ABSTRACT
The discourse on practices of female genital mutilation (hereafter FGM) is evolving. Nevertheless, the impact on girls and women at risk and who live or seek protection outside prevalence countries – for example, in Germany – has not significantly altered. It remains exceptional for FGM to be recognized as a gender-specific ground for asylum. This is troubling, as excision and infibulation have been on the Bundestag’s agenda for almost three decades as an unresolved political issue. The present movement to abolish FGM in (West) Germany began in the late 1970s and moved into high gear in the 1990s. Why, despite good intentions, has improvement in services for immigrants from FGM-practicing countries and their daughters lagged? To answer, let’s examine political discourse in state institutions. Indeed, the situation appears unchanging for those at risk and affected in non-prevalence nations. Why? Protocols from the German 13th legislative period (1994–1998) are revealing; Iprobe these documents using critical discourse analysis developed by the Duisburg Institute for Language and Social Research and based on Michel Foucault’s discourse theory.
