How is your norm entrepreneur funded and what impact has this had on the campaign you are studying?
I'm following a few norm entrepreneurs so this is a bit of a tricky question. NOCIRC has been funded over time by both members and private donors, but according to my source at NOCIRC it is the generosity of a few wealthy individuals that has really kept the organization going and provided the means to maintain the website, send out publicity materials and throw conferences.
Intact America is more mainstream and professional partly because a private donor has provided a large grant for staff and website upkeep. Yet I have had a difficult time discerning the precise funding structure of the organization. They do not publicize this on the website, and my request for information from the executive director has been met with equivocation.
My guess is that one impact of being funded primarily by one or two private individuals it that it the organization's credibility with different constituencies is affected by the identity of the donor. This may account for some NGO's heightened desire to keep their sources of income confidential.
As James Ron noted in class, there is a hierarchy of moral authority among NGOs between those who take large sums of money from single sources and those who raise money in many small quantities from the grassroots; there is also a hierarchy of moral authority between those who spend their money primarily on movement activities versus those who spend their money on institutional development such as a website and professional staff. The latter will have more credibility with policy gatekeepers but a price is paid for this level of professionalism. In the anti-circumcision movement, different organizations play both roles and appear to have a high degree of common identity, so they may be able to get the best of both worlds over time.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Governments as Allies and Targets
In what capacity should your entrepreneur seek alliances with governments? Which governments? Why?
While NORM chapters have emerged in a number of other country contexts, notably the UK and South Africa, it is unclear to what extent these groups are directly lobbying their own governments. The US-based norm entrepreneurs to whom I have spoken have avoided targeting change by governments in international contexts and have focused primarily on the United States. The argument is that because the US is a leading practitioner of circumcision, if it changes course there will be a contagion effect around the world. It's not clear this will be the case, however, given that the procedure is in fact even more widely practiced throughout Africa, the Middle East and in Muslim-majority countries. However, US-based intactivists are more uncomfortable addressing governments of Muslim-majority states directly, and retreat behind cultural relativist arguments when considering this.
But even in the US, intactivists told me that promoting their cause directly with governments was viewed as a last resort. They cite mixed impact on US legislative bodies so far. As noted in an earlier blog post, one effort to ban circumcision through the Massachusetts legislature was quickly shot down. One of the intactivists I interviewed in fact suggested that trying to promote government support was less likely to succeed than focusing on change through the grassroots, and if they could create social change instead they might not even need a government ban.
To the extent that they are correct in being ill-positioned to target governments directly, it is surprising that intactivists have sought few alliances with governments, as it would seem likely that government delegations would be in a better position to lobby their counterparts in Muslim-majority countries or help bring pressure to bear on states. In fact, intactivists have pointed out that there exist many sympathetic governments, particularly those in Europe and Asia where circumcision is not practiced, and particularly in the UK where it was once practiced but has now been largely eradicated. A reasonable strategy would seem to be to seek opportunities to gain support among such governments for language in global human rights documents that would raise the profile of this issue in government discourse more broadly.
Why has this not occurred? Part of the reason that sympathetic governments have not been lobbied to take a leadership role in a transnational campaign is lack of access: intactivists have little opportunity to send delegations and limited roster status at the UN makes it difficult to network with the appropriate governments officials in New York. However, given that Intact America headquarters is driving distance to New York it may be that this is not the entire reason. Further interviews may be required to understand whether movement identity is emerging as inherently cynical of government support, or whether intactivists simply lack procedural expertise to take advantage of their access to governments, or whether something else is at play.
While NORM chapters have emerged in a number of other country contexts, notably the UK and South Africa, it is unclear to what extent these groups are directly lobbying their own governments. The US-based norm entrepreneurs to whom I have spoken have avoided targeting change by governments in international contexts and have focused primarily on the United States. The argument is that because the US is a leading practitioner of circumcision, if it changes course there will be a contagion effect around the world. It's not clear this will be the case, however, given that the procedure is in fact even more widely practiced throughout Africa, the Middle East and in Muslim-majority countries. However, US-based intactivists are more uncomfortable addressing governments of Muslim-majority states directly, and retreat behind cultural relativist arguments when considering this.
