Re: Just a passing thought on the demographic transition

[louisgodena@xxxxxxx (Louis R Godena)]

Erinn writes about the role of the family in demographic change and concludes:

>Under advanced capitalism, the family ceases to be a
>productive unit, and becomes a consumptive unit.  Children do not
>generally (or in any serious way) contribute to the economic well-being
>of a family.  In fact, they tend to be an added cost (school, clothing,
>etc. . .) therefore, having a smaller family makes more sense...

True,   modernization *did* eliminate the economic benefits of high
fertility--and mortality decline removed its functional necessity (though
rather earlier than your post suggests)--but for couples to recognize this
and act accordingly required a radical change in attitudes.    Family
limitation had previously been proscribed--as unnatural,  sacrireligious,
or both--by a cats-cradle of protatalist norms and values,  supported by
traditional religious,   kinship system and gender roles.    For this to
change,  a new cultural complex,  dominated by secular individualistic
rationality,  had to arise.    Such a process,  itself driven by structural
modernization,  took time,  and it was not until the end of the nineteenth
century that European birth rates began to fall.

The evolution of producer into consumer under "advanced" capitalism occurred
much later,  wouldn't you agree?


Louis Godena



     --- from list marxism-and-sciences@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---