| Literature DB >> 32375816 |
Marie-Hélène Doucet1, Alexandre Delamou2,3, Hawa Manet2, Danielle Groleau4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female genital mutilation (FGM) can give rise to immediate and long-term health problems for girls/women. Numerous studies have identified the sociocultural determinants of this tradition, but so far, in a national context where FGM is highly practiced, virtually none have focused on people refusing to have their daughters cut. We therefore aimed to understand the sociocultural dynamics underlying the non-practice of FGM in Guinea, a country which has one of the most prevalent rates of this practice in the world. This research explored the demographic and sociocultural profiles of Guineans who do not practice FGM, as well as their non-practice experience in a context of high FGM prevalence and social pressure.Entities:
Keywords: Economic capital; Female genital mutilation (FGM); Focused ethnography; Guinea/Conakry; Individualization process; Positive deviance; Qualitative research; Social capital
Year: 2020 PMID: 32375816 PMCID: PMC7201997 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-020-00910-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Participants’ demographic characteristics (n = 30)
| Percentage (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Generation | Grandparents | 4 | 13 |
| Parents | 18 | 60 | |
| Young adults | 8 | 27 | |
| Sex | Women | 18 | 60 |
| Men | 12 | 40 | |
| Level of education | University – doctorate | 1 | 3 |
| University – master | 8 | 27 | |
| University – bachelor | 5 | 17 | |
| Secondary or professional training | 6 | 20 | |
| Primary or no education | 5 | 17 | |
| Religion | Muslim | 24 | 80 |
| Christian | 6 | 20 | |
| Ethnic identity | Malinké | 9 | 30 |
| Peul | 6 | 20 | |
| Badiaranké | 5 | 17 | |
| Soussou | 4 | 13 | |
| Kissi | 4 | 13 | |
| Guerzé | 1 | 3 | |
| Manon | 1 | 3 |
Fig. 1Level of disclosure of not practicing FGM vs experience of social pressure. The “activists” openly speak about being against FGM, and do not fear/perceive social pressure. The “discrete” avoid social turmoil by not disclosing their decision, but do not hide it at all costs either. The “courageous” openly speak about being against FGM, and suffer corresponding social consequences. The “strategists” avoid social turmoil by deceiving/lying about their decision
Summary of participants’ characteristics according to typology (n = 30)
| Activists | Discrete | Courageous | Strategists | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 14 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 30 | |
| Social capitala | Yes | 14 | 12 | 0 | 26 | |
| No | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 (partial)b | 4 | |
| Cultural capital | University – doctorate | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| University – master | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |
| University – bachelor | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Secondary or professional trainingc | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | |
| Primary or no education | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | |
| Economic capital | High | 10 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 21 |
| Middle | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 9 | |
| Low | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Type of social ties | Individualistic discourse | 13 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| Interdependence discourse | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
aSocial support for not practicing FGM
bThe “strategists” perceive that some of their entourage do not support the non-practice of FGM
cProfessional training, such as midwifery or technician certifications
dThe narrative did not allow to classify in one or the other