A genealogy of silencing: tracing the impact of critiques of the hegemonic discourse on female genital mutilation

There is an internationally accepted discourse on ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ which understands it as a human rights violation, a major health concern, and an extreme form of gendered violence. Since the 1980s, African women, postcolonial feminists and anthropologists have critiqued this discourse as ethnocentric and racist. We examine the genealogy of the hegemonic anti-FGM discourse, identify alternative perspectives and analyse the extent to which they were integrated, co-opted, disregarded or silenced. This genealogy draws upon a comprehensive review of the literature critiquing the dominant discourse on FGM, supplemented through analyses of British Colonial Office correspondence, documents from the (Parliamentary) ‘Committee for the Protection of Coloured Women in the Crown Colonies’, Church Missionary Society periodicals, debates in the UK Houses of Parliament, and UN (including WHO) reports and meeting minutes. Alternative perspectives on female circumcision and critiques of the dominant narrative have been formulated throughout the history of the anti-FGM campaign. However, they have been silenced through various silencing mechanisms, and thus not permeated the hegemonic discourse. Outrage and backlash continue as silencing mechanisms around two contentious topics that embody colonial double standards: medicalised female circumcision and adult women’s right to choose female circumcision.