Cultural Theories

Arsène Dumont’s Theory of Social Capillarity

Till now, we studied natural or biological theories—Malthus talked about food, Doubleday about diet, Spencer about life complexity.

But Arsène Dumont, a French sociologist, brought a cultural lens to population studies in 1890. In his theory called “Social Capillarity”, he didn’t look at food or biology. Instead, he asked:

“Why do people choose to have fewer children as they climb up the social ladder?”

This was a revolutionary shift—from nature to culture, from capacity to conscious will.

What is Social Capillarity?

Let’s start with the term capillarity.

In physics, capillarity refers to how liquid rises in a narrow tube—like how water moves up through the stem of a plant. The narrower the tube, the harder it is for more water to rise.

📌 Analogy :
Dumont borrowed this metaphor. He said society is like a vertical tube, and each person is trying to rise upward through it—from lower to higher status. The more children you have, the harder it becomes to climb.

Hence:

“Large families act like a burden that slows down social mobility.”

The Core Principles of the Theory

Dumont’s theory can be logically unpacked as follows:

Society is Hierarchical

Every society is divided into upper and lower social orders, often marked by → Class, Occupation, Education, Income, Prestige

Humans Have an Aspiration to Climb

There is an inherent desire among individuals to move up the social hierarchy—to gain more status, prestige, and respect.

Fewer Children = Easier Climb

People start believing that having fewer children will make upward mobility easier, because:

• Education and healthcare for fewer children is more affordable.
• Family resources are concentrated, not divided.
• Social image remains refined and competitive.

This is Social Capillarity—the pull of upward social ambition reduces fertility

Not Just About Wealth or Power

Dumont made an important clarification:

• The will to rise in society is not the same as the desire to dominate others through money or politics.
• Rather, it is a deep psychological drive to improve one’s respectability, be more ‘cultured’, or gain better social standing.

This makes his theory more sociological than economic.

Where Does It Apply Strongly?

Dumont said that all societies have social capillarity, but:

• It works strongly in open, mobile societies where people can realistically rise through education, skill, or profession.
• It works weakly in rigid caste-based or status-locked societies, where upward mobility is not easily possible.

So, the fertility decline is more visible in progressive, modern, or urban societies.

Fertility and Poverty: Breaking the Stereotype

Dumont challenged a popular belief:

“Poverty exists because of high fertility.”

He flipped it:

• Poverty and high fertility are not cause and effect.
• Similarly, wealth and low fertility are not causally linked.

Instead, both low fertility and upward economic movement are results of the same drive—the aspiration to climb socially.

That’s why:

• In countries with aspirational middle classes, we see sharp fertility decline.
• While in rigid or tradition-bound settings, high fertility may persist.

Relevance: Still Applicable Today

Even though this theory was proposed in the 19th century, its core insight holds true today, especially in:

• Urban India: where young couples delay marriage and reduce family size to focus on careers and lifestyle.
• Developing countries: where fertility rates are dropping as education and aspirations rise.
• Global comparisons: fertility is low in Japan, South Korea, and Europe where social advancement is a key life goal.

So, this theory helps explain both intra-country (within society) and inter-country (across societies) fertility differences.

Criticism: Lack of Data Support

Despite its elegance, the theory faced criticism:

• No statistical backing: Dumont didn’t provide strong empirical data to prove his claims.
• Overemphasis on aspiration: Critics say that fertility is also influenced by access to healthcare, cultural norms, gender roles, contraception, and government policy.

So, while the social capillarity theory explains the ‘why’, it doesn’t fully explain the ‘how much’ or ‘when’.

Final Thought: Culture Matters in Demography

Dumont’s contribution reminds us that population behavior is not just about biology or economics—it’s deeply rooted in culture and psychology.

When people begin to see children as a cost to their social aspirations, fertility rates begin to fall—not because they can’t have children, but because they choose not to.

