This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY-SA 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
John Caldwell e al., “The Social Con ex o AIDS in Sub-Saha an A ica”
© 2023 Uni e si ä s e lag Gö ingen
Published e sion
S a k, Lau a
S a k, L. (2023). John Caldwell e al., “The Social Con ex o AIDS in Sub-Saha an A ica”. In U.
Ma zolph (Ed.), Reading ma e s : An Un es sch i o Regina Bendix (pp. 367-372).
Uni e si ä s e lag Gö ingen. h ps://doi.o g/10.17875/gup2023-2298
2023
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.17875/gup2023-2298
John Caldwell e al., “The Social Con ex o AIDS
in Sub-Saha an A ica”
Lau a S a k
In he ea ly 2010s I s uggled wi h he ques ion o why (he e o)sexuali y in my
Tanzanian ield si e (2010–2021) s uck me as being so e y di e en om he
middle-class (he e o)sexuali ies I g ew up wi h in small- own Cali o nia and la e
encoun e ed in Finland. The p esen ly discussed a icle, hence o h “The Caldwell
pape ,” was he i s (and las ) ha echoed my in ense in ellec ual cu iosi y on his
opic. Roundly condemned by A icanis an h opologis s, sociologis s, and gende
schola s o being ahis o ical, de e minis ic, homogenizing, e hnocen ic, and
colonizing (see, e.g., Nyanzi e al. 2008), i became a sho hand e e ence o e e y-
hing ha a se ious e hnog aphically-o ien ed schola in A ica should ne e do.
I a gue ha c i iques agains he Caldwell pape e ec i ely shu down
in ellec ual cu iosi y abou he na u e o sexual di e ence be ween socie ies on he
A ican subcon inen and socie ies wi h Eu asian oo s. Al hough esea ch in o
A ican sexuali ies con inued, i emained he ea e localized and pa icula is ic,
eschewing ques ions o o igins and c oss-con inen al di e ences. Di e ences in
sexual p ac ices, i is ue, ha e been used in he se ice o sexis , acis , and
impe ialis agendas, in e p e ed in he global No h as a sign o A ica’s
“degene a ion” om an ideal no m. Ye wi hou explici a en ion o di e ence,
Eu ocen ic pe spec i es emain he de aul app oach o sexuali y in A ica e en
hough hey ha e p o en o be o li le alue in unde s anding he di e se ichness
o a i udes and beha io s on he sub-con inen .
368 Lau a S a k
My in en ion he e is no o c i ique o he c i iques, bu o gi e a cau iona y
example o how c i icism o any lawed-bu -pa hb eaking wo k can quickly shu
down a enues o inqui y in o sensi i e subjec s, as e iewe s s i e o s ay on he
“sa e side” o a subjec (as I did o oughly a decade) and he e o e will ully igno e
e idence in hei da a. In my esea ch as in he Caldwell pape , e idence has been
pe suasi e in iewing di e ence as an in eg al pa o a (ideally heo y-gene a ing)
sys em.
The Caldwell pape ’s sou ces consis o o e 120 e hnog aphically-o ien ed
s udies o sexuali y in sub-Saha an A ica, as well as hei own ield esea ch om
1960s’ and 1970s’ u ban Nige ia. In he yea he pape was published, he g ie ous
ex en o he AIDS c isis in sub-Saha an A ica was jus beginning o be unde s ood.
The au ho s sough o unde s and he easons behind he AIDS c isis, and hei
main heo em was ha high HIV a es could be linked o a single, uni a y pan-
A ican sexuali y. They a gued o he impo ance o sexual ne wo ks in HIV
in ec ions (a iew sha ed by la e schola s), and o he exis ence o a pan-A ican
sexual sys em in which i gini y, abs inence, conjugal ies, and “con olling he
mo als and mobili y o women” (Caldwell e al.: 222) we e less desi able han in he
so-called Eu asian sys em. The au ho s’ s a ed pu pose in w i ing he pape was o
demons a e he “agg ession” and misguidedness o an i-HIV campaigns in he
egion and o show “ ha he sub-Saha an A ican popula ion is no a mo ally
backsliding Eu asian popula ion ha can be e u ned by exho a ion and
educa ional campaigns o a pa e n o sex occu ing p edominan ly wi hin ma iage”
(224–225). Despi e accusa ions o e hnocen ici y, he Caldwell pape in ac
c i icized p e ious esea ch on sexual beha io in sub-Saha an A ica o depa ing
om he his o ical peculia i ies o Eu opean and Asian sexuali y and o ocusing
“ oo much on he A ican sys em as he one ha has o be explained” (191). The
pape ’s au ho s made he key poin he e is no such hing as a “neu al” an age
poin o s udying human sexual beha io .
