Subject: BHA: Against "primacy" flight of time
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:45:48 +0100


some parts might not appear as the list does not accept attachements. 
Don't nail me I am only reading science - a mere messager.
B,.

-Appendix-


Inquiry into statistical approach
in Sociological methodology.

__________


Abstract

The paper is a close examination of the relevance of advanced sta-
tistical application in applied social sciences.

In the essay I’ll be exploring reproduction health from a statisti-
cally inspired sociology modelling. I try to reference established 
sociological theories namely; class, cultural, religion and lastly do 
a comparison with empirical sociology as an antithesis. 

Class , cultural and religious variables are crucial factors in the 
definition of the sociology of reproductive health. Hence reproduc-
tive health, does not readily explain a well being of society and 
gender relations, independent of established sociological framework. I 
will argue thus reproductive health can’t only be fully conceived and 
defined from an empiricist point of view.  

The thesis is therefore, can sociological phenomenon be discovered 
through statistical modelling in reproductive sociology. The major 
reference paper, will be Guanga-zhen Wang and Vijayan K. Pillai: 
Women’s reproductive health: A gender sensitive human rights ap-
proach . 

Method will be comparative investigation of different works on gender, 
reproduction and general sociological theorisation of the subject 
matter from a feminist perspective.

Introduction

Reproductive health to Guanga-zhen Wang and Vijayan K. Pillai’s 
definition is a determinant of growth, equality and income.

For Crompton and Harris reproductive health is gender sensitive, de-
fined in terms of specific gender equality, welfare state regimes, 
encouragement and support given to women as mothers within the nu-
cleus family.

Sociological practice from its theory of society, offers a possibil-
ity to analyse and understand the above contradictory and antagonis-
tic derived theorisation of facts of society and nature from differ-
ent sociological models.
 
Irving Zeitlin quotes Durkheim describing religion  as a product of 
long complex historical developments in which the fundamental ele-
ments have been obscured .

Durkheim observations do set a leverage against a Marxian tradition in 
class sociology and question it too, in comparison of present social 
and cultural traditions in terms of statistical, historical and 
ethnographic sociological categories .

In this particular instance, sociology poses a question and asks what 
social facts are. Does the above factors matter in reproductive 
health? 

Society is not independent of social facts and certainly its na-ture. 
However, social facts sociologically, are not always reducible to only 
the society under a sociological observation and investiga-tion i.e. 
empirical data but also to matter of reality and wholesome nature of 
human beings, which composes configuration of the components of 
society.  

Let us take an example of Christianity sociology and transpose it to 
traditional society’s sociology or rather cultural sociology. If the 
argument was such that practice is what is implanted in society and 
persons, then Christianity values are group’s basis judgmental values 
to and in the formation of a particular society’s or group’s 
consciousness.  

Christianity in a somewhat modernist tradition is a scholarly-based 
religion with self-realisation in the discovery of the self and so-
cial meaning in text reading, understanding and interpretation. Since 
there are different shades of Christianity let me focus on Ca-
tholicism.

In case of Catholicism, as per held reproductive health views, there 
is a strong sense of belief that reproduction is a micro-sociology 
issue, that is to say, based on the relationship between the persons 
involved in the nucleus family and therefore not separated from re-
ligious values systems derived from Catholicism and educed tra-
ditions. Certainly religious beliefs changes, develop  and trans-form, 
exactly the problem of space, I have take up into considera-tion when 
discussing the implication of space and time in social science 
research.

On the one hand, Robert Marsh writes that kinship solidarity among 
relatives and kin  is characterised by (a). The number of people en-
compassed in a person’s web of kin obligations and rights, (b). The 
extent of interdependence among  nuclear families related by blood or 
marriage, and (3). The extent to which kin ties and obligations take 
precedence over non-kinship roles and relationships.

Now, reproductive structures in the two societies named above, the 
catholic and religious quasi-cultural beliefs rather than what Guanga-
zhen Wang and Vijayan K as defined from a sociological per-spective, 
will generate the tradition societies . Pillai understood, Marx would 
have suggested from a social class perspective . The ar-gument does 
also apply to societies where we have the above socio-logical 
arrangements.  

