Everyone takes surveys.
Whoever makes a statement about human behavior has engaged in a survey of
some sort. Consider
four statements:
1)A Catholic Cardinal (Bernard Law) announces that the Catholic laity are
glad that the Pope
continues to remind them about the evil of birth control.
2) Richard Lewontin in an attack in the New York Review of Books -- "Sex,
Lies, and Social
science" -- on the recent survey of American sexual behavior by The
National Opinion Research
Center (The Social Organization of Sexuality)1 says that the scholars are
"deaf and dumb" because
they believe that 45% of the men between eighty and eighty four still
have a sex partner.
3)Journalists report that "Generation X" is less concerned about politics
than its predecessors.
4) A priest announces that no one has ever interviewed him or one of his
friends in a survey and
therefore he thinks that surveys are a fraud.
Each of these statements are the result of surveys that the one making the statement has taken -- unless they have wet their fingers and held them up to the wind. Cardinal Law, Professor Lewontin, the journalists and the priest, have made observations, analyzed their observations, and generalized from them. The Cardinal has talked to some Catholic laity; the Professor has (presumably) observed the behavior of men in their early eighties; the journalists have talked to young Americans; the priest, by his own admission, has interviewed his friends.
You cannot generalize about human behavior unless you observe it one way or another, analyze your observations, and then generate a statement about them. The difference between the survey takers and the rest of generalizing humankind is that the former (usually) observe large numbers of people in a representative sample that reflects the total population and are precise about their methods of data collection and analysis. Precisely because the professional survey taker is honest about his methods, he becomes an easy target for loud mouth critics who appeal to "what everyone knows" and "common sense."
Thus one could say at a dinner party that most Americans are faithful to
their spouses and a loud
mouth, semi-inebriated jerk can respond that the conclusion cannot be
true because look at all the
academics who sleep around at professional meetings and besides surveys
cannot be trusted. Sic
stat thesis.
The methods and techniques of the survey on which one has based one's
comment are out in the
open and are easy targets for criticism whereas the methods of the loud
mouthed jerk are not
revealed. Bad research has driven out good research.
The person who engages in survey research knows his limitations, at least
if he is wise and
experienced. The critic who responds with his generalizations is serenely
unaware of his own
limitations. The survey taker knows that even with the most carefully
designed sample, the most
cautiously crafted questionnaire, the most responsible field staff, and
the most ingenious analytic
techniques, the best he can claim for his work is a rough approximation
of human behavior. He
cheerfully admits that social science is not a science in the same sense
as, for example, is
Professor Lewontin's studies of insects.
Lewontin's attack on The Social Organization of Sexuality seems designed
to make that point, but
social scientists conceded it long ago. "There are some things in the
world," he writes, "that we will
never know and many that we will never know exactly."
Surely, but, put off by perhaps by pedantic and sometimes turgid style of
The Social Organization of
Sexuality, he seems to assume that the authors of the book are claiming
the same degree of
certainty about human copulation that he can have about insect
copulation. Only a survey
researcher who is a charlatan or a fool would make such a claim. If all
knowledge is problematic,
survey knowledge is especially problematic because of the complexity of
human behavior. The
survey scholar is attempting merely to be as precise as possible in his
approximations by being
clear about his methods and assumptions. In assuming that the survey
scholar is attempting more,
Lewontin is simply talking past them.
Surveys are limited tools but they are better than holding the saliva-
tipped finger in the wind or
generalizing to all humankind on the basis of what one's academic
colleagues might or might not do
at professional meetings.
However, as Harrison White, a man with doctorates in both Astrophysics
and Sociology once
remarked, "Science is humankind pursuing truth with no holds barred." By
that standard, social
science is indeed science though in a difference sense than astrophysics
-- or the study of insects
(both of which deal with relatively elementary problems compared to those
encountered in the study
of human beings).
Indeed the only conclusion the survey researcher can advance with some
degree of certainty (as
constrained by statistical confidence estimates) is that if he did
everything right, the responses with
which he is working reflect the answers the whole population would give
if the questionnaire were
administered to everyone in the population. It has often seemed to me,
however, that this is not
unimportant information.
