Abstract
Despite its status as a highly institutionalised discipline, the position of French demography in the more general field of the social sciences has been a controversial subject for many years. Perhaps out of sheer ignorance of its internal development, but also because of the image of demography promoted by of its practitioners-researchers outside the discipline have continued to foster this impression, or at least to express a degree of reluctance or scepticism in including demography within the social sciences. This is also true at an international level. Mattei Dogan and Robert Pahre were only able to include demography in the social sciences by opting for a broad and nondogmatic definition of the social sciences. According to Dogan and Pahre (who are both political scientists), ‘sociology, anthropology and political science constitute the heart of the social sciences’. They note that ‘most scientists agree that economics, social psychology and history may also be included’, while psychology, geography, demography, archaeology and linguistics can legitimately be incorporated based on a broad conception of the social sciences, since these disciplines ‘are partly natural sciences’ (Dogan and Pahre 1991: 16–17). Any classification is subject to debate and discussion, and theirs is no exception. Anthropology (which was mainly physical anthropology for part of its history) can also be included in the list of social science disciplines that are somewhat less ‘social’. Dogan and Pahre also note that ‘some sub-disciplines in philosophy, education and town planning may also be viewed as integral components of the social sciences’. In addition to the issue of categorisation in a field borne of the fragmentation of disciplines, their definitions tend to vary from one country to another. Dogan and Pahre refer to the example of demography which, though a full-fledged discipline in many European countries, is defined in the United States as a subdivision of sociology and is not an autonomous field (just as archaeology is defined merely as an area of specialisation in anthropology). The definition given by the American demographer Kirk is particularly enlightening in this respect: ‘Demography is generally considered an interdisciplinary subject with strong roots in sociology and weaker, but still important, connections with economics, statistics, geography, human ecology, biology, medicine and human genetics. It is rarely thought of as a completely separate discipline, but rather as an interstitial subject or as a subdivision of one of the major fields’ (Kirk 1972: 348). The situation is markedly different in the French social sciences because of a specific process of institutionalisation, as shown in the final appendix to this book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The ethnologist Dominique Desjeux adopts a similar perspective, listing psychology, economics, anthropology, linguistics, sociology, cognitive sciences, history, geography and philosophy. He notes that some scholars also include demography and education. Desjeux concludes ‘that the world of the social and human sciences is not a world that is made up of highly stable boundaries and frontiers. This is in the order of things, involving a constant play between identity, blending and differentiation between different disciplinary fields’ (Desjeux 2004: 5).
- 2.
Nicolas de Condorcet (1743–1794) initially distinguished himself as a mathematician. As a teenager, Condorcet was a pupil of D’Alembert. His writings in this area centred on political arithmetic, the calculation of probabilities and integral. His work was greatly acclaimed, and as a result he was elected to the Académie royale des sciences in 1769. After meeting Turgot, Condorcet turned his attention to political responsibilities, developing an interest in politics and philosophy. The last of the encyclopaedists, Condorcet wrote an Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain at the end of his life, published posthumously in 1795.
- 3.
Between 1749 and 1788, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), wrote an immense panoramic work on the origin of the earth and humanity, entitled significantly Histoire Naturelle.
- 4.
The various contributions made by Louis Henry include the concept of natural fertility based on data collected among the Hutterites; the method of family reconstruction, which resulted in an upheaval of historical demography and a more detailed and accurate understanding of the demographic behaviours of populations before the age of censuses and the method of parity progression ratio, a handy tool for analysing fertility.
- 5.
See, for example, the INED logo, with triangles from the Lexis diagram, and the INSEE logo, based on a stylised curve.
- 6.
Alain Girard was the assistant of Jean Stoetzel before succeeding him as head of the department of psychosociology.
- 7.
On the contribution of Jean Stoetzel to the development of social psychology in population research, see Boudon et al. (1981).
- 8.
Louis Roussel was Deputy Head of the department of psychosociology at INED.
- 9.
Greenhalgh worked at the Population Council between 1984 and 1994 in the division of social science research and is a member of the editorial committee of the Population and Development Review.
- 10.
For example, Otis Dudley Duncan was president of the Population Association of American in 1969.
- 11.
In France, Pierre Georges (1959) demonstrated this point in a paper published in 1959 entitled ‘La démographie, une science humaine appliquée’.
- 12.
From 1949, Frank Notestein became one of the staunchest proponents of family planning.
- 13.
The Rockefeller Foundation funded one of the research projects conducted by Frank Notestein in China in 1949. Between 1951 and 1961, private foundations such as the Ford Foundation developed and largely supported activities in the field of population. In the late 1960s, the American government created the USAID. Alongside major universities such as Princeton, Michigan and Berkeley, research centres on population issues also emerged.