But even in the US, intactivists told me that promoting their cause directly with governments was viewed as a last resort. They cite mixed impact on US legislative bodies so far. As noted in an earlier blog post, one effort to ban circumcision through the Massachusetts legislature was quickly shot down. One of the intactivists I interviewed in fact suggested that trying to promote government support was less likely to succeed than focusing on change through the grassroots, and if they could create social change instead they might not even need a government ban.
To the extent that they are correct in being ill-positioned to target governments directly, it is surprising that intactivists have sought few alliances with governments, as it would seem likely that government delegations would be in a better position to lobby their counterparts in Muslim-majority countries or help bring pressure to bear on states. In fact, intactivists have pointed out that there exist many sympathetic governments, particularly those in Europe and Asia where circumcision is not practiced, and particularly in the UK where it was once practiced but has now been largely eradicated. A reasonable strategy would seem to be to seek opportunities to gain support among such governments for language in global human rights documents that would raise the profile of this issue in government discourse more broadly.
Why has this not occurred? Part of the reason that sympathetic governments have not been lobbied to take a leadership role in a transnational campaign is lack of access: intactivists have little opportunity to send delegations and limited roster status at the UN makes it difficult to network with the appropriate governments officials in New York. However, given that Intact America headquarters is driving distance to New York it may be that this is not the entire reason. Further interviews may be required to understand whether movement identity is emerging as inherently cynical of government support, or whether intactivists simply lack procedural expertise to take advantage of their access to governments, or whether something else is at play.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Political Opportunity Structure of the UN
As noted in my last post on human rights gate-keeping, intactivists have had little success pitching their concern to the United Nations. But as newcomers to the human rights arena, they have also have problems accessing the UN. Limited funding has made it difficult to maintain a presence in New York or to travel to Geneva for conferences. And while NOCIRC was able to achieve ECOSOC consultative status, they have only the most limited "roster" status which entitles them only to make themselves available to the UN when asked on specific technical issues.
Intactivists I've spoken with are also skeptical that those in UN circles could be their ally and often do not distinguish between different UN bodies. They point to the permissive context created by the WHO's arguments about circumcision and HIV-AIDS, as well as what they perceive to be a generally anti-male discourse among UN experts on gender-based violence, which has typically excluded forms of violence that target men and boys.
Nonetheless it seems that there are some UN bodies that would be particularly useful as allies if intactivists could cultivate relations with them. These include UNICEF, which takes a broad view of children's rights and has an influential voice in the global child rights network. Attention to this issue percolating through UNICEF would reach WHO and may influence their approach to this issue as well, given their emphasis on rights-based work in recent years. In addition, intactivists should stay abreast of and seek to influence documents pertaining to violence against children that circulate within the UN system.
Intactivists I've spoken with are also skeptical that those in UN circles could be their ally and often do not distinguish between different UN bodies. They point to the permissive context created by the WHO's arguments about circumcision and HIV-AIDS, as well as what they perceive to be a generally anti-male discourse among UN experts on gender-based violence, which has typically excluded forms of violence that target men and boys.
Nonetheless it seems that there are some UN bodies that would be particularly useful as allies if intactivists could cultivate relations with them. These include UNICEF, which takes a broad view of children's rights and has an influential voice in the global child rights network. Attention to this issue percolating through UNICEF would reach WHO and may influence their approach to this issue as well, given their emphasis on rights-based work in recent years. In addition, intactivists should stay abreast of and seek to influence documents pertaining to violence against children that circulate within the UN system.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Intactivism and Human Rights Gatekeeping
To what extent have intactivists sought to "pitch" their ideas to the human rights mainstream? This question needs to be unpacked somewhat. Clifford Bob defines gatekeepers as both powerful UN agencies and NGOs at the center of networks and also human rights intellectuals.
Arguably, however, there are also core and peripheral actors among human rights intellectuals. A better way to think of "intellectuals" as gatekeepers is to look not at individuals but at information hubs on human rights such as scholarly journals or websites. Two important ones are Human Rights Quarterlyand Journal of Human Rights; and scholarly associations such as the International Studies Association's Human Rights Section. One observation about the anti-circumcision network is that they seem to have made relatively little effort to use such outlets as a platform for promoting their analyses of the human rights implications of circumcision. Rather, the movement organizes its own scholarly symposiums and produces conference proceedings in which they retain copyright to papers published. By collecting papers and then preventing activists from publishing them elsewhere, the movement has inhibited mainstreaming of its cause throughout the human rights movement.
