Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._4
.pdfSEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Klovdahl, Alden S. 1985 ‘‘Social Networks and the Spread of Infectious Diseases: The AIDS Example.’’
Social Science Medicine 21:1203–1216.
Laumann, E. O., J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael, and S. Michaels 1994 The Social Organization of Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leigh, B. C. 1990 ‘‘Sex and Drugs.’’ Journal of Sex Research 27:199–213.
———, and R. D. Stall 1993 ‘‘Substance Use and Risky Sexual Behavior for Exposure to HIV: Issues in Methodology, Interpretation, and Prevention.’’ American Psychologist 48:1035–1045.
Levine, W. C., R. Revollo, V. Kaune, J. Vega, F. Tinajeros, M. Garnica, M. Estenssoro, J. S. Lewis, G. Higueras, R. Zurita, L. Wright-DeAguero, R. Pareja, P. Miranda, R. L. Ransom, A. A. Zaidi, M. L. Melgar, and J. N. Kuritsky 1998. ‘‘Decline in Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence in Female Bolivian Sex Workers: Impact of an HIV Prevention Project.’’ AIDS 12:1899–1906.
Magana, Raul 1990 ‘‘Bisexuality among Hispanics.’’ Paper Presented at CDC Workshop on Bisexuality and AIDS, American Institutes for Research.
Martin, J. L. 1987 ‘‘The Impact of AIDS on Gay Male Sexual Behavioral Patterns in New York City.’’ American Journal of Public Health 77:578–584.
McKusick, L., J. A. Wiley, T. J. Coates, R. Stall, G. Saika, S. Morin, K. Charles, W. Horstman, and M. A. Conant 1985 ‘‘Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS in San Francisco 1982–84: The AIDS Behavioral Research Project.’’ Public Health Report 100:622–629.
Morrison, D. M., M. R. Gillmore, and S. A. Baker 1995 ‘‘Determinants of Condom Use among High-Risk Heterosexual Adults: A Test of the Theory of Reasoned Action.’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology
25:651–676.
Ng’weshemi, J. Z. L., J. T. Boerma, R. Pool, L. Barongo, K. Senkoro, M. Maswe, R. Isingo, D. Schapink, S. Nnko, and M. W. Borgdorff 1996 ‘‘Changes in Males’ Sexual Behaviour in Response to the AIDS Epidemic: Evidence from a Cohort Study in Urban Tanzania.’’ AIDS 10:1415–1420.
O’Reilly, K. R., and S. O. Aral 1985 ‘‘Adolescence and Sexual Behavior: Trends and Implications for STDs.’’
Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6:262–270.
Padian, N., L. Marquis, D. P. Francis, R. E. Anderson, G. W. Rutherford, P. M. O’Malley, and W. Winkelstein
1987 ‘‘Male to Female Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association 258:788–790.
Plummer, F. A., R. A. Coutinho, E. N. Ngugi, and S. Moses 1999 ‘‘Sex Workers and Their Clients in the Epidemiology and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.’’ In K. Holmes, P. F. Starling, P. A. Mardh, S. Lemon, W. Stamm, P. Piot, and J. Wasserheit, eds.,
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill.
Poherat, J. J., R. Rothenberg, and D. C. Bross 1981 ‘‘Gonorrhea in Street Prostitutes: Epidemiology and Legal Implications.’’ Sexually Transmitted Diseases
8:241–244.
Proceedings NIMH/NIDA Conference on Women and AIDS: Promoting Health Behavior 1989 Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.
Reinish, J. M., C. A. Hill, S. A. Sanders, and M. ZiembaDavis 1990 ‘‘Sexual Behavior among Heterosexual College Students’’ Focus 5:3.
Roffman, R. A., R. S. Stephens, L. Curtin, J. R. Gordon, J. N. Craver, M. Stern, B. Beadnell, and L. Downey 1998 ‘‘Relapse Prevention as an Interventive Model for HIV Risk Reduction in Gay and Bisexual Men.’’