In my esea ch on he e osexual esiden s om 35 di e en e hnic g oups li ing
in wo u ban, low-income neighbo hoods o Tanzania (whe e many pe sons s ill
su e and die om AIDS), I ha e been s uck by he open ansac ionali y o men’s
gi ing money in e u n o physical in imacy wi h women. While he ansac ional
na u e o in imacy is by no means easy o na iga e o he pa ne s in ol ed, in
i sel , ansac ionali y was no seen as cause o shame o disapp o al. The e is a
ich li e a u e on ansac ional sex in sub-Saha an A ica, bu he Caldwell pape is
one o he e y ew o no e ha he “ ansac ional elemen is widely p esen wi hin
ma iage as well” (204). They also sugges ha ansac ional in imacy and “pa allel
ela ionships” such as he long- e m ela ionships be ween ma ied men and
‘ou side’ women known in many pa s o A ica (215) can be seen as he less
o malized con inua ion o he olde p ac ice o polygyny. In all, my in e iew da a
ea u ed oughly 20 aspec s ha we e also p ominen in he Caldwell pape ,
including widesp ead ansac ionali y; he impo ance o sexual ne wo king;
communi ies’ ole ance o gi ls’ p ema i al sexual eedom (e en among Muslims);
John Caldwell e al., “The Social Con ex o AIDS in Sub-Saha an A ica” 369
sex as a legi ima e sou ce o sel -es eem and pleasu e o bo h men and women; and
impo ence expe ienced by men as a e ible s igma.
These simila i ies p omp ed me o ask: A e he e di e ences be ween sub-
Saha an A ica and mains eam Wes e n socie ies in he ways ha physical in imacy,
emo ion, social o ganiza ion, and esou ces a e o ganized? Why is money in sub-
Saha an A ica no seen as he cold, a ional ins umen o exchange in in imacy ha
i is in Eu ope and No h Ame ica, bu ins ead as an exp ession o ca ing and
a ec ion, as he bes gi ha a lo e can gi e? Las ly, how is his en anglemen
be ween lo e and money in sub-Saha an A ica linked o social and biological
ep oduc ion?
The Caldwell pape sugges s whe e o look o answe s o hese ques ions by
gi ing an en i onmen al-his o ical explana ion o how sexual beha io and
a i udes a e linked o pa e ns o social o ganiza ion hey call a “sys em.” In his
explana ion, he Caldwell pape d aws on an h opologis Jack Goody’s wo k
ega ding cul u al aspec s o p oduc ion and ep oduc ion in Eu asia, which Goody
de ined as ex ending om he Medi e anean o Sou h Asia, wi h China added (191).
The au ho s d ew on hei sou ces o build hei own con as ing model o
p oduc ion and ep oduc ion in sub-Saha an A ica. The o e all con ou s o hei
model, especially he alue placed on people as weal h on he A ican subcon inen
a he han land as weal h (as has his o ically been in Eu asia), esona e wi h he wo ks
o bo h ea lie and la e an h opologis s o A ica who ha e emphasized he
impo ance o ha ing “weal h in people” and being a ached o o he s in ne wo ks
o economic dependence.
The au ho s’ in e p e a ion o Goody’s model goes like his: In Eu asia, he
good soils o ag icul u e and he de elopmen o he plow d awn by d a animals
enabled a signi ican su plus o ood. The land ha p oduced his su plus was hus
s a egically desi able, and p ope y and inhe i ance laws de eloped o gua an ee
access o i (191). Families who main ained and de ended hese plo s o land sough
o p ese e and consolida e land holdings by p e en ing any claims o inhe i ance
by child en no bo n in o same-class ma iages (191–192). This was done by
con olling emale sexuali y o p e en bi hs ou o wedlock: “Female sexual pu i y
was main ained by deg ees o seclusion and by males o going po en ially use ul
emale assis ance in many a eas [o li e] in o de o main ain i (192).”
