With women giving birth at increasingly higher ages, an increased number of women (and often their partners) are confronted with reproductive challenges. Of course, this can be related to women increasingly choosing to postpone childbirth in order to be able to invest in their careers. Perfectly legitimate (again: of course) and a good development in many respects, but an unintended consequence of these career developments, is the increased demand for assisted reproduction.

Dolle Mina Baas in eigen buik

Wybo Dondorp and Guide de Wert argue for a (partial) solution to this problem: allow women to salvage ova at early age, and freeze these for use later in the life-course. This will not solve all problems, but it would at least increase these women’s opportunities to have a ‘genetically own’ child.

But of course, it did not start with women starting to have careers, it started with women wanting to have careers. In the Netherlands, we had a group called ‘Dolle Minas’, who sought after the right for women to have more control over their fertility. Using the statement ‘Baas in Eigen Buik’ (Boss over my Belly, see photo), they argued for the availability of and right for the use of contraceptives, condoms, and abortion.

The Dolle Minas by and large succeeded in reaching their goals: society opened up for women, and more control over women’s fertility was obtained. I wonder, though, if current developments regarding the increased demand for assisted reproduction were foreseen by then.

It has been a week since I started `Sociology Today‘. I’ve covered newspapers, free magazines found in public transportation, and blogs. All contained news that closely related to three main questions of sociology. It feels like this can indeed be continued indefinitely, but I will not do so on a daily basis. I’ve come to the conclusion that I prefer some more thoughtful posts, rather than these quickies. Perhaps I’ll make it a weekly item.

But for today I selected a public opinion magazine: Vrij Nederland. I found issues on gender inequality and sociobiology, on fertility issues and the supposed increase in social cohesion due to the European Championship.

Today’s Source: Vrij Nederland

Rationalization: The broader debate

This one is easy. Ariana Need, sociologist at the Radboud University, is interviewed about her work on abortion. She works on a large project on the interplay of religion, education, technological change and fertility issues. Since I assist some to that project, it was nice to see it appearing in a public opinion magazine. Need proffers the basic sociology argument: (policy) interventions can have complex, unintended consequences. Thereby, she argues that there is more to the abortion debate than simple a child that is born, or not.

Inequality: Genderdifferences: Narture or nurture?

In a fascinating article on a recent book by Susan Pinker, we read that the nature-nurture debate is brought back to gender inequality on the labor market. Although the criticism is raised that Pinker steps from biology to behavior a little to quickly at times, it is recognized that existing biological differences between man and woman cannot be excluded from this debate. Very true indeed. In my opinion, observed biological differences should not be excluded from the discussion a priori. Nevertheless, I have argued before that one should be careful to make such arguments, for it is very difficult to embed the outcomes of certain biological traits in the social environment in which both men and women live.

Cohesion: Sociology of Sports

During this European Championship the pressure to write on football is unbearable. So, here I go. It is often heard that minorities represented in a sports team benefit the integration and acceptance of these minorities in society. Simon Kuper however argues that this is not the case regarding the France football team. Zinedine Zidane was a hero on the field, but did not help the integration of the fellow Algerian migrants. It shows according to Kuper, by the electoral success of the right-wing ‘Le Pen’. The riots in the Parisian ‘banlieu’s’ were not an indication of successful integration either. Reason for all this is that although the migrants are successful on the soccer field, their success is attributed to their status as ‘the other’, not that of them as a person.

How far is a single man willing to push scientific advancement in order to better God? Victor Hoppe is willing to go far, very far. This is the central theme of the book by Stefan Brijs, soon to be translated in English. In English, it will be called `The Angel Maker’, in Dutch ‘De engelenmaker’. The book chronicles the life of Victor Hoppe, a man who the reader learns about when he moves into an old house in the little village of Wolfheim.

The book consists of three parts, all narrating the story from different perspectives. The first part of the book tells the middle part of the life of Victor Hoppe from the perspective of the inhabitants of Wolfheim. These village people only see the strange man coming, and with him he has three little children. The man is a doctor, but never shows himself, nor his children. It takes almost a year before the villagers see the three children for the first time. When asked what happened to the mother of his children, the doctor responded “The children do not have a mother, they never had“. Their names are Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael.