AIDS Education and Prevention 10:1–18.
Rojanapithayakorn, W., and R. Hanenberg 1996 ‘‘The 100% Condom Program in Thailand.’’ AIDS 10:1–7.
Ross, M. W. 1984 ‘‘Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men: A Study of Four Societies.’’ British Journal of Venereal Disease 60:52–66.
Schuster, M. R. Bell, G. Nakajima, and D. Kanouse 1998. ‘‘The Sexual Practices of Asian and Pacific Islander High School Students.’’ Journal of Adolescent Health
23:221–231.
Shilts, R. 1987 And the Band Played On. New York: St.
Martin’s.
Siegal, K., and M. Glassman 1989 ‘‘Individual and Aggregate Level Change in Sexual Behavior among Gay Men at Risk for AIDS.’’ Archives of Sexual Behavior
18:335–348.
Sonenstein, F. L., L. Ku, L. D. Lindberg, C. F. Turner, and J. H. Pleck 1998. ‘‘Changes in Sexual Behavior and Condom Use among Teenaged Males: 1988 to 1995.’’ American Journal of Public Health 88:956–959.
Stover, J., and P. Way 1998. ‘‘Projecting the Impact of AIDS on Mortality.’’ 1998 AIDS 12(suppl 1):S29–S39.
Volinn, I. 1989 ‘‘Issues of Definitions and Their Implication: AIDS and Leprosy.’’ Social Science and Medicine
20:1157–1162.
2595
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Washington, A. E., R. L. Sweet, and M. A. B. Shafer 1985 ‘‘Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Its Sequelae in Adolescents.’’ Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6:298–310.
Way, P. O., B. Schwartlander, and P. Piot 1999. ‘‘The Global Epidemiology of HIV and AIDS.’’ In K. Holmes, P. F. Starling, P. A. Mardh, S. Lemon, W. Stamm, P. Piot, and J. Wasserheit, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wells, E. A., M. J. Hoppe, E. E. Simpson, M. R. Gillmore, D. M. Morrison, and A. Wilsdon 1995. ‘‘Misconceptions about AIDS among Children Who Can Identify the Major Routes of HIV Transmission.’’ Journal of Pediatric Psychology 20:671–686.
Wood, C. S. 1978 ‘‘Syphillis in Anthropological Perspective.’’ Social Science and Medicine 12:47–55.
PEPPER SCHWARTZ
MARY ROGERS GILLMORE
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Many observers view slavery and freedom as polar opposites, but both slave and free wage labor systems rely on compulsion. Slave systems depend ultimately on physical coercion to force slaves to work for masters, although cultural, ideological, and economic pressures typically augment physical force. Wage labor systems, by contrast, depend on workers being free ‘‘in the double sense’’ (Marx [1867] 1967, pp. 168–169): Not only must workers be free to seek employment and choose among potential employers, they also must be free of all other means of subsistence that would allow voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. In the absence of subsistence alternatives, economic necessity compels ‘‘free’’ workers to exchange labor services for wages. Although wage labor systems depend primarily on labor-market processes to supply employers with workers, physical coercion often supplements those processes, especially during periods of economic decline. Cultural expectations and ideological appeals also reinforce market mechanisms. Nevertheless, large-scale labor systems are maintained primarily by a mixture of physical and economic coercion that varies with the availability of subsistence alternatives.
The way in which the constellation of physical and economic coercion and subsistence alternatives is determined by the power of contending groups as well as historically specific cultural and ideological factors has been of great interest to social scientists. Perhaps the simplest and most durable statement of the causes of slavery is a conjecture known as the Nieboer–Domar hypothesis (Nieboer 1900; Domar 1970; Engerman 1986a; see Patterson 1977b for a critique), which links slavery to an abundance of arable land combined with a shortage of labor. The way in which slavery differs from other forms of involuntary servitude is explained in the next section. The Nieboer– Domar hypothesis is then amended to provide a provisional explanation for the worldwide trend away from slavery and toward freedom in largescale labor systems over the last several hundred years. Finally, the Nieboer–Domar hypothesis is reevaluated in light of current patterns of slavery and involuntary servitude around the world.
