Facts, Values and Circumcision
posted by Dave Hoffman
There’s a flurry of coverage about proposed anti-circumcision initiatives in California. (Sullivan, Volokh.) The posts I’ve been reading – and, granted, I’ve not read the field – have taken this issue oddly seriously. After all, these are merely (actual or proposed) ballot initiatives that haven’t been approved by the voters. If they were approved, their constitutionality won’t (contra Volokh) be determined by existing precedent. In my view, this is a slam dunk example of an overdetermined constitutional issue.
But there’s another aspect of this fight that is, I think, worth some extended comment. As Sarah has pointed on this blog, anti- and pro- circumcision advocates generally fight about circumcision’s health effects, and resist attacking (or defending) it as a cultural practice. To me, this looks quite like other contests in our society in which nominally empirical debates predominate — the fight over the HPV vaccine, gay and lesbian parenting, nanotechnology, global warming, etc. The Cultural Cognition project illustrates that these fights very often appear to be about facts, but that expressed conclusions of the “facts” and “risks” involved follow our less-conscious values. Moreover, though we can perceive this tendency in others, we deny it in ourselves. This is the phenomenon of naive realism. What results? We come to believe that people who we disagree with about these value-laden fights (i.e., people who deny the health benefits of circumcision) are arguing in bad faith. They think the same of us. Winning, in the world of policy, becomes an exercise of defeating not just our opponent’s values, but denying that their values are even at play. I am pretty sure that if we tested this hypothesis in the circumcision debate, we’d see a very strong set of cultural priors influencing how partisans interpret and process the medical-risk-facts about circumcision, whether the American Academy of Pediatrics is vouching for those facts or not.
This leads to a concrete piece of advice for Andrew Sullivan and other hot-tempered advocates on either side of this fight. Cool it. Stop inciting fights with question-begging terms like “male genital mutilation.” Instead, affirm the values of those you disagree with by making clear that this isn’t – at root – a debate that be resolved with reference to empirical facts. It’s (as Sarah has insightfully pointed out) a discussion about cultural practices, and the degree to which the greater society has the right to change them.
For what it’s worth, my view is that the government has about as much of a moral right to prohibit circumcision as it does to tell me that I must eat broccoli.
May 26, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Posted in: Civil Rights, Law and Psychology, Uncategorized
Print This Post
Responses (10)
Chris - May 26, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“For what it’s worth, my view is that the government has about as much of a moral right to prohibit circumcision as it does to tell me that I must eat broccoli.”
Forbidding the removal of a healthy part of an infant’s body is the same making a grown man eat broccoli?
It sounds like you have a case of niave realism yourself.
Dave Hoffman - May 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Forgive me Chris, I was trying to make a too-subtle reference to the health care debate.
I’ll be clearer, then: I think that male circumcision is a very-long-standing cultural practice worthy of respect, and the government should not meddle in it. I’m quite aware that this is a value-laden view!
Al - May 26, 2011 at 2:08 pm
While I agree that the debate cannot be settled merely by reference to the empirical facts, neither do I think that we should throw up our hands and say that the dispute is all about value-laden conceptions of the world. Of course the empirical facts matter. Factual data about the risks and benefits of circumsicion vs. no circumsicion should inform our value-laden judgments. Since these data are the foundation upon which the debate lies, they should be vigorously analyzed and discussed. We can then proceed to disagree about what the law should be in light of those data.
Bob - May 26, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“Stop inciting fights with question-begging terms like “male genital mutilation.”
Out of curiosity, do you feel the same about the term “female genital mutilation?” What if in reference only to similar forms of bodily alteration–removal of the clitoral hood, cutting the hood, and so on.
“I think that male circumcision is a very-long-standing cultural practice worthy of respect, and the government should not meddle in it. I’m quite aware that this is a value-laden view!”
Similar question. Isn’t female circumcision also a long-standing cultural practice? if it’s not worthy of respect, is it because your value is to respect longstanding practices in your culture but not a foreign one? Again, take out the extreme cases of removing the clitoris or labia.
Dan Bollinger - May 27, 2011 at 10:59 am
The real issue here is the human rights violation. These men are not permitted to have a say in how their body looks, works, and feels. This is doubly important because it effects their sexuality, too. We protect girls from harm, and rightly so. The Federal female genital cutting law, which has no religious exemption, prohibits even a pinprick to extract one drop of blood. Male genital cutting–aka circumcision–is certainly worse than that. We’ve come a long way with gender rights; let’s not perpetuate this harmful double standard.
dave hoffman - May 27, 2011 at 11:28 am
Dan,
I understand your point of view, but it doesn’t seem particularly responsive to the points I made in my post.
frankcross - May 28, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Ok, I don’t understand the argument that men are not permitted a say in how their body looks, works, and feels. Wouldn’t the same be true for non-circumcision (some adult men might prefer to be circumsized). I suppose circumcision is theoretically possible at a grown age (though at much greater cost), but I think circumcision too may be surgically reversed (again at a cost).
dave hoffman - May 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Frank,
Parents control all kinds of aspects of how their children look, feel, act — including deep interventions in personality, in economic security, in education, in philosophy. That’s kind of the point of parenting — why ought society to have to a role in that familial and personal decision?
Paul - May 29, 2011 at 6:10 am
It is a “familial and personal decision” for some people to whip their children with metal coat hangers. It is “for their own good” and “the bible tells me to” they claim. It doesn’t mean it should be allowed. It is odd how some circumcised men have blinders on in this discussion and won’t and or can’t accept the fact that something important to their genital functioning was taken from them without their consent.
Shag from Brookline - May 30, 2011 at 8:11 am
frankcross says:
” I suppose circumcision is theoretically possible at a grown age …. ”
This is obviously true, at which time the subject can make an informed decision. I was a few years too young for WW II but I recall one of my older friends from the neighborhood serving in the Navy having to undergo the procedure for reasons of health. His recovery was quite painful, as he narrated while on leave.
This subject brings to mind the Seinfeld episode of a bris where Kramer tried to intervene. While it was a funny sketch, it did raise the issue. Yes, the parents have rights, but what about the infant boy’s rights? As for surgical reversal, frankcross suggests the availability of surgical reversal on a cost/benefit basis. I doubt that there are that many takers.
Leave a Reply