What can I do?
Food Policy, Vol.7, No.2, May 1982.
What drives nutritionists in their daily work? Why do they choose nutrition end not another field? Presumably it is the appeal of working, either locally or globally, to alleviate the suffering caused by malnutrition. This article explores the political awareness of nutritionists, the political implications of their daily activities and suggests an enhanced role for nutritionists in the battle against malnutrition. The starting point for this article is the motivating principles behind individual nutritionists.
Nutritionists, and nutritional institutions, seem to be compelled by quite different motivations in the battle against malnutrition. There seem to be three discernible approaches:
The amoral approach: Although it can be assumed that most nutritionists are attracted to nutrition because of its relevance to people and societies, some of them stop their concerns just here; having become involved in nutrition as a career they often think that is (and will be) their contribution to society as concerned human beings, as if nutrition per se, or doing one’s job efficiently in a technical sense, were a magic tool of change and development. I call this motivation the amoral approach to nutrition, although it really falls under the scope of an ethics of achievement. Because of its narrow scope, this approach has little to offer to the resolution of malnutrition in the world: at what point is concern with nutrition per se socially useful? (Of course, we could also conceive of two other approaches, an immoral approach to malnutrition – those cases in which someone in the profession does not care at all about the hunger and malnutrition issue in the world and in his surrounding environment – and a situational approach in which standards are made up, as convenient, for each circumstance).
The moral imperative: This drive is based on the judeo-christian ethics that calls for compassion, charity, virtuousness and righteousness. This imperative of moral responsibility is at the forefront of many voluntary agencies working in nutrition. In this category, we can find at least two types of individuals or institutions:
· Those who object to the capitalist system’s injustices and feel that their duty is to do something about malnutrition which they perceive only as one of the injustices, assuming that others will attack the system in other fronts. (We can also call individuals in this group moral objectors or progressive humanists).
· Those who, embracing the capitalist system as desirable but out of control, cannot morally tolerate the extreme poverty and malnutrition the system generates and feel compelled to do something about malnutrition to mend this important shortcoming of the system. We can also call these individuals humanitarians, or more pejoratively, moralists, since they have made these issues a matter of personal conscience, but lack a visible rationalization.
This sense of responsibility as a motivation found in many scientists, does not seem to be sufficient either to see necessary changes occur: it leads to a dead end. It may solve the conscience problems of the person who devotes his time and effort to do ‘something’ to solve malnutrition; however, it seems to have little effect on the real problems of the poor and malnourished. This is why groups in this category so often go on repeating classical slogans and pushing traditional nutrition interventions that solve nothing much in the long run. In short, these positions lack political perspective. A genuine concern for the poor, even as part of a holistic approach does not seem to be enough if it is not channelled in a political and ideological way.
The concept of being socially responsible is nothing but a euphemism for what really should be political responsibility; ie do we really have a choice not to take political sides? Rights, after all, are at the intersection of ethics and force or correlation of forces.2 A political commitment is important precisely because governments function as political entities.3 Moral causes have usually made progress only when powerful interests saw their advance as having ‘something in it’ for them.4 In such cases, moral imperatives were used politically.
A moralist’s attitude often comes from a religious imperative; if this religious imperative pushes them to act politically, they would tend to be more in the right track. But, if it pushes them to act ‘religiously’, by turning the other cheek, they are most probably doomed to fail in affecting malnutrition in the long run.
The political (ideological) imperative: An emotional commitment is loose and romantic; ideological commitment is militant. People or institutions that fall under this category strongly feel that the capitalist system is wrong, that it generates and maintains malnutrition and they set out to fight its injustices, either by reforming it deeply or by trying to replace it with a more human-oriented system, more responsive to the basic human needs (‘So foul a sky clears not without a storm’ – Shakespeare’s King John). People who take this latter position also depart from a moral imperative, but they have gone further. So at the root of the ideological problem there is a moral problem.5
Are individuals who take such a position, on a more realistic track? It is clear that they look more into the ultimate determinants of malnutrition which are to be found in poverty and in the different parameters of social injustice. Therefore, they would seem to be on the right track, or at least asking the right questions. (Of course, one could also conceive a political imperative from the right, ultraconservative, pro-capitalist, but this tendency is rare; it can be found in some people who work for or represent the food industry).