SLAVERY AND OTHER FORMS OF
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Patterson (1982, p. 13) argues that slavery is defined by three conditions. First, slaves suffer perpetual domination that ultimately is enforced by violence. The permanent subjugation of slaves is predicated on the capacity of masters to coerce them physically. Second, slaves suffer natal alienation, or the severance of all family ties and the nullification of all claims of birth. They inherit no protection or privilege from their ancestors, and they cannot convey protection or privilege to their descendants. Third, slaves are denied honor, whereas masters are socially exalted. This condition appears to be derivative rather than definitive of slavery because all hierarchical social systems develop legitimating ideologies that elevate elites and denigrate those at lower levels. The first two conditions, which distinguish slavery from other forms of involuntary servitude, constitute the working definition used in this article.
In chattel slave systems, slaves are movable property owned by masters and exchanged through market processes. Because some societies con-
2596
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
structed elaborate slave systems without well-de- veloped notions of property and property rights, property relationships cannot be an essential defining element of slavery (Patterson 1982; 1977a). Nevertheless, property relations and economic processes had important effects on slavery and other forms of unfree labor in the Americas, Europe, and Africa in the period after the fifteenth century, which is the major focus of this analysis.
An unfree laborer cannot voluntarily terminate service to a master once the servile relationship has been established. Slavery maximizes the subordination of servant to master. Other servile workers, such as indentured and contract laborers, debt servants, peons, and pawns, are less dominated than slaves are and do not suffer natal alienation. Pawns, for example, were offered by their families in return for loans. Pawns maintained kinship ties to their original families, a situation which gave them some protection, and were freed once the loans were repaid. Indentured servants agreed to be bound to a master for a specific term, such as seven years, in exchange for a benefit such as passage to America or release from prison (Morris 1946; Smith 1947; Morgan 1975). Contract laborers also were bound for specified terms but could not be sold against their will to other masters, as was the case with indentured servants. Debt servitude consists of labor service obligations that are not reduced by the amount of work performed (Morris 1946; Sawyer 1986). Peons are tied to land as debt servants and owe labor services to a landlord. Serfs are not debt servants, but they are tied to land and perform labor services on their lords’ estates. The right to labor services enjoyed by European feudal lords was vested in their political authority rather than in land ownership, although serfs were reduced to slaves in all but name in some instances (e.g., Russia in the nineteenth century) (Kolchin 1987).
Indentured servants and contract laborers may agree to the initial terms of their servitude, but they cannot willingly end it during its term once it begins. Usually some form of coercion, such as poverty, debt, or impending imprisonment, was necessary to force people to agree to terms of contractual servitude or pawnship. By contrast,
the status of the slave, serf, peon, and debt servant typically was inherited or imposed on workers against their will.
SLAVERY, THE LAND–LABOR RATIO, AND
THE STATE
In its simplest form, the Nieboer–Domar hypothesis states that abundant free land makes it impossible for free workers and nonworking landowners to coexist. If free land is available and laborers can desert landowners whenever they choose, landowners will be unable to keep enough workers to maintain their status as nonworkers. If landlords can compel workers to perform labor services despite the availability of free land, landlords become labor lords and workers are not free. By contrast, scarce land combined with an abundant labor supply drives wages down, making wage laborers less expensive than slaves and other servile workers. When they are denied access to land, hunger forces workers to labor for wages and wage labor systems displace slave labor systems.
