The Cultural Mystique of Male Genital Modification in America

Not everyone can agree on the merits or detriments of neonatal circumcision. It is a practice which, simply put, removes fifteen square inches of skin containing tens of thousands of nerve endings from a natural (fully functional) penis shortly after birth - culminating in a total loss of about 50% of the natural penile skin ("Circumcision"). Although only about 16% of the world implements this procedure on newborn males (Williams), its prevalence in the United States - at least until very recently - heavily dominated this world percentage, which dropped from 85% in 1975 to 56% in 2003("Circumcision"). Despite the decline, it is interesting to note how the great longevity and voracity of this tradition persists in a country where so few seem to discuss or understand why it is there at all. But as with all cultural paradigms, the whys are buried in such extensive and convoluted histories, that it is impossible to examine the effect without first considering the cause.

Egyptian hieroglyphics and mummy remains dating back to perhaps as early as the 16^th century BCE (Larue) give us the first evidence of this procedure being done - albeit on adult males. Yet it is interesting to note that not everyone in that era had undergone the procedure, even the Pharaoh of the 16^th century BCE, Ahomse, was not circumcised, as evidenced by his mummified remains (Larue). So who then was circumcised, and, more importantly, why?

Theories abound on these Egyptian derivations, and although it can never be certain why these ancients initiated this rite, some historians speculate that the Egyptians believed the circumcised penis was a "symbol of fertility," and had festivals in honor of the affiliated god(s):

[They] had festivals where the actual sex organ of a young boy was cut off and dedicated to the fertility goddess. The action was later reduced to inducing an incision instead. The blood was offered to the goddess and the occasion was celebrated publicly. In the Old Kingdom of Egypt there was a God of Circumcision to guarantee the fertility related to the river Nile ("Ancient").

Some explain that this sacred rite was only reserved for the priests, who "were the guardians of immortality"("Ancient"). Perhaps, as it has been suggested, they based this logic on a sort of snake-worship, believing these creatures to have an innate immortality: "They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans followed suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began"(Ray). Evidently the beholders of knowledge were the holy "chosen" few, as:

"In ancient Egypt learning was regarded as a high privilege and education was under the direction of a small number of individuals . . . referred to the Learned Institution at Memphis, and these sent him to Thebes (where) he was circumcised"("Ancient").

It seems that in ancient times, before the miracle of science could anatomize such complexities, the concept of fertility and birth was little understood, and the enshrouding mystery gave way to mythical interpretation, which in turn, gave way to religious ritual. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, author of Prisoners of Ritual, contends, "Man in primitive societies was mystified by... reproduction. In the course of time, he invented a variety of rituals whose intent it was to regulate, appease or bribe the deities or spirits thought to regulate this phenomena"(Lightfoot-Klein 183).

Whatever the reason, it was evidently practiced to some extent in the Egyptian kingdom, and later infiltrated the customs and culture of the Semitic groups neighboring them.

Evidence of religious signification accompanying this act emerges with the rise of Judaism as early as (and perhaps even earlier than) the seventhcentury BCE ("Circumcision"). The early folktales in Genesis imply that this rite was a covenant with God: "You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between me and you"(Genesis 17:11)[1]. Just as the Egyptians esteemed the deity of creation and fertility, so did these early Semitic peoples revere their own god, Yahweh, for his ability to provide such miracles. Unlike the Egyptians, however, the emerging Jewish religion emphasized that this be practiced on "every male"(Genesis 17:10), lest he be "cut off from his people"(Genesis 17:14). Perhaps this was a form of ethnic diversification in a time when small tribes needed to be distinguished from one another. La Fontaine, author of the anthropological study Initiation suggests that: "Anthropologists have argued that ritual is a form of communication, as symbolic code"(12). Moreover, since these early tribes based their lineage on the male links alone (one of the reasons being that the female reproductive capacity was even less understood than the male's), it is of no surprise that these people did not practice the female counterpart to this operation.

The mystique surrounding female reproductivity was attributed to a gift from god - a god who empowers women to overcome their barrenness, as witnessed in the Biblical account of Abram and Sarai (Genesis 18), amongst others. And since women shed blood regularly, it seems perhaps logical that men, at least in some ways, followed suit, as "women rid themselves periodically of male pollution by menstruating"(La Fontaine 127). If purity is of any significance here, then it can also be surmised that men thought that by "sacrificing a part, the well being of the whole was thought to be safeguarded. Circumcision rites thus assume a quality of purification"(Lightfoot-Klein 184).

This makes perfect sense when considering later Biblical admonitions of uncircumcised folk. Moses, one of the greatest heroes of the Old Testament, was thought to be uncircumcised. This did not go unpunished, as God "met him and tried to kill him"(Exodus 4:24). Yet Yahweh's wrath was pacified when Zipporah, Moses' wife, circumcised her son, proclaiming, "Truly you are a bride-groom of blood to me!" at which point Yahweh "let him alone"(Exodus 4:25-26). Joshua later addresses this issue, when he reproves the followers of Moses, who, having not been circumcised on their journey back into Israel from Egypt, had not "listened to the voice of the Lord"(Joshua 5:6), and hence disobeyed God. Joshua re-establishes the Abrahamic covenant, decreeing that all members previously uncircumcised purify themselves by shedding their foreskins, and fortify the unity (and, one may say, self-conscious supremacy) of their ethnic heritage.

