The African Sexual System: Reply to Le Blanc et al.

Abstract

This Caldwell et al. response to the Le Blanc et al. criticism of methodological flaws and ethnographic omissions focuses on 4 issues: 1) the theoretical generalizations which Le Blanc considers to be deficient in evidence 2) ethnographic omissions that distort 3) methodological flaws and 4) an interpretation of the debate. It is stated that Le Blanc is behaving as if African society needs to be protected from the charge that there is insufficient patriarchal surveillance and that African Eurasianness has been underestimated. The authors are in agreement with Le Blanc et al. that sexual practices are not the only factors associated with AIDS and cite their inclusion in the original article to improve health services which have a much clearer connection to AIDS prevention than Le Blancs generalization about education and improved living conditions. In response to the charge of ethnographic selectivity it is pointed out that the disputed article was only one of many on the same subject and the World Bank Technical Note had the most complete bibliography; however the conclusions were the same. As for the omitted literature the authors cite additional sources supporting their position about the lack in premarital virginity and assert that the Le Blanc evidence from dissenting authorities hardly describes societies that resembled the Eurasian heartland. In response to the Molnos collection (28 social scientists writing on sexuality) as a primary source and unrepresentativeness the authors assert that only 25% were based on the collection and that eminent African scholars contributed to the collection even though their specialities were not sexuality per se i.e. they had conducted field research and had expertise about specific ethnic groups and a professional interest in family life. It is considered that the ethnological flaw argument is really an attack on anthropological research with ethnographic methods and participant observation and this literature is noticeably vague in defining population groups and subgroups in quantitative sociological terms. The authors see the debate as a misinterpretation and refute that the African sexual system described was in absence of moral and institutional limitations on sexual practices particularly concerning women. Work is now underway for needed supplementation. The purpose of the original essay was not to be encyclopedic but there were 2 problems: insufficient attention was paid by critics to the need for nonmarital male sexual outlets and there was underrepresentation of middle southern and east Africa which led to later articles. The authors view the anthropological problem as inadequate information. The authors do not believe that permissiveness is the cause of AIDS in Africa but the objective was to explore the social context of AIDS in a historical context.