In the second part of the book, the reader learns more about the main character. In beautifully mixed sections, alternating between the youth and the academic career of Victor Hoppe, the motives of his work become clear, as well as the manner in which he attempts to carry out these motives. We learn about his personality and morality, which are heavily influenced by the syndrom of Asperger. Due to this syndrom of Asperger he views the world as consisting only `good’ or `evil’, not being able to perceive anything in between. The way he was brought up by the nuns learned him to perceive Jezus as good, for he did good to the people, and God as evil for he abandoned his son. Victor was abandoned by his own father and left alone with the nuns, where he spent almost the first five years of his life. In his academic career, Victor emerged to be a brilliant medical student and a promising embryologist, receives high levels of acclaim for being able to clone mice. He is the first capable of cloning mammals. However, he does not take into account the scientific mores, not willing to replicate his experiments. When an investigation is started, for he is discredited for fraud, he does not even wait for the outcomes of the investigation, but simply leaves. He continues his work on his own, showing that he does not care about academic life, but only about the results. He clearly has some higher goals in life than academic esteem.

The apotheosis of all that has been built up in the life of Victor Hoppe is detailed in the third section of the book. While in the previous section much has become clear about the three sons, here it becomes clear how small their role and impact actually were in the life of Victor. They weren’t much more than a (failed) step in reaching his goal: bettering God. Finally he has the means to fulfill his own plans, but time is running out. But the little time he needs is granted to him by the changed attitude of the villagers around him. Having gradually won the hearts and minds of the villagers of Wolfheim, Victor is now protected by them when people from his own history, unknown to the villagers, try to reach him. This shows in a brilliant way how people can make the wrong decisions for the right reasons. Additionally, the final decisions Victor Hoppe makes show how complete madness and strict rationality do not exclude each other.

Not willing to give away the plot of the book, I have purposedly left out some of the most interesting parts of the story. But it is clear how the three parts of the book are structured and how they add to each other. All characters have their own specific role to play, and all are described in more than enough detail to understand their actions, without resulting in overly long elaborations that do not add to the story.

But before I continue describing all the beauty and splendor of this book, I do have basically two issues with the way this book is set up. The first issue is not so much as real critique, but has more to do with my personal preferences. The book clearly deals with ethical questions regarding fertility issues, and thereby the relationship between morality, scientific progress, and religious doctrine. However, to me this interplay has not been worked out sufficiently broad to engage in a debate on these issues. Rather, it is clear that the main character has developed his own (special) morality and thereby the ethical issues are reduced to our moral stand on what he does, thereby not dealing with more general issues. Additionally, the church and it’s doctrine seem to play a large role in the plot of the book, which opens up possibilities for interesting reflections on how the church deals with technological change and the new moral issues this leads to. But actually, it is only the way Victor Hoppe is influenced by the church that forms a motive for his deeds. Again, although this makes a highly interesting motive and a fascinating book, I still have the feeling that a slightly different perspective could have been more interesting. To me, at least.

My second and more important criticism on this book is its high level of predictability. Because Stefan Brijs takes so much care that his readers are able to understand the motives of the main character, thus resulting in repetition, it is clear in advance what the outcome of these motives will be. The book has I think three main plots, two of which were clear to me 100 or even 200 pages in advance. For a book that is clearly written to excite the reader, this is too early. The third and most important plot (not the third in the order of the narrative) is not clear that long in advance, but when it happens, the motives and historical background are clear immediately as well. I think this would have been a better book when there would have been more room for puzzling out what happened in the mind of Victor Hoppe.

Nevertheless, I do think that Stefan Brijs has written an excellent novel. It is very well structured and written ((I read the Dutch version, the original language it was written in)) , and the characters are developed beautifully. And that is the most important: indeed it intends to be more of a character novel that one focussed on moral issues. Especially the character of Victor Hoppe is detailed very well, with both the complex history he has had and the clarity of his own, almost binary, morality of a world only consisting of good and bad. The debates on technological advancement, religious doctrine, and morality, although to my opinion not worked out completely satisfactory, form an interesting setting for the development of this troubled character.

Indeed, these issues are important and will perhaps be more so in the near future. Generally, Stefan Brijs appears to have a detailed knowledge on the technicalities that are dealth with in his book, resulting in a sense of realism to the reader.

The Angel Maker has been received very well in the Netherlands and in Flanders, winning several important literary prices. The translational rights have already been sold to many countries, such as for instance the U.K. and the U.S.A., Greece, Russia, and Turkey. I’m looking forward how this book will be received in this countries, especially regarding the religious issues that are dealth with in the book.