Lewontin's principle argument against the book is that the authors
"pretend that one knows nothing
about the experiences of being human, forcing the investigator to pretend
that people usually know
and tell the truth about important issues when we all know from our own
lives how impossible that
is. (Italics added).
Again Professor Lewontin has made his own survey. He has spoken to or
observed enough people
to generalize about what "we all know," playing the role of the loud
mouthed jerk at the dinner
party. He is in effect saying that his survey of what people know
indicates that people don't know
and don't tell the truth about the important issues in their lives. If
telling the truth is something
important, then how can he believe his own survey about whether they tell
the truth?
Obviously Professor Lewontin surveyed only himself. He knows that he
would not tell the truth to a
National Opinion Research Center interviewer (indeed he says he would
decline to be interviewed
which is of course his privilege). Yet how can he be so certain that
other people are incapable of
giving a rough approximation of the truth in their interviews? He
confronts the authors with his own
personal opinion and nothing more. Moreover he does not say whether he
thinks that respondents
will exaggerate or underestimate their sexual behavior.
The issue remains as to whether there is any means by which responses to
a survey of sexual
behavior can be verified. Election surveys can be validated by the actual
outcome of an election
(which apparently is not an "important issue" in life). Respondents seem
to underestimate their
income, overestimate their participation in voting, perhaps overestimate
their church attendance
(though that remains to be seen). Is it possible to verify the responses
in a survey of sex? Or might
people be unwilling or unable to tell the truth?
Lewontin says that there is no such means available and that in fact one
of the best measures, the
number of life-time sexual partners, fails because men report many more
partners then women.
I respond that there are at least three ways of obtaining partial
validation and that together they
create a converging probability towards roughly accurate portraits of
sexual behavior.
1) If one varies the method of interviewing from very private to very
public and response patterns
remain the same, the chances that respondents are telling the truth
increases.
2) If one varies the cultures in which surveys have been taken, and
response patterns remain the
same, the chances that the respondents are telling the truth increases.
3) If one varies the gender of respondents and many response patterns
remain the same, the
chances that the respondents are telling the truth increases.
To the first criterion: in the various sex surveys around the world
methods of data collection have
varied from highly public -- the telephone interview on which my work
Faithful Attraction2 was based
-- to the extremely private -- self administered questionnaires mailed to
the survey center (as in the
Irish study). Response patterns vary only slightly.
To the second criterion: as the authors of The Social Organization of
Sexuality report in the book,
there is very little variation across cultural lines. Presumably cultural
attitudes towards sex are very
different in France and Denmark than they are in England and the United
States (and I would add
Ireland). Yet response patterns in all these countries are virtually the
same.
To the third criterion: While there is indeed a difference between men
and women in reports of the
total number of life time sexual partners, there are similarities in
their responses to other questions.
For example, as I reported in this journal before the publication of The
Social Organization of
Sexuality, the infidelity rate among both men and women is the same --
15% -- when one
compares working women with working men who don't have sex with
prostitutes. Husbands and
wives report approximately the same rates of at least weekly sex. They
also report approximately
the same frequency of oral and anal sex. Given the different
physiological and psychological
reactions to sex in the two genders, these similarities provide
impressive quasi-verification.
As to the difference between men and women in reports of life-time sexual
partners, there is some
evidence in the Irish research that much of the difference may be
attributed to exaggeration by men.
Thus in the United States a quarter of the unmarried men and two fifths
of the unmarried women
report that they had no sexual partner in the last year. In Ireland a
little less than half of both
genders report no sexual partner. Perhaps the Irish men see no need to
exaggerate their sexual
accomplishments.3 Similar arguments can be made about other parts of the
book. Thus the
increase in a forced first sexual encounter among younger women can
hardly be the result of
fantasy among such women. Why would they be more likely to indulge in
such ugly fantasies than
older women?