Israelite communities, however, were by no means immune to the invasions of nearby empires. When Alexander the Great conquered this territory in the fourth century BCE (Larue), he brought with him Greek customs antithetical to these forming Jewish communities. Because their power could in no way compete with the triumph of this war hero, and because in Greek tradition, circumcision was perceived as a "mutilation of a previously perfectly shaped organ," reserved only (as expressed in their artwork) for "satyrs, lechers, and barbarians"("History"), many Jews attempted to conform. Consequently, a revision of the covenant ensued.

A more spiritual approach usurped the previous physical sign of the promise between God and the people of Abrahamic lineage. Jeremiah, although written sometime earlier than the era of Alexander, reads:

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant they broke, though I was their husband... I will put my law within them, and I will write in on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

Jeremiah includes citizens of "Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Of course, this was not a smooth transition; such ingrained traditions cannot be eradicated so easily. The death of Alexander the Great spurred a Jewish revolt, reflected in the account of 1 Maccabees. Within this text is a criticism of the Jewish attempt to "fit in" with the oppressive Hellenistic culture: "So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to the Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil"(1 Maccabees 1:14-15). With the subsequent rise of Christianity, however, this practice would once again be rebuked with great animosity.

Paul of Tarsus, a leader of Christian Theology, at first accepts the procedure, as seen in Acts 16, when he takes a man to be circumcised because "of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew his father was a Greek"(Acts 16:3). The tension between the Greek and Jewish peoples is quite evident here, and insinuates a Jewish mistrust of those who did not adhere to their Abrahamic Law. But Paul later rebukes this rite, perhaps as a result of the rising popularity of Christianity amongst the "gentile" Greeks - who were the key-holders of religious and political power (which were one and the same) in those days.

The decision whether to circumcise or not became a point of contention when considering whether or not one had to become "Jewish" in order to succeed to Christianity. The significance of the physical act was outweighed, at least for Paul and his followers, by the spiritual act; circumcision became arbitrary:

Was anyone at the time of the call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the mark of circumcision . . . Was anyone at the time of the call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing... Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called (1 Corinthians 7:18-20).

Increasingly, however, the issue became more dominant, as the difference between those circumcised and those intact were apparent in Greek gymnasiums, where all men were in the nude (Larue). Those who were genitally modified were still in a way ostracized, derogatorily referred to as "Judaizers" ("History"). Paul then took heed of the dominant Greek populace, proclaiming "beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh"(Philippians 3:2-3). In Romans 2:29, he states that "real circumcision is a matter of the heart - it is spiritual and not literal," and in 1 Corinthians 12:7-9, he expresses that "God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose... that there may be no dissension within the body."

In the Gospel of Thomas, self-proclaimed as being authored by the brother of Jesus, Jesus says, "If [circumcision] were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable" (Robinson 120). Although not an official component of the New Testament canon, it is analogous to many of Paul's assertions, and nevertheless resonates with the widely spreading Christian theology.

The Judeo-Christian schism marked both a spiritual and physical demarcation between Jewish and Christian peoples. For as the Christians believed that even Gentiles could reach the kingdom of heaven, the Jewish peoples still retained a genealogical affinity with their Abrahamic ancestors, who rigorously abided by such oaths to God as circumcision.

But none of this history explains why Americans are so hard-wired to perform male circumcisions. Although 77% of this country claims to be some form of Christian ("Religious"), the obvious condemnation by Paul, and even the Catholic Catechism, which, in the section of Respect for Bodily Integrity, 2297, states that, "directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law" ("Catechism"), do not align with the statistics of neonatal circumcision. If the majority of the American populace is not Jewish - if indeed they are Christian, and are thus defying the authorities of their own faith - why then do half of them still regularly impose this seemingly esoteric "law" upon their infants?

Apparently, circumcision "was not practiced amongst Christians in Europe in the 18^th century. It was regarded with repulsion" ("History"). Something changed when these people left Europe for the promise of splendor and plenty in America. Puritanism was the new norm, the dominant ideology of the early American culture, and it eventually came to admonish such sins as sex and masturbation. In fact, it became such a hysteria that doctors, bent on preventing such "insanity," conjured a "scientific" preventative for it: circumcision:

Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysterias, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity... In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision (Fleiss).

