Fascinating, broad-ranging study
p. 67 “Aristotle … the crucial contrast between ancient and
modern here is one of approach, not invention, as the Politics expounds an
essentially ‘open’ form of population thinking, which emerged from a world
comprising a multiplicity of autonomous city-states of varying size and
constitution, unlike the ‘closed’ model of the 19th-century European
nation-state. Fertility and mortality, the two cornerstones of modern
demography, play a minor role in Aristotle’s considerations because, for him,
mobility and shifting patterns of membership were the main shapers of any
community.”
p. 71 “Plato decreed that his ideal polis should contain
5,040 citizen farmers, male heads of landed households….Aristotle’s Politics …
took exception to the size of Magneia’s population. The territory required to
sustain such a multitude of people is impossibly vast, he alleged. But
Aristotle’s objections .. were not just practical. A key point of his programme
is that in measuring the greatness of a polis, biggest is not best. Greatness
is about happiness and prosperity, which is produced by effectiveness, not
numbers.”
Exhibit 3
“one of the most influential and enduring ideas in the
history of generation and reproduction: that one’s birth circumstances can
shape the course of one’s life. This powerful and alluring concept developed in
Babylonia and eventually spread far across Eurasia thanks to influential
proponents such as Ptolemy in the Roman Empire, al-Biruni in the medieval
Islamic world and Sacrobosco in the Latin West .. Babylonian scholars began
reading the gods’ intentions in the night sky in the third millennium BC. For
around 2,000 years after that, celestial divination was exclusively a method
for ruulers to check that their actions and intentions met with divine favour;
the gods did not concern themselves with the fate of individuals. However, in
484BC, the Persian king Darius severed royal ties with the Babylonian
intelligentsia after a political revolt, and scholars had to find new clients,
new sources of income and prestige. Over the next few decades, a radical
reconceptualization of the night sky took place that enabled individual
destinies to be foretold. The two earliest extant horoscopes both date to
410BC, and by 400BC, give or take five years, the constellations on the eclipse
– the path of the moon – had become 12 zodiacal signs of exactly equal sizes.
They bear essentially the same names today as they did then.”
p. 253 In the era before the 19th-century rise of
national statistics, we find a conception of population that was more attentive
to the heterogeneity of sub-populations and its importance. Early modern
population thinking did not standardize populations, nor pretend to treat them
equally. Distinctive histories and political, cultural and religious
differences were recognized to shape what numerical information should be
collected, on which groups, and its interpretation. From the 16th or
the early 19th century, balancing the heterogeneity of memberships
making up the population of a state was a fundamental ground of the form and
legitimacy of government, and of arguments for democracy…it reminds us of a
fruitful way of thinking about aggregate properties of societies and states,
different from the one we now take for granted. Its open, bottom-up reasoning
about human numbers focused on how sub-populations are formed, sustained and
compromised in relation to others and to wider forces.”
p. 321 “forceps, according to Aveling, prompted a sudden
increase in man-midwifery, including lecture courses on obstetrics for male
practitioners, lying-in hospitals staffed by men; and men attending route
births. The boom was swiftly met by criticism, often centred on the threat to
women’s modesty… upon closer examination cannot bear the full weight of the
shift from female to male birth attendants. Sarah Stone, practicising in
Bristol in the 1720s, complained about all the anatomically trained
man-midwives in business. “For dissecting the Dead, and being just and tender
to the Living, are vastly different.” The Chamberlens had no disciples in the
city in this period, so forceps were not the reason that Bristol matrons
started routinely hiring man-midives. Second, man-midwives did not always
advocate the new technology.. Third .. the Camberlen family mobilized not one
new technology, but three: the Vectis, the filley and the forceps… Wilson
suggests that the most fundamental shift was not technological but mental: the
idea that a surgeon had a role in the delivery of a living baby.”
p. 332 – suggests part of a shift of a number of professions
from female to male, e.g. alewives, as economic opportunities developed and
also “a somewhat peculiar version of a bigger project: the Enlightenment
attempt to improve the life chances of mothers and babies.”
p. 345 “During the 18th-century debates about population,
doctors, clergymen, mathematicians, government bureaucrats and others developed
methods which drew on a wide range of public and private records to quantify
features of populations. These numerical techniques were part of a general
effort to ameliorate suffering and death, and they stimulated comparisons,
which in turn contributed to the new statistical idea of population and the
role of reproduction in determining its size. At the beginning of the 19th-century,
in the wake of the French Revolution and Malthus’s Essay, governments began to
institute civil registration of births, deaths and marriages, as well as
regular census, thus providing more uniform and inclusive accounts of the
national population.”
p. 633 “Often misread as a technological determinist who overstated
the role of biological sex difference in her call for ‘control of human
fertility’, Firestone is more accurately understood as a theorist of
consciousness. Among the first to articulate the principle that reproduction is
neither outside history nor inside the body, Ifrestone argued that the social
organisation of reproduction, rather than biological destiny, determined not
only female but human potential.”
p. 635 Far from becoming free individuals within a new
economy of contractual labour, modern science and medicine reinforced women’s
subjugation to a sexual division of labour allegedly based in natural fact.
Activities which have never been inherently debilitating – pregnancy is not a
disease, childcare can be shared and maternity if not incompatible with paid
employment – were redefined for many (not all) modern women in terms of
biological destin6y, thus justifying their sequestration as wives and mothers
within the timeless sphere of domesticity.”
p. 637 “from a feminist point of view, the possibility of
theorizing identity, status, classificatory systems, kinship, ritual, language
and group organisation as social technologies offered the important possibility
of accounting for reproductive causality by means other than physiology… social
organisation not only plays a causal role in the determination of reproductive
outcomes, but must be seen as constitutive of reproductivity itself.”
p. 350 “The story of the ‘nuptiality valve’ in western
Europe before 1850 is now familiar, with a sizeable component of women’s
reproductive capacity under-exploited or unexploited because of the relatively
late age of marriage, and a significant number of women never marrying. It has
frequently been asserted that this nuptiality pattern acted as a safety vale in
the creation of demographic homeostasis… if mortality is assumed to have been
unstable… nuptiality must e the principle ‘driver’ of fertility. France in the
period c. 1650-1800 exemplifies such n interrelationship. A demographic
equilibrium continually re-established itself, despite disturbances large
initiated by epidemics… for much of the late 17th and 18th
centuries, the number of hearths in the Paris basin barely changed at all…
demographers use the concept of an agricultural holding or craft workshop as
fulfilling a function analogous to that of a territory in a bird population in
which a new breeding pair I allowed to establish itself only once a next is
vacated”