Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T21:34:45.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Female Genital Cutting

from Part II - Applications to Health, Law, and Pornography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Janet Howard
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

The global impact of female genital cutting (FGC) is considerable, with an estimated 200 to 300 million women alive today who have undergone some form of FGC and a further 3 million girls at risk of being cut every year. The immediate and long-term negative health consequences for girls and women are well documented, yet this behavior is under parental control. The reasons why this behavior persists despite its potential detrimental impact on both health and evolutionary fitness is of interest to both evolutionary scientists and policy makers. Despite intense research and programme activity, implementing behavioral change has proved challenging. This chapter starts with an overview of FGC, focusing on the 29 countries in Africa and Asia where FGC is most prevalent. This illustrates the extensive variation in FGC in terms of prevalence, geographical distribution, procedure and practice, consequences to health and well-being, and resistance to intervention. This context allows the more pertinent question of why FGC persists to be explored. However, the variety of FGC forms and contexts in which FGC is practiced suggest that generalized explanations for its persistence should be made with caution. The local beliefs sustaining the practice and the more prominent social theories are described, followed by an examination of the ways in which evolutionary perspectives can be applied to understand the persistence of FGC. Evolutionary theory is uniquely placed to address the question of why FGC persists, as ultimate explanations of behavior are concerned with fitness consequences rather than the impact on health or well-being. Three different ways in which evolutionary theory has been applied to FGC are considered. First, the prediction that FGC persists because it enhances reproductive success is examined. Findings show that women who conform to the FGC norm within their community have higher reproductive success. This gives some indication about the contexts in which deciding to have a daughter undergo FGC might be adaptive in fitness terms leading to enhanced inclusive fitness for the parents. Second, the prediction that paternity concern is a driver for FGC is examined. Despite widespread beliefs to the contrary, FGC is not shown to affect women’s sexual activity. However, concern about paternity may still affect marriage choices for men, and thus influence parental FGC behavior. Finally, the prediction that FGC is a signal of genetic quality to potential marriage partners is reviewed, concluding that FGC does not meet the criteria of costly signaling. In contrast to the attention that FGC has received from many other disciplines, there are relatively few studies that have addressed FGC using evolutionary theory. However, this chapter demonstrates the great potential for furthering our understanding of FGC behavior by applying evolutionary theory, and working with policy makers to effect change.

Keywords

female genital cutting/female genital mutilationpaternity certainty/concerninclusive fitnessevolutionary anthropologyreproductive success
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 215 - 236
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

