Tolerated citizenship and FGM-safeguarding: experiences of unbelonging for those of Somali-heritage living in Bristol, UK

Gendered and Racialised Epistemological Injustice in FGM-safeguarding

“…Law was the means by which land grabs were legitimated and also the means by which colonised people were brought – violently – into being as subalterns (Adébísí, 2023; Baxi, 1992; Tamale, 2020). 4 What Quijano and Ennis (2000) termed ‘coloniality’ is the ongoing manifestation of this epistemology which remains embedded in international law and relations in the ‘postcolonial new world order’ (Sharma, 2020), and within Europe is perhaps most strikingly found in the treatment of migrants who, even when purposefully selected for their likeness by assimilationist immigration regimes, are at best tolerated rather than fully accepted (Carver et al, 2022).…”

“…For this section, we rely on government articulations in the form of all mentions of the topic in the Houses of Parliament as recorded in Hansard, all legislative provisions in original and amended form, relevant national policy documents such as records of oral and written submissions to the Westminster Home Affairs Committee and the Scottish Government, National Health Service policy documents, briefings from the Ministry of Education, etc., and material from relevant colonial archives in Durham, Kew and Liverpool. We then turn to data collected through gender-specific focus groups (at our participants’ behest) in the summer of 2018 with people of Somali-ethnic heritage living in Bristol, with the aim of understanding the impact of FGM-safeguarding in a city which was established as the ‘model’ example of good practice which others should follow (Carver et al, 2022; Karlsen et al, 2019). After securing funding and ethical approval and reaching an agreement on the research design, six focus groups were organised with a total of 30 participants (men n = 9; women n = 21).…”

“…The other three groups (one of mothers, one of fathers and one of young adults) were recruited separately through pre-existing contacts and snowballing. Somali-heritage people were chosen as a focus for the research because strong anecdotal evidence suggested that they were predominantly affected by safeguarding measures – we have analysed why this might be elsewhere (Carver et al, 2022). Focus groups were conducted in English with translation support as required, along with creche facilities and refreshments.…”

“…Absolutely nothing.In this discourse, positioned as subalterns, ‘such people’ are denied any credibility or capacity as ‘knowers’, an example of testimonial or epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007). By the time of the debates leading up to the Serious Crime Act 2015 (HMSO, 2015), however, there was a different approach with a discourse of inclusion even if inclusion itself was not ultimately achieved (Carver et al, 2022). Women positioned as subalterns in these debates were not altogether silenced but their voices were nonetheless effectively limited to the role of (wrongfully) ‘mutilated woman’.…”

“…17 Instead, the state officials, armed with their ‘script’ and the inherent power of the law, assumed the role of ‘knower’ of and over the Other. Participants indicated that the attitudes of state officials towards them would change in these encounters if they revealed status indicators that allowed the officials to think of them as something other than ‘mutilated migrant woman’ (Carver et al, 2022). But participants also discovered that if they refused to occupy the only space allowed them – the foreclosed subject position of ‘mutilated woman’ – this was interpreted by state officials negatively, and thus meant they were subject to more suspicion and hostility (Karlsen et al , 2019).…”