No Ordinary Encyclopedia.

The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. Edited by Robert T. Francoeur and Raymond J. Noonan. New York: Continuum, 2004, 1,419 pages. Hardcover, $225.00.

Reviewed by Suzanne G. Frayser, Ph.D., Cultural Insights, LLC, 6294 Four Mile Canyon Dr., Boulder, CO 80302: e-mail: [e-mail].

In his famous poem "To a Louse," Robert Burns (1759-1798) described the value of an outsider's observation of another: "O wad some Power the girlie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us!" Francoeur and Noonan have given researchers this gift by compiling The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality (CCIES), an updated and expanded version of the four-volume first edition developed by Francoeur (Vols. 1-3 in 1997, Vol. 4 in 2001). The fruit of their editorial and collaborative labor with a team of 280 international contributors is a valuable research resource that can play a significant role in encouraging cross-cultural perspectives and approaches to human sexuality.

This is no ordinary encyclopedia. Rather than an alphabetical sequence of topics, for each country the contents are organized into chapters that address 13 basic issues, ranging from basic sexological perspectives to sexual dysfunctions. This consistent, issue-based organization facilitates country-with-country comparisons on specific topics. It also enables interested scholars to efficiently scan the sociocultural landscape and generate hypotheses or expand their knowledge about sexuality across a horizon of different social and cultural contexts.

The accessibility of materials in one affordable volume provides a wealth of information synthesized by many contributors who are often both natives and authorities on sexuality in the countries they describe. The contributions of these international scholars include not only their chapters but also findings from research conducted in their respective countries. Such findings could otherwise be difficult to locate or understand without translation.

Extensive bibliographies following each chapter enhance CCIES's value as a resource for research, as does the international directory of sexological organizations, associations, and institutes that Francoeur compiled and included at the end of the volume. The index pinpoints countries where information on specific behaviors, practices, concepts, and groups can be found. However, the categories are sometimes so broad (e.g., courtship and dating, contraception, sexual dysfunction) that they are cumbersome to use.

Each short introduction to the volume provides a different lens from which to view the value of CCIES. Francoeur and Noonan begin with a 1-page overview of the standard outline for the content of each of the 60 alphabetically arranged country-by-country chapters that follow. The editors do not explain their rationale for choosing the categories that frame the organization of the chapters. The issues are broad topics that often appear as chapter heads of human sexuality texts (e.g., religion and ethics, sex education, heterosexual behaviors, STDs, sexual dysfunctions). The outline prompts contributors and readers alike to think about the range of human sexual expression and its meaning in different cultural contexts. It elicits attention to behaviors that run the gamut from interpersonal to autoerotic: heterosexual to homosexual and bisexual: binary to multiple and transcendent categories of gender; normative to unconventional: adult to adolescent or characteristic of children: functional to dysfunctional: religious to secular: and reproductive to nonreproductive. Implicit in this categorization is an attempt to create a nonjudgmental framework within which to include the diverse variations in conceptualization and values about sexuality that occur in different countries. The inclusion of the category "'Important Ethnic, Racial, and/or Religious Minorities" serves as a caveat to refrain from overgeneralization about summaries of countries that are composed of many different types of groups with distinctive cultures.

Perper's preface reminds us of the role of CCIES in the cultural history of sex research; he points out how the nature of discourse about sexuality has changed and informs us about how we think about and discuss sexual issues now. Rather than a compilation of exotic sexual customs described by travelers, condemned by missionaries, or diagnosed as abnormal by physicians, CCIES offers a synthesis of knowledge taken seriously, with intense concern about its importance in our individual and collective lives. It provides scholarly grounding for discussion and examines "what is still not fully exposed even in an enlightened modern world" (p. xxi).