In A ica, by con as , he soils we e mos ly poo . “Plows we e o li le alue,
and, o e g ea a eas, he se se ly p ohibi ed he use o d a animals” (192).
P oduc i i y in ag icul u e, he e o e, could no be achie ed h ough con ol o e
land bu ins ead h ough g ea e labou inpu , which necessi a ed con ol o e
people. Lineages he e o e welcomed addi ional child en, “e en hose o unce ain
pa e ni y” (200). The emphasis on lineage a he han on he conjugal bond as a
means o consolida ing esou ces and bols e ing amily p es ige mean ha mo e
impo ance was placed on emale e ili y han on i gini y a ma iage, o e en
wi es’ ideli y inside ma iage. By o e ing one his o ical explana ion o he
impo ance o “weal h in people” in sub-Saha an A ica, he Caldwell pape laid he
370 Lau a S a k
ounda ions o a close examina ion o wha is being ansac ed in ac s o sexual
in imacy beyond money and pleasu e.
The Caldwell pape admi edly su e s om a numbe o lacunae. Ph ases like
“A ican socie y” (193, 199) o sub-Saha an A ica as “an al e na i e ci iliza ion”
(222) a e g oss o e gene aliza ions ha we e dese edly ebu ed by c i ics. The
pape engages in an abundance o specula ion and p esen s e idence ha con a-
dic s i s main claims. Resea che s ha ing a close e hnog aphic acquain ance wi h
he di e si y o he la ges subcon inen on ea h we e igh in poin ing ou ha he
a icle’s claim o a “dis inc and in e nally cohe en A ican sys em emb acing sexuali y,
ma iage and much else …” (187, emphasis mine) could ne e hold much wa e .
The s udy was also c i iqued o i s me hodological laws. Le Blanc, Mein el and
Piché (1991) igh ly poin ou ha he au ho s did no explain he c i e ia by which
hey selec ed hei sou ce da a, and ha hey excluded om hei analysis some
s udies ha would ha e p o ided e idence o a b oade a ie y o sexual pa e ns
in sub-Saha an A ica.
No all c i ics engaged in an equally close eading o he pape , howe e . Igno ed
we e he nume ous quali ie s in he Caldwell pape and he au ho s’ admission ha
much o hei a gumen a ion was “hypo hesized” gi en he sca ci y o cul u ally
sensi i e da a in he la e 1980s. C i ics accused he au ho s o gende bias, o
neglec ing a emale pe spec i e and ocusing p ima ily on women’s ole in sexual
ne wo king, e en when he au ho s had explained ha he da a on women’s
expe iences was spa se. The au ho s we e c i iqued o using wo ds like
“pe missi e,” “immo al,” and “p omiscuous” (Ahlbe g 1994; A n ed 2004) o
desc ibe sexual ela ions in A ica when in ac hey had only used hese wo ds when
quo ing o e e ing o p e ious esea che s wi h whom hey disag eed.
In e es ingly, mos c i ics comple ely bypassed he au ho s’ use o Goody’s
Eu asian model. Ins ead, hey objec ed o he ac ha Caldwell pape —al eady
o e -long a 49 pages—did no include he aspec s o sexuali y in which hey we e
mos in e es ed o ha we e mos p ominen in hei ieldwo k da a: o example
how sexuali y was his o ically in luenced by indigenous and colonial eligions o he
p ominence o modes y ules and kinship aboos ega ding sex and ma iage, poin s
in ended o coun e he Caldwell pape ’s supposed asse ions o A ican sexual
“pe missi eness” (Ahlbe g 1994; Heald 1995).
In my da a, sexual and ma e ial pleasu es a e in e wined, especially o women.
Fo hem, sex was no —as i has ne e been—jus abou libidinal desi es. Sex was
a way o ea and pay en . I may ma e o people in Eu ocen ic socie ies, bu no
necessa ily o u ban Tanzanians whe he sexual desi es “ul ima ely” de i e om
desi e o geni al- ela ed pleasu es o om he desi e o ood o sel and child en,
o o he clo hes ha g an social digni y.