This model appears to be deficient in at least four ways. First, as Domar recognized, political factors determine the degree of freedom enjoyed by workers. Chief among those factors is the extent to which the state protects the interests of landowners when they conflict with those of laborers. Large-scale slave labor systems cannot exist without states that defend the power of slave masters to control and utilize the labor of slaves. A powerful state is essential for protecting slave masters against slave rebellions, capturing runaways, and enforcing slave discipline. State power is required for the enslavement of new supplies of slaves. If the state is responsive to the demands of workers or if workers can voluntarily withdraw their labor services, unfree labor systems cannot be maintained.
Second, the model presumes that slave masters exploit slaves in response to economic incentives, but slaves and other unfree laborers often provided military, administrative, domestic, and sexual services largely unrelated to economic activities (Roberts and Miers 1988; Patterson 1982).
2597
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
The Nieboer–Domar hypothesis therefore does not apply to societies that employ slaves and other servile workers in noncommercial or minor economic roles (Lovejoy 1983; Finley 1968). It also does not apply to states that use race, religion, gender, or other status criteria to restrict the freedom of workers for noneconomic reasons ( James 1988).
Third, the key issue from an employer’s perspective is not simply the ratio of land to labor but the relative costs and benefits of different forms of labor that can be profitably employed using existing capital (including land). A more general version of the Nieboer–Domar model compares the stock of available capital to the availability of different forms of labor at prevailing prices. Thus, labor scarcity means the scarcity of labor at prices that allow it to be employed profitably.
Fourth, the simple version of the Nieboer– Domar hypothesis ignores the organizational capacities of workers and capitalists’ ability to adopt labor-saving innovations. If workers demand concessions that threaten profits or engage in strikes and other production disruptions, capitalists experience ‘‘labor shortages’’ that stem not from insufficient numbers but from the organized resistance of the workers who are present (Miles 1987). Faced with such disruptions, capitalists with sufficient capital may adopt labor-saving innovations if they are available. When capitalists are unable to adopt those innovations, they may resort to coercive strategies to curb workers’ market-based demands (Paige 1975). This case contradicts the Nieboer– Domar hypothesis, which assumes that high ratios of labor to capital (or land) make coercive labor control strategies unnecessary.
UNFREE LABOR IN THE AMERICAS
From the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were closely linked by flows of people and commodities (Lovejoy 1983; Eltis 1987). The colonization of the Americas by strong European states provided vast, lightly populated lands for commercial exploitation. Expanding markets in Europe for sugar, cotton,
tobacco, coffee, and other commodities stimulated the demand for greater supplies of servile labor to work the plantations and mines of the Americas. Weak states in large areas of sub-Saharan Africa left large populations vulnerable to armed predation by stronger states that supplied the expanding markets for slaves.
Estimates of the numbers of bondsmen and slaves transported to the Americas are subject to sizable errors because of the paucity and unreliability of existing records, but relative magnitudes are thought to be reasonable (see Table 1). Differences in the sources of servile labor produced different racial compositions across American regions. Slaves from Africa outnumbered arrivals from Europe nearly four to one before 1820, and most were bound for sugarcane plantations in Brazil and the West Indies. British North America was atypical because its early immigrants were predominantly white indentured servants from Britain, Ireland, and Germany; perhaps two-thirds of the white immigrants who arrived before the American Revolution were bonded servants (Smith 1947, p. 336). Before being displaced by African slaves, white bondsmen were the principal source of labor in the plantation regions of all British colonies, including those in the Caribbean (Engerman 1986a; Galenson 1981).
Indentured servitude was the principal method of defraying the costs of supplying the colonies with workers. British laws and customs regulating master–servant relationships were modified significantly to fit American circumstances (Galenson 1981). Because of the high costs of transatlantic passage, longer periods of service were required, typically four to seven years rather than one year or less in England. English servants could not be sold against their will to another master, but that practice was sanctioned in colonial laws and customs because European servants could not negotiate terms with perspective masters before immigrating to America. Finally, opportunities for escape were much greater in America. Consequently, elaborate state enforcement mechanisms were implemented to discourage runaways and to catch, punish, and return those who did. Most indentured servants were transported to plantation re-
2598