28 Too Many. (2018). The law and FGM: An overview of 28 African countries. www.28toomany.org/LawGoogle Scholar
Abusharaf, R. M. (2013). Female circumcision: Multicultural perspectives, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Adam, T., Bathija, H., Bishai, D., Bonnenfant, Y.-T., Darwish, M., Huntington, D., & Johansen, E. (2010). Estimating the obstetric costs of female genital mutilation in six African countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmadu, F. (2000). Rites and wrongs: An insider/outsider reflects on power and excision. In Shell-Duncan, B. & Hernlund, Y. (Eds.), Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy and change (pp. 283–212). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.Google Scholar
Almroth, L., Almroth-Berggren, V., Hassanein, O. M., Al-Said, S. S. E., Hasan, S. S. A., Lithell, U. B., & Bergstrom, S. (2001). Male complications of female genital mutilation. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 1455–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, M., & Simmons, L. W. (2006). Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 296–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apostolou, M. (2008). Bridewealth and brideservice as instruments of parental choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 89–102.Google Scholar
Barrett, L., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lycett, J. E. (2002). Human evolutionary psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Berg, R. C., & Denison, E. (2012). Does female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) affect women’s sexual functioning? A systematic review of the sexual consequences of FGM/C. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 9, 41–56.Google Scholar
Berg, R. C., & Denison, E. (2013). A tradition in transition: Factors perpetuating and hindering the continuance of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) summarized in a systematic review. Health Care for Women International, 34, 837–859.Google Scholar
Berg, R. C., & Underland, V. (2013). The obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecololgy International, 2013, 496564.Google Scholar
Bjälkander, O., Leigh, B., Harman, G., Bergström, S., & Almroth, L. (2012). Female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone: Who are the decision makers? African Journal of Reproductive Health, 16, 119–131.Google ScholarPubMed
Borgerhoff Mulder, M., & Schact, R. (2012). Human behavioral ecology. eLS. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0003671.pub2Google Scholar
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Boyden, J., Pankhurst, A., & Tafere, Y. (2012). Child protection and harmful traditional practices: Female early marriage and genital modification in Ethiopia. Development in Practice, 22, 510–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–256.Google Scholar
Cloward, K. (2015). Elites, exit options, and social barriers to norm change: The complex case of female genital mutilation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 50, 378–407.Google Scholar
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellenborg, L. (2004). A reflection on the cultural meanings of female circumcision; experiences of fieldwork in Senegal. In Arnfred, S. (Ed.), Re-thinking sexualities in Africa ( pp. 79–98). Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell Tryckeri AB.Google Scholar
Diop, N. J., & Askew, I. (2009). The effectiveness of a community-based education program on abandoning female genital mutilation/cutting in Senegal. Studies in Family Planning, 40, 307–318.Google Scholar
Dorkenoo, E. (1994). Cutting the rose: Female genital mutilation – the practice and its prevention. London: Minority Rights Group Publications.Google Scholar
Efferson, C., Vogt, S., Elhadi, A., Ahmed, H. E., & Fehr, E. (2015). Female genital cutting is not a social coordination norm. Science, 349, 1446–1447.Google Scholar
El Dareer, A. (1982). Woman, why do you weep? Circumcision and its consequences. London: Zed Press.Google Scholar
El-Tom, A. O. (1998). Female circumcision and ethnic identification in Sudan with special reference to the Berti of Darfur. GeoJournal, 46, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, M. A., Gurmu, E., Cobo, B. C., Rueda, M. M., & Scott, I. M. (2018). Indirect questioning method reveals hidden support for female genital cutting in South Central Ethiopia. PLOS ONE, 13, e0184430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, M. A., & Lawson, D. W. (2015). Applying evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 24, 3–14.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Sexual coercion and forced in-pair copulation as anti-cuckoldry tactics in humans. In Platek, S. M. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty. (pp. 82–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gosselin, C. (2000). Feminism, anthropology and the politics of excision in Mali: Global and local debates in a postcolonial world. Anthropologica, 42, 43–60.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1984). Natural selection, kin selection and group selection. In Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B. (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, 2nd ed. (pp. 62–84). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 517–546.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.Google Scholar
Gruenbaum, E. (2000). Is female “circumcision” a maladaptive cultural pattern. In Shell-Duncan, B. & Hernlund, Y. (Eds.), Female “circumcision” in Africa; culture, controversy and change (pp. 41–54). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Gruenbaum, E. (2001). The female circumcision controversy: An anthropological perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gruenbaum, E. (2005). Socio-cultural dynamics of female genital cutting: Research findings, gaps, and directions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7(5), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). Genetical evolution of social behaviour I, II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.Google Scholar
Hartung, J. (1985). Matrilineal inheritance: New theory and analysis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 661–670.Google Scholar
Hartung, J., Abelson, A. E., Basu, A., Basu, M. P., Beals, K. L., Chiarelli, B., … & Korey, K. A. (1976). On natural selection and the inheritance of wealth [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 17, 607–622.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. O. (1975). Female genital mutilation, fertility control, women’s roles, and the patrilineage in modern Sudan: A functional analysis. American Ethnologist, 2, 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. (1993). Life history theory and evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 2, 78–88.Google Scholar
Hosken, F. (1979). The Hosken Report: Genital and sexual mutilation of females. Lexington, MA: Women’s International Network News.Google Scholar
