Tostan FAQ: What is behind the name ‘Tostan’?

Story by Courtney Petersen, Communications Officer in Washington, DC

Tostan is more than just the name of our organization. 

The word ‘tostan’ embodies what we strive to do: to share  knowledge, skills and resources that empower communities to set their own goals and create change on their own terms towards a vision of ‘human dignity for all.’

So, what does ‘tostan’ mean?  

Today, our 22nd anniversary, we share what is behind the name! In Wolof, the most widely spoken language in Senegal, Tostan means ‘breakthrough’ (as in the hatching of an egg), as well as ‘spreading and sharing.’

This is evidenced in ‘the breakthrough’ experienced by communities when they decide to abandon child marriage after learning about human rights and health, and the spreading and sharing that occurs when they reach out to neighboring communities at inter-village meetings to spread their knew knowledge.’ 

The word ‘tostan’ was suggested to Molly Melching, Tostan’s Founder and Executive Director, by a friend and renowned African scholar, Cheikh Anta Diop. He believed that to foster democracy, development must be educational for all involved, always rooted in and growing out of existing cultural practices and local knowledge. 

Influenced by his philosophy, Tostan, the word and the organization, works within the local context of our participants. Our program begins in African communities with individuals coming together to form a collective vision for their future in which democracy, health, economy, and education thrive. It is through their dedication to learning and sharing knowledge, and putting that into knowledge into practice in order to  achieve their shared vision.

Our human rights-based education program, the Community Empowerment Program (CEP) is offered in 22 (like us today!) languages across eight African countries. Classes are taught in a participatory and respectful manner and include dialogue and consensus building, highly valued skills in African societies. Learners create songs, dances, plays, and poetry inspired from traditional culture to reinforce new knowledge. 

We believe that when participants start with what they already know, they can expand and ‘break through’ to new understandings and practices just as our name says.

Read how Tostan's name inspired one of our former interns, Farba M'Bow, and learn more about Tostan's founding history on our website.

Tostan FAQ: Education for All

In response to a brief profile of Tostan, a reader on the website Goodreads recently emphasized the importance of educating women. A common question asked of us is Why does Tostan’s nonformal education program, the Community Empowerment Program (CEP) engage women and men, girls and boys? Why don’t we focus exclusively on women?

At Tostan, we pride ourselves in being a learning organization, which means that we will make adjustments to our program if a certain initiative or approach is not as effective as we know it can be.

With that said, the first version of the Tostan Community Empowerment Program (CEP) was designed for female participants exclusively. While the program was effective in educating and empowering the women and girls who participated in the program, it also caused some distrust and tension in families when wives and daughters came home with new ideas about rights and responsibilities - ideas to which the their husbands, fathers, and other male family members had not been exposed.

When Tostan facilitators communicated this issue to leadership, Tostan shifted approaches and redesigned the program to include both women and men, adolescent girls and boys. In doing this, male and female participants learned about their human rights (as opposed to only women’s rights or children’s rights) and then in turn became advocates in their communities for the rights of both women and men. This shift has led to a human rights movement that is spreading across West Africa and parts of East Africa. To date, over 6,000 communities in eight countries have publicly abandoned the traditional practices of female genital cutting (FGC) and child/forced marriage because of such community-wide discussions of human rights.

Click here to read more about Tostan’s CEP. To read about how empowered individuals are improving their communities and leading social change, please click here. We feel that the work of our partner communities to date is a testament to what is possible when we move towards a shared vision of education as a right, fully supported for all, by all.

Sincerely,

Luzon Pahl Kahler
Director of Administration, Tostan

Tostan FAQ: FGC vs. FGM

A Facebook contact recently posed a question to Tostan asking about the use of the term female genital cutting (FGC) versus female genital mutilation (FGM) when talking about this cultural practice. Gannon Gillespie, Tostan’s Director of External Relations, responded:

Dear Walter,

Thank you for your question, which is one we have received regularly for many years. Let me begin by saying that terminology around this issue is challenging. Three separate terms have been widely used to describe the practice: female circumcision, female genital mutilation, and female genital cutting. We avoid the term “circumcision,” as it incorrectly implies a parallel between FGC and male circumcision. Unfortunately, all other terms have limitations as well, and fall clearly short of accurately describing this practice—which has four major and infinite minor variations in practice around the world. No one term is truly “accurate”.

But we must use words, and so among these options, Tostan has for over 13 years chosen the term female genital cutting (FGC) based on what communities that are giving up the practice have told us: the term “cutting” allows them to accomplish more than the others because it is less judgmental and value-laden. As a result, the term is more effective for engaging groups in dialog around this practice, and eventually bringing about its end.

