Beyond the Sociocultural Rhetoric: Female Genital Mutilation, Cultural Values and the Symbolic Capital (Honor) of Women and Their Family in Conakry, Guinea—A Focused Ethnography Among “Positive Deviants”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is justified by sociocultural arguments, including that it guarantees girls'/women's appropriate sexual behavior, thus preserving family honor. We explored the perspectives of Guineans who do not practice FGM ("positive deviants"), as well as of Guineans who still practice FGM but who are supportive of abandoning the practice ("reluctant adherents"). We conducted a "focused ethnographic" study in Conakry, Guinea with a sample of 58 people. Individual semi-structured interviews were undertaken to explore the views and experiences of 18 women and 12 men of different generations who abandoned the practice of FGM. Group interviews with an additional 16 women and 12 men (half of whom were "positive deviants" and the other half "reluctant adherents") validated and enriched the data. Participants consider that FGM has deleterious consequences as it: (1) does not prevent girls or married women from being sexually active outside of marriage; (2) may impair couples' sexual satisfaction, and thus lead to divorce, men's infidelity or polygamy; and (3) may reduce women's ability to have multiple children, because of the increased risk of infertility or obstetric complications. In addition, participants reported that many Guineans fear that the promotion of FGM abandonment is a Western plot to eradicate their culture. We conclude that Guineans who practice and do not practice FGM share the same cultural values about the importance of culturally appropriate sexual behavior, being married, and having many children, which are central sources of honor (symbolic capital) to women and their families. They, however, have opposing views on how to achieve these objectives. Based on our participants' perspectives, the harmful consequences of FGM can potentially sabotage these sources of honor. Recommendations for messages aimed at promoting FGM abandonment are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".