Fertility and faith: The danger of a grand narrative

Philips Jenkins has produced an impressive and wide-ranging book, covering Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, several eras of history, and all regions of the world, from a perspective that borrows from multiple disciplines including history, anthropology, economics, demography, and sociology. Jenkins links the demographic transition—wherein societies shift from high-fertility, high-mortality demographic regimes, to low-fertility, low-mortality ones— with the rise of individualism, liberalism, gender equity, and resulting secularization. He describes the arising likely demo-religious shifts wherein “old” faith communities (especially in the global north) will increasingly be outnumbered by high-fertility societies of greater religious fervour (often originating in the global south), and wherein conflicts may arise over differing conceptions of religions’ role in regulating social and moral norms and expectations. In his conclusion, he outlines how organized religion needs to adapt to remain relevant and popular in the face of global demographic change. The grand narrative of Jenkins’ book—connecting “the demographic revolution” with the “transformation of world religions"—is powerful and seductive. With his global scope and historical reach, he weaves a persuasive account of the “tidal shift” in the demo-religious landscape, which has huge potential geopolitical implications. Indeed, it is the credible seamlessness of Jenkins’ grand narrative, together with its potential ramifications, which render this book not only flawed but also potentially dangerous. In our commentary, we interrogate three core elements of Jenkins’ argument. First, we consider his demographic determinism, calling to account his underlying causal framework. Second, we show how Jenkins’ apparent marshaling of multiple disciplines and international history, belies a rather superficial engagement with those individual disciplines and historical processes. Third, we consider how Jenkins’ use of language and references demonstrate his particular partisanship, showing how his narrative is both dangerous and incendiary, with the potential to defend populist and racist ideas.