Paul Farmer, a world-renowned global health leader, describes structural violence as “social arrangements that put individuals in harm’s way (Farmer, 2006, p.2).” These factors are enshrined in the social and political framework of a social community. These are normally enshrined in social and political frameworks within societies. From the perspective of gender and development, structural violence heightens gender inequalities. It is rooted in discriminatory social, economic, and political systems that harm women or men and hinder their development. These inequalities manifest as unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Structural violence particularly impacts women’s ability to meet basic needs, reduces their agency, and traps them in a cycle of vulnerability, poverty, and disempowerment. This blog post looks at how Female Genital Mutilation is an example of a structural violence that has plagued many communities in Africa, but specifically the Pokot people in Uganda.
Female Genital Mutilation: Uganda’s Perspective
In Uganda, FGM is an example of a structural violence practiced initiating girls from childhood into adulthood. It is, however, a harmful practice that could result in hemorrhage, infection, chronic pain, childbirth complications, and even death in severe cases (UN Women, 2022). In Uganda, Female Genital Mutilation is illegal and punishable by law. However, it is still practiced in some communities that belief that it’s a mandatory rite of passage for girls. FGM is therefore a good example of a structural violence rooted in strong cultural, tribal, and social beliefs. FGM is not just practiced in communities like Pokot; it is also a global issue. Globally, over 230 girls have undergone FGM, with 144 of these coming from Africa (UNICEF, 2024). Addressing FGM is important because when this practice continues, it can lead to severe physical and psychological trauma, which can negatively affect women’s ability to engage in economic work (Abdulcadir, 2014). As a result, there have been strategies put in place to address this structural violence.
The persistence of FGM significantly undermines efforts to improve women's health outcomes and economic opportunities, as it can lead to severe physical and psychological trauma, limiting women's ability to participate fully in social and economic life (Abdulcadir et al., 2014).
Driving Out FGM in Uganda
Cynthia is using her childhood experience to advocate against FGM in communities where it is still practiced. Cynthia’s advocacy efforts are part of a larger body of strategies being used to address FGM. Some strategies utilized to drive out FGM in the rural Uganda communities INCLUDE THE USE of community dialogues, communications, and media to tackle the root cause and address the social dynamics that result in FGM being practiced. Stakeholder engagement towards ensuring community gatekeepers as sensitized about the dangers of FGM and brought on board as advocates against this practice is another strategy that has been employed. Some the stakeholders engaged include community elders who are influential leaders who gatekeep traditions and norms. Finally, a group of individuals referred to as community activist are another group that goes into communities and talks to community members about the dangers and risks of FGM towards driving out this harmful practice from communities.
FGM is an example of a structural violence that directly affects women and if not addressed will continue to have negative health impacts on the lives of women all around the world.
References
Rooting out FGM in rural Uganda | UN Women – Headquarters. (2022, February 2). UN Women – Headquarters. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/feature-story/2022/02/rooting-out-fgm-in-rural-uganda
UNICEF. (2024,March).Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/
Abdulcadir, J., Rodríguez, M., & Say, L. (2014). Research gaps in the care of women with female genital mutilation: an analysis. Bjog an International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 122(3), 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13217
Thank you for raising awareness about the serious issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Uganda. Your post powerfully highlights the deeply rooted cultural pressures that keep this harmful practice alive despite the clear risks to girls’ health and human rights.
ReplyDeleteDue to my previous work with UNICEF, I have heard this term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and I have been in meetings where issue of FGM and importance of awareness raising has been discussed. It has been raised many times by my fellow colleagues from UNICEF African region, that FGM continues to persist due to a complex combination of social, cultural, and economic factors, one of the most significant factors which stood very strong to me is, family history and tradition of circumcision. In many communities, FGM is passed down through generations as a deeply rooted tradition, with mothers and grandmothers often playing central roles in perpetuating the practice. It is seen as a cultural obligation and a marker of identity, womanhood, and social acceptance. (Female Genital Mutilation: A global concern - UNICEF DATA)
Families may believe that FGM ensures their daughters’ marriageability, sexual purity, and family honor, making it difficult for individuals to resist even if they personally oppose it. In addition, social pressure, fear of exclusion, limited education, and misinformation about religious or health benefits contribute to its continuation. As long as communities remain bound by these collective beliefs and historical norms, FGM will be difficult to eradicate without targeted, culturally sensitive education and sustained community engagement. (Prevalence of female genital mutilation and associated factors among women and girls in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis Asteray Assmie Ayenew1,2*, Ben W. Mol1, Billie Bradford1 and Gedefaw Abeje)
Your post on FGM as a form of structural violence offers a powerful lens to understand how gendered harm persists through social norms, institutions, and silence. Reading it alongside Corrêa and Jolly (2008) highlights how development discourses have historically ignored sexuality as a site of power, inequality, and bodily control. The authors argue that sexuality and poverty are deeply intertwined, not only through sexual ill-health but through the social rules, economic structures, and legal frameworks that regulate bodies (Corrêa & Jolly, 2008). FGM is a clear example of this: it is not an isolated “cultural practice,” but a disciplining mechanism that controls women’s sexuality and reinforces a heteronormative, patriarchal vision of family and gender roles. The story of Cynthia exposes that violence against women’s bodies is legitimized under the guise of tradition and morality, while women’s autonomy remains secondary. The fact that FGM continues despite being illegal reflects how law alone cannot undo deeply embedded gender orders. Cynthia’s activism also connects with Corrêa and Jolly’s insistence that rights-based approaches to sexuality are essential for development. Challenging FGM is not only about health or legality—it is about reclaiming bodily autonomy, disrupting essentialist gender norms, and recognizing sexuality as a legitimate terrain of justice and rights.