L. Brentano’s Theory of Increasing Prosperity (1910)

Background and Purpose of the Theory

In the early 20th century, L. Brentano, a German economist, observed that fertility was not declining uniformly across societies. He asked:

“Why do richer people tend to have fewer children than the poor?”

To answer this, in 1910, he proposed the Theory of Increasing Prosperity, linking material wealth to reproductive behavior.

This theory falls under the cultural approach to population, like the Theory of Social Capillarity, but with a different lens—the psychology of pleasure-seeking.

Core Premise: Man is a Pleasure-Seeking Creature

Brentano’s foundational idea is:

“Human beings, by nature, are seekers of pleasure.”

Now, pleasure can come from many sources—entertainment, consumption, travel, hobbies, sensual gratification, etc. But the range of available pleasures depends on a person’s material condition.

This is where the class-based contrast begins:

Fertility Differences Across Economic Classes

Brentano divides people into two groups based on wealth:

a. Among the Poor:

• Their options for pleasure are extremely limited.
• They often lack access to → Travel, Art, Dining out, Cultural experiences, Education-based achievements

So, sexual indulgence becomes one of the few accessible pleasures.

Since they do not use contraceptives consistently (due to ignorance or lack of access), this leads to high fertility.

b. Among the Rich:

• They have multiple alternative sources of gratification:
  • Leisure activities
  • Consumerism
  • Professional recognition
  • Travel and tourism
  • Entertainment
• Many of these pleasures happen outside the home, and hence reduce focus on family life.

So, even though sexual behavior may still continue, birth rates fall, because:
They consciously limit parenthood in order to enjoy alternative pleasures more freely.

Technical and Socio-Economic Progress → Fertility Decline

Brentano connects fertility decline to modernization:

• As technical, scientific, and industrial progress increases, so do material comforts and sources of pleasure.
• People begin to see children not as a source of joy, but as a cost—limiting time, freedom, and financial capacity.

So, individuals face a trade-off:
“Do I want to raise many children, or do I want to enjoy a more luxurious lifestyle?”

In most cases, as prosperity increases, people choose lifestyle over large family size.

Important Clarification: It’s Not About Celibacy

A very nuanced point Brentano makes is:
Decline in birth rate among the rich does not mean people are becoming more sexually restrained or practicing celibacy.

In other words:

• Sexual behavior continues, but
• Parenthood is consciously limited through family planning, contraceptives, or delayed childbirth.

So, the issue isn’t about sexual continence, but about how people express and manage their sexual and lifestyle choices in different economic classes.

Criticism of Brentano’s Theory

Despite its psychological depth, Brentano’s theory attracted several valid criticisms:

a. Failure to Separate Two Types of Pleasure

• Brentano confuses:
  • Sexual indulgence (biological pleasure)
  • Pleasure of parenthood (emotional/societal satisfaction)

For the poor, these two might be linked due to lack of knowledge and access to contraceptives.
But for the rich, they are often decoupled—they can enjoy sex without necessarily wanting children.

b. Overemphasis on Pleasure, Ignoring Structural Issues

• The theory suggests high fertility among the poor is a result of pleasure-seeking, which many scholars find simplistic.
• In reality, lack of awareness, low education, gender inequality, and religious/cultural norms play a more prominent role.

c. Empirical Weakness

• Brentano didn’t provide strong statistical evidence—his theory is more philosophical and observational than data-driven.

Contemporary Relevance

Despite the criticisms, parts of this theory are still relevant today:

• In urban, middle-class societies (like metro India), people increasingly choose smaller families to enjoy better careers, travel, personal time.
• Birth rates are lowest in countries with highest standards of living—like Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc.

This aligns with Brentano’s view that prosperity diversifies pleasure, reducing the centrality of parenthood.

Final Reflection: Prosperity Shifts Priorities

To sum up, Brentano teaches us that:
As people grow richer and society modernizes, the focus shifts from children to choices—and fertility declines not because people can’t reproduce, but because they prefer other pleasures more.