Generally for sociology, social facts generated in  those two so-
cieties, the religiously and culturally institutionalised, reproduc-
tive health is not determined but rather are pre-dispositions and 
properties reproducing the propensities and general characteristic  of 
the society in question. This is what is vital hence training our 
sociological attention on ontological properties and mechanisms in 
reproductive health sociology.

For that matter, what is reproductive health then from empirical 
modelling devoid of sociological theory?

Guanga-zhen and Vijayan in their paper, seem to view reproductive 
health as a predetermined state of affairs (meta-structural) and 
solely founded on state planes namely; the political and socio-
economic planes circumscribed in society’s ability to produce a ma-
terial life as a derivation of class arrangements and contradic-tions. 

The above standpoint, partly does injustice to a Marxian class defi-
nition, supported with production constraints  seen as the basic 
preconditions for reproductive health. Marx class theory, makes it 
clear that class society, is in transition and therefore not static  
which in turn implies facts of social substance are not exonerated by 
class society, which observation should be taken into considera-tion 
in statistical modelling of reproductive health. The above po-sition, 
can also be termed as effects of a structurally generated socio-
economic and political constituents.   

It is important for a sociologist to note the following; (a). there is 
a difference between conventionality and legalism, therefore on a 
personal level society is governed by convention rather than law. (b). 
Reality is greater than empirical facts therefore what is em-pirical 
is less than what is real and empirical facts are not read-ily 
translated into (sociol)ogical facts. (c). society is an ever changing 
and fluid entity as per person’s weal, therefore people’s choices 
change irrespective of convention or legal conditions. (d). State and 
social institutions are on different levels of action, therefore the 
structures generated thereof differ in the society ef-fects they 
generate.

These points will be useful in subsequent arguments, in what I see as 
misuse of statistics in applied sociology. 

General study

In their article, Guang-zhen and Vijayan writes that there are three 
factors significantly related to reproductive health namely; eco-nomic 
status, fertility rate and social inequality . In their models based 
1., on multiple regression analysis, and 2., on path analysis they 
seem to have established a singular causal connection and cor-relation 
between what they term as the predicates to reproductive rights and 
health . 

Going back to the definition of reproductive health in relation to the 
above three variables, it therefore implies that unless the three 
conditions are fully met, the sociological definition of re-productive 
health collapses in Marxian, Durkheimian, and of course in Weberian 
society theorisation. How true can this fact be?

I started in the introduction with unravelling the implication of 
Durkhiem sociology theory, as one of the pillars and corner stones in 
understanding society, which theory in the above model is not taken 
into consideration in Guanga-zhen and Vijayan sociological works. In 
their case, there is an obvious biased statistical modelling ef-fort, 
in understanding the mechanisms of the state political stand point viz 
á viz contemporary economic social structuring rather than society 
institutions, subsequent configuration and characteristics of 
reproductive health generated by human properties like desire, will 
and need for children.

Durkheim writes that society, is largely of a spiritual kind. Ulti-
mately it is social reality that gives men (sic) the idea that there 
exists a superhuman principle, all-powerful and moral, on which they 
all depend .

Statistically, spirituality cannot be figuratively represented and 
indeed it means different things to different societies. On the one 
hand, its effects in human action can be shown to exist as social 
facts universally, which are also different in different societies 
given to cultural, religious, nature of what the state and socio-
economic  structures are and of course social and class levels.

Durkheim’s assertion and his views, are supported indirectly via 
femininity arguments that women speak in different (caring and nur-
turing) voice and women’s caring, consensual culture is different from 
competitive, aggressive men . This fact is biologically indis-putable 
in reference to space and time, as I have written above.
  
