Frustrated fertility: a population paradox

This Bulletin examines the causes of subfecundity -- the diminished ability to reproduce -- and its effect today and in the past on the fertility, or actual reproductive performance, of individuals and, hence, populations. By definition, all real populations are subfecund since all experience some degree of involuntary biological factors affecting coitus, conception, or the ability to carry a conceptus to live birth which reduces their fecundity below the estimated biological population maximum of 15 children per woman. Affecting both men and women, these factors fall into 5 categories: genetic factors such as blood group incompatibilities and inherited sickle cell anemia or diabetes; psychopathology, including psychic stress and behavioral disorders (e.g., drug and alcohol abuse); infectious diseases such as gonorrhea, malaria, tuberculosis, and postabortion infection; malnutrrition, including the chronic undernutrition of the 3rd World and the overnutrition of developed societies; and hazards posed by increasing amounts of radiation and toxic chemicals in the environment. Reducing subfecundity requires improved living conditions, avoidance of or protection from known hazards, and adoption of medical advances which now can help 40 to 60% of subfecund couples. But even in the U.S. fertility would certainly rise among the 15% of couples now estimated to be involuntarily childless and the 10% who have fewer children than they want, and among disadvantaged groups, and teenagers.     

Changes in the social definition of early childhood and the new forms of symbolic violence

Conclusion The nursery school may be considered an institution and a market where the habits produced by the family are moulded, developed and standardized; thus, it is confronted with an objective definition of early childhood embedded in pedagogical practices. The proper objective of a sociology of nursery-school practice is the analysis of the lag between the functions delegated to the school by the different social classes and the functions which it objectively tends to fulfill. Here we have the best test of the lag between the pedagogic demands of the different classes and what the schools supply-which is very abstract, with results that are only visible at a later stage in the school career. It is not so much a question of learning to read or of preparing to do so (the acquisition of certain logical operations or a developed sensitivity, of acquiring a few I.Q. points). This learning takes place through many varied activities which apppear to be far from the learning function.All told, the conditions for understanding nursery-school exercises flow from the conditions for inventing these exercises. For instance, in games of manipulation, construction, classifying various objects, is not some knowledge of Piaget (at least in the sense of some psychologikal knowledge) needed to understand that practical manipulation is also logical manipulation, to see in cube games the learning of logic? Similarly, the language naïveté cultivated in language games is a clever naïveté, which supposes for example a cultured re-discovery of popular archaic language or of child talk. p ]Is it not likely to appear as pure childishness to those who, without the ncessary cultural knowledge, do not have the keys to decipher these ostensibly naïve exercises? Similarly, the conditions for understanding children's drawings as artistic learning (and the nursery school as an educational institution) are the very conditions for understanding modern art as art.It is not just a matter of perception and understanding; as the objective definition of early childhood proper to the different social classes becomes pervasive both in the relationship with school and in the socialization practices of the family, it patterns the children's habitus (as long-lasting internalized dispositions), which in turn influence the child's behavior and attitude towards school.The perception categories and the different forms of treatment of young children appropriate to each social class are not simply the result of the diffusion of definitions of early childhood produced by the autonomous evolution of scientific and artistic disciplines. They are the products of all the social and cultural conditions which define the class situation. We may also wonder whether at least some pedagogy and certain types of exercises do not presume that the child has socially marked attitudes, produced in some classes by family inculcation. For instance, a general attitude of disinterested interest is required by a pedagogy offering multiple activities and open to an attitude of active research and exploration. Does not this attitude suppose as an existential possibility the condition of social classes protected from economic pressure and from the urgency of immediate life, a general attitude towards life nearer to leisure than to the constraints of work?Thus, in confronting supply with demand—here even less than elsewhere-there is no question of comparing the expectations arising from users' opinions with the program offered in the official definition of the institution. The expectations are those which arise from objective determinations inherent in each social group, the forms of treatment and perception of early childhood. To analyze the program-and therefore to ascertain the social conditions governing the use of the nursery school—the dominant definition of early childhood on which the institution is founded must be brought to light. Moreover, the way in which this definition is written into the curriculum (and, subsequently, into pedagogical practice) must also be studied. This implies that the preliminary condition for a sociological analysis of the functions performed by the nursery school for the different social classes would be an analysis of a) the components of this dominant definition of early childhood and b) of the social conditions in those groups which make it possible to identify these components.We wish to thank P. Bourdieu for his advice during our research. R. Collins provided useful suggestions after reading the first version of this paper.     

Parental survival data: Some results of the application of Ledermann's model life tables

Summary Ledermann's one- and two-parameter model life tables are used in order to summarize and compare adult mortality estimates derived from parental survival data, and also to link parental survival with child survival data. The Ledermann models provide an alternative to the logit model used by Brass and Hill. Examination of life tables derived from actual child and adult mortality estimates reveals that although the two types of models yield similar overall levels of mortality, they show marked differences in the estimated patterns by sex and age. It has not been possible to disentangle completely how much of this divergence is due to the models themselves and how much to inadequacies in the data available. Finally, we question whether it is always wise to establish a full life table from child and adult mortality estimates when these are based on data which refer to different periods of exposure to the risk of dying, without allowance for possible distortions resulting from mortality change.     

Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands

In managing major accident hazards in industry risk, both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands use quantitative risk analysis and quantified risk criteria. These should be understood in the historical, legal, and political context in which they were drawn up. Even when criteria are numerically the same they do not necessarily mean the same thing. The legal and historical context differs widely between the two countries. Nevertheless, it is surprising that the final results in terms of land use and levels of risk are very similar.