through the model, but which is still valid to bring forth, is that of people believing that the practice is supported by religion. The purpose of considering religion as a factor prior to the theory application is that it is oftentimes considered a rather dominating reason behind
the occurrence of FGM, the following will explain why religion will not be considered through the analysis. The report on FGM conducted by UNICEF (2013), which is the most extensive report on FGM thus far, showed that in some countries, primarily in Guinea, Mali and Mauritania, a significant number of people stated that FGM was required by their religion (UNICEF 2013:69). While this is worth considering, Mackie and LeJeune claim that it is not sufficient to consider religion the sole explanation for the occurrence of FGM seeing as there are many groups with many different levels of prevalence who all follow the same religion. If religion was the sole explanation for people conforming to FGM, all people following the religion would conform to the practise, which is not the case, though it can still be a contributing factor to the occurrence (Mackie and LeJeune 2009:32-33). Additional support for this claim is the fact that in some countries where a particular religion is almost universal, such as Islam in Sudan, the extent to which people of other religions practise FGM has little influence on the overall prevalence. These variations in prevalence among people of different faiths show how FGM is a challenge for all religious groups in countries where FGM is practised (UNICEF 2013:72).
4.2 Theory application
To apply the chosen theory, and determine whether the collective practise of FGM is a social norm, several aspects of the practise need to be considered. These include analysing whether people conform to the practise because of individual or social preferences (criterion 1), and whether they do so because of purely empirical expectations, or normative expectations in addition to these (criterion 2). These are the two levels of Bicchieri’s model which will ultimately lead to a conclusion of whether FGM can be considered a social norm or not. Prior to getting into these, one note on whether the practise is a collective behaviour must first be considered. As previously mentioned, collective behaviour, according to Bicchieri, is generally identified as a mass behaviour of a group, or behavioural patterns of a group, whether organized or not (2006:29). This means that for FGM to be considered a collective behaviour, a mass of people must conform to the same type of behavioural patterns. One quick look at the prevalence of FGM in the countries where it is most commonly practised ought to suffice as verification. FGM is most commonly practised in 29 countries (UNICEF 2019). Each year, three million girls in these countries are estimated to be subjected to the practise (WHO 2019). According to UNICEF, supported by data from DHS and MICS’, the
prevalence of FGM follows patterns in countries which are tied to ethnic groups, meaning the prevalence follows certain social and territorial patterns (2013:32). These factors all point to the practise being a collective behaviour.
Important to note is that many of the factors which will be brought forth in the following two sections overlap to a large extent. Meaning, factors which show whether people conform to FGM because of empirical and normative expectations, are the same which show whether people conforming to the practice do so because of individual or social preferences. For this reason, the section on conditional preferences will be somewhat shorter than the one on empirical and normative expectations. The purpose of this is to avoid unnecessary repetition. Factors which are brought forth in the latter section, which point to the practise being a social norm, are ones that also point to the practise being motivated by social preferences. The aim of the following sections is to investigate whether there are indicators in the chosen material which points to the practise of FGM being a social norm.
4.2.1 Conditional Preferences
By this time, it has been determined that FGM is a collective behaviour, and it will now be considered whether people conform to the practise because of individual or social preferences. This is where Bicchieri’s model actually comes into play, where FGM will be applied to the model’s first set of boxes which will determine whether the practise is either a custom, moral rule, or legal injunction, or whether it is a descriptive or social norm. For FGM as a collective behaviour to belong to either of the latter two, the choice of people to conform to the practise has to be based on looking to how those around act, and wanting to act the same. The individuals have to be aware of the rule of behaviour, and prefer to act the same way. Important to highlight once more is that here, preference does not necessarily equal liking something better, but rather shows how people prefer to act in a given situation under those specific circumstances, and “all things considered”, as Bicchieri puts it. Therefore, people who conform to FGM do not necessarily have to like the practise even though they conform to it.
Data summarized by the UNICEF, collected through DHS and MICS, show that the prevalence of FGM in each country where the practise is commonly carried out did not correspond with the general attitudes towards the practise. There was a discrepancy between the percentage of girls and women who had been subjected to the practise, and the percentage
of girls and women who favour the continuation of the practise. This was the case in close to all countries, where the amount of girls and women who support the practise is substantially lower than the amount of girls and women who have been cut. This discrepancy was most noticeable in Burkina Faso, where 76 percent of girls and women had been cut, but only 9 percent are for the continuation of the practise (UNICEF global databases 2019). The statistics indicate that there is a difference between what women personally believe in, and what they comply with because it is what is socially preferred, meaning FGM might be practised based on social rather than individual preferences. Mackie et al.’s writings on how to interpret data derived from DHS and MICS state that if that data shows discrepancies between attitude and prevalence, if many people personally oppose a practise, but nevertheless conform to it, it suggests the possibility of the the practise being motivated by social factors (2015:61).
