This ethnographic account stands in sharp contrast to the Western public debate on female circumcision, according to which the practice is to be understood in terms of male domination, mutilation, and sexual control.[63] The discrepancy between the Western and the Jola cultural understandings of excision presents the researcher with an ethical problem. As an anthropologist living in the field with people who were defending excision, I had to struggle with this discrepancy in my everyday life. I was constantly torn between my role as a scientist trying to catch the ‘native point of view’ and my personal feelings of indignation and frustration, as well as my feelings of respect and love for the people I came to know in Casa — mance, people who so generously shared their life, thoughts, and experiences with me. It is obvious that they love their daughters and circumcise them with good intentions. With this insight as a point of departure, I try in my research to grasp the inner rationality of the practice, the reasons that are so important for
Arnfred Page 82 Wednesday, March 3, 2004 2:38 PM