Social values and duties are implanted into and become imprinted in us early in life by our families (especially in the pre-school age) and later (school-age and teens) also by our education and our social environment. All of the above are largely determined by our social class extraction. Some of the moral issues so acquired have universal validity; for most of us they are within the judeo-christian ethics; its general principles are not necessarily class-bound and are mostly expressed in a non-ideological way (although some of them most definitely are both class-bound and ideologically expressed).
Ideological values and duties are imprinted by the family, through education and by the social environment too. Therefore, most of the time, the ideology tends to be pro status quo (almost by definition, since the survival of that ideology would be otherwise at stake). Moderateness has a clear connection to the prevailing ideology and is the way in which the pursuit of material improvement and the non-material value-system are held together.6 Ideology is definitely not universally shared and is definitely bound more closely to our social class extraction.
Nutrition workers are, additionally. influenced by the experiences they have had in the different political systems in which they have operated.7 Cultural and ideological bias is, therefore, unavoidable. People tend to think of themselves as apolitical: but there simply is no such thing. Despite the fact that the spectrum of choices is a continuum, in the last instance, one either condescends to the system or one objects to it – totally or partially. Any of these are political stances.
Objection to the system is always the result of a conscious, voluntary effort to break with all or some aspects of the prevailing ideology. Going along with the prevailing ideology is less frequently a conscious, voluntary step; it is more often an unconscious conservative attitude.
Ideology has several meanings.8 Ideology as a ‘content of thinking’ and as an ‘intellectual pattern’ reflects the involuntary elements of ideology which we all have and probably keep for life; it’s part of our indelible (class) heritage. It is ideology that channels our social behaviour in predictable directions. On the other hand, ideology as an ‘integrated politico-social programme’ is the result of a voluntary internationalization of the values of a given society, be it real or ideal.
In the West, objectors to the capitalist system have often been divided into two main groups, pejoratively named liberals and radicals. Liberals are basically objectors that look publicly neutral but are morally anti-establishment. Although liberals are considered opposition forces, they often only accommodate capitalist logic: they think that changes within the system are called for. Probably because of this, numerous internal ideological inconsistencies can be found in their reasoning. They believe the world to be profoundly other than it should be, and have faith in the power of human reason to change it. Basically, they are scientific optimists and their ‘theory and aims’ for a new order are often vague and inconsistent.
There are also those liberals who feel impotent to change the system, although they disagree with it. They tend to be rather cautious in the implementation of actions that will amend the prevailing system. They tend to work in the capitalist bureaucracy, in academic or in think-tank institutes and are often skilled at using their organizations to further their interests. They often even sit in many of the establishment’s decision-making bodies.
Liberals often go along with the ‘content of thinking’ of their class of origin. which is mostly middle-class. They are outspoken in public, although often eminently declarative and formal; they openly denounce the evils of poverty and malnutrition and are, nevertheless often involved in token nutrition interventions; or, they keep inventing new ‘more comprehensive’, or ‘multi-sectorial’ approaches to old problems as of these would change the major contradictions and the distribution of power within the system that is causing the problems to begin with. Liberals, for sure, coined the concept of ‘nutrition planning’, so widely abused as the most rational panacea to solve hunger and malnutrition in the world, only to find out that little has changed for the poor majorities in the world; if anything at all, gaps have tended to widen.
Liberals are often manipulated and used by ruling elites and their pressure groups and they are perceived as no real threat to the system of conservative politicians; they are, therefore, let alone to protest as much as they want following the logic that dissidents are to be incorporated or tolerated, as lung as so doing reduces levels of conflict and increases the system’s macro-efficiency.9
The liberal approach still embraces a bourgeois ideology in terms of a politico-social programme Therefore, this liberal political imperative misses the real political perspective too. It ultimately also lacks the political clout to change the system and, consequently. affect malnutrition.
Radicals or ‘leftists’ are probably more affected than liberals by the use of this pejorative labelling. They are thought of broadly as revolutionaries or temperamental activists ready to destroy the free enterprise system. Most of the time. this simplistic view is not accurate. Radicals are generally characterized by a more idealistic commitment to pursue the solution to the final and most important determinants of poverty and malnutrition. It is not infrequent that some have adopted a Marxist ideology, at least as an analytical tool. They definitely question the principles of social justice of the capitalist system and of bourgeois ideology: they strive for a better, more rational politico-social programme; they aim at generating social commitment in science because they use an ideological approach in these efforts, there tends to be more internal consistency and more comprehensiveness in their approach to the problems of malnutrition.