ReplyDeleteHi Joy, thank you very much for your thought-provoking and meaningful post. I was truly shocked when I first learned in my Human Sexuality class that “around the world, over 230 million girls and women have been cut. Africa accounts for the largest share of this total, with over 144 million. Asia follows with over 80 million, and a further 6 million are in the Middle East.”
ReplyDelete(Source: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/)
These numbers are enormous and deeply alarming. After reading your post, I began to view this issue through the lens of structural violence, a concept that highlights how social and institutional systems indirectly harm individuals and perpetuate inequality. In the context of Gender and Development (GAD), FGM can also be understood as a form of patriarchal control over women’s bodies—an attempt to preserve social norms that limit women’s autonomy and reinforce gender inequality.
The practice not only causes physical and psychological trauma but also restricts women’s long-term access to health, education, and economic empowerment. Addressing this issue requires more than banning the practice; it calls for transformative change that challenges cultural norms and power relations. I completely agree with your emphasis on engaging community gatekeepers, elders, and activists. I am especially curious about how participatory approaches and bottom-up strategies have helped reshape mindsets and promote sustainable change in different communities.
Thank you, Joy, for bringing this critical issue to our attention. In fact, one might think that Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is no longer in practice, but surprisingly, it is still very much prevalent in parts of Nigeria, especially in the northern and South-South states. The act carries deep cultural meanings, often linked to ideas of purity, womanhood, and marriageability, which are used to justify its continuation. However, these justifications do not erase the fact that FGM is a harmful and dehumanizing practice that strips women and girls of their bodily autonomy and violates their fundamental rights.
ReplyDeleteLike you rightly pointed out, FGM is a form of structural violence that perpetuates gender inequality and reinforces the subordination of women under patriarchal systems. The physical and psychological trauma it causes has lifelong consequences that affect women’s health, education, and participation in social and economic life.
I totally agree with your argument and the strategies you highlighted for addressing this practice. Community-based approaches such as dialogue, media advocacy, and stakeholder engagement are indeed effective in changing social norms. In Nigeria, organisations like the National Orientation Agency and UNFPA (the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency) have adopted similar models by working with traditional rulers, women leaders, and survivors to sensitise rural communities about the dangers of FGM. I really do agree that more work needs to be done, especially in addressing the social pressure families face to conform to harmful traditions.
As a Ghanaian who hails from the Northern part of Ghana where Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is still practiced, I appreciate your framing of FGM as a form of structural violence that limits women’s bodily autonomy, health, and economic participation. However, I want to complicate this framing by arguing for the importance of context and the need for what de Souza (2019) calls a desire-based approach - one that does not reduce communities to sites of damage, but foregrounds what members are already doing to challenge, negotiate, and transform these practices.
ReplyDeleteFGM, especially in Northern Ghana, persists not only because of ignorance or oppression, but because it is morally and socially embedded within systems of meaning that emphasize belonging, purity, and transition. Women themselves, namely mothers, aunts, and even educated professionals, often participate in or consent to the practice because it represents social legitimacy and moral worth. Thus, conversations about FGM require attention to the emic (insider) perspectives that give the practice meaning, alongside the etic (outsider) perspectives that view it primarily as a violation. Without this balance, interventions risk reproducing what de Souza (also emphasized by Narayanswamy) critiques as deficiency-oriented development approaches—where the Global South is pathologized and its people rendered as passive recipients of “civilizing” aid.
This raises key questions: Whose voices are professionalized, and whose are marginalized in anti-FGM advocacy? When Western NGOs or development agencies lead these campaigns, do they unintentionally engage in epistemic violence, silencing local women’s strategies of resistance that already exist within cultural and moral frameworks? Moreover, as Ramirez et al. (2023) show in their study of the Wayúu people’s resistance to green colonialism in Colombia, the most sustainable transformations often come from within—rooted in local values of care, reciprocity, and collective well-being. Similarly, France’s (2022) work on Indigenous communities in the Columbia Pacific region shows that decolonial transitions must be built around reciprocity and systematic alternatives, not imposed reforms. That is what gives these advocacies legitimacy.
From this lens, tackling FGM requires shifting from a neoliberal, top-down model of behavioral correction to a participatory, relational model of behavioral change communication. A skills audit, for example, that identifies what local actors—midwives, religious leaders, mothers, and youth groups—are already doing to resist FGM can reframe advocacy from condemnation to collaboration. By amplifying these community-led efforts, we replace narratives of deficiency with those of capability and transformation.
In essence, the conversation about FGM should move beyond depicting African communities as sites of harm to recognizing them as sites of knowledge, resistance, and ongoing negotiation. A feminist–decolonial approach asks us not only to end the practice, but also to listen to how women themselves are reimagining bodily integrity, dignity, and cultural continuity on their own terms.