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:

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.

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.