My argument is that these criteria create not certainty (which is not attainable in research on human sexuality) but a converging probability that the authors of The Social Organization of Sexuality have presented a picture of sexual behavior in America which is roughly accurate as far as it goes. That is a major accomplishment whose importance ought not to be minimized, much less ridiculed as the New York Review of Books ridicules it. The study is less than perfect and necessarily less than completely accurate and adequate. It is still the best effort so far to draw a broad portrait of sexual activity in this country.
No more and no less.
A survey is an imperfect way of studying humankind. Nonetheless it serves
useful purpose and
should be neither worshiped nor ridiculed merely because the "up-front"
candor of the survey scholar
about methods makes him vulnerable to ridicule.The survey is an imperfect
way of knowing. So are
all the others.
The Social Organization of Sexuality has its flaws. The presentation is often plodding and dull, even when one grants that it is de rigeur for social science writing to be heavy. The questionnaire was innocent of creativity and flair: as one of the reviewers in the American Journal of Sociology observed there are no questions about hugging, kissing, and love play, actions which the species seems to find enjoyable, especially, if one is to believe reports, women of the species. The most serious weakness of the study, it seems to me, is that it pays little attention to affection and none to love. Perhaps this omission is hard-headed sociology. Yet, if the most frequent sex and apparently the best sex is that between married partners who are faithful to one another, is there not a hint that affection might be an important aspect of sex? Even love? While the link between sex and love may be understood by poets and novelists, social science has yet to explore it, perhaps because it is considered too "soft." Does love tend towards sex? Does sex tend towards love? Is sexual love one of the binding energies which holds the social structure together?
It is perhaps unfair to my NORC colleagues to suggest that they should
have explored those
questions. But the questions do seem appropriate for the next study.
Despite these criticisms (which are not original with me), it is still
the most cautious and careful
study of American sexuality currently available to us. To argue, as
Lewontin does, that it is no
better than the Kinsey reports, is to lose all sense of balance and
perspective.
Why the ferocity of the attack, especially since most other reviews have
been favorable?The New
York Review of Books serves a function for certain members of the
intellectual elite that Hong Kong
martial arts films serve for some kinds of American males -- it provides
raw meat for those who love
to see others torn to shreds. Perhaps the media reports about the
"conservative" nature of American
sexual behavior (the data on the sexual abuse of women, especially of
younger women seem not to
have attracted much media attention) may have offended some of the
Review's editors. So too may
have the findings about the incidence of homosexual and the dangers of
AIDS contaging to the
general population. Many men like Richard Lewontin don't realize that
they routinely engage in their
own informal surveys (or self-examination about what it means to be
human) to sustain their
attacks on the more formal surveys. There is always the jerk at the
dinner table syndrome. Finally
one should never exclude the impact of invidia academica on
book-reviewing.
Even Professor Lewontin offers some validation4 of the generally
"conservative" portrait of American
sexuality that the book provides: "If I can believe even half of what I
have read in The Social
Organization of Sexuality, my own sex life is conventional to the point
of being old fashioned."5
Yeah.
So it would seem is the sex life of most everyone else.
1 Even though I had published a book and several articles on the subject
I had no part in the
enterprise from questionnaire design to report writing. One of the
authors explained to a group of
students that if I were part of it I would have a book written and a
press conference within six weeks
-- a comment the students promptly brought to me. That may be true
(though the book would have
been better written), but it would not have happened if I had given my
work not to violate an
embargo. Thus I do not have a vested interest in defending The Social
Organization of
Sexuality
2 The monogamy and fidelity rates reported in Faithful Attraction were
replicated in The Social
Organization of Sexuality
3 In 1994 the General Social Survey questions were replicated in
Ireland. In most indicators there
was little difference between Ireland and the United States. Professor
Lewontin who has a couple of
snide anti-Catholic remarks in his review would be well advised to
withhold them when commenting
on Ireland. The Irish are, incidentally, more likely to report same
gender sex than Americans.
4 Despite his assertion that he would not talk to an The National Opinion
Research Center
interviewer
5 One could be cynical about Professor Lewontin's claim to
conventionality by citing his own
words:" the investigator (is forced) to pretend that people usually know
and tell the truth about
important issues when we all know from our own lives how impossible that
is."