In my experience, the clitoridectomy example makes its appearance whenever
someone elects to defend multiculturalism by appeal to some form of moral
relativism. The (entirely justified) point of the example is to embarrass the
relativist by citing a practice that everyone in the discussion can be counted
upon to agree is vile. It is not surprising that anti-relativists should
deploy such a strategy. It is interesting, however, that clitoridectomy has
become the preferred example among liberal intellectuals. Why not put the
spotlight on vices that flourish in our own culture-including that segment of
the culture inhabited by academics, journalists, and other elites? Why not
confront the relativist with, say, lying, promiscuity, recreational drug use,
abortion?
Ironically, these are among the vices pointed to by the decidedly
non-relativist Africans and others who practice and defend clitoridectomy.
Recently, the New York Times quoted Mohammed Ali, a young Egyptian who cites
Western permissiveness as a trump card of his own against arguments for
Of course, Ali is wrong to suppose that possession of a clitoris makes
women wild. He is, however, right to believe-and Western intellectuals are
wrong to deny-that the chastity of women, and men, is important, and that the
loss of a cultural milieu that is supportive of marriage and conducive to the
exercise of sexual restraint has been a tragedy for people in the West,
especially for women and children.
The clitoridectomy example is uniquely powerful in contemporary elite
culture because liberal ideology rejects traditional ideas about chastity and
the sanctity of human life in favor of a "right" to "sexual expression." It is
not just women who are perceived by Western elites as "primarily sexual
beings," it is all of us. Sexual "fulfillment" is presented as something
desirable-indeed, essential-quite apart from marriage, and even at the price
of more than a million abortions per year.
We can reject liberal ideas about sex and its alleged primacy while in no
way denigrating human sexuality or denying the obvious (and wonderful) fact
that people are, among many other things, sexual beings. When properly
integrated into our lives, our sexuality fits us out for marriage and
procreation, even if not all of us can realize these goods and some of us have
reason not to. And the pleasure of marital sexual union is part of its
perfection. This helps to explain why clitoridectomy is morally abhorrent (in
a way that male circumcision, by contrast, is not): Even when motivated by a
concern for chastity, it violates the good of marriage of which sexual union
is no mere incident, but an intrinsic aspect. It relegates wives to
second-class status within marriage and encourages husbands to understand and
treat them as objects for their own gratification, rather than as
complementary equals in a relationship whose sexual dimension enables them to
become, in no merely figurative sense, "one flesh."
A concern for the equality and dignity of women, and for the integrity of
marriages, fully warrants our condemnation of clitoridectomy. At the same
time, we should have little difficulty understanding why Ali remains unmoved
by the criticism of clitoridectomy he hears from Western critics who surely
strike him, as they strike Tamir, as "smug" and "unjustifiably
self-satisfied." Tamir is right: Reflection on clitoridectomy, and its role in
contemporary debates about multiculturalism, should give us "a sharper vision
of our own vices," and move us "to understand and improve our own culture."
n
Vices Here and Abroad
Robert P. George
A response to Yael Tamir's "Hands Off
Clitoridectomy," from the October/November 1996 issue of
Boston Review.
Yael Tamir states that her purpose in "Hands Off Clitoridectomy" is "to
reveal the smug, unjustified self-satisfaction lurking behind the current
condemnation of clitoridectomy." Although she makes plain her own strong
opposition to female genital mutilation, and, indeed, urges her readers to
"support those who struggle to end it," she is highly critical of familiar
objections to the practice advanced by Western intellectuals. "Despite their
liberal appearance," Tamir charges, "references to clitoridectomy commonly
reveal a patronizing attitude toward women, suggesting that they are primarily
sexual beings."
prohibiting clitoridectomy: "Banning it would make women wild like those
in America."
Copyright Boston Review, 1993–2003. All
rights reserved. Please do not reproduce without permission.
home
new democracy forum
fiction, film, poetry
archives
masthead
subscribe