The movement has sought to engage both the UN and human rights NGOs over the years. In particular, Steven Swoboda of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child and a colleague attempted to push the issue both through Americas Watch (which later became Human Rights Watch) and Amnesty International. According to Swoboda, presentations were made at both the national and regional Amnesty chapters in the US in the 1990s, and a letter was also sent to the Amnesty secretariat in London. In each case the organizations were largely dismissive, citing limited resources and issue priorities.
Similarly, Swoboda traveled to Geneva in 2001 as a NOCIRC representative (ARC did not have consultative status at the UN) to make a presentation to the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Their written statement to this body is, to my knowledge, the only official UN document on record affirming the male child's right to bodily integrity. Some countries were more sympathetic than others, particularly Sweden; but ultimately no reference to the issue was made in documents coming out of the Subcommission.
Intactivists have had a particularly difficult time linking this issue to the parallel work being done with respect to female genital mutilation. When they approached the Special Representative to the UN on Harmful Practices Affecting Children and Women, for example, they were told specifically that this only dealt with harms affecting women and the female child. (Their written statement to the UN Subcommission in part requested that this mandate be reconsidered.) I was told that many FGM groups were hesitant to join the coalition, although in recent years this appears to be changing, partly as a result of an ongoing dialogue between the groups.
In general, the dismissiveness from the human rights mainstream reported to me by intactivists is similar to the response I received when raising this issue in focus groups of human security practitioners. Such practitioners invoked parental rights, cultural rights, religious rights, and state sovereignty to justify inattention to the issue; they dismissed it as a low-priority concern; they objected to comparisons with FGM and worried that attention to male circumcision would divert attention away from FGM; or they cited health benefits of circumcision and compared it to vaccination. A few laughed outright. Today, as Debra DeLaet details in this paper, the issue remains largely taboo within the human rights community.
Arguably, however, there are also core and peripheral actors among human rights intellectuals. A better way to think of "intellectuals" as gatekeepers is to look not at individuals but at information hubs on human rights such as scholarly journals or websites. Two important ones are Human Rights Quarterlyand Journal of Human Rights; and scholarly associations such as the International Studies Association's Human Rights Section. One observation about the anti-circumcision network is that they seem to have made relatively little effort to use such outlets as a platform for promoting their analyses of the human rights implications of circumcision. Rather, the movement organizes its own scholarly symposiums and produces conference proceedings in which they retain copyright to papers published. By collecting papers and then preventing activists from publishing them elsewhere, the movement has inhibited mainstreaming of its cause throughout the human rights movement.
The movement has sought to engage both the UN and human rights NGOs over the years. In particular, Steven Swoboda of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child and a colleague attempted to push the issue both through Americas Watch (which later became Human Rights Watch) and Amnesty International. According to Swoboda, presentations were made at both the national and regional Amnesty chapters in the US in the 1990s, and a letter was also sent to the Amnesty secretariat in London. In each case the organizations were largely dismissive, citing limited resources and issue priorities.
Similarly, Swoboda traveled to Geneva in 2001 as a NOCIRC representative (ARC did not have consultative status at the UN) to make a presentation to the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Their written statement to this body is, to my knowledge, the only official UN document on record affirming the male child's right to bodily integrity. Some countries were more sympathetic than others, particularly Sweden; but ultimately no reference to the issue was made in documents coming out of the Subcommission.
Intactivists have had a particularly difficult time linking this issue to the parallel work being done with respect to female genital mutilation. When they approached the Special Representative to the UN on Harmful Practices Affecting Children and Women, for example, they were told specifically that this only dealt with harms affecting women and the female child. (Their written statement to the UN Subcommission in part requested that this mandate be reconsidered.) I was told that many FGM groups were hesitant to join the coalition, although in recent years this appears to be changing, partly as a result of an ongoing dialogue between the groups.