Radicals tend to be action-oriented, verbal and constantly try to point-out contradictions in the system leading to malnutrition. They spend a lot of time denouncing the inequalities and injustices they see and, within their ideological framework, they make an effort to propose possible solutions to solve the major contradictions; they use every opportunity they have to share these concerns with their peers, sometimes with decision makers and, if possible, with members of the community that are suffering the problems themselves. They often work for the same bureaucracies that liberals do and academe is also one of their preferred refuges. They tend to be sceptical about traditional top-to-bottom nutrition intervention programmes, although as the liberals, they often participate in some of them. but more often as a vehicle for organizing the beneficiaries at the base to let them start solving their own problems, and to help them gain some additional power to do so. They feel an urge to contribute to the liberation of the masses from social oppression and exploitation. This is not simply a belief or attitude of radical nutrition workers, but also an inner compulsion in their battle against malnutrition.
It needs to be added, here. that the replacement of the capitalist system has not necessarily been the original aim of all radicals in the profession. They only pursue those changes that they believe have a real potential for solving malnutrition. If the changes called for could be accepted and implemented by the prevailing system, the system itself would not necessarily become the target of radicals. But since the necessary changes cut deep into the basic structure of society, they are in conflict with the capitalist system and its basic principle – profit maximization.
Radicals prefer to by-pass traditional government bureaucracies and work as much as possible at the grass roots, organizing the people around their problems, malnutrition being only one of them. An important intervention for radicals, at that level, has to do with the task of making the people aware of their problems in an ideological context through organization. It is expected that people will channel their felt needs towards activities of self help, if problems can be solved locally, or towards an organized fight for outside inputs, be they governmental or not, if such help is necessary.
Often, both liberals and radicals transcend the domains of pure or applied nutrition, digging deeply into the underlying politico-economic issues. Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn, the actions proposed and seen through and the channels utilized by the two groups are frequently different in kind. This should come as no surprise, since even ‘objective’ analysis and diagnosis techniques are ideologically biased. One sees what one wants to see. Even thinking about malnutrition in economic terms does not automatically assure commitment to something significant being done about it.
Of course, some nutritionists fall in in-between categories, between liberals and radicals. After all, each of us arranges his universe and his role in it as well as he can. People in this limbo are either in a slow transition to either category, or are permanently in-between. The latter, for sure, have a heavier burden to carry, since one can presume they have to confront more everyday contradictions within themselves.
A lot of semantic diplomacy bridges ideological differences in every-day contacts between nutritionists. In trying to solve the problem of malnutrition, intraprofessional responsibility should not be neglected. This means pooling together the genuine and honest predisposition to action of nutritionists, ethically or politically motivated, if they are to fulfil their potential role as change agents. The latter has to begin through a process of critical analysis of professional affairs and goals with their inherent contradictions. This very process should, hopefully, show to what extent overall activities in the field of nutrition can be channelled to achieve a real, final impact in ameliorating malnutrition anywhere, in a reasonable timeframe. Basically, nutritionists should be searching for a new ethos, a professional, political ethos.
Of course, there are those who argue: ‘Why don’t you forget about those dilettante, bourgeois scientists (nutritionists included) and focus your efforts more on helping to change the people, the blue collar workers, the peasants, or the unemployed directly, since they will ultimately be the ones called upon to bring about lasting social changes anyway?’ The answer to this question can be ambivalent too, neither of both activities being probably exclusive: it is mostly a question of what percentage of effort to devote to each of them. Alternative answers to the same question are certainly the basis for a vital set of internal contradictions that a good number of liberal and radical intellectuals carry with them and somehow manage to block.
In the long run, there will have to be moral changes on the part of those who enjoy the luxuries of affluence. The question is, will these lead to ideological changes in some?10 We have already passed the era when we asked basic nutritionists to become more applied researchers; now we are asking them to become more socially conscious and more committed as real change-agents, leaving behind a lot of epidemiological preciosity or snobbery. Depoliticized science is not science in the real service of man (Franz Fannon).
