Warrior Marks or Symbolic Wounds?

While the film Warrior Marks effectively brings attention to the subject of Female sexual mutilation, it does so in a problematic way. The constant reference to female genital surgeries or female circumcisions as mutilation is one of the main points that complicates the film's ability to present a strong argument. I want to explore how Alice Walker is limiting the perception of female genital circumcision by referring to it as mutilation and comparing it to her own personal mutilation and also how she is framing the narrative and perpetuating an argument using her own feminist ideologies and paying little to no attention to other feminist perspectives on the matter.

Walker describes both examples of mutilation, her personal mutilation and the mutilation of African girls as something to overcome, a "warrior mark". She puts a heavy emphasis on turning wounds in to warrior marks and how overcoming these situations makes the survivors. The start of her argument not only situates this practice as mutilation, which is problematic in itself, but it also attributes this mutilation as a result of a men's need for control. She even goes as far as to assume the intentions of her brother shooting her in the eye as equalizes it to the intentions of men's need to control female sexuality.

In an article entitled, 'Virtuous Cuts, Female Genital Circumcision in an African Ontology, author Abusharaf states, "It can be argued that the differences in terminology not only reflect two divergent systems of knowledge, but also indicate some of the shortcomings of the feminist emphasis on the global uniformity of women's oppression irrespective of culture, class, or ethnic differences." (Abusharaf, 3). Essentially, the author is arguing that describing the issue of  female genital circumcision, despite the views on it, can reveal the limitations of some feminist perspective that do not take into account cultural, ethnic, or class differences.

These shortcomings as Abusharaf describes can be found in Alice Walker's comparison of her mutilation to that of what she feels is the female genital mutilation of African girls. As Abusharaf described, the terminology itself frames this topic as being something negative. Walker perpetuates this idea by equalizing her experience with mutilation to the mutilation of African girls. The connection she draws to justify her comparing the two is the idea of patriarchal control. While this idea is smart in that it reinforces Walker's argument, it does not take into account the feminist perspective that does not view this practice as mutilation at all.

Unlike the interviews that Walker places in the film, Asusharaf presents testimonials, in a sense, of several different women and their views on the practice of female genital circumcision. She does this in order to highlight the differences in ideologies and knowledge surrounding this topic. What is important to note is that she is not attempting to condemn or support this practice as a positive or negative thing. She is simply presenting the information and attributing the information given in the testimonies and translating them in support of the different ideologies.

Walker's framing of the questions during her interviews, by using phrases such as "don't you think" and "would you stop the tradition if you could", perpetuate her ideology of the practice, reinforces the idea that African women do have the freedom or power over the men in their community. And while these assumptions may be true on some level, Walker problematizes the perception of this practice by not exploring the very feminist reasoning for continuing the practice.

Walker's strong focus on the pain of the procedure, with the interpretive dancer and the voice over testimony of the women describing her surgery, all attempt to reinforce this practice as mutilation by evoking an emotional response from the viewers. Walker's lack of focus on the reasoning or societal benefits behind this practice and the beliefs that support it limit her ability to make a strong argument. In a narrative by Saadia, in Abusharaf's article, another ideology of the practice is presented. Saadia states, " I still remember the operation being painful, but to this day I believe it is necessary."(7)  Saadia, being a woman who has gone through this surgery, views this as a beneficial practice because she believes, unlike Walker, that this practice ensures women's beauty. Abusharah goes on to state, "the narrative above is a powerful reminder of how female bodies are recreated and socialized in different cultural contexts." (8) Essentially, Asbusharah states that in a community that strongly believes that the clitoris being homologous to the penis, it is understandable to view the removal of it as an ultimate display of femininity. Some consider what Walker deems a warrior mark, a "symbolic wound" (8), representing their own formulation of feminism.