Perper's analysis also prompts us to remember that seemingly objective writings (e.g., encyclopedias, textbooks, research reports) contain assumptions and value judgments specific to the cultural context within which they are written. For example, Campbell (1986) reviewed nearly 400 educational sex guides (books and films) from their inception in 1892 to the late 1980s and showed that underlying themes of danger and fear dominated books and films describing or depicting sexual expression to teenagers, although recent offerings are more tolerant. College texts have quite a few chapters on dysfunction, disease, and "variations" (i.e., "abnormal" sexual behaviors). Indeed, the outline of CCIES reserves significant space for a range of sexual problems. This points to the fear, ambivalence, and negativity that surround sexuality in the United States and reinforces Perper's point that contemporary discourse about sexuality is a serious matter, unhinged from the whimsy, farce, and fun that it sometimes elicited in the past.

Reiss's introduction is another useful lens through which to view the value of CC1ES. He reminds us to be aware of three major issues necessary for understanding and using the plethora of knowledge presented in this 1,419-page volume. First, the assumptions of science, particularly sexual science, embody value judgments. Second, emphasis on cultural universals or differences varies with scientific fashion. Third, insider (emic) and outsider (etic) views of behavior influence the interpretation and presentation of information. Reiss succinctly points to the crux of these issues: "All our views are but partial views of whatever reality is out there" (p. xiv). The cross-cultural materials in CCIES can foster research and analysis to assist in the resolution of sexual issues and create more legitimacy for sexual science.

In sum, the value of the volume stems not only from its utility as a resource for cross-cultural information about sexuality but also from its role in the cultural history of sexology. Now, what place does it hold relative to other encyclopedic sources on sexuality? What sorts of generalizations and conclusions can we draw from comparing information about sexuality among the 60 countries included in the volume?

There are well-respected precursors to CCIES. Ellis and Abarbanel's (1967) The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior aimed to "be comprehensive, authoritative, inclusive of wide-ranging viewpoints, and truly international" (p. xvii). The 97 experts who contributed to the volume's 110 papers covered a wide range of topics, including sexuality in different cultures. In addition to being a source with articles written by distinguished sexuality researchers (e.g., John Money, Clellan S. Ford), it was useful in articulating the history of sex research and its current state in the mid-1960s. A little more than 30 years later, Bullough and Bullough (1994) published Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, which contained more than 200 articles spanning a wide range of topics, including the influence of culture on sex. Many other sourcebooks, handbooks, manuals, bibliographies, and topical encyclopedias, both general and specific, are available (Frayser & Whitby, 1995). However, the emphasis and organization of The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality set it apart from its predecessors. Its international theme becomes the central arena within which topics are consistently organized, thus suggesting its use as a research tool as well as a reference.

Those who wish to use CCIES as a basis for worldwide generalizations about sexuality need to proceed with caution. It is important to keep in mind the three forms of systematic bias that Reiss discussed in his introduction: valueladen assumptions, emphases derived from fashions in science, and insider-outsider bias. There are also conceptual and methodological issues with which cross-cultural researchers have struggled since the beginning of comparative social science. Consequently, the encyclopedia is heir to many of the problems of previous attempts at cross-cultural classification and generalization.

Cross-cultural research takes a variety of forms, ranging from impressions of similarities and differences between societies or other groups (e.g., sexual minorities, ethnic populations) to controlled comparisons of a few societies or quantitative studies of a sample of societies. As Khizrieva, de Munck, and Bondarenko (2003) point out in their review of the tradition of quantitative cross-cultural research in Russia, "The majority of cross-cultural researchers are outside the quantitative tradition established by Edward B. Tylor and subsequently institutionalized by Murdock and his followers with the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF)" (2003, pp. 6-7).

German, French, Russian, and English scholars had published many cross-cultural studies, mostly qualitative, in the latter half of the 19th century. Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor's 1889 article, "On A Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions; Applied to Laws of Marriage and Descent," initiated a method of quantification, measurement, and correlation of ethnographic data to test hypotheses and make cross-cultural generalizations. Researchers were slow to follow Tylor's lead; Ember and Ember (1998) found that there were only 10 quantitative worldwide cross-cultural studies between 1889 and 1947.