It’s a psychological explanation wrapped in a socio-economic envelope—and it adds another layer to our understanding of population dynamics.

Stenberg’s Theory of Rationalism and Fertility Decline (1931)

Background and the Need for a Different Explanation

In the early 20th century, several theories tried to explain why birth rates were falling in Europe—especially in industrial, urban societies. Most common explanations included:

• Increased prosperity (as explained by Brentano),
• Urbanisation,
• Fall in infant mortality,
• Reduced marriage frequency,
• Changes in age structure.

But Stenberg, in his 1931 book “The Causes of Decline in Birth Rate,” boldly challenged all of these.

He argued:

“Prosperity is not the cause of birth control—it is the goal, and birth control is the means to achieve it.”
This one sentence flips the earlier logic entirely. Let’s understand this in detail.

Key Proposition: Rationalism → Birth Control → Prosperity

Stenberg’s central idea is that human behaviour is increasingly governed by rational thinking—what he calls the “capitalist mentality.”

This mindset doesn’t act emotionally or instinctively. Instead, it calculates, plans, and controls—like a manager planning a company’s growth.

So, in modern society, people don’t just have children blindly or based on emotion. They analyze:

• Can we afford this child?
• What will be the impact on our careers?
• Will we be able to maintain our lifestyle?

As a result:

Family planning becomes a rational decision—not a biological or cultural compulsion.
This is what Stenberg calls the “rationalist conception of life.”

Misconceptions Rejected by Stenberg

Stenberg methodically disputes several popular beliefs of his time:

a. Decline in fertility is not due to prosperity

Prosperity doesn’t reduce birth rates—people use birth control to attain prosperity.
In other words: The desire to have a better life leads people to limit family size.

b. It is not because of demographic changes

He rejects explanations that tie low fertility to:

• Older population age structure,
• Fewer marriages,
• Lower infant mortality.

For Stenberg, these are correlated outcomes, not causes.

c. Urbanisation is not the cause either

Yes, birth rates are lower in urban areas—but urbanisation itself is not the cause.

Why?

Because both urbanisation and fertility decline stem from the same root: the growth of capitalist, rationalist values.

So we must look deeper—into the mindset and worldview of modern individuals.

The Capitalist Mentality: What Does It Mean?

Let’s pause to understand what Stenberg means by “capitalist mentality.”

He’s not talking about owning factories or stocks.

He’s referring to a broader cultural shift that came with capitalism—marked by:

• Calculation of costs and benefits,
• Focus on efficiency,
• Desire for upward mobility and individual success,
• Long-term planning over short-term instinct.

In this worldview, children become “investments”, not just blessings.

And like any investment, people ask:

• What’s the return?
• How much risk is involved?
• Can we afford it?

So, rationalism replaces reproduction instinct.

European Experience as Evidence

Stenberg’s conclusions are drawn from the European experience—particularly during the interwar period, when:

• Fertility declined in both urban and rural areas,
• Even the working class began adopting family planning,
• Societies across Europe showed signs of increasing individualism and secular thinking.

This, for Stenberg, was proof that:

Fertility decline is a symptom of rationalism penetrating deep into society.

Real-Life Analogy:

Imagine a middle-class couple in modern-day urban India. They both work in demanding corporate jobs. Before deciding to have a child, they go through spreadsheets of expenses, parental leave policies, school fees, lifestyle impacts.

Now compare this with a village family two generations ago, where children were seen as gifts of nature, and family planning was rare.

That difference? It’s not about income, or urban vs rural—it’s about mindset.
And that is exactly what Stenberg is highlighting through the concept of rationalism.

Final Takeaway

To conclude:

Stenberg’s theory shifts our focus from external variables like income or mortality rates, and brings our attention to the internal psychological and cultural shift—a shift toward rationalism, calculation, and individual control over reproductive choices.

He reminds us that in the modern world, fertility isn’t just a biological outcome—it’s a rational decision.