In relation to these discrepancies, it is also possible that attitudes of individuals are kept in private and are not known by those around them. If this is the case, it is not impossible that a significant number of people in a group, in fact, do not support the practise of FGM, but conform to it because they believe that those around them do and they wish to avoid social disapproval. This is where pluralistic ignorance surfaces. If this is the case, genuine preferences may be hidden for long periods of time because people are afraid to voice their true feelings about the practise. This would to some extent explain the discrepancies between attitude and behaviour which the DHS and MICS data presents. These sets of data point at the possibility of individuals conforming to the practise of FGM because they believe that those around them support its continuation. The discrepancy between the attitudes of girls and women towards the practise and the prevalence of FGM suggests that a majority of individuals conform to the practise of FGM not because of their individuals preferences, but rather because of social ones. This means that FGM leans more towards being a descriptive or social norm, rather than simply a custom, shared moral rule of legal injunction.
4.2.2 Empirical and Normative Expectations
Now that it has been established that the practise of FGM appears to be either a descriptive or social norm, rather than a custom, moral rule or legal injunction, the practise can be applied to the second level of analysis. This section will attempt to investigate whether people
conform to the practise purely motivated by empirical expectations, which would conclude that it is a descriptive norm, or because of normative expectations in addition to empirical ones, which would conclude that it is a social norm. This is the second criterion of Bicchieri’s model for diagnosing collective behaviour. Here, it will be determined whether people conform to FGM simply because they see those around them doing so, or because they see others doing so and believe those around them believe it is the right thing to so. This is what will determine whether FGM is, in fact, a social norm. In the following section, both quantitative data, from DHS and MICS, as well as qualitative data, in the form of previously conducted interviews, will be analysed.
Firstly, the same data as was discussed in the previous section will be considered here as well. As mentioned, the amount of girls and women who support the continuation of the practise does not correspond to the amount of girls and women who are and have been subjected to FGM (UNICEF global databases 2019). In their writings on how to interpret DHS and MICS data, Mackie et al. claim that such discrepancies generally point to people conforming to the practise because of both empirical and normative expectations (2015:61). Yet another discrepancy found in the data summarized by UNICEF was that what girls and women believed boys and men thought of the practise did not correspond with what the boys and men actually thought of it. Across all 12 countries with available data, girls and women consistently underestimated the amount of boys and men who wanted FGM to end. Meaning, a considerable amount of women believed that boys and men did not want FGM to end. In Benin, for instance, more than 30 percent of the women believed that men wanted the practise to continue, while 95 percent of men actually wanted it abolished. In Guinea, almost 60 percent of the women believed men wanted FGM to continue, while close to 50 percent of the men asked actually wanted the practise to end. Similar kinds of figures were found in other countries, including Mali, Egypt, Chad, and Burkina Faso (UNICEF global databases 2019). In some surveys, women were asked whether they knew about the actual opinion of men regarding the practise, and a large majority admitted that they did not (UNICEF 2013:63). This kind of data shows how women continuously underestimate the views of men, which may be a contributing factor to individuals conforming to the practise despite not supporting it. Here, pluralistic ignorance may yet again play a role, leading individuals to act a certain way which does not correlate to their own beliefs and preferences. In a qualitative study with 13 women who had experiences with FGM, recruited for the study through an
outpatient African women’s clinic in a London hospital, a majority of the women shared how they were second guessing others’ (primarily men’s) perception of support for the practise. One of them shared how she was afraid to instigate romantic relationships with men from countries where FGM is practised because she had gone through de-infibulation, the surgical procedure to open up the closed vagina, and believed that men from practising countries would not approve of the decision (Parikh et al. 2018:6). Both these discrepancies, where girls and women appear to think that both men and women around them are more supportive of FGM than they in fact are, point to individuals conforming to the practise because what they believe to be others’ opinions on the matter is of importance to them.
The DHS and MICS data which UNICEF has summarised showed that among girls and women, the most commonly reported benefit of FGM, among those who have been subjected to it, is gaining social acceptance (2013:67). While these statements are based on data where the respondents all answered the same questions, material where individuals independently discussed their experiences and thoughts about FGM must also be considered. In an interview, Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director UNFPA who has worked specifically with FGM, stated the following:
“Despite the pain and health consequences associated with FGM/C, including the risk of fatal complications, the practise continues to persist because it is deeply entrenched in social and cultural tradition. […] The social pressure to continue this tradition can be so powerful, that even some mothers who would otherwise abandon the practise submit their daughters to the procedure rather than risk the social consequences” (UNFPA 2016).
UNICEF has found that a majority of mothers organize for their daughters to undergo the practise of FGM because they consider it a part of what they must do to raise a girl and prepare her for adulthood. Many parents see this as their obligations - to ensure that their daughters have a good life (UNICEF 2008). Hela Bakri, a 31 year old woman from Sudan, was subjected to FGM in her childhood. Later in life, when she had a daughter, she “let her” be cut for the fear of social exclusion from the community. Despite not supporting the practise, Hela felt that the social conventions in place for those who were not cut superseded her personal thoughts, and she felt they did not have an impact as strong as the social consequences (UNICEF 2013:82). In a focus group discussion conducted in the Pusiga