There is overwhelming evidence from a traditional industrial per-
spective that more men have and are still employed in heavy industry 
and more women in the so-called service sectors. The substratum which 
generates the above kind of opposing structures is not acci-dental 
which Ellis Brian will term as essential properties in this case men 
and women of the same kind but of different dispositions, potentials 
and properties. Statistically the sociological fact ex-plicated above 
can be proved, to be consistent with reality so I will not dwell in 
labour sociology  for lack of space on the subject matter.  

Furthermore, it will be problematic to model a sociological repro-
ductive health theory on empirical presumptions, based solely on one 
proven sociological theory, namely class and the state without test-
ing the same empirical data on cultural properties which indeed are 
categorical in all societies. Even where class is mentioned it will be 
difficult to transpose i.e. Asian caste labour systems as opposed to 
state generated class structures  without making an error in the 
statistical model. 

Caring and nurturing as Crompton and Harris writes, are human na-
ture’s predisposition not simply social facts even though the same, do 
in fact reinforce them.  From a gender perspective, social beings are 
caring and nurturing by nature, of course it is a matter of de-grees 
and ability that caring and nurturing differs from a gender 
perspective . 

It is as such that Crompton and Harris’s observations disclaim socio-
economic determinants as elucidated in Guanga-zhen and Vijayan’s 
sociological model of reproductive health.  Such that the definition 
of their sociological phenomenon becomes the first cau-sality of their 
model. I will comeback to this statement later in the conclusion.

Notice, Guanga-zhen and Vijayan realises it too, that the definition 
of reproductive health differs from society to society, regardless of 
institutions like education, career  etc, though to them statis-tical 
modelling of the phenomenon stylise and obscures the problem from a 
sociological reality.

For sociology to derive ideas about society from statistical model-
ling is committing an error, which might lead to misinterpretation of 
society and as such the reality of social facts under investiga-tion. 

In his paper Religion, Politics and Social changes- A theoretical 
Framework, Amr Sabet quotas Marx thesis on Feuerbach  and writes that 
the question whether objective truth can be attributed to human 
thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question .

The social world contains different religious beliefs, society con-
figuration, cultures and indeed different social approaches in the day 
today life styles. It will be trivial to come up with anything 
resembling a sociological model of reproductive health, which will not 
only collapse if applied on a different society but also con-strict 
future sociological investigation and certainly jeopardise relevant 
sociological theories. 

As shown above, absurdly Guanga-zhen and Vijayan’s model conse-
quently, presuppose that caring and nurturing means and implies the 
same things irrespective of society’s sociological nature. It fur-ther 
still places caring and nurturing as functions of economic growth, 
equality and income.  

The problem here thus, is the different theoretical assumption in 
sociology and the seemingly universalistic nature in use of statis-
tics in applied sociology.

Guanga-zhen and Vijayan do write that, “the decision to have chil-dren 
has physical and emotional implications for women”.  Of course 
Crompton and Harris conforms to this presupposition, as difficulties 
of achieving comparable measure in different languages, education 
systems organisation structures and system classification will sug-
gest. 

Let me reference Amr Sabte again, in his Marxist inspired interpre-
tation of Islam in social practice. He writes, “human strife there-
fore constitutes a perpetual dynamic and dialectical flux reflected in 
the constant altercation between his base component and his sub-
limated spirituality which strives between Abel and Cain from which 
all historical contradictions inherent in the opposing of tawhid 
(opposition to gain true faith) and shirk (idolatry) emerge .   

This is a very strong and important statement from both a sociologi-
cal and theoretical point of view in respect to the subject under 
inquiry. Arm has managed to merge contemporary thinking in religious 
quasi-cultural thought to contemporary socio-economic layers in so-
ciety. 

He does not stop at only on merging two worlds together but also shows 
the transitivity and intransitivity of matters of facts and the 
errors, which can be generated their upon in mixing up the two 
dimensions. The decision of having children or not having them is not 
scientific calculably on a personal level but a matter of weal and on 
a deeper level a mater of spirituality in regard to the rela-tionship 
of two individuals intricate and complex interaction. 

The effects on reproductive health and rights are what is important 
for this paper from Arm’s paraphrasing. It is how such a transla-tion, 
could fit into a Guanga-zhen and Vijayan’s reproductive health model, 
which set the debate of statistical modelling in sociology on higher 
and complex plane.