Interestingly, the practice was also imposed on infant females for the purpose of treating "female masturbators" ("History"). Although many in our culture would balk at such an "inhumane" practice, it is common in many African nations as a prerequisite for marriage, and even thought to be beautiful, or - at least, "normal" ("Female"), much as American's view the circumcised penis, as "in a community in which most women are circumcised, family and friends create an environment in which the practice of circumcision becomes a requirement for social acceptance" ("Reproductive"). It follows then, that in 1975, when 85% of all male infants were still being circumcised, it seemed "normal" to have this operation done.

In America, and indeed other "Western" countries, the female version of this operation is wholly condemned as a violation of civil rights: the UN Human Rights Committee considers the practice unethical ("Reproductive"), as does the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and even the U.S Law, in Section 2, 116 of a Title 18 amendment, implemented in 1995, states:

whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this ti tle or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.( "Federal")

But if this is a common social practice in many parts of the world, as is male circumcision in America today (although rapidly declining), why is it outlawed in this country and the UN, whereas the male procedure is readily accepted?

Scientific evidence seems to predominate the continual esteem of male genital modification. Although we have come a great distance from the "pseudo-science" of the Victorian age, new science has advocated the practice as beneficial in regards to the prevention of AIDS (MSN). The American Academy of Pediatrics, however, alongside with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, concluded in 1997 that, "circumcision cannot be recommended because of lack of any proved benefit"(CIRP). But perhaps one may suggest that the use of condoms would be a better prophylactic for AIDS contraction than such a drastic procedure, as, in counterpoint, one could also claim that removing the labia would reduce the risk of yeast infections, removing breasts would prevent breast cancer, or removing teeth before fully grown would prevent cavities.

Many parents, however, ill advised of the risks and benefits, choose to circumcise their sons merely to "look like his father," just as African women choose to have their daughters appear like them. But if, in this country, female excision is illegal - as it violates the rights of the individual - shouldn't male circumcision be regarded in the same light? It is, after-all, a significant alteration of the natural biological form, wrought not by individual choice, but from cultural and familial imposition. As the AAP evidences no medicinal benefit, then cleanliness or "preventative" indications are null, and the parents are not really "helping" their child, except only insofar as they are altering their son to look like a dying breed; for, as previously stated, only 56% of Americans have their child circumcised. If it is not a bond of the flesh with God, if one is not Jewish (or any other faith that rigorously defends the practice) then why do it at all?

Recently a Chicago judge ruled against a mother's plea to have her nine year old son circumcised for "medical reasons," stating that "Male circumcision in an irreversible amputation of functional tissue," and that his ruling protected "the boy's legal right to bodily integrity" (NZ Herald). It is becoming more and more apparent that we are awash in a cultural superstition lodged in eons of socio- political influx. And because, as with all things, beliefs and practices change with the trends of human perception and judgment, it seems that the pendulum is shifting back in the other direction. Yet the decision, as long as the law still allows, remains: to cut or not to cut. Perhaps this should be left in the hands of the one who will bear the consequences. For physical acts, once performed, can never be reversed, but the human mind and spirit are always open to change.

Works Cited

AAP: American Academy of Pediatrics. 1 november 2006. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;102/1/153.pdf>

Ancient Egyptian Circumcision & Modern Day Practices in Males. Circlist.com. 23 Nov, 2006.http://www.circlist.com/rites/egypt.html>

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Respect for Bodily Integrity. 12 November 2006. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm>

Circumcision Prevalence. Wikipedia. 13 Nov 2006. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Prevalence_of_Circumcision.com>

CIRP : Circumcision Information and Resource Pages. History of Circumcision. 23 October 2006. http://www.cirp.org/library/history

Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Cutting Act. The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project. July 13, 1995. 22 November 2006. http://www.fgmnetwork.org/legisl/US/federal.html>

Female Circumcision. Wikipedia. 25 October 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision>

Fleiss, Paul M, M.D. The Case Against Circumcision. Mothers against Circumcision.org. 1997. http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997.htm>

The Harper Collins Study Bible. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

History of Male Circumcision. Wikipedia. 23 October 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision.htm>

La Fontaine, J.S. Initiation. Penguin Press, N.H., 1985.

Larue, Gerald A. Religious Traditions and Circumcision, International Symposium on Circumcision, San Francisco May 3, 1991. 10 November 2006.

Lightfoot-Klein, Hanny. Prisoners of Ritual. Hawthorne Press, N.Y., 1989.

MSN: "Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths". July 11, 2006. MSNBC.com. 18 November 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13812938/>

NZ Herald: "US Judge Rules 9-yr old need not be circumcised". The New Zealand Herald. 25 October 2006. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10407539>

Ray, Mary G. The Origin of Non-Religious Circumcision. 1997. 20 November 2006. http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/hostory.htm>

"Religious Identification in the U.S." Religious Tolerance. 12 October 2006. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.html>

Reproductive Rights. Legislation on Female Genital Cutting in the United States. 28 November 2006. http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_fgmlawsusa.pdf>

Williams, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. British Journal of Surgery. 1993; 80:1231-6. http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/>

[1] All Biblical References are excerpted from The Harper Collins Study Bible, unless otherwise noted. See Works Cited.