In general, the dismissiveness from the human rights mainstream reported to me by intactivists is similar to the response I received when raising this issue in focus groups of human security practitioners. Such practitioners invoked parental rights, cultural rights, religious rights, and state sovereignty to justify inattention to the issue; they dismissed it as a low-priority concern; they objected to comparisons with FGM and worried that attention to male circumcision would divert attention away from FGM; or they cited health benefits of circumcision and compared it to vaccination. A few laughed outright. Today, as Debra DeLaet details in this paper, the issue remains largely taboo within the human rights community.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Venues and Political Opportunities
At the global level intactivists have had a hard time identifying an appropriate venue for activism or targeting their frame to that venue, and from what I can tell they may have missed some important opportunities in the last few years, though this requires more research.
The appropriate venue would vary considerably depending on the frame chosen. For example, during the period when intactivists were attempting to promote their cause through a health frame, getting support from the World Health Organization would have been optimal. In recent years however WHO has actually come to pose more of an obstacle than a political opportunity for intactivists, as they have promoted the idea of a link between HIV-AIDS reduction and circumcision.
With the human rights frame, NGOs would ideally need to target mainstream human rights organizations and the UN Commission on Human Rights. They have made some efforts to do so unsuccessfully (more on that next week). However other more focused venues have a arisen for which I'm not sure they focused any advocacy. For example, in 2001-2006, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative undertook a series of expert conferences culminating in a report on violence against children. NGOs had significant influence over the types of concerns raised in this report, but intactivists don't seem to have exerted much influence. The final report includes a section on female genital mutilation but not on boys. I need to conduct more research to discover to what extent the anti-circumcision movement aimed to get language into this report. Had they managed to do so it would have been an important agenda-setting opportunity.
At the domestic level the movement has been more targeted as specific venues, seeking to influence American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, and pushing legislation at the state level, including in Massachusetts this year:
The appropriate venue would vary considerably depending on the frame chosen. For example, during the period when intactivists were attempting to promote their cause through a health frame, getting support from the World Health Organization would have been optimal. In recent years however WHO has actually come to pose more of an obstacle than a political opportunity for intactivists, as they have promoted the idea of a link between HIV-AIDS reduction and circumcision.
With the human rights frame, NGOs would ideally need to target mainstream human rights organizations and the UN Commission on Human Rights. They have made some efforts to do so unsuccessfully (more on that next week). However other more focused venues have a arisen for which I'm not sure they focused any advocacy. For example, in 2001-2006, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative undertook a series of expert conferences culminating in a report on violence against children. NGOs had significant influence over the types of concerns raised in this report, but intactivists don't seem to have exerted much influence. The final report includes a section on female genital mutilation but not on boys. I need to conduct more research to discover to what extent the anti-circumcision movement aimed to get language into this report. Had they managed to do so it would have been an important agenda-setting opportunity.
At the domestic level the movement has been more targeted as specific venues, seeking to influence American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, and pushing legislation at the state level, including in Massachusetts this year:
Friday, September 24, 2010
Framing Infant Male Circumcision As A Social Problem
The early anti-circumcision movement, exemplified in the National Organization of Circumcicion Information and Resource Centers (NOCIRC) emphasized the right for parents to be fully informed before deciding whether or not to circumcise, and stressed the absence of known health benefits from circumcision:
Although this frame represents a logical response to the "problem" as entrepreneurs originally sought it: that is the medical industry's acceptance and promotion of routine circumcision without, in some cases, parental consent or understanding of the procedure, it also implicitly recognizes parents' right to make the decision for their children, and the emphasis on absence of medical benefits has suggested that if some medical benefit were to be found (as has been suggested by some recent studies of the link between HIV-AIDS and circumcision) this would justify the procedure.
More recently, two key actors in the movement - Intact America and the International Coalition for Genital Integrity have reframed the cause by linking it more explicitly to a child rights frame, emphasizing the child's right to choose body modification as an adult:
The newer "human rights" frame has had some advantages in foreclosing arguments about religious exceptions, health benefits, or cultural relativism. In advocating "genital integrity" as a positive goal rather than an end to "infant male circumcision" intactivists have sought to draw on the discourse of the anti-FGM movement without critiquing or competing with female circumcision efforts. However mainstream human rights organizations have yet to accept the claim that male circumcision is a bodily integrity rights violation, and efforts to "pitch" this idea in global human rights forums have failed so far.
