Circumcision for sale: When tradition meets commerce and Christianity
Mr Rugami Wa Chomba (left), the chairman of the Murang'a branch of the Kikuyu Elders' Council, and ACK Mt Kenya Central Bishop Timothy Gichere. Sharp differences have emerged between the church and the elders over who should offer counsel to initiates before and after circumcision.
What you need to know:
- In the eyes of traditionalists, churches taking over circumcision are usurping the role of cultural authorities.
- The level of charges reeks of nothing less than commercial opportunism masquerading as socio-cultural service.
Male circumcision appears to be changing into the next frontier of exploitation going by the December 15 Nation report by Elvis Ondieki and Barnabas Bii that churches are charging between Sh6,500 and Sh250,000 per child for the surgery, camping and passing out parades for the rite.
The level of charges reeks of nothing less than commercial opportunism masquerading as socio-cultural service. The costs might be justified by the camping for healing, education and counselling on a variety of topics, which can anyway be carried out elsewhere and do not require passing out parades. Obviously, the camping mimics the traditional system where initiates are kept in the wilderness as they recuperate and get socialised by traditional elders on their changed status and what it entails.
This socialisation served various purposes, some of which are outright irrelevant and misogynistic. For instance, part of it was to condition boys to disregard and subordinate women. Another was to grant them sexual licence to predate on all and any woman, portending for exposure to sexually transmitted infections and laissez-faire lifestyle of treating women as nothing but sex objects. The other was the illusion created that they had transformed overnight into full adults.
In the eyes of traditionalists, churches taking over circumcision are usurping the role of cultural authorities. Puritans may also argue that this robs the rite of its sting, given the reasons for which it was/is traditionally practised.
One, it was to test the ability of the initiates to withstand the excruciating pain of truncation without anaesthesia. This was prime training in masculinity. Obviously, the pain bit is lost in the church-led anaesthetised surgery.
Two, the rite etched a permanent physical mark of ethnic identity and fitted the initiates into an age set of peers bonded for life and identified by their unique year of convocation, if one might call it that.
Three, shading of blood into the ground symbolically united the initiates with their ancestors and cultural heritage, making them patriotic, even jingoistic, to their traditions and ethno-geographic territory, which they were mandated to defend militarily.
Four, it was a rite of passage from childhood into adulthood, heralding a new lifestyle and fresh responsibilities, and launching the journey towards marriage and parenthood. Consequently, it sent a message to female peers that there was a pool of potential husbands.
Five, it was a festival in which the young men celebrated their cultural heritage, enjoying their oral literature, music and dance, and got cosmological education.
It might be argued that the church is filling a void for families not beholden to traditional lifestyles. However, is it really doing so comprehensively with regard to various functions of the rite or is it promoting its own values and making a quick buck out of what looks like a ready and gullible market?
Talking of religious values, circumcision was prescribed in the Old Testament for the descendants and charges of Abraham. It was a physical reminder of the covenant between God and the patriarch, that the latter would follow God’s path in return for protection, land and blessings. Would it probably make more sense if the church based its quests on this Biblical foundation rather than the African traditional ethos?
Arguably, there is nothing wrong with blending the two. After all, this is already being done in the nuptial market where couples perform both traditional and Christian weddings. The suspicion lies in the commercial character of the venture. Do the boys really need the camp or can they not recover at home? Does the church need the camps or can it not educate the boys during regular programmes?
In essence, there are now three versions of circumcision, each with its costs and benefits. The traditional version is the least expensive but the most laden in terms of socio-cultural curriculum. The purely physical procedure conducted in medical facilities is shorn of educational value but attracts modest costs higher than the traditional. The church-based version is the most expensive and one that foregrounds a Christian moral and spiritual curriculum.
Given that the lowest common denominator is the surgery, should not anyone engaging in male circumcision only charge for this basic function and nothing else? Or is this a candidate for regulation by public policy and law? If not, who else is going to join the bandwagon? Civil society organisations? Employers? Educational institutions? Residents’ associations?
At this rate, it might not be too long before the tax-obsessed Kenya Kwanza government orders the mandatory, immediate and universal circumcision and annual re-circumcision of all male human beings and livestock, complete with application, convenience, registration, testing, surgical, hospitalisation, confirmation and certification fees! Then, it would be a season of circumprenuership.
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected]).
