Lucia Corno is an associate professor in the Department of Economics and Finance at Cattolica University, Italy and visiting researcher at Harvard University, United States. She studies harmful social norms and consults governments and international organizations on the effectiveness of anti-poverty policies. Together we speak about her views on feminism and her latest research on female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone.
Lucia, are you a feminist?
I think it depends on how you define a “feminist”. I believe that everyone should have equal opportunities, rights and access to resources, regardless of gender. Is this what you have in mind as a definition of a feminist?
Well, for me, feminism is the idea that women deserve equal opportunities, rights and respect as well as a philosophy that helps women become aware of their value and power.
I think sometimes it has a negative connotation because many people use this term as a way of saying that even if you are not good but you are a woman, you should have this or that right or have a voice.
How do you view the importance of the current feminist movement?
We still live in a world where women are less likely to be born in the first place, or go to school, they earn less money, they are underrepresented in certain fields and suffer from inequality. But I think that the problem is different in wealthy nations compared to developing countries.
Do you think that there aren’t harmful social norms in developed countries?
There are many subtle norms related to patriarchy but these norms usually emerge later on in life. If I think about gender difference among young girls and boys, I feel that nowadays, in countries like Italy or the US, they have similar opportunities. But during adolescence when young girls have their periods and start to feel less confident about their body, the situation might change.
Your work revolves around studying harmful social norms, namely female genital mutilation and child marriage. Can you tell me about your latest results?
Together with my colleague Eliana La Ferrara from Harvard University we have been studying the approach implemented by the Amazonian Initiative Movement, a local NGO based in Sierra Leone. In Sierra Leone, female genital mutilation is part on an initiation ritual into a secret women’s society. The approach of this NGOs is to maintain the symbolic value of the ritual but to remove the harmful part, which is the cutting. In a randomized control trial, we have tested this approach among a large sample of mothers and their daughters and we have observed a reduction of the incidence of female genital mutilation by 25% in 3 years.
What is new about this approach?
While many campaigns propose the outright abandon of female genital mutilation, this organization suggests that the community keeps its traditions and culture but substitutes the final part with something else that is not harmful, like a tattoo.
How has female genital cutting originated in the first place?
We have a study on the historical origins of female genital cutting and we test the existing hypothesis that FGC is associated with the Red Sea route of the African slave trade, during which women were often sold as concubines in the Middle East.
According to historical accounts, infibulation was used as a means to preserve virginity and reduce the likelihood of pregnancy during the slaves’ journeys. Using individual-level data from 28 African countries combined with new historical records of Red Sea slave shipments from 1400 to 1900, we have found that women from ethnic groups whose ancestors experienced greater exposure to the Red Sea slave trade are more likely to undergo infibulation or circumcision today.
Why exactly do people force young girls to undergo cutting?
In Sierra Leone the practice is a requirement to entering a women’s secret society. Girls spend four weeks in the bush where they are trained on how to become good wives and mothers, how to sing traditional songs, how to dress and how to please their men. At the end of the fourth week, they are cut and can enter into a network of support for women for their entire life. If you need money, you can ask someone. If your husband beats you, you can turn to other women. If you don’t do this rite of passage, you cannot access this network.
But the practice is terribly painful. Why isn’t there more opposition?
Because it’s very difficult to deviate. If 90% of women undergo female genital mutilation and you decide not to, there might social sanctions. You always have to think about what are the costs and benefits of the mother who makes the decision to cut her daughter. For us, everything is wrong but for them there are high social costs. For example, the daughter might be stigmatized or not get a good husband.
I love this idea of inventing alternatives that can substitute harmful social norms!
We have proved that this approach might work and we have talked about it with governments and NGOs. We’re hoping that it will lead to a reduction in female genital mutilation, which is still widespread. For example, in Egypt 89% of women are cut, even though this practice is illegal. Out of 28 countries FGM is legal only in Somalia, Mali and Sierra Leone. The point is to convince people that some alternatives always exist.