Pe sons o bo h gende s also looked o some hing om sexual in imacy no
easily a icula ed in in e iews: hey wan ed hei pa ne o help hem manage hei
social epu a ions as espec able and use ul membe s o socie y and o achie e
socially no mal pe sonhood. I was old ha o men, i was i al o be able o

John Caldwell e al., “The Social Con ex o AIDS in Sub-Saha an A ica” 371
pene a e, p o ide o , and pleasu e a woman sexually in o de o be conside ed a
“ eal man” and ecei e social espec . A neighbo hood esiden who was impo en
knew ha his child en we e a he ed by a neighbo bu kep silen because keeping
up he appea ance o his own a he hood was mo e impo an han eac ing o his
wi e’s in ideli y. Fo young women, ha ing a male in ima e pa ne p o ide o he
(in o ou o wedlock) was seen as an impo an way o be “independen ,” o gain
he espec o neighbo s, and o no be inancially dependen on ela i es. Mo eo e ,
e en i ma iage was o en una ainable due o male unemploymen , gi ing bi h o
a child allowed young women o build hei own u e ine amilies— amilies ed
h ough he mo he ’s sex wo k.
Ra he han simply o ep oduc ion o pleasu e, in Tanzania sexual ela ions
can be analyzed as a social “glue” in exchange ba gains in which men and women
seek o p o e ha hey a e able-bodied, “no mal,” and “ unc ioning.” Sex becomes
he mechanism—simul aneously symbolic and physical—by which such ba gains
a e ac ualized and h ough which hey a e unde s ood. Since men gene ally ha e
mo e access han women o he esou ces needed o su i e, money channeled om
men o women enables his “glue” o main ain i s hold. In neolibe al Tanzania,
money and sexual ela ions oge he hus become a way o linking people in ne wo ks o
c ea e weal h in people. In his con ex , sexual educa ion and an i-HIV campaigns
based on Wes e n ideologies ha e had li le impac , jus as he Caldwell pape
p edic ed.
Resea che s o wha is called sexuali y in any socie y need o unde s and how all
i s elemen s play ou in ela ion o each o he and how he di e ences ac oss
egional a eas a ose globally. The Caldwell pape au ho s (188–189) showed he
possibili y o b oadly imagining how a egional sys em implies ha di e en elemen s
co-c ea e each o he . In he end, esea che s o A ican sexuali y could ha e used he
Caldwell pape ’s idea o a sys em as a s a ing poin o explo a ion, disag eeing wi h
some elemen s and p oposing ca ea s abou he ex en o which he sys em’s
ea u es we e cul u ally sha ed ac oss and wi hin communi ies on he A ican
subcon inen . Ins ead, hey ejec ed i ou igh o easons ha , upon close eading,
do no seem en i ely de ensible.
Wo ks Ci ed
Ahlbe g, Be h. 1994. “Is The e a Dis inc A ican Sexuali y? A C i ical Response
o Caldwell.” A ica: Jou nal o he In e na ional A ican Ins i u e 64.2: 220–242.
A n ed, Signe. 2004. “A ican Sexuali y/Sexuali y in A ica: Tales and Silences.”
Re hinking Sexuali ies in A ica. Ed. by Signe Am ed. Uppsala: No diska
A ikains i u e , pp. 59–78.
Caldwell, John and Pa , and Pa Quiggin. 1989. “The Social Con ex o AIDS in
sub-Saha an A ica.” Popula ion and De elopmen Re iew 15.2: 185–234.
372 Lau a S a k
Heald, Suze e. 1995. “The Powe o Sex: Some Re lec ions on he Caldwells
‘A ican Sexuali y’ Thesis.” A ica 65.4:489– 505.
Le Blanc, Ma ie-Na halie, Dei d e Mein el, and Vic o Piche. 1991. “The A ican
Sexual Sys em: Commen s on Caldwell e al.” Popula ion and De elopmen Re iew
17.3: 497–505.
Nyanzi, S ella, Jus ine Nassimbwa, Vincen Kayizzi, and S iban Kabanda. 2008.
“A ican Sex Is Dange ous! Renego ia ing ‘Ri ual Sex’ in Con empo a y
Masaka Dis ic .” A ica 78.4: 519–539.