Read Online Sex, Culture, and Justice: The Limits of Choice by Clare Chambers - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Clare Chambers
Tags: Social Science, Political, Political Science, Philosophy, womens studies, gender studies, Political Ideologies, Anthropology, Cultural, Feminism & Feminist Theory, Conservatism & Liberalism
Ads: Link
circumcision is 0.19–1.5 percent. Contracting penile cancer if uncircumcised is thus 750 times less likely than suffering a significant complication, and only ten times more likely than dying, from circumcision. See Michael Benatar and David Benatar, ‘‘Between Prophylaxis and Child Abuse,’’ 38–39, and S. Moses et al., ‘‘Male Circumcision,’’ 370.
views of female sexuality combine both. fgm , like rsc viewed over the last two centuries, aims not merely to change people’s bodies, but also thereby to change their behavior and their preferences. By mutilating a woman’s genitals so that intercourse is extremely difficult and painful, fgm is designed to ensure both that a woman cannot and will not want to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone other than her husband (intercourse with the husband being part of marital duty rather than motivated by female pleasure). It is central to the practice that the wom- an’s desire for intercourse, as well as her capacity to engage in it, is limited. Because the clitoris has no function other than to give the woman sexual pleasure, myths of its danger to men and babies effec- tively censure female sexual desire. If the only purpose of fgm were to ensure behavioral compliance with modesty norms, then other prac- tices such as confinement would suffice. 40 fgm focuses on limiting not just a woman’s ability to act on her desires, but the desires themselves. Similarly, rsc in the nineteenth century aimed at reducing the tempta- tion for men to masturbate by reducing their penile sensitivity. How- ever, the current justification for rsc involves a complete repudiation of this rationale, for as we saw, it is crucial to the current doctrine of routine secular circumcision that the foreskin be seen as irrelevant to sexual desire. For men in Western societies in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the aim is to increase or preserve penile sensitivity and sexual pleasure, not to reduce it. Thus, while contempo- rary and nineteenth-century discourse share the notion that the fore- skin and thus the intact penis is dangerous to health, they sharply diverge on the question of whether and to what extent sexual desire is healthy. As Foucault puts it, ‘‘Rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any pur- pose.’’ 41 The rule that men ought to be circumcised can be bent to serve the purpose of either restricting sexual desire or increasing sexual hygiene—whichever purpose is deemed necessary by the relevant so- ciety.
This brief account of fgm and rsc is a form of genealogy. But why is genealogy in general, and of genital surgery in particular, relevant to feminism and liberalism? Two elements of the genealogical method
Indeed, Dorkenoo argues that fgm makes it easier for a woman to fake virginity or fidelity, since a reinfibulation looks just like the original one ( Cutting the Rose , 35–36).
Foucault, ‘‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,’’ 85–86.
are of most importance to my argument: its aim ‘‘to conceive culture as practices,’’ and its focus on power/knowledge regimes and disconti- nuities in them. 42 For Foucault, as Nancy Fraser puts it, ‘‘The function- ing of discursive regimes essentially involves forms of social con- straint.’’ 43 In other words, genealogy contributes to an understanding of how social and cultural practices limit individual autonomy, con- straining our options, our self-understandings, and our preferences.
The first aspect of genealogy, the aim to ‘‘conceive culture as prac- tices,’’ is perhaps the most important in this regard. The genealogical method emphasizes the intense relationship between practices and cul- tural norms and interpretations, so that a study of practices serves as a study of a culture. Practices such as fgm and rsc cannot be properly understood outside their cultural context—without knowing what prac- tices are trying to
views of female sexuality combine both. fgm , like rsc viewed over the last two centuries, aims not merely to change people’s bodies, but also thereby to change their behavior and their preferences. By mutilating a woman’s genitals so that intercourse is extremely difficult and painful, fgm is designed to ensure both that a woman cannot and will not want to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone other than her husband (intercourse with the husband being part of marital duty rather than motivated by female pleasure). It is central to the practice that the wom- an’s desire for intercourse, as well as her capacity to engage in it, is limited. Because the clitoris has no function other than to give the woman sexual pleasure, myths of its danger to men and babies effec- tively censure female sexual desire. If the only purpose of fgm were to ensure behavioral compliance with modesty norms, then other prac- tices such as confinement would suffice. 40 fgm focuses on limiting not just a woman’s ability to act on her desires, but the desires themselves. Similarly, rsc in the nineteenth century aimed at reducing the tempta- tion for men to masturbate by reducing their penile sensitivity. How- ever, the current justification for rsc involves a complete repudiation of this rationale, for as we saw, it is crucial to the current doctrine of routine secular circumcision that the foreskin be seen as irrelevant to sexual desire. For men in Western societies in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the aim is to increase or preserve penile sensitivity and sexual pleasure, not to reduce it. Thus, while contempo- rary and nineteenth-century discourse share the notion that the fore- skin and thus the intact penis is dangerous to health, they sharply diverge on the question of whether and to what extent sexual desire is healthy. As Foucault puts it, ‘‘Rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any pur- pose.’’ 41 The rule that men ought to be circumcised can be bent to serve the purpose of either restricting sexual desire or increasing sexual hygiene—whichever purpose is deemed necessary by the relevant so- ciety.
This brief account of fgm and rsc is a form of genealogy. But why is genealogy in general, and of genital surgery in particular, relevant to feminism and liberalism? Two elements of the genealogical method
Indeed, Dorkenoo argues that fgm makes it easier for a woman to fake virginity or fidelity, since a reinfibulation looks just like the original one ( Cutting the Rose , 35–36).
Foucault, ‘‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,’’ 85–86.
are of most importance to my argument: its aim ‘‘to conceive culture as practices,’’ and its focus on power/knowledge regimes and disconti- nuities in them. 42 For Foucault, as Nancy Fraser puts it, ‘‘The function- ing of discursive regimes essentially involves forms of social con- straint.’’ 43 In other words, genealogy contributes to an understanding of how social and cultural practices limit individual autonomy, con- straining our options, our self-understandings, and our preferences.
The first aspect of genealogy, the aim to ‘‘conceive culture as prac- tices,’’ is perhaps the most important in this regard. The genealogical method emphasizes the intense relationship between practices and cul- tural norms and interpretations, so that a study of practices serves as a study of a culture. Practices such as fgm and rsc cannot be properly understood outside their cultural context—without knowing what prac- tices are trying to
Similar Books