Let me be very, very clear. We do not use this term in an attempt to excuse or diminish the impact of the practice. I think anyone who has taken the time to learn about Tostan and watched the testimonies given by Tostan’s local partners, for example that of Marietou Diarra, knows that we are very far from hiding or excusing the real, significant consequences of this practice. Yet despite its serious health consequences, we have found that FGC itself is not done with the intent to “mutilate” a girl. Rather, parents who have their daughters cut want the best for them, and the practice is seen as a necessary step to enable her to be a fully accepted member of the community.

It seems counter-intuitive, but in our experience, if there is a dominant emotion involved in FGC, it is love—because not cutting your daughter risks her entire future. As explained by a former cutter turned Tostan advocate, Oureye Sall, in communities where FGC is practiced, community members will not eat food cooked by a woman who is not cut, will not accept water from her, will not even sit with her. She will have difficulty getting married. An uncut woman is viewed as unclean and therefore unable to participate fully in the community. With these social pressures, if a family chooses not to cut their daughter, they have risked severely damaging her social status. To imply that parents are actually “mutilating” their daughters through a decision made with love and concern for her well-being is unfair to them and risks alienating and offending them rather than convincing them to abandon the practice.

In addition, we have found that many communities do not fully understand the consequences of the practice—the effects of which are not always immediate or obvious, especially in cases of infections, tetanus, etc. Without an understanding of concepts such as germ theory, recognizing the true long-term health implications of FGC is difficult. When communities do get access to this information, presented in ways they trust, they come to understand the harm the practice causes and decide to stop—but if the person bringing these messages begins with judgmental terms, the chance of reaching this breakthrough disappears.

We should remember that all of us, no matter where we are from, tend to greet judgmental outsiders in similar ways. When our beliefs and actions are challenged or condemned by a stranger, we are likely to become defensive; rather than taking their concerns to heart, we view their accusation as an unwarranted and uninformed attack on our character. We certainly won’t feel inclined to change in order to satisfy this judgmental critic; we may even respond by holding on more tightly to the belief or action being questioned. Our experience has shown us that it is dialog and discussion that can lead to change, and dialog requires a relationship of trust and respect. But calling the practice “mutilation” prevents this relationship from developing and invites defensiveness rather than productive discourse.

And, if we take the example of Oureye Sall—who transformed her experience as a former cutter into a source of leadership against FGC—it becomes clear that we must avoid demonizing those who perform the practice. Oureye is not a “mutilator” and villain; she is a hero driven by her new knowledge. When she had cut girls, she did so because the experience and knowledge available to her told her it was right to do so. When she decided to stop and to become a champion of the movement to abandon FGC, it was because new experiences and new knowledge showed her that the practice was harmful and that change was necessary. Tostan’s experience has shown this to be the case for almost all cutters; they are not evil, they do not seek to “mutilate” girls or bring them harm, but rather they are acting based on what they believe is right.

Perhaps most importantly, we should be very cautious in labeling and stigmatizing the girls and women who have been cut. We do not believe it is our place to tell them that they are “mutilated.” As with other victims of violence, we believe they have the human right to self-identify in whatever manner they choose. I have personally met many women who have undergone FGC. Some prefer to call themselves mutilated, others simply “cut”, many others say less, or nothing, as they are not yet comfortable being public about this very private matter. And all of them (even those who themselves identify as “mutilated”) agree: women should be free to choose the term that best defines them, and that the term “mutilated” should not be forced upon them.

In short, our use of the term "FGC" is not apology, nor is it political correctness. It is simple practicality: this way of speaking opens doors to dialog that have led to thousands of communities standing up to abandon this practice, doors that more accusatory language would keep shut. We choose to use language that is working, that community leaders and evaluation data alike are telling us brings real, concrete change.

In keeping with the above approach, I can also tell you that we are not posting this in an effort to "fight" others who use different language. We respect the many differences of opinion on this truly complex subject and the language that accompanies it. We do encourage others to study our experiences, both in relation to FGC and the many, many other areas on which our program works. We hope to continue supporting community-led work in the field to ensure all girls--cut and uncut--have human dignity. These actions are our main focus, and we believe they speak much louder than words.

For those interested in learning more about FGC as a social norm, I recommend that you read “Female Genital Cutting: the Beginning of the End” an article by political scientist Gerry Mackie. The article explains why a program like Tostan’s can be effective in sparking a movement to abandon FGC. The section on pages 277-278 entitled “Propaganda and Prohibition” discusses the results of respect-based approaches versus shame-based approaches to effecting social change.

Sincerely,
Gannon Gillespie