- 14.
For more details on these surveys and their derivatives, see http://www.measuredhs.com
- 15.
A module focusing on the reconstruction of the nuptial life of women, previously included in the programme of the World Fertility Survey, was thus abandoned. Since the 1940s, the usual typologies in the Caribbean had been modified (married, unmarried, divorced, widow) to take account of multiple partnership. The WFS considerably enriched data collection and provided new input into the vast debate surrounding matrifocality, thus opening demography to the question of gender (see Yves Charbit 1987). These questions disappeared following the shift to the DHS (Demographic Health Survey).
- 16.
As shown by a presentation of the provision of demographic training given by Thomas Legrand (a professor of demography at the University of Montreal) at the International Population Conference in Marrakech during the side meeting organised by the UNFPA.
- 17.
Source: http://www.iford-cm.org/spip.php?article65. Consulted on April 5, 2010.
References
Berthelot, J.-M. (dir.). (2001a). Epistémologie des sciences sociales. Paris: PUF.
Berthelot, J.-M. (2001b). Les sciences du social. In J.-M. Berthelot (Ed.), Epistémologie des sciences sociales. Paris: PUF.
Boudon, R., Bourricaud, F., & Girard, A. (1981). Sciences et théories de l’opinion publique. Hommage à Jean Stoetzel. Paris: Retz.
Bourgeois, P. J. (1970). La démographie. Paris: NRF-Gallimard.
Caldwell, J. (1996). Demography and social science. Population Studies, 50, 305–333.
Charbit, Y. (1987). Famille et nuptialité dans la Caraïbe (cahier n°114). Paris: INED.
Chasteland, J.-C., Loriaux, M., & Roussel, L. (2004). Démographie 2000, une enquête par internet auprès des démographes. Bruxelles: Bruylant-Academia.
Chesnais, J.-C. (1990). La démographie. Paris: PUF.
Clastre, P. (2006). Chronique des Indiens Guayaki. Paris: Plon (1972).
Cordell, D., Gauvreau, D., Gervais, R., & Le Bourdais, C. (1993). Population, reproduction, sociétés. Perspectives et enjeux de démographie sociale. Montréal: Presses universitaires de Montréal.
Courgeau, D. (2004). Du groupe à l’individu. Synthèse multi niveau. Paris: éditions de l’INED.
Crimmins, E. (1993). Demography: The past 30 years, the present, the future. Demography, 30(4), 580–589.
Demeny, P. (1988a). Social science and population policy. Population and Development Review, 14(3), 451–479.
Demeny, P. (1988b). Demography and the limits to growth. Population and Development Review, 14(Suppl. 88), 213–244.
Desjeux, D. (2004). Les sciences sociales. Paris: PUF.
Dogan, M., & Pahre, R. (1991). L’innovation dans les sciences sociales. La marginalité créatrice. Paris: PUF.
Fabiani, J.-L. (2006). À quoi sert la notion de discipline? In Qu’est-ce qu’une discipline? sous la direction de Jean Boutier, Jean-Claude Passeron et Jacques Revel, Enquête n°5. Paris: EHESS6.
Gautier, E., & Henry, L. (1958). La population de Crulai, paroisse normande: étude historique. Paris: INED.
George, P. (1959). La démographie, une science humaine appliquée. Population, 14(2), 305–318.
Girard, A. (1986a). L’INED. Structure, méthode de travail, fonctionnement (les cahiers français n°30). Paris: La Documentation Française.
Girard, A. (1986b). L’Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques. Histoire et développement. Paris: éditions de l’INED.
Girard, A. (1987). In memoriam. Jean Stoetzel. Revue Française de Sociologie, 28(2), 202–211.
Greenhalgh, S. (1996). The social construction of population science: An intellectual, institutional and political history of 20th century demography. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 38, 26–66.
Guest, A. M. (1994). Gatekeeping among the demographers. In R. J. Simon & J. J. Fyfe (Eds.), Editors as gatekeepers: Getting published in the social sciences. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hauser, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1959). The study of population. An inventory and appraisal. Chicago/London: The University Press of Chicago (1984).
Henry, L. (1963). Réflexions sur l’observation en démographie. Population, 2, 233–262.
Henry, L. (1984). Démographie, analyse et modèle. Paris: INED.
Hodgson, D. (1983). Demography as social science and policy science. Population and Development Review, 9(1), 1–34.