Many moralists think that politics is ‘dirty’ or not a ‘virtuous’ activity. That is probably why they insist in quixotic actions against the injustices of the prevalent social system – which they also, more often than not, condemn – without realizing that in the end they are being instrumental to its maintenance. They assume decision makers are rational, righteous and pious and will bend in front of hard scientific evidence or react to outrageous injustice, Liberals, on the other hand, pay lip-service to needed changes, even applauding radicals’ interventions. But they lack, perhaps as much as the moralists, the political education or what is needed to work out ways to overcome malnutrition in capitalist societies. The fight against hunger and malnutrition is eminently a political and not a technical struggle. Technology is hardly the adequate point of departure to achieve the deep structural changes needed to end hunger and malnutrition; the right political approach is the better point of departure. Nutritionists are rarely trained as social scientists and therefore use social theory implicitly rather than explicitly.11 This is where the challenge lies in searching for the missing ideological link.
Liberals will often shy away from Marxist ideology except perhaps for its more egalitarian principles which remain, nevertheless, vague to most. They will even shy away from Marxism’s scientific elements of interpretation of social phenomena, not believing that the same scientific method their minds are tuned in to is the one being applied to the social sciences. Therefore, more often than not, they have not even chanced to study the principles of historic and dialectic materialism, although the possibility always exists to reject its interpretations, assertions or theories if they do not conform to the readers’ patterns of rationality or weltanschauung. The latter passive attitude is probably a remnant of the liberal scientist’s (anticommunist) bourgeois upbringing. It takes an initial conscious and decisive step to bridge any ideological gap.
The average applied scientist probably does not spend much time either in screening or purposely studying the basic theoretical elements of the bourgeois ideology or capitalist political economy to better understand how the system he lives in works. Radicals will probably more often go through this exercise to better adjust their strategies and tactics.
Does all this mean that radical scientists or nutritionists have a higher level of social consciousness than their non-radical peers? It would seem that the answer is yes, and it has certainly cost them an additional effort. Once a certain level of consciousness is attained (is there a threshold?…) an action-oriented attitude usually follows. At that point there is a convergence of ideology and action which makes the difference between taking an observer’s to a protagonist’s role. Knowing about injustices does not move us. Becoming conscious about them generates a creative anger that calls for involvement in corrective actions. The latter can only happen within the framework of an ideology consciously acquired.
Political forces are fought with political actions, not with morals, or with technological fixes. This does not mean that strong ethical principles cannot be used as a political weapon, but this usually fails, mainly for ideological reasons. It is because of ideological and political naivety that scientists who have occasionally jumped into the political arena in the West have so often failed.
Many nutritionists feel that their positions in academe, government or international or private organizations might be jeopardized if they ‘come out of the closet’ with more radical positions. Nutritionists take a ‘survivor’s’ attitude. The result of such a position is more palliative interventions that do not affect hunger and malnutrition. There are certain actions that can be advocated in any system that will have a lasting effect and combat malnutrition, We seldom see agencies or concerned nutritionists primarily pushing those actions, because they are mostly non-nutritional, at least at the outset. If we could at least begin giving priority to some of these interventions (ie employment generation and income redistribution measures) we would be contributing more to solving the feeding problems of the deprived sectors of the population than by devising sophisticated nutrition interventions.
Nutritionists have to stop thinking that they cannot contribute much to the selection and implementation of non-nutritional interventions because they are outside our immediate field of expertise. Nutritionists are champions in denouncing transgressions to the exact sciences, but they are not half so active, and much less effective, in denouncing transgressions to the social sciences.
What do internationally funded nutrition programmes in the Third World really contribute to? How responsible are nutritionists working in those projects for their failure or success? Who do they see benefiting from these programmes? How do they see the programmes’ impact in the long run? A good number of these programmes only scratch the surface of the local problems and, therefore, contribute to the status quo in these countries. We must be aware, though. that most Third World countries’ governments would not accept foreign aid programmes, at all if otherwise. Every donor brings its own ideas of development with it and its development programmes will reflect that ideology. The influx of foreign experts tends to a mystification of the planning process and a reinforcement of people’s feelings of inadequacy about their own capabilities.13
Professionals working in these projects should take part of the blame for failures They should fight for changes in direction if programmes are not bringing about the anticipated results Here, a new role becomes more evident: the nutritionist as a denouncer of non realistic goals or methods of achieving them, especially because there are still some interventions that will partly contribute to improving malnutrition in a given population even within the constraints of the prevailing system. It is true that these nutritionists, in most cases, did not participate in the programme’s design, but it should never be too late to change directions. Therefore, for these Third World workers everything said about speaking up in political terms is doubly important, be they ethically or ideologically motivated.
