Social and structural factors influencing women’s agency regarding female genital mutilation/ cutting: an intersectional analysis – a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Countries around the world have passed laws specifically banning female genital mutilation/cutting. Legal restrictions vary as to whether they apply to both girls and adult women or to minors only, and few address a second set of genital cutting procedures known as ‘female genital cosmetic surgeries’. Different legal framings reflect variation in views regarding women’s autonomy and their ability to provide meaningful consent. Social norms theory has drawn attention to the fact that in societies where customary female genital mutilation/cutting is common, women can be under intense pressure to conform lest risking social inclusion, support and possibly marriage prospects. Hence, protectionist measures by the state have been invited. Much less attention has been directed towards the broader circumstances that can shape and constrain women’s autonomy, including economic instability, limited access to resources and services, political marginalisation and discrimination, and global factors such as climate change. In this article, I highlight the promise of intersectional analyses of factors influencing female genital mutilation/cutting and suggest that in moving beyond the problematic distinction of ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ societies, it is more fruitful to understand the multiple and combined factors that influence women’s empowerment. Drawing on case studies from Senegal, Kenya and the US, I illustrate that the logic to perform female genital mutilation/cutting or to resist engaging in community outreach on female genital mutilation/cutting may not only emanate from community norms, but also include broader conditions that influence people’s ability to cope with precarious livelihoods. A more comprehensive understanding of spheres of influence on women’s choices can be gained by examining how structural, material, social and individual domains overlap in a woman’s life. Programmes that aim to address female genital mutilation/cutting may be enhanced by expanding beyond a focus on legal reform and social norms to also address the broader structural and global factors that influence women’s agency.Key messagesWorldwide, laws banning female genital mutilation/cutting vary in important ways, including whether they apply to all women or only minor girls.Legal restrictions also vary in terms of whether they apply to all forms of genital cutting, including type IV female genital mutilation (nicking, pricking or scraping) and elective genital cosmetic surgeries that may result in physical modifications very similar to some forms of female genital mutilation/cutting.Social norms theory, which focuses on community pressure to conform with the customary practice of female genital mutilation/cutting, does not fully explain variation in women’s agency and their ability to provide meaningful consent.A more comprehensive understanding of spheres of influence on women’s autonomy can be gained by examining the multiple and intersecting domains that include such structural factors as economic instability, limited access to resources, political marginalisation and discrimination.Programmes aimed at addressing female genital mutilation/cutting may be strengthened by expanding the focus beyond social norms and legal reform, and also addressing the structural and global factors that influence women’s agency.