Kertzer, D., & Fricke, T. (Eds.). (1997a). Anthropological demography. Toward a new synthesis. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Kertzer, D., & Fricke, T. (1997b). Toward an anthropology demography. In D. Kertzer & T. Fricke (Eds.), Anthropological demography. Toward a new synthesis (pp. 10–11). Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Keyfitz, N. (1993). Thirty years of demography. Demography, 30(4), 533–549.
Kirk, D. (1972). The field of demography. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social science (Vol. 12, pp. 342–349, Reprint Ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1968, pp. 342–348.
Lockwood, M. (1995). Structure and behavior in the social demography of Africa. Population and Development Review, 21(1), 1–32.
Lockwood, M. (1998). Fertility and household labour in Tanzania. Demography, economy, and society in Rufiji district, 1870–1986. Oxford: Clarendon.
Loriaux, M. (1985). Limites, illusions, misères et fraude de l’analyse quantitative. In Chaire Quetelet 1985 (pp. 55–129). Louvain-La-Neuve.
Loriaux, M. (1996). L’apport de l’école louvaniste de démographie: réflexions critiques sur le passé et nouveaux défis pour l’avenir des sciences de la population. Population, 51(2), 405–416.
Notestein, F. W. (1982). Demography in the United States: A partial account of the development of the field. Population and Development Review, 8(4), 651–687.
Ogien, R. (2001). Philosophie des sciences sociales. In J.-M. Berthelot (Ed.), Epistémologie des sciences sociales. Paris: PUF.
Passeron, J.-C. (2006). Le raisonnement sociologique. L’espace non poppérien du raisonnement naturel. Paris: Nathan (1991).
Petersen, W. (2003). From persons to people. Further studies in the politics of population. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.
Petit, V., & Godard, A. (2005). Comportements démographiques, stratégies socio-économiques et dynamiques ethniques en Guinée maritime. Tours, 17-24 juillet 2005. Congrès international sur la population.
Poirier, J., & Piché, V. (1999). Trente ans de recherche explicative en démographie. Réflexions autour des dangers du cloisonnement. In D. Tabutin, C. Gourbin, G. Masuy-Stroobant, & B. Schoumaker (Eds.), Théories, paradigmes et courants explicatifs en démographie (pp. 41–64), Actes de la Chaire Quetelet 1997, Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant, L’Harmattan.
Population Council. (1977). In the origins of the Population Council. Population and Development Review, 3(4), 493–502.
Preston, S. (1993). The contours of demography: Estimates and projection. Demography, 30(4), 593–606.
Renard, C. (1997). Enquête Louis Henry: bibliographie de l’enquête (dossiers et recherches n°61). Paris: INED.
Riley, N., & MacCarthy, J. (2003). Demography in the age of the postmodern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rollet, C. (1995). Introduction à la démographie. Paris: Nathan.
Rosental, P.-A. (2006a). Jean Stoetzel, la démographie et l’opinion: autour des soixante ans de Population. Population, 1–2, 31–44.
Rosental, P.-A. (2006b). Pour une histoire politique des populations. Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales, 1, 7–29.
Ross, J. (1982). International encyclopaedia of population (Vol. 1). London: The Free Press, Collier McMillan Publisher.
Roussel, L. (1996). Hommage à Alain Girard. Population, 51(2), 283–284.
Rowland, D. T. (2003). Demographic methods and concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seguy, I., avec la collaboration de Colençon, H., Méric, C., & Le Sager, F. (2001). La population de la France de 1670 à 1829. L’enquête Louis Henry et ses données. Paris: INED, collection classique de l’économie et de la population.
Smith, R. (2003). Historical demography. In P. Demeny & G. McNicoll (Eds.), Encyclopedia of population. New York: Mc Millan Reference.
Szreter, S. (1993). The idea of demographic transition and the study of fertility change: A critical intellectual history. Population and Development Review, 19(4), 659–701.
Tabutin, D. (2007). Vers quelle(s) démographies? Atouts, faiblesses et évolutions de la discipline depuis 50 ans. Population, 1, 15–32.
Tapinos, G. (1985). Éléments de démographie. Analyse, déterminants socio-économiques et histoire des populations. Paris: Armand Colin.
Teachman, J., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. P. (1993). Thirty years of demography. Demography, 30(4), 523–532.
Tremblay, M. (1983). Notes de lectures consacrées aux Chaires Quetelet entre 1976 et 1979. Cahiers québécois de démographie, 12(2), 345–346.
Vidal, A. (1994). Démographie. Eléments d’analyse et évolution du peuplement humain. Grenoble: Presse Universitaire de Grenoble.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Petit, V. (2013). The Contours of a Social Science. In: Counting Populations, Understanding Societies. Demographic Transformation and Socio-Economic Development, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5046-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5046-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5045-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5046-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)