What can I do?
For those accustomed to solving problems and putting them aside, grasping a problem as intractable as world hunger guarantees frustration. The flaw in our thinking is that the solution to the malnutrition problem is not in nature, but in ourselves. in our approach to the fundamental social relationships among men.14 Malnutrition should not be attacked because it brings mankind utility, but because it is morally necessary (Emmanuel Kant). What we need to fight for is equity not utility.
It seems that full devotion to science is not enough, we need to use science to follow our conscience. We need to think about ourselves as political human beings working as technicians, remembering that global chance does not begin at the global level, but starts with individuals.15 Many nutritionists have initially been motivated to simply transfer knowledge to the people; the need is now to start focusing more on the social dimensions of the problems of mass poverty and hunger.16 They need to act as humanists before acting as nutritionists. An important requirement for this is to seek knowledge about the real world and not only about the world we would like to see.17 One cannot build on wishful thinking. It is precisely a misunderstanding of reality (or a partial understanding) that often reinforces the amoral position of some nutritionists. Or, some of them may not really want to understand; they have, all too often and for all the wrong reasons, already made up their minds about one reality. The social reality is not like a laboratory; many variables in it are unknown and unforeseen and when we look at them it is often in the wrong way, searching for the statistical ‘whats’ instead of analysing the human ‘whys’.18
Nutrition seems to be as good (or bad) an entry point as any other (employment, education, energy, natural resources, ecology, etc) to get involved in questions of equity in our societies, if it is used as a tool. Since the constraints in equity are structural in nature, criticizing them from any angle, initially, should lead us invariably to the core of the social structural problems. Nutrition can lead to global considerations if not made a ‘single-issue’ goal. Advocates of such a limited approach to nutrition often look at constraints from a quite narrow perspective, a fact that seldom leads to more equity. There are too many substitutes for in-depth political action, in single-issue politics that lead nowhere. The worst is that many people do not see this difference and a lot of political motivation and sometimes talent in scientists or lay people is lost because of a pseudo-ideological approach to global issues. Single-issue politics suffers from a lack of global vision of society and, in particular, a lack of will to make systematic historical changes.19
Mention has to be made that there has recently been a call for a new ethic as the paradigm to replace the present Western ethic of constant growth.20 This new, ‘desirable’ ethic has been called the ‘ethic of accommodation’. It calls for simpler patterns of living, more in balance with nature. One might agree with such an approach only in what pertains to the finite availability of natural resources in our planet but, in what relates to social and economic relationships between men in our world, this new ethic seems totally unacceptable and a typical example of a partial interpretation of priorities that promotes the status quo. It is a romanticized option, devoid of ideological content, unless we want to consider it the deliberate result of what we earlier called a political imperative from the right.
What is needed is more dedication to work directly with the poor so they can tackle the causes of their poverty and malnutrition themselves. This calls for nutritionists to go, as much as possible, back to field work and out of their offices or labs. Only there can the strengths needed for a change in direction and perspective be found. Knowledge and scientific power created in institutions away from the people are returning to the people and affecting them. The gap between those who have social power over thinking – an important form of capital – and those who have not, has reached dimensions no less formidable than the gap in access to economic assets.21
Nutritionists need to learn from the people and from their perceptions of the problems, establish links with local mass movements and participate in their consciousness raising. This latter process may fail, because it is possible that the socioeconomic contradictions present locally are not sharp enough to give priority to political action over, say, technological action that could immediately benefit the masses and for which there may be still room in the system. The choice is, essentially, between leading the masses toward social changes with an external consciousness, and raising mass consciousness and their capability to make the changes. It is important to demonstrate to the masses that it is in their power not only to change social reality, but the physical reality that surrounds them as well.22
Strictly speaking, nutritionists can go to the field as researchers or in charge of interventions. But in reality, researchers should always participate and intervene as well, even at the cost of altering some of the parameters they are interested in studying. They should enter into a dialogue with the group studied which should direct the research towards the problems that are relevant to the group. It is probably because of this that short term research creates more frustration than motivation, both in researchers and in the community.