Their model predetermine three independent variables as cause to re-
productive health which are later narrowed to two, but in Arm Sabet’s 
paper the equality, rights etc., are determined by socio-religious not 
socio-economics facts alone, as it would be suggested. The other 
variables exactly as in the catholic belief system, fer-tility rate is 
beyond human total control therefore, to both genders is not a mere 
economic determinant but rather a religious quasi-cultural outcome.  

Turning to what reproductive rights should be from a feminist per-
spective, Crompton and Harris writes that Czech Republic men and women 
are conservative in their attitudes in respect of both the ef-fects of 
women’s employment on children and family life as well as on gender 
roles . 

It’s an important observation, for it touches the very issues in re-
productive health both from a classical (Marxian) state (Weberian) and 
labour sociology. It should be noted that labour, has got an economist 
as well as an anthropological interpretation. 

I will avoid using a sociological definition in this respect for 
reasons of not being one sided and misunderstood. 

Then the question arises; can reproductive health contribute to so-
cial well being of persons involved in reproductive health? The an-
swer will certainly differ in its social meaning from society to so-
ciety. Thus far, calling for a sociological differentiation between 
gender roles and divisions of labour. These are not one and the same 
things. Certainly it will be an epistemic error to interpret gender 
roles in respect to family issues, in the same manner labour divi-
sions are clustered in production organisation.

One can’t be the other for the preconditions, under which such so-cial 
facts in roles and labour structures arise, are typically and 
categorically different. Taking care of one’s child is different from 
doing a job for a living or for a reward. 

It’s in this connection that sociological theory in these matters, is 
far superior to mathematical mystification and classification. 

Indeed, the variables given by Guanga-zhen and Vijayan in their sta-
tistical model i.e. fertility rate and social inequality could be 
significant in improving but also worsening reproductive health not 
from an economist but rather cultural quasi religious point of view. 
Women who do not have children long to have children, which is a fact 
of reproductive health. 

Here, Crompton and Harris modify Guanga-zhen and Vijayan’s view with 
an assumption that the nation state is becoming insignificant in 
shaping gender relations . I also mentioned above that state and so-
ciety are on different planes and institutions derive wherefrom are 
not congruent hence different sociological theory applies.

Crompton and Harris writes, that gender relations are organised around 
four overlapping topics namely; gender equality, welfare state 
regimes, encouragement and support given to women as mothers, in turn 
making the economic determinant less significant in the Guanga-zhen 
and Vijayan’s reproductive model.
 Note too that they are quick to point out the difference on contex-
tual, practical and conceptual levels in and within their study so-
cieties.

Discussion

Guanga-zhen Wang and Vijayan K. Pillai make a typical mistake in so-
ciological methods, by equating empirical model to a sociological 
theory.

Path analysis and multiple regression model, will most certainly be 
used to find the causal relations between the objects of study in a 
particular location i.e. reproduction, rights and gender health.  But 
how consistent are such models? In their paper, they mention the word 
association in several instances, which in statistical terms is not 
the same as correlation and indeed has different measurement tools.

On the one hand, as I’ve exposed, the facts above from a cultural, 
religious etc., none of the sociological theory supports Guanga-zhen 
Wang and Vijayan K. Pillai viewpoint. We would have thought, that when 
Marx writes about class, he was actually saying class is static 
spiritualess, cultureless, as per Durkhiemian sociology terminol-
ogies, which in fact as Crompton and Harris have shown with differ-ent 
welfare regimes, smacks of gender perspectives, were there’re embedded 
sociological meaning and inferences within and without par-ticular 
social views in reproductive health.  

In other circumstances, state institutions imposed on society insti-
tutions, will generate given social action(s), which in other words, 
will not arise if society structures where to be understood inde-
pendent of the state. But even where the state is concerned, social 
institutions will affect the results derived from state actions. 

