FGM/FGC, culture vs. rights, and Levels of Analysis in World Politics
FGM/FGC, culture, and human rights
FGM/FGC (female genital mutilation/cutting): removal of female genitalia for religious/cultural reasons; known to cause severe harm and deaths; widely condemned by UN and women's rights groups; practice can persist across borders via migration; in many places it is illegal but can go underground.
Core tension: cultural/religious practices vs universal human rights. Critics argue culture is used to justify rights violations; supporters argue it's part of identity and religion.
Gambian case: historically embraced then outlawed; still exists in underground forms; large Muslim populations globally have related practices; laws alone often don’t eradicate the custom.
Broader issue: how to balance respect for culture with protecting individual rights, especially for women and children who cannot consent.
Arguments on rights:
Pro-UN/women’s rights side: halt harmful practices; emphasize ethics and universality beyond cultural norms.
Pro-culture side: defense of cultural autonomy and the idea that norms can evolve; insist that rights should be interpreted within cultural contexts.
Related topic: male circumcision discussed as a parallel cultural practice; ongoing debate about consent, autonomy, and rights.
Key takeaway: human rights must navigate cultural relativity while protecting individuals from harm; cultures can evolve toward greater protections without erasing identity.
Ethical question for analysis: should human rights be anchored in universal ethics or adapted through cultural relativism? How should policy-makers engage communities without being perceived as condescending?
Practical considerations: stopping harm involves law, education, and culturally sensitive engagement; victims’ voices are crucial in shaping policy.
Levels of analysis in world politics (four levels)
Concept: levels of analysis organize how we study actors and outcomes in international politics; originated with Kenneth Waltz’s three images in Man, the State, and War; later expanded to four levels.
Four levels:
System (global) level: interactions beyond a single state; international organizations, global norms, and structural forces shape outcomes.
State (national) level: focus on state characteristics—identity, geography, history, demography, domestic politics, public opinion, interest groups, policies.
Group level: influence of organized groups within or across societies (e.g., professions, religious sects, activist groups); groups can have distinct identities and influences.
Individual level: psychological makeup, biographical background, major life events; decisions by leaders or key actors are analyzed through these factors.
Units of analysis and research design:
Units of analysis: the actor you study (e.g., a leader, a group, a state).
Dependent variable: the outcome you want to explain (e.g., conflict, policy change).
Independent variables: factors used to explain the dependent variable (e.g., education, religion, economic conditions).
Scope and level selection:
Macro (system-level) vs micro (individual-level) perspectives change what you can explain and the questions you ask.
The level you choose guides the questions, data, and methods you use.
Benefits of the levels approach:
Helps locate the unit of analysis and the appropriate questions.
Clarifies how different factors at each level influence outcomes (e.g., war, policy, humanitarian crises).
Provides a structured way to analyze complex events by breaking them into layers.
Notable database example:
Correlates of War (COW) database by J. David Singer (and collaborators) collects wars across history to analyze independent variables that correlate with conflict outcomes; supports analysis at multiple levels (individual, state, system).
How to apply with examples:
COVID-19 pandemic:
Individual level: behaviors and beliefs of citizens.
Group level: health-care worker groups and their protections.
State level: national policies and governance, e.g., China’s political economy and response.
System level: role of international organizations (e.g., WHO) and cross-border coordination.
Russia–Ukraine war:
System level: NATO’s impact on the conflict and security architecture.
State level: Ukraine’s capacity and policy choices given its demographics/history.
Group level: international aid workers, refugees, and humanitarian actors.
Key takeaway: levels of analysis help to frame research questions, identify appropriate units and variables, and understand how different scales (micro to macro) shape outcomes.
Practical takeaways for exam prep
Be able to identify which level of analysis a given question or case falls under (e.g., FGM/BMG context tends to be system and state-level in policy debates; individual-level analysis can illuminate decision-makers’ motives).
Know the differences between dependent and independent variables and how they map to a level of analysis.
Remember a real-world example for each level:
System: UN, international norms, global governance (e.g., on FGM or vaccination policies).
State: Gambian law, demographic/religious makeup, national policy.
Group: professional or cultural groups affected by a policy (e.g., health workers, religious groups).
Individual: leader decisions, biographical factors (e.g., Putin’s background).
Be ready to discuss ethical tensions: universal human rights vs cultural relativism; long-term cultural change vs immediate harms; policy enforcement vs cultural autonomy.
Familiarize yourself with the concept of Correlates of War as a tool to study wars across levels of analysis.