There are three levels of possible involvement of researchers in their field work.23 In a first level, the scientists solicit the participation of the community in their project. Discussions occur and some token improvements are offered to the community by the team. The aim is to change people’s attitudes and to motivate them to improve their condition. Participation has turned out to be harmless for the vested interests and is, therefore, a regular appendage of every government project. A second level calls for outright consciousness raising of the population; a dialogue between the oppressed and the elite is called for to surmount the contradictions of the social structure. However, it has to be noted that in improperly motivated hands this can be reactionary or reformist. At the third level, an effort is made towards the mobilization of the masses. The researchers get involved in organizing movements around lower class interests to strengthen their bargaining position; this may be in the form of cooperatives, trade unions, or other.
In any event, the desirable standard role of the nutritionists in the field would be one of a monitor that does not allow programmatic interventions to proceed unchanged if they are culturally or politically neutral or biased against the interests of the beneficiaries.
This leads us to the concept of accountability; to whom should the nutritionists in the field be accountable for their work, besides themselves? Traditionally, they have been accountable to their peers and to funding agencies, Too often they have neglected their accountability to a third group, namely, the public at large, or. more specifically, the beneficiaries.24 In the case of research, we seldom see researchers communicating their findings directly to the people being served or studied, in understandable language. Here, then, is another urgent area for improvement. This brings us back to the question: what can I do? All that has been said here just stresses the fact that the battle against malnutrition can be won, if nutritionists play their roles to their last consequences.
1 The following definitions, found in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. G. and C. Merriam, Springfield, MA, 1949. will help clarify the concepts used in the text:
Ethos: The distinguishing character or tone of a social of other group.
Ethics: Science of moral duty, principles and practice or action.
Moral: Establishing principals of right or wrong.
Morality: Instils moral lesson; virtue.
Ideology: a) Content of thinking of an individual or class; b) Intellectual pattern of any culture or movement; c) Integrated assertions, theories and aims constituting a politico-social programme,
2 J. Ki-Zerbo, ‘Pour une stratégie globale de la culture et de la communication’. IFDA Dossier, No 14, December 1979. p 12.
3 B. Winikoff, ‘Political commitment and nutrition policy’, in B. Winikoff, ed, Nutrition and National Policy, MIT Press. Cambridge. MA, 1978.
4 R.H. Green, ‘Gale warnings: fragments of charts and guides for navigators’, Development Dialogue, 1980, No 1.
5 Winikoff. op cit, Ref. 3
6 G. Gunatilleke, ‘Sri Lanka national dialogue on development’, IFDA Dossier. 14 December 1979, p 04
7 Winikoff. op cit. Ref. 3.
8 Op cit. Ref 1.
9 Green, op cit. Ref. 4.
10 Winikoff, op cit, Ref 3.
11 H. Bantje, ‘Constraint mechanisms and social theory in nutrition education’, mimeo, BRALUP, University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (presented at the XI International Congress of the IUNS, Rio de Janeiro, August 1978).
12 C. Schuftan. ‘The challenge of feeding the people: Chile under Allende and Tanzania under Nyerere’, Social Science and Medicine, Vol 13C, No 2, June 1979, p 97
13 F. Moore-Lappé and A. Beccar-Varela. Mozambique and Tanzania: Asking the Big Questions, IFDP, San Francisco, CA, 1980.
14 Adapted from J, Omo-Fadaka. ‘Water planning and management – an alternative view’, IFDA Dossier. No 7; May 1979.
15 L. Brown, The Twenty-Ninth Day, World-watch Institute. 1978.
16 A. Rahman, ‘Science for social revolution’, IFDA Dossier. 4 February 1979
17 J. Sigurdson, ‘Better analytical tools and social intelligence’, The Lund Letter on Science, Technology and Basic Human Needs. Letter No 6, July 1978.
18 R. Critchfield, ‘The village the world as it really is…it’s changing. USAID Agenda. Vol 2. No 8, October 1979
19 J. Echeverria. ‘Sovereignty of needs, reversal of unjust enrichment, IFDA Dossier. No 15. January 1980, p 94
20 Brown, op cit. Ref 15.
21 Rahman. op cit. Ref 16.
23 Bantje. op cit, Ref. 11.
24 C. Klemeyer and W. Bertrand. ‘Misapplied cross-cultural research’, in British Sociological Association, Health and Formal Organizations. Prodist, London, 1977, p 217.