In packaging their claim as a human right, both Intact America and ICGI have emphasized diagnostic framing, particularly testimonial stories of botched circumcisions, and motivational framing by arguing this is a moral rather than a health or cultural issue. However aside from promoting information in order to make it easier for parents to choose not to circumcise, these have done limited diagnostic framing and proposing of solutions. Disparate movement actors have proposed different "solutions" - including a failed effort to ban the practice in the state of Massachusetts - but the movement lacks a unifying platform for policy change.
NOCIRC's position is based on the fact that not one national or international medical association in the world—including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association—recommends routine infant circumcision and now, recognizing the harm and life-long consequences, some are recommending against it.
Although this frame represents a logical response to the "problem" as entrepreneurs originally sought it: that is the medical industry's acceptance and promotion of routine circumcision without, in some cases, parental consent or understanding of the procedure, it also implicitly recognizes parents' right to make the decision for their children, and the emphasis on absence of medical benefits has suggested that if some medical benefit were to be found (as has been suggested by some recent studies of the link between HIV-AIDS and circumcision) this would justify the procedure.
More recently, two key actors in the movement - Intact America and the International Coalition for Genital Integrity have reframed the cause by linking it more explicitly to a child rights frame, emphasizing the child's right to choose body modification as an adult:
Intact America envisions a world where children are protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent, in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference.
Genital integrity is the principle that all human beings—whether male, female or intersexed—have a right to the genitalia they were born with.
The newer "human rights" frame has had some advantages in foreclosing arguments about religious exceptions, health benefits, or cultural relativism. In advocating "genital integrity" as a positive goal rather than an end to "infant male circumcision" intactivists have sought to draw on the discourse of the anti-FGM movement without critiquing or competing with female circumcision efforts. However mainstream human rights organizations have yet to accept the claim that male circumcision is a bodily integrity rights violation, and efforts to "pitch" this idea in global human rights forums have failed so far.
In packaging their claim as a human right, both Intact America and ICGI have emphasized diagnostic framing, particularly testimonial stories of botched circumcisions, and motivational framing by arguing this is a moral rather than a health or cultural issue. However aside from promoting information in order to make it easier for parents to choose not to circumcise, these have done limited diagnostic framing and proposing of solutions. Disparate movement actors have proposed different "solutions" - including a failed effort to ban the practice in the state of Massachusetts - but the movement lacks a unifying platform for policy change.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Where Is My Issue In the Norm Life Cycle?
Infant male circumcision has been defined as a human rights problem by entrepreneurs, and constructed as an issue by a number of organizations whose platform involves lobbying various actors for its eradication. It has not, however, been acknowledged as a human rights problem by any of the major human rights organizations or UN agencies concerned with health, human rights or children's and gender issues. The movement has therefore fallen short of getting the issue on the agenda of policy gatekeepers in the wider human rights movement.
What Do I Know About My Norm Entrepreneur?
The original norm entrepreneur for the anti-circumcision movement in the United States was Marilyn Milos, a registered nurse who decided to oppose routine circumcision of infant boys after assisting with the procedure in the 1970s. She was fired from her job for mobilizing other nurses to refuse to assist in circumcisions and later founded the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. NOCIRC became highly influential in the American movement against circumcision, which grew slowly over the following two decades to include a number of other US-based organizations alongside NOCIRC's network of information centers.
In 2008, a steering committee consisting of leaders from many of these affiliate groups united under the banner of INTACT America, a formal non-profit seeking to lobby Congress and the medical industry against circumcision and also seeking consultative status at the United Nations. This organization brings together both domestic-based lobbyists and those members of the movement who have sought to globalize an anti-circumcision norm through the United Nations or by networking with intactivists in other countries.
What is The Problem?
The World Health Organization estimates that 30% of infant boys are circumcised annually worldwide, generally without anesthetic and primarily for cultural reasons. Previously justified on social or medical grounds, routine circumcision of babies is now not recommended by medical practitioners, but continues to be practiced by families in the US and some other parts of the world. A growing number of groups argue that this is a violation of children’s bodily integrity rights and an unwarranted infliction of pain on a vulnerable infant. They wish it recognized as such and prohibited by governments and the medical profession.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)