Howard, J. A., & Gibson, M. A. (2017). Frequency-dependent female genital cutting behaviour confers evolutionary fitness benefits. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 0049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, J. A., & Gibson, M. A. 2019. Is there a link between paternity concern and female genital cutting in West Africa? Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsdotter, S., & Essen, B. 2010. Genitals and ethnicity: The politics of genital modifications. Reproductive Health Matters, 18, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khaja, K., Barkdull, C., Augustine, M., & Cunningham, D. (2009). Female genital cutting:African women speak out. International Social Work, 52, 727–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. (2011). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (2000). Adopting female “circumcision” in southern Chad: The experience of Myabe. Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy, and change (pp. 167–192). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Lightfoot-Klein, H. (1989). The sexual experience and marital adjustment of genitally circumcised and infibulated females in the Sudan. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longman, C., & Bradley, T. (2015). Interrogating the concept of “harmful cultural practices.” In Longman, C., & Bradley, T. (Eds.), Interrogating harmful cultural practices; gender, culture and coercion. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Mackie, G. (1996). Ending footbinding and infibulation: A convention account. American Sociological Review, 61, 999–1017.Google Scholar
Mackie, G., & LeJeune, J. (2009). Social dynamics of abandonment of harmful practices: A new look at the theory. Innocenti Working Paper No. 2009-06 ed. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar
Mattison, S. M., & Sear, R. (2016). Modernizing evolutionary anthropology. Human Nature, 27, 335–350.Google Scholar
Mpofu, S., Odimegwu, C., De Wet, N., Adedini, S., & Akinyemi, J. (2016). The relation of female circumcision to sexual behavior in Kenya and Nigeria. Women & Health, 57, 757–774.Google Scholar
Mulongo, P., Hollins Martin, C., & McAndrew, S. (2014). The psychological impact of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) on girls/women’s mental health: A narrative literature review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 32, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Njambi, W. N. (2004). Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African female circumcision: A feminist critique. Feminist Theory, 5, 281–303.Google Scholar
Obermeyer, M. C. (2005). The consequences of female circumcision for health and sexuality: An update on the evidence. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7, 443–461.Google Scholar
Odimegwu, C., & Okemgbo, C. (2000). Female circumcision and sexual activity: “Any relationship”. UNILAG Sociological Review, 1, 159–176.Google Scholar
Okonofua, F. E., Larsen, U., Oronsaye, F., Snow, R. C., & Slanger, T. E. (2002). The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 109, 1089–1096.Google Scholar
Oyefara, J. L. (2015). Female genital mutilation (FGM) and sexual functioning of married women in Oworonshoki Community, Lagos State, Nigeria. Etude de la Population Africaine, 29, 1526.Google Scholar
Reason, L. L. (2004). The behavioral ecology of female genital cutting in Northern Ghana. In Alvard, M. S. (Ed.), Socioeconomic aspects of human behavioral ecology. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Ross, C. T., Strimling, P., Ericksen, K. P., Lindenfors, P., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2016). The origins and maintenance of female genital modification across Africa: Bayesian phylogenetic modeling of cultural evolution under the influence of selection. Human Nature, 27, 173–200.Google Scholar
Sakeah, E., Doctor, H., Beke, A., & Hodgson, A. (2006). Males’ preference for circumcised women in Northern Ghana. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 10, 37–47.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Shell-Duncan, B., & Hernlund, Y. (2000). Female “circumcision” in Africa: Culture, controversy, and change. Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Shell-Duncan, B., & Hernlund, Y. (2006). Are there “stages of change” in the practice of female genital cutting? Qualitative research finding from Senegal and the Gambia. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 10, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shell-Duncan, B., Wander, K., Hernlund, Y., & Moreau, A. (2011). Dynamics of change in the practice of female genital cutting in Senegambia: Testing predictions of social convention theory. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1275–1283.Google Scholar
Sosis, R. (2000). Costly signaling and torch fishing on Ifaluk atoll. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 223–244.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection, Biological Laboratories, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
UN (1995). Fact sheet No. 23, Harmful traditional practices affecting the health of women and children. Geneva: United Nations, Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights.Google Scholar
UN (2016). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (1993). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. Geneva: UN General Assembly.Google Scholar
UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, & WHO (2008). Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
UNFPA & UNICEF (2017). Accelerating change by the numbers. Annual report of the UNFPA–UNICEF Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Accelerating change. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
UNICEF (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
UNICEF (2008). Long term evaluation of the TOSTAN programme in Senegal: Kolda, Thies and Fatick region. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
UNICEF (2013). Female genital mutilation/cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
UNICEF (2016). Female genital mutilation/cutting: A global concern. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.Google Scholar
Van Rossem, R., & Gage, A. J. (2009). The effects of female genital mutilation on the onset of sexual activity and marriage in Guinea. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 178–185.Google Scholar
Varol, N., Turkmani, S., Black, K., Hall, J., & Dawson, A. (2015). The role of men in abandonment of female genital mutilation: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 15 , 1–14.Google Scholar
Wagner, N. (2015). Female genital cutting and long-term health consequences – nationally representative estimates across 13 countries. Journal of Development Studies, 51, 226–246.Google Scholar
Wander, K. (2017). Cultural evolution: Evolution of female genital cutting. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 0079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO (1979). Seminar on traditional practices affecting the health of women and children, Khartoum, 10–15 February. Khartoum: WHO.Google Scholar
WHO (2014). Female genital mutilation: Fact sheet No. 241. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/Google Scholar
WHO, UNICEF, & UNFP (1997). Female genital mutilation: A joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. G. (2008). Male genital mutilation: An adaptation to sexual conflict. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2020). Fertility rate, total (births per woman). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.INGoogle Scholar
Yoder, P., Abderrahim, N., & Zhuzhuni, A. (2004). Female genital cutting in the demographic and health surveys: A critical and comparative analysis. DHS Comparative Reports No. 7, Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.Google Scholar
Yoder, S. P., & Wang, S. (2013). Female Genital Cutting: The Interpretation of Recent DHS DataFemale Genital Cutting: The Interpretation of Recent DHS Data. DHS Comparative Reports No. 33. Calverton, MD: ICF International.Google Scholar
Yount, K. M., & Abraham, B. K. (2007). Female genital cutting and HIV/AIDS among Kenyan women. Studies in Family Planning, 38, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection – selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×