Crompton and Harris elaborate on this point very clearly, in their 
study of the same problem of women’s employment in Norway, Britain and 
Czech republic.
Notice that even if Norway is applying what in their paper is termed 
as Scandinavian model, it differs based on local socio-political 
values. It might be full employment policies, and the interpretation 
of what paid work and non-paid (non-market) work is. 

Now if child caring can be termed as work, can it also be assumed that 
reproductive health where possible, there must be a wage re-ward . In 
Czech republic for example, Crompton and Harris write, childcare and 
mother relations are based on the low women retirement age. Implying 
would be pensioners are grandmothers in the linear family structures. 
As such solving the question of childcare where the mother is working 
within the family structure strongly affecting Guanga-zhen Wang and 
Vijayan K. Pillai’s model consequently. 

What is being discussed here, is the fact telling us that the Gini  
coefficient used in reproductive health to show differed growth 
patterns in different countries, plays a lesser role unless there’s 
homogeneity in economic, social and political objectives in the so-
cieties under inquiry. Indeed the term growth is very controversial in 
the economics science in which case it should not contaminate and 
stunt the beauty of sociological inquiry.
 
In a sense, Guanga-zhen Wang and Vijayan K. Pillai sociological model 
of reproductive health is one sided and presupposes the state, as the 
source of social meaning, which it is not. 

The model itself imposes restrictions on reproductive health, since 
reproductive health is not only triggered by properties, which are 
associated and could be assumed to be in concordance with reproduc-
tive health, which in fact are not represented as predicates in their 
model.
  
Conclusion

Whenever sociological research is being conducted, it should not be 
the beauty of statistical tools and modelling possibilities at a re-
searcher’s disposal, to determine the course of sociological in-quiry. 
But rather that greater concern and caution should be made to 
understand the contradictory and sometimes antagonistic sociology 
theory and how the society in question generates such theories to be 
modelled statistically.

It is therefore important, and since in their article, different re-
productive views are mentioned, to note that what actually would be 
one model is a multiplicity of possible reproductive models on the 
basis of different sociological theories. 
 
In other words statistical tools are to prove that what the socio-
logical theory informs us, is actually consistent under the condi-
tions it is studied and conforms to constitutions of the sociologi-cal 
phenomenon under examination.  




- References –

Amr Sabet (1996), Vol.24 No. 2/3 Religion, Politics and social changes-
 A theoretical Framework. Keston Institute.
Brian Ellis 2001: Scientific essentialism Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, Emile. (1933), The Division of Labour in Society Trans-lated 
by George Simpson. New York: The Free Press.
Anthony Giddens Editor (1986), Durkheim, Emile On politics and the 
state Polity press London.
Crompton Rosemary and Fiaona Harris (1997), Vol.40 No.2 Women’s Em-
ployment and Gender Attitudes: A comparative analysis of Britain, 
Norway and the Czech Republic. Acta sociologica.
Guanga-zhen Wang and Vijayan K. Pillai (2001), Vol. 44 No 3 Women’s 
reproductive health: A gender sensitive human rights approach. Act 
sociologica.
Erik Olin Wright 1997; Class Counts- comparative Studies in class 
Analysis Cambridge University Press. 
Helen Ginsbury (1983), Full employment and public Policy the United 
States and Sweden.
Karl Marx (1993), Grundrisse Penguin London.
Lisalotte Jakobsen (1993), Arbete och Kärlek Tryck student littera-tur 
Lund. 
Robert M. Marsh Editor (199_), K. Merton Comparative Sociology- a 
codification of cross-societal analysis. Harcourt Brace & world inc. 
New York.
Sayer Andrew. (1992), Method in Social Science a realist approach. 
London: Routledge.
Zeitlin M. Irving (1990), Ideology and the development of sociology 
theory Prentice hall London.





_________
bwanika
 
url: www.idr.co.ug

Logon & Join in ug-academicsdb discussion list

                               http://www.coollist.com/subcribe.html

                               List ID: ug-academicsdb
                               Your Email address: 
                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                               url: http://uhpl.uganda.co.ug
                              
http://pub59.ezboa


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---