Population and Development Review’s 50th anniversary special issue is a fitting occasion to reflect on the value of anthropology for population studies. For decades, PDR has been a welcoming venue for ethnographically grounded scholarship, publishing many articles by anthropologists as well as work by demographers that incorporates anthropological approaches and evidence. Further, the journal has hosted numerous commentaries by both anthropologists and demographers evaluating the merits, challenges, and limitations of anthropology’s contributions to population-related questions.
In my commentary for the 50th anniversary special issue, I begin with a short summary of the history of anthropological demography, which includes examples of constructive contributions to understanding important population issues made by both anthropologists and ethnographically attuned demographers. I draw from a variety of sources, but I concentrate especially on work that has appeared in PDR. Among anthropologists, scholars such as Caroline Bledsoe, Susan Greenhalgh, Jennifer Johnson-Hanks, and David Kertzer have been especially influential in utilizing anthropology to understand demographic processes. Well represented in the pages of PDR, demographers at the forefront of integrating anthropological approaches in population studies include such luminaries as John Caldwell, Ron Lesthaeghe, Douglas Massey, and Susan Watkins.
While my goal is to promote the value of anthropology in population studies, for collaboration to succeed, it is important to be explicit about some of the fundamental differences and tensions between anthropology and demography. These differences are sometimes overstated or misrepresented, but in some respects, they are quite real.
Anthropologists have spilled considerable ink pointing out demography’s circumscribed notion of culture and anthropological theory related to it. Further, scholars critical of demography (including many anthropologists) have pointed out its lack of attention to history, politics, and power. Though I do not explore them in my commentary, demographers have offered significant critiques of anthropology, including issues of representativeness and problems with insular, jargon-laden writing. Extending beyond the most common criticisms that each discipline makes of the other, I discuss several contrasts that distinguish anthropology and demography: namely, their respective assumptions about the nature of rationality, their approaches to comparison, and their conceptions of the relationship between the individual and the aggregate.
I follow the review of these differences with an argument that an awkward defensiveness vis-à-vis our fellow anthropologists characterizes ethnographers (like me) who collaborate with demographers. I describe and explain this defensiveness and provide examples of its manifestation. This is followed by an overview of promising approaches to theory in anthropological demography. In addition to touting the analytical leverage of anthropological theory for demography, I argue that population processes themselves can point the way to theoretical questions and innovation.
The next section reviews the prevalence and influence of anthropological-demographic scholarship published in PDR, using the results of multiple literature searches. The bottom line is that anthropological demography “punches above its weight,” meaning that its influence on other scholars (especially among some very prominent demographers) surpasses what one might expect based on its volume.
The final part of my commentary uses the example of the puzzle of persistent high fertility in sub-Saharan Africa to showcase the insights possible using anthropological perspectives. These examples illustrate how anthropology’s approach to issues such as rationality, culture, context, process, and power enhances our understanding of population dynamics. The conclusion does more than suggest that demography would do well to incorporate more anthropology (which I firmly believe). I argue that anthropology—including anthropological theory—could benefit from greater understanding of demography.
This paper is part of a forthcoming special issue entitled Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Celebrating 50 Years of Population and Development Review.
Daniel Jordan Smith, Brown University