Early developments in quantitative cross-cultural studies in the United States centered at Yale University, beginning in 1937 with the founding of the Cross-Cultural Survey and the creation of The Outline of Cultural Materials by Murdock (1982) to classify cultural and background information about different cultures. Yale's establishment of the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) in 1949 expanded access to its files to member institutions. HRAF currently develops, maintains, and distributes electronic databases of sociocultural materials, organized by culture. The ultimate goal of all of these efforts was to provide a sound basis for generalization about attributes of human culture-bearing units.

The organization of CC1ES, though much less detailed in its categories, is similar to HRAF's earlier systems for classification, retrieval, and collation of ethnographic information. CCIES is an easily accessible bridge to cross-cultural exploration in 60 countries for researchers who cannot or do not want to spend the time or money to engage in the cross-cultural method. However, categorization by country rather than well-defined culture units in a standard sample makes it difficult to examine intercorrelation of findings and to make valid generalizations. Defining appropriate cultural units for comparison and establishing criteria for generalization persist as issues for cross-cultural researchers.

Murdock and White (1969) addressed these issues with the creation of the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS), a representative sample of 186 of the world's known and well-described cultures. Definition of cultural units and representative samples for comparison was critical. What defines a cultural unit? What criteria should be used to develop a representative sample of the worlds cultures? How is it possible to make sure there is no repetition of cultural units in the sample? Language, insiders" definitions of community, and pinpointing of groups in time and location became more important than geographical boundaries in defining cultures. Information from primary sources could then be retrieved for a specific time and place, thus helping to control for changes within the same unit and distortion from aggregating information that pertained to different locations in the same geographical region. By establishing a standard sample and coding some basic cultural attributes for the 186 societies included, Murdock and White (1969) provided a systematic framework for researchers to use to test hypotheses and correlate findings.

CCIES does not have a similar set of criteria in place to pinpoint cultural units. Whereas the information in the topical categories can be loosely compared, such comparisons cannot be used as a basis for generalization in the way that SCCS can be, nor do the countries included in CCIES constitute a representative sample of the world's cultures. The countries in CCIES and the cultural units in the SCCS tap different dimensions of culture: the former, contemporary societies, and the latter, the range of human cultural types regardless of temporal or spatial location.

Francoeur and Noonan did not design CCIES to function as a database for cross-cultural research. Its potential role as a source of cross-cultural generalizations is part of the serendipity of their efforts. The countries included in the volume are based on convenience, professional networks, sell-selection of authors, willingness of contributors to adhere to the outline, and the editors' attempts to establish worldwide coverage, rather than on strict scientific criteria to allow generalization. The generous, international cooperation of authors expressed in this volume may be a catalyst for the development of a representative sample of cultural units worldwide.

While it is legitimate and possible to notice trends among some or all of the societies in the volume, it would be hazardous to make generalizations about the state of contemporary sexuality in the world on the basis of this volume. At best, cross-cultural generalizations about sexuality are difficult (Frayser, 2002). However, this should not deter us from trying to make them. We need to develop more methods for making valid generalizations, given the current rapid social and cultural change, increasing information about sexuality, and taboos on sexuality research.

CCIES provides much more information about contemporary cultures than HRAF's files or SCCS, which are heavily weighted with traditional cultures. CCIES's utility for research depends on the purpose that the user has in mind. SCCS was designed to be representative of the broad range of types of human cultures, past and present: therefore, Murdock deliberately chose traditional cultures. The sample and codes for SCCS are more appropriate for making generalizations about human culture. It is not a statistical representation of the majority of contemporary cultures.

Just as SCCS has provided researchers with a sounder basis for claiming that there are cultural universals, CCIES prompts us to consider how to construct an international sample from which valid generalizations can be made about patterns across the world's cultures today. With worldwide communications and travel, how do we distinguish core cultures consistent patterns that persist over time despite diversity and change? What units do we use for comparison, and what criteria do we use to define them? Can cross-cultural researchers from a variety of disciplines collaborate to produce a cross-cultural model that can incorporate rapid culture change and still allow for generalization?

In his forward, Francoeur reflects on the insights he had during his 11-year "adventure" of developing this encyclopedia. Given the rapid change documented by the need to update so much of the information from the first edition of the encyclopedia's first three volumes in 1997, the chapters provide what Francoeur calls "snapshots" of sexuality at a specific time and place, much as the pinpointed groups in SCCS do. He realizes that the completion of the publication was only the beginning of a quest to know more about human sexuality.

For those new to the cross-cultural exploration of sexuality, it is important to realize how much work has already been done, particularly by anthropologists, psychologists, and historians. From early studies of sexuality that placed ethnographic data into evolutionary frameworks and field research that described sexual customs among non-Western societies first-hand, cross-cultural research on sexuality has become increasingly specialized by field, topic, and method, particularly in the last few decades. More journals (e.g., Cross-Cultural Research, CrossCultural Psychology, The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior) are devoted to cross-cultural research and/or sexuality.

A systematic approach to burgeoning information is no longer just desirable; it is a necessity. The search for understanding the human dimension of human sexuality is underway with works such as Frayser's Varieties of Sexual Experience (1985), Reiss's Journey into Sexuality (1986), Gregersen's The World of Human Sexuality (1996), Hatfield and Rapson's Love and Sex (1996), and Bolin and Whelehan's Perspectives on Human Sexuality (1999). College texts are incorporating more cross-cultural materials in their chapters but have yet to fully embrace the conceptual significance of the cultural side of sexuality and the dynamic influence of culture in contemporary societies, beyond stock examples like the Sambia, Inis Baeg, and Marquesans.

Francoeur and Noonan's conclusions to CCIES sketch out their impressions of a few worldwide trends. Given their familiarity with the information in the encyclopedia, it is surprising that their comments were so brief. Discussion of gaps in information, areas where more research is needed, uneven coverage, suggestions for further research in the field, difficulties in obtaining authors and/or information in certain countries, and their perspective on where the encyclopedia fits in the spectrum of other works on sexuality would have been useful. Hopefully, they reserved their comments for publication in a thoughtful exploration of the process of working internationally with contemporary sexologists. As readers delve into the "snapshots" of sexuality in different countries, they are challenged to answer some of these questions for themselves.

This encyclopedia may raise more questions than it answers, both methodologically and substantively. Crosscultural research and investigations of sexuality are difficult as separate enterprises; cross-cultural research on human sexuality is even more complex. Nevertheless, the challenge is an exciting one. CCIES intersects the crosscultural methodology of the past with new information that can prompt innovative perspectives and methods in the future.

REFERENCES

Bolin, A., & Whelehan, P. (1999). Perspectives on human sexuality: Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (Eds.). (1994). Human sexuality: An encyclopedia. New York: Garland.

Campbell, P. J. (1986). Sex guides: Books and films about sexuality for young adults. New York: Garland.

Ellis, A., & Abarbanel, A. (1967.) The encyclopedia of sexual behavior. New York: Hawthorn.

Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1998). Cross-cultural research. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 647-90). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Frayser, S. G. (1985). Varieties of sexual experience: An anthropological perspective on human sexuality. New Haven, CT: HRAE

Frayser, S. G. (2002). Discovering the value of cross-cultural research on human sexuality. In M. W. Wiederman & B. E. Whitley, Jr. (Eds.), Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality (pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Frayser, S. G., & Whitby, T. J. (1995). Studies in human sexuality: A selected guide (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Gregersen, E. (1996). The world of human sexuality: Behaviors, customs, and beliefs. New York: Irvington.

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Khizrieva, G. A., de Munck, V. C., & Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). The Moscow school of quantitative cross-cultural research. Cross-Cultural Research, 37, 62-86.

Murdock, G. P. (1982). Outline of cultural materials. New Haven, CT: HRAF.

Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). The standard cross-cultural sample and its codes. Ethnology, 8, 329-369.

Reiss, I. L. (1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tylor, E. B. (1889). On a method of investigating the development of institutions: Applied to